Sunday, December 30, 2007
|
|
The Kite Runner And The Candidates
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:15 PM
|
Sparked by the combination of the books I have been reading and by Patrick's post below, one comment about Senator McCain:
He has survived as a candidate because of the legendary toughness he displayed as an American hero enduring the worst the communists could throw at him.
The beautiful film, The Kite Runner, is a movie about courage, and it evokes the old line from Thucydides: "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage." It also reminds us of the brutality of the enemy we are facing, and their fanaticism. A president will need courage in great quantities in the years ahead.
Courage is not enough to make a good president, but it more than enough to make a great man. I hope the senator does not get close to the nomination because on the issues there is a vast gulf between him and the center of the GOP, and others seeking the nomination will also bring courage to the office, though of course nothing like Senator McCain's sacrifice on behalf of the country.
But his appeal is obvious: The world's bad guys would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the U.S. through terror.
That could not be said with certainty of any of the Democrats, and it is ultimately why Republicans would put aside their many differences with the Arizona senator and support his candidacy whole-heartedly if he somehow figured out a path to the nomination. The same is true of Rudy, Mitt and Fred. Each has earned a number of political enemies in the course of the campaign, but the party would unify behind any of them because they understand the war, and are generally conservative.
I sincerely do not believe that would be the case with Mike Huckabee, as many Republicans would see in his economic populism a deal killer, while others would worry that even Hillary would be tougher on the bad guys in crisis. I would vote and work for him, but in a Kite Runner world, Mike Huckabee would see a lot of Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary on the theory that she is at least toughened by years in the arena and political crisis after political crisis.
|
|
I liked what it stood for, the idea of redemption and honor (I hear the film lives up to the book). And Hugh's pick of the Great Debaters was a very good one too. I like books and movies like that.
I was moved by this part of Thompson's closing speech--reaching out to Democrats as well as Republicans. If only Fred were leading our party, I think we could be on to something historic. I can only hope the other candidates strive for what Fred is saying:
You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.
So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It's time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.
So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democratic party so much as their party's national leadership has left them.
|
|
"I hope the senator does not get close to the nomination because on the issues there is a vast gulf between him and the center of the GOP"
I think Hugh has left the center of the GOP. The Neocons have had their day. They've tried to become the center of the GOP. But times are changing. I think Huckabee has defined the new center of the GOP quite well. Old ways have to change and our party will not grow if we keep hanging on to the same ideas. We are looking for another Reagan. Unfortunately, he has passed on. But he championed the three legs of the GOP quite well. But the socons have never had their day yet. They've been used and even sometimes abused, but never been given the power. It's time to see what they can do because for all the the rhetoric, nothing much has been done on the social issues we want passed except to get a stronger and more conservative court. That is very important and we need another great judge or two. But we also need some tough legislation passed. People are tired of how it has been. Romney just is a guy who looks like a President. But he's shown himself to be dishonest at characterizing himself and other candidates. We don't need another John Kerry, which is what we in the GOP will have if Mitt Romney wins. A flip flopper that they will have a blast with. They remember what we did to Kerry. They will do it again to Romney. That, my friends, is a given. Vote for Huckabee. He represents the change we need. |
|
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 16, 2007
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924
GOV. ROMNEY: I, I have the same position--let me describe it, because there are two parts to it.
==
And from a legal standpoint, I would outlaw cloning to create new stem cells and I would outlaw embryo farming. I would allow, on a private basis, the use of surplus embryos, so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and likewise the existing lines. So from a legal--and I faced that in Massachusetts. I, in the bill there, I said I would continue to allow the use of surplus embryos from IVF.
==
MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in vitro clinics are destroyed...
GOV. ROMNEY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...for research, and you support that.
GOV. ROMNEY: The term support is perhaps not the exact word I'd choose.
MR. RUSSERT: You wouldn't outlaw it.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would, I would not outlaw it. I would allow, I would allow private laboratories and private institutions--as we currently do, and as the president does as well--to use these so-called surplus or embryos to be discarded.
