Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Sunday, February 10, 2008

The Arrogance of the Conservative Establishment

I have always marveled at the genius of our election system, at least I find this part genius. The primary is spent whipping up each party's base, and thus most of the candidates use that opportunity to run to their party's extremes. Then, in the general election each candidate has to do the exact opposite and run to the middle. To win a candidate needs to navigate both waters, and do it running back to back for each.

The catch is that in many ways the exact opposite is necessary to win the general election as the primary. The more successful one is appealing to the base the less successful, logic would have, would one be appealing to the independents in the general election. If the rest of the primary goes according to plan for the Reps they will have no such problem. John McCain will likely win the primary appealing to the exact same core group of voters in the general election as he did in the primary.

In many ways, McCain is the perfect general election candidate. Most of the very positions that were supposed to keep him from winning the primaries will be a benefit to him in the general election. From McCain/Feingold to McCain/Kennedy, to the gang of 14, all of the positions that were supposed to keep him from getting here, will now benefit him now that he is. All that McCain would need is for the traditional portion of the Republican party to support him and he will be an almost unstoppable force in the general election.

Of course, nothing is quite so neat in politics and that easy path to victory is apparently not enough for certain people. Many so called true blue Conservatives are determined to not only oppose him in the primary but in the general election as well. Don't get me wrong everyone is well within their rights to support and vote for anyone they want. It would be nothing less than political hubris for me to tell anyone who to vote for. That said, choosing to oppose McCain because he doesn't fit some sort of box pre determined by the same Conservative establishment in the general election is, in my opinion, nothing short of arrogant.

After all, no one is asking for the establishment to be vocal in their support. No one is asking for their money or their time. They are just merely asking for their vote. That, I believe, is the problem. The Conservative establishment knows that if they did support McCain it would have to be done in a low key manner. In other words, they would become supporting players in this election, and that I believe is the real problem. I believe that Rush et al realize that if they supported McCain that it would be rather passively. It seems that being a passive player in the election maybe something that the establishment will not accpet. Now, don't get me wrong. Arrogance is not illegal or unconstitutional, and every person is well within their rights to act as arrogant as they want.

While it is perfectly legal, and everyone is within their right to be arrogant. It is true that arrogance is one of the deadly sins. That makes it a flaw of the human character. While I agree that there is much that John McCain and the Conservative establishment disagree with, there is no arguing that in the general election he is the best candidate for them. Whatever problems they have with McCain, it is nothing like the problems they have with either Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. A third party candidate would have the equivalent experience and accomplishment of the mayor of Scranton making them unacceptable in my mind.

The Conservative establishment sees it different. They find McCain unacceptable. He isn't comparatively unacceptable to any other nominee mind you, but he is simply unacceptable. To the Conservative establishment it appears that a Republican candidate for President meet some sort of threshhold or face their own wrath in the general election. Never mind that the primary gave the establishment plenty of time to put him through the guantlet. Time that most of the establishment used to assassinate his character over and over again. Even though they took their best shots and he won anyway, the Conservative establishment has decided to try and sabotage his run in the general election.

To me at least, winning is the most important thing. I learned a long time ago that there will almost never be a candidate that I like in every way. So what, we are all human and flawed. I always thought that in elections you choose the best among the candidates. No one asks to get excited, volunteer, give money, or lend your support in any way. I just figured that we all wanted to win, and would at least vote for our party's nominee if for no other reason than to help our party win. The same folks speaking in high concept about the future of the Republican party seem to also be determined to sabotage the same party in the general election for no other reason than to prove a point: their own power in it.

Now to me, this is nothing short of political arrogance or hubris. There is absolutely nothing accomplished with losing. The establishment is saying that they are just as happy with John McCain as President as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Even though in reality, McCain agrees with the party almost always whereas the other two agree almost never. The establishment can't seem to bring themselves to coalesce around the nominee as their one time standard bearer Fred Thompson has decided to do just that. For a while, Thompson echoed much of the rest of the Conservative establishment claiming that no one deserved his nomination because no one is conservative enough. Now that McCain's victory is in hand, he has done what every good politician does, coalese around the candidate.