Let me note as well, Tim, in that regard, that, that I think before we, we move too far down that road that we establish a provision for parents to have authority over their own embryos and to have adoption procedures so that they might be able to provide these embryos, as some call them, snowflake babies to allow them to be adopted by others and to be implanted and become human beings. That's the, that's the course I'd prefer. But I would not outlaw the use of these, of these surplus embryos if the parents so directed. And, at the same time, for federal dollars I would focus it on the, the alternative methods.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. |
|
"in a Kite Runner world, Mike Huckabee would see a lot of Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary on the theory that"
Hugh, in a general election, how many pro-lifers won't vote for a candidate that has no problem with the killing of embryonic human life?
|
|
Mr. Hewitt offers some polite expression.
It is welcome, but probably a little experiment in 'wishful thinking'.
One would hope, but one cannot take the chance with McCain or Huckabee.
John McCain has embraced the Liberal "PC" Mantra of being opposed to 'Waterboarding'.
Again, it is a sincere sign he won't do what it takes to win the GWOT.
Sorry, but he has been in the Senate far too long, lacking any personal responsibility in decision making.
Iraq is a vivid example, as McCain simply dumped those who have served this Nation admirably, like Sec. Rumsfeld when populist winds blew the other way.
It is easy to endorse policy, and run away from it, blaming the difficulty of the endeavor on others when you are a part of an Elite Senate Chamber.
McCain has shown this repeatedly while running for President.
Not responsible Leadership qualities...
John McCain actually rode on a Helicopter flight, with Hillary Clinton in Alaska, declaring he could 'SEE' the damage of Global Warming.
McCain would bend and blow in the White House, as being placed in a position of personal responsibility would simply prove overwhelming to the Senator of 24 long years.
He is simply not ready to lead, and his jaded anger is part of the problem.
Besides, if McCain gets into the White House, allows a Democrat Congress to Raise Taxation, the USA will have far more problems then just winning the GWOT.
|
|
the foreign affairs enemy at home - the state Department.
I think that his conduct as a senator would indicate he wouldn't, whereas Rudi seems to be itching for the opportunity to gut and rebuild State just like he did NYC's gov't. And MR seems to understand that it needs to be done - as he mentioned in his interview with HH (he has read Bolton's book - a huge first step). |
|
Hugh's post-caucus posts:
1) If Huck wins in dominating fashion, and Romney is second - "DOMINATING SHOW BY ROMNEY, CLEAR FAVORITE TO WIN GOP NOMINATION; HUCK PERFORMANCE NOT AS STRONG AS EXPECTED"
2) If Romney wins in a squeaker " DOMINATING SHOW BY ROMNEY, CLEAR FAVORITE TO WIN GOP NOMINATION; HUCK HUGELY DISAPPOINTING"
Hugh's post- NH primary posts"
1) If MCain wins in dominating fashion, and Romney is second - "DOMINATING SHOW BY ROMNEY, CLEAR FAVORITE TO WIN GOP NOMINATION; McCain PERFORMANCE NOT AS STRONG AS EXPECTED"
2) If Romney wins in a squeaker " DOMINATING SHOW BY ROMNEY, CLEAR FAVORITE TO WIN GOP NOMINATION; McCain HUGELY DISAPPOINTING"
|
|
|
Look, I will not be voting for Huck in the Ca. primary. But, to say that Pubs would betray the nation by voting for Hil over Huck is just inane. Huck will not get the nomination but even his populism is not as dangerous as Hil's socialist pacifism. And what makes Hugh or anyone think that Hil would 'face down terrorists or enemies abroad such as China, Iran,Korea or even a renewed Russia?' Her husband sure did not. The Dems seem to think some international police action, perhaps some Interpol understandings, some nice conferences and some nice diplomacy will solve all our international evils. Pubs will never vote for Hil. They might be fooled by Obama's everyman rhetoric but not Hil. No, let us just vote, pray and then support Rudy, Mitt, or Fred and John if we have to gag. |
|
|
Hugh is so much more optimistic about the GOP than I am particularly given so many of the comments here. I don't think the GOP will rally around any one of the candidates completely. The hate is just too pronounced. |
|
You could not be more silly...
Mr. Hewitt is one of the most savvy on the Conservative scene.
Sound reason, proven insight, quality expression, have created Mr. Hewitt's fine reputation.
You simply seem to want to miss the basis, and ignore the serious offering.
Romney is top notch, and just because you cannot see it, you seem eager to diminish the analysis, which is foolish.
Step back, get a new look... |
|
McCain is a big problem on immigration and several other issues. McCain is not as strong as Romney on social issues (marriage amendment, same sex marriage) or economic issues. McCain is more of a Dem on economic issues. Romney is a better overall candidate and is a lot younger. Romney should be better on judges, McCain has made so many deals with the Dems that help the Dems and hurt Reps.
McCain could foul up the Supreme Court for decades. He will sell out the Christian right. Talk about pandering and flipping positions. Why would anyone in the Christian right trust McCain after his comments in the 2000 campaign?
Yeah I know, if McCain flips on any issue it is does not count. Romney's changes are the only ones that count. |
|
I thought this was a nice post of Hugh's as I would have a problem voting for McCain (though he is better than any Dem.). Anyway, where did most of you come from? Some underlining anger about something as most of your posts had nothing to do about Hugh's post.
Can you say, "OUT OF CONTEXT"! Go find a post about Neo-Cons and Romney or something. Blogging and comments don't mean anything if this is how it is used. Stay in context and learn some blog-etiquette. |
|
"...to vote for Hillary on the theory that she is at least toughened by years in the arena..."
You must be kidding. |
|
|
|
Hugh Hewitt finally has some nice words about John McCain.
Gotta give credit where credit is due. Thanks Hugh for finally breaking out of character for a second and saying some nice things about a truly great American, and (though we may disagree on this point), a truly great conservative.
|
|
How do you explain General Petraeus' antipathy to the use of coercion and torture. Is he not fit to do what it takes to win the GWOT? You completely ignore that question every time I pose it to you. When the occupation was going badly, Hugh never said anything (and neither did you). It was McCain who pressed for change. It was McCain that called for this surge. It was only once the surge was started that Hugh became a cheerleader for it.
I understand you not liking McCain over campaign finance and immigration reform, but opposing torture? The United States is better than this. As Ronald Reagan said (envoking Winthrop) about this country being a shining city on a hill, how petty we have become now.
And this is not about being weak, or liberal, or having sympathy for al Qaeda scum, but because acting out of strength means acting out of honor. I am for fierceness on the battlefield, but basic civilized behavior off it. And the truth is effective and comprehensive interrogation has been done by professionals in this country for decades without torture.
There is a narrowness in this vision that hurts this county and will allow your nemisis to be president. |
|
This was a very good interview that unfortunately Hugh has purged from Townhall, but it is available from other sources. Col. Herrington did thousands of interrogations, including in Iraq. He has a view similar to John McCain and General Petraeus and very different from yours HNAV:
Col. Herrington: Well, there became a notion of what, and I think part of it was because of official policy emanating from the Department of Defense, and then part of it was just that plus osmosis plus the influence of television and the overall pop culture, that interrogators are inquisitors, and that the best way to get information out of people is to "take off the gloves." And that's the wrong turn that we took, and it's a very serious wrong turn, because for a whole variety of reasons, torture and brutality in interrogations is counterproductive.
Hugh Hewitt: Does the United States military torture people?
Col. Herrington: Well, I think if you ask the question has it happened, or have things taken place that are wrong, and that went well over the line, I think the answer is yes, regrettably. Was it a controlled policy, i.e. that what they were doing was something that was sanctioned from on high, my own personal opinion is that some of it was, especially the things that the task force was doing in Iraq with respect to the top fifty of Saddam's henchmen that they caught, and al Qaeda types. And in some cases, it was just stupid young people with bad leadership and bad skills essentially behaving in an extremely counterproductive and undisciplined fashion, and that's more what applies to Abu Ghraib.
http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/2007/02/hugh-hewitt-grapple s-with-reality-of.html
|
|
Every once in a while I read the comments hoping to find a reasonable discussion of Hugh's posts.
I never do.
No wonder Hugh never reads them. |
|
he is ruining the GOP. The way in which he has used Jesus to win followers is unbecoming. I think he is terrible and I don't want to belong to a political party that has him as our candidate.
Huckabee has given the GOP a Sunni/Shiite style doctrinal hatred that I can't ever forgive him for that.
Huckabee is bad for the GOP, bad for evangelicals and bad for American politics.
I hope Mitt Romney is our candidate but I will vote for Thompson or Rudy. |
|
bobrocky - I read your post with great interest up until you referenced the three legs of conservatism and then transitioned to supporting Huck. With all do respect I think that the center of the GOP is conservative in all three of the areas that you referenced. If you are a conservative that stands for social, fiscal and foriegn policy conservatism Huckster is not the guy.
I agree with Huckster on many social issues. Those issues are important to me. However, outside of those issues Huck is a disaster. His record on immigration is a joke. His record on spending and taxes are a joke. His ignorance in areas of foreign policy would be laughable if it weren't so frightening.
I am in the center of the GOP. I am a social, fiscal and foreign policy conservative. Hucksterbee is a conservative in one of those areas. He is liberal in the other two.
|
|
Kudos to Hugh for his words about McCain; He expressed why I for one will vote for the man.
However, I disagree with the idea that somehow the Democrats lack courage and patriosm, and as an independent,I actually find that rather offensive. I think Obama is somewhat naive, but certainly would be no coward. I also think Hillary Clinton would actually be a fine commander in chief and handler of national security affairs, and I would vote for her if the GOP candidate were Romney or Huckabee.
Which brings me to my second disagreement with Hugh: he throws in Mitt as strong on national security alongside McCain and Giuliani, and there is no reason for this. To me, Romney is as weak a candidate in this area as Obama, Edwards, or Huck. I want someone who is going to stand up to bad guys, not consult with attorneys. Which is why if its Romney vs. Clinton, it is my impression that she would be tougher towards our enemies, and I will vote for her because of this, and I strongly suspect the vast majority of Americans will join me.
However, my first two choices are McCain and Rudy... |
|
I think the central assumption in your post Hugh, and I'd agree, is that the War on Terror is the number one issue in the 2008 election. As intriguing as I find Obama, I would not vote for him, or as you say, any Democrat, for that reason.
I can't say I'm the most informed American about the GOP candidates, so forgive me if I'm wrong about Mitt, who has impressed me the most- Rudy and McCain both seem tough, but that doesn't mean Mitt wouldn't do the right thing, when being tough is the right thing to do... I don't think McCain can connect with voters enough emotionally to win, and I think Rudy seems TOO tough. Maybe he should be head of Defense or State or something instead.
I'm still just getting acquainted with Huck's positions- though what I have heard from him is refreshing, I don't know enough to comment. I get the sense that he can't get enough momentum in time for it to matter anyway. I must confess to some serious ignorance- how is Huck bad for evangelicals?
No matter how uneducated I am at this point about the candidates, I know most of America is behind me. That's gotta scare ya ;-) |
|
I really appreciate Hugh's comments about McCain. I think there has to be some floor of respect or else it is hard have a rational discussion. I do have some questions though that I would like answered about the gulf between McCain and the base.
McCain and Romney are both pro-life. All the comments on waffling and not committed enough can be put behind us. Right? Can we have a policy decision on how best to forward this position in the courts and Congress? What should that strategy be?
McCain was incorrect for carrying George W. Bushes water on the immigration bill. If he was should he follow the presidents lead again on immigration using a combination of deportation, amnesty and green cards, follow an enforcement first policy, or some combination? Also what is the conservative base position on this issue? Is it in agreement with the president?
|
|
Was McCain incorrect for being the lead for forcing Donald Rumsfeld out and being his main critic for three years? If so was George Bush incorrect for forcing Donald Rumsfeld out?
McCain is not in favor of many forms of torture including waterboarding. What should the Republican policy be on torture. Is torture considered a key issue defining the differences between McCain and the party base?
McCain would likely be a president leary of further tax cuts, yet probably not in favor of any increases. What is the Republican base attitude towards future tax cuts? If the war continues would there be any need for any war related surtax as McCain may need to consider as president. What is the Republican base position toward war surtaxes.
McCain sponsored campaign reform legislation in the past that is hated by many Republicans. If a changed camapign reform bill should happen, what would it look like?
These are all the specific areas I believe I have heard McCain break from the base. I think before we say there is an enormous gulf between him and the rest of the Republicans I would like to see these issues responded to. McCain may want to hear these issues discussed as well. If he does become the nominee I think that he would be open to an open discussion on all that divides him and the base.
|
|
when it comes to national security, no one else is on the same planet as McCain. the rest are all about the same, except that giuliani has a tough-guy persona and was good AFTER a terrorist attack. As for the rest, I see no reason to suspect Romney or Obama (for instance) would be any better than Clinton, Huckabee, Edwards, Thompson. Roomney will always be a little tainted (like bill clinton and George Bush) that he belonged to an elite that managed to avoid Vietnam (with missionary and school deferrals).
As far as electability, Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani can win the general (precisely because each has some cross-over appeal, each for different reasons). It's hard to imagine why a Democrat or independent would vote for Romney (he faced certain defeat if he had run again in Massachusetts). |
|
"Hugh, in a general election, how many pro-lifers won't vote for a candidate that has no problem with the killing of embryonic human life?"
A good question to pose to your man Huckabee, who took $35,000 from a company that does embryonic stem cell research, no?
I haven't seen you vomit up a URL to *that* story in any of your spam posts... |
|
Is it your strategy to annoy the heck out of the base until they vote for your candidate? 'Cause, we're not going to.
I want a reasonable person as President. I'll be happy with Romney, Thompson, Rudy or Hunter. Huck is yet another progressive, corrupt, "Christian" governor of a small southern state, and I've had quite enough of those for this lifetime. Paul is an isolationist nut. McCain spent 10 years peeing on the base and telling us it's lemonade.
If McCain really wants the nomination, he should run on his record - as a Democrat. |
|
That 2 states can pick the next Prez,especially the two that don't represent a broad swath of the country.How many states get disenfranchised because of the way the media will spin the results of the first 2 states.If the media had any sense of journalistic independence it wouldn't be so bad. But everybody knows that the media is agenda driven and not an honest broker of the news.There's just been too many cases of different outlets parroting each other.
Right now there is no discussion of the issues or where the candidates stand on them. The dems are running on experience vs. change vs.corporate hate. Experience is a mundane concept and a comfort zone for people who want the status quo. Hillary represents this bunch.It's a huge advantage for her because a lot of libs don't want to go out on a limb. Obama can't really define what change would mean so you're putting a lot of faith in him on personality alone.He's had to expand his world view into a lot of areas he's not familiar with,still few people can get their arms around what any of his bluster would mean on paper. Edwards doesn't have a coherent worldview. he's ran a peice meal campaign latching onto a mostly class warfare argument. The problem here is Obama and edwards could split the anti-Hillary vote and pathe the way for her to run the table.That makes Obama's firewall a mostly white state of NH. Before the black voice is heard in SC the media will go ahead and coronate Hillary so you wind up with 48 states of voiceless voters. |
|
The base is heavily represented by the Evangelical vote so you'd better have the social resume in order.It's no wonder Rudi didn't bother to campaign there and McCain didn't until the media promoted him in NH. Huck's gone out of his way to reel these people in to the point of overkill. He really didn't need to go as far as he did and he risked turning other voters off. Romney doesn't profess his faith other than look at how I've led my life. Romney has stayed on message,almost to a fault but any campaign manager will tell you this the # 1 commandment in running for office.The mistake Romney has made is when he sat down and laid out a powerpoint path to winning the republican primary,they put things in there that wern't really necessary. The NRA thing is a perfect example. He should have just said I'll defend gun owner's rights but we have to keep guns out of the hands of madmen..This kind of thing has diluted his real strength of getting things accomplished. What he's done is create a window for his opponents to exploit.
McCain was dead in the water until the debate where he used the Woodstock museum issue to remind people he is a war hero, without this he would have no viabilty at all in the race. Emotionalism is a double edged sword for McCain. While it helps him from the war hero standpoint he also arouses feelings of betrayal on core conservative issues.The Concord Monitor endorsement actually reminds people of whatt they dislike about McCain..
So you wind up with two emotionally charged candidates in Huck and McCain for different reasons vs.a sober buttoned down candidate in Romney who appeals to the logic based side of the brain.Emotional appeal works better in a Dem race because they are void of logic.Conservatives are succsessful in the private sector because of logic and common sense. This is the Republican base in general and that's why Romney will win in the end. |
|
|
|
|
Hugh, you have captured my sentiment on this election perfectly. I've got problems with McCain, but would vote for him without hesitation because of the war. Huckabee is a pro-life liberal and I will vote for Hillary rather than him so that the Dems can take the full blame for the upcoming economic disaster that would unfold with either of them in office. Plus I think Hillary would be tougher on the GWOT than Huck anyway. I hope it doesn't come down to that choice. |
|
....it's not too difficult to lay it out, but Hugh seems to have a tough time understanding, so here you go:
Romney loses to Huck in Iowa or Romney wins narrowly to Huck in Iowa.
McCain finishes third in Iowa (or a close fourth).
McCain wins NH.
McCain wins Michigan.
At this point, Romney is practically toast.
Huck and McCain fight it out for SC and one prevails by a narrow margin.
At this point, Fred drops out (if he hasn't already) and throws his support to McCain.
Giuliani, who has suffered from a string of fourth and fifth place finishes, places third in Florida and is pretty much toast.
On Feb 5, McCain locks up the nomination. |
|
|
in my eyes. I don't support many of Senator McCain's positions, and he's a bit bull headed and publicity seeking in my eyes. He is low on my list of choice. But some of the venom directed at him is really over the top. |
|
addressed to & about Democrats. Thanks for the heads up. I have very little time to keep up on the details at this early point and was struck by Thompson's direct and accurate wording. Good for him! The evil nefarious cabal, of which I am a long time member, have always said that we didn't leave the Party; rather, the Party left us.
I hope that whoever our candidate ultimately is, that he pushes that message to Democrats strongly and repeatedly in the campaign. Very important. |
|
I've always held the Vietnam vet in high esteem. I was with them -- literally and figuratively -- and experienced first-hand the harassment and spite they have endured. That being said -- I have historically distrusted John McCain for how he has used his military service (particularly as a POW) as a crutch to further his political career.
His political career always has that subliminal disclaimer: "...yeah, but he was a military hero ..." As if he's "entitled" to forgiveness when straying from his conservative roots.
My contention is that, had his father not been an admiral, his lack-luster record (including the loss of at least 2 airplanes) would have gotten him thrown out of the military or notably demoted. For whatever he didn't accomplish -- it was not until his POW status that he gained any esteem.
Is this relevant to his run for an office to which he has always aspired?
I think so. There are too many correlations and incidents of self-service, entitlements and compromise in his background to qualify him as a reliable conservative candidate for POTUS. Much less as commander-in-chief in a volatile time.
If you choose to disagree -- fine. But when you do, keep in mind his voting record, his defense of amnesty, his history of sanctions by his peers, his emotional instability, his flip-flops and inconsistencies in promoting basic conservative tenets. |
|
Pull quote from Hugh Hewitt:
"I would vote and work for Mike Huckabee..."
Well, that settles it, Hugh has finally seen the handwriting on the wall.
Go, Mike, Go!!
We
Like
Mike |
|
leaned very heavily on his POW background. Incidentally, there's a longtime member of Congress that was a POW, as well. So far as I know, he hasn't 'run on' that for office.
I've beaten the drum of TEMPERMENT against McCain for months around here. But, here's another tidbit that concerns me: Reading his views(until very recently)on illegal aliens, I think he'd let the current drift continue. Yep, I believe he would lie to us and then just let it remain unresolved and outrageous(for the 'greater good',so to speak). I wish to God that John's Fire in the Belly to kill jihadists and win the War with Radical Islam was indicative of his desire to turn off the massive illegal alien spiggot. It ain't. This guy believes--and has said in campaign stops--that we citizens wouldn't do the work for "$50 bucks an hour". That's an outrageous naivity--at best--and, more likely, arrogance that really pi**es alot of us off. |
|
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/07/murphy2407.html
This article and the sanction by McCain's AZ party does not indicate that his home folks trust or support him.
Why should the rest of us?
btw -- If you can't access the link, the article is also on my TH blog.
|
|
People, if you want a " conservative " who is actually a lib then go ahead and vote for McCain or Huck. It's not to hard to look at their past record to see that these two guys are NOT conservative, yet so many people seem to think they are? Feel free to do some research.
Finally, torture does work and it has saved the lives of many Americans over the years. It's not moral to let a terrorist sit in his cell with information as a bomb goes off in a local mall.
You can save your moral high ground crap also. Letting the enemy win is not the " moral high ground ". Huck and McCain are clueless on this issue these days. |
|
|
According to Hugh the GOP center is liberal. I know this by his backing the total liberal Romney. No wonder he doesn't like Huckabee. The truth is if it were Hillary against Mitt, people would vote for Hillary, they are the same, but Mitt is closer to Bush (in name). Huckabee would have Hillary throwing a fit, she will have a melt-down if she has to debate Huckabee. Huckabee's stance on terror is not weak. Hugh just can't help lie about him, it's the only way he can campaign for Mitt. |
|
I kept reading the post waiting for the other shoe to drop. It never did. I am blown away that Hugh actually admitted the following.
"But his appeal is obvious: The world's bad guys would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the U.S. through terror."
Amen to that. The next four years our country will have to deal with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Russia, North Korea, possibly Pakistan, and to some degree Venezuela. I hope all of you agree that we would never have to worry about McCain "looking into (Putin)'s soul" to get a read on his intentions. He knows evil. He has been face to face with it. It will guide him in how he confronts the various thugs that wish to do our country harm.
Excellent post Hugh. |
|
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/on-the-road-m ccains-world-view/#more-3544
We started our conversation with Darfur, so let’s begin there.
Never Again, Ever Again?
“Are we really as a world doing everything we can?” Mr. McCain said. “I don’t think so.”
Mr. McCain said he believes deeply that what is happening in Darfur will not only reflect on the United States. For that reason, he said his first step as president would be to convene many of America’s traditional allies – he mentioned Germany and France — and get them to agree to take one very specific action: pressure China.
“There is one reason the United Nations Security Council has not acted,” he said. “China.”
If China continued to be unhelpful, Mr. McCain said he would use the powerful platform of the White House to shame it into action.
China’s hunger for Sudan’s energy resources provides a powerful countervailing force. Therefore, it is essential to formally work with what Mr. McCain calls a “League of Democracies” to bring pressure to bear. |
|
Mr. McCain gets genuinely passionate about the idea of democracy as a transformative power, a notion that critics in some corners might find a bit unnerving given America’s difficulties in recent years.
But perhaps the most striking thing about the way Mr. McCain talks about so many of the most vexing humanitarian crises in the world is the overwhelmingly personal way he frames the issues.
Little makes him as mad as when he thinks a powerful, thuggish force is oppressing a weaker people.
Mark Salter, his close aide and friend, recently told me a story about the first time Mr. McCain met Aung San Suu Kyi – the inspirational woman who has been kept under house arrest by the junta in power in Burma.
A prisoner of conscience, a practitioner on nonviolent resistance, Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi is by all accounts a remarkable figure, a fact recognized when she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992. She is also someone who now rarely mentioned by American leaders.
“The picture of serenity,” was Mr. Salter’s description of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, sitting in the room, a flower in her hair, a pot of tea by her side, composed and unfathomably graceful given her own hardships.
After listening to her description of the situation in her country, Mr. McCain became her ally.
“We are going to help that woman,” an incensed McCain told Mr. Salter when they walked out, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “Whatever it takes — we are going to help that woman.”
When the Burmese government cracked down on Buddhist monks earlier this year, arresting thousands and brutally beating many of those who gathered peacefully to protest their rule, Mr. McCain talked about it incessantly on the campaign trail, even to crowds largely unfamiliar with what he was so upset about.
“Aung San Suu Kyi is the greatest person I have ever met in my life,” Mr. McCain said Saturday, recalling some of her acts of courage.
“They are bad guys,” he said of the rulers of Burma. “Thugs.” |
|
|
|
Ronald Reagan once said that, "evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." That my friends, is why Senator McCain is very bad news for the bullies and thugs around the world that traffic in violence and intimidation.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/on-the-road-m ccains-world-view/#more-3544
To Mr. McCain and others, China is obviously intimately involved in sustaining the junta in Burma, just as it is involved in emboldening the leaders in Sudan. Specifically, given all we had discussed, I wondered how he viewed the current Chinese ruler Hu Jintao.
“I think we all expected each new generation of Chinese leaders to be more forward leaning” regarding issues of human rights and freedom, he said. “It is not happening.”
Mr. McCain often cites the example of China’s failure to follow through on certain promises made to Hong Kong before it was turned over to Chinese rule.
He was equally critical of China’s secretive government, saying that a situation where “major policy is set by a small group of people by a seaside resort that affects a billion people” is ultimately unsustainable.
Mr. McCain said he would treat the Chinese with respect and hear out their case with fairness, but on issues from Darfur to Burma, where he thought they were on the wrong side, he would point it out frequently and vigorously.
“I believe all humans share the same aspirations,” he said. At the heart of those aspirations, it seemed, was that often vaguely defined but powerful notion of freedom. |
|
Romney doesn't profess his faith other than look at how I've led my life.
-------------------------------
We must of watched two totally different speeches that day when the Huck surge had taken double digits off of Romney's lead.
You should have written that Romney did not profess his faith other than look at how I've led my life UNTIL he realized the need to pander to evangelicals in Iowa once Huck came out of nowhere, having spent nothing (compared to Romney) and eliminated Romney's once insurmountable lead practically overnight. |
|
|
Did I get that right. As I've been saying here for months McCain is the Republican's only chance of holding onto the white house and that only if the Democrats are dumb enough to nominate Obama or Edwards. But we might as well get over that fantasy because they are going to choose Clinton. McCain would at least give her a run for her money but ultimately she'd probably win. In truth I don't think there is a realization of the extent of alienation from much of Republican thinking. For example: get real the country wants out of Iraq, the middle classes are really concerned about healthcare and I don't see a Republican with the beginnings of a sensible response. And if there is recession, even a mild one, we could be looking at a 1932 moment. |
|
hummmm .... Not sure what you've been reading, John. But most of us here (nowithstanding the trolls and operatives, oh my!) feel that Mitt Romney provides the most "sensible response" for both retaining the WH and offering a non-socialist health care option for states. Mitt's also strong on economics, if you're looking for someone to combat a recession.
McCain giving Hillary a run for her money, eh? LOL I've heard rumors of how he collects his "donations," but based on McCain's stances and votes -- he's more likely to run WITH Hillary!
|
|
"You should have written that Romney did not profess his faith other than look at how I've led my life UNTIL he realized the need to pander to evangelicals in Iowa once Huck came out of nowhere"
"Pandering to evangelicals" or finally defending himself publicly after being used as a religious punching bag for months?
The Speech was simply a necessary reaction to the blatant use of bigotry against his campaign. And guess what - I've seen very little discussion about Romney's Mormonism since he gave it (though *some* people try to keep "going there"). So apparently it did what it was supposed to do, despite the shrill rantings of the naysayers. Sadly, Huckabee discovered that boosting your support through subtle bigotry has an extremely appealing CPM.
And I'd love to know which parts of the speech you consider "pandering to evangelicals," except for the brief statement that he believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. Which, if anything, probably threw the extreme evangelicals (the ones Huckabee depends on) into a blind rage, seeing how Mormons are smelly, repugnant non-Christian heretics that are going to burn in Hell for eternity.
And are you seriously going to accuse Romney of pandering to evangelicals while ignoring the fact that's the very foundation Huckabee built his campaign on? Please. |
|
|
He is an arrogant as**ole. He is not a nice guy. He is not conservative. He has stabbed his own party in the back many times. He has had character issues with his treatment of subordinates. He has a hot temper, and not the type of personality who should be in charge of WMDs. He is showing early signs of dementia in his public speaking, and while he has great story, should NOT be president. Folks need to get off this bandwagon, it is headed for disaster. |
|
|
|
If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism. But Romney has tied himself to the old brand. He is unresponsive to the middle-class anxiety that Huckabee is tapping into. He has forsaken the trans-partisan candor that McCain represents. Romney, the cautious consultant, is pivoting to stress his corporate competence, and is rebranding himself as an Obama-esque change agent, but he will never make the sort of daring break that independent voters will demand if they are going to give the G.O.P. another look.
The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.
And so the burden of change will be thrust on primary voters over the next few weeks. Romney is a decent man with some good fiscal and economic policies. But in this race, he has run like a manager, not an entrepreneur. His triumph this month would mean a Democratic victory in November.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r= 3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
|
|
|
|