The establishment, for now, will do no such thing. Folks like Rush, Hannity, and Ann Coulter have decided that they will use every opportunity to tell the world that the current Republican nominee is not Conservative enough. What exactly do they hope to accomplish? Do they hope he loses? If he does how will that help them? They can tell the entire world that McCain is a liberal, more liberal than Hillary, Teddy Kennedy, and Cynthai McKinney even. They can spew venom all day long and many of them have just the bully pulpit to do it. Then what, I ask. If McCain loses someone much more liberal finds their way into the White House and everything they hold dear will be turned on its head. If they decide not to vote, that is a tacit support of the Democrat nominee. Is that who they are supporting?

Life is not perfect and life is not fair. Sometimes, the candidate that your party chooses isn't your first choice. Sometimes that nominee disagrees with you, and sometimes they even disagree a lot. Some people cry, whine and stomp their feet and let the world know that this is unacceptable, and that they won't go along with it. Some people see this and decide this is the sort of candidate that they are in their rights to sabotage, and of course they are. Unfortunately, they do it not for any noble purpose but rather out of pure arrogance, because there is no noble purpose accomplished in contributing to your own party losing.

To me at least, the arrogance shown is overwhelming. Whatever agenda they have, the agenda is clearly not winning. While some of us want to win, others talk of other things. All that talk may seem to them to be principled and noble, but to me it is simply arrogant. That's because there is nothing more arrogant to me than having any agenda other than winning during an election.

39 comments:

Reed A. Bouk said...

If you want to be on the winning team, join the liberals. They will enjoy your sour grapes attitude.

"Better is a dry morsel with quietness, Than a house full of feasting with strife." - Prov 17:1

If you ever understand this, you will also understand why McCain is unacceptable by any worthy measure.

okiej said...

Its obvious that you only think short term as winning at all costs is the only viable option to you and I find that arrogant in and of itself. I have never seen so much spin as in this article. The arrogance has been in the RNC establishment and the McCain camp for some time, its not new and is NO SURPRISE that many oppose a candidate who would not consider their oppinions on an issue. The whinning is comming from McCain and the RNC since THEY seem to be surprised at the resistance to McCain, DUH!!! Immigration is my number 1 issue and McCain is Lying when he said he learned his lesson,BULL BUTTER! My understanding is that McCain is a hero because he was beat and tortured in a foreign country for 5 years. NOW you want him in charge of US foreign policy and NUCLEAR weapons with a bad temper to boot!!! Thats not only irresponsible its stupid!>Period.

mike volpe said...

Apparently there are those that consider asking someone to vote and even vote for the candidate they think is best out of the group, is winning at all costs. I just call it winning.

If illegal immigration is your number one issue, then what exactly do you think Hillary and Obama will do on that issue. McCain is a hawk on that compared to those two...

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2007/12/last-week-senate-debated-bill-that.html

As for the personal attack on his record, it is beneath me to respond except to say that I strongly favor a war hero, who has dedicated his entire adult life to nothing but service to this country is exactly the sort of person that I want in charge of nukes.

The better question is what do you hope to accomplish by this losing at all costs attitude?

mike volpe said...

As for Reed, I don't vote based on pro verbs. I am not sure how quiet you think things will be when either Obama or Hillary get into office, but they won't.

Ironically, you say I have sour grapes. I have no sour grapes however you are the one stomping your feet like a third grader because a candidate hasn't been chosen to fit your box. As such, you now refuse to vote at all, rather than to vote for the candidate you think is best.

Again, McCain is uacceptable compared to whom...Hillary, Obama, who is he unacceptable compared to?

What you are basically saying is that only a certain type of candidate had better be selected by the Reps or you will cry and whine and stomp your feet...very mature...

dan said...

mike
I've seen this before. In 1964 the moderate wing of the party refused to endorse the eventual conservative nominee & voted for the democrat. In 1976 some conservatives sat on thier hands in the general election because Ford won the nomination. And to be honest, the current president was the cause for some moderate republicans (almost McCain) to leave the party. Same senerio's have happened to the dems. You can't please all of the party all of the time!

mike volpe said...

Dan,

that may all be true, and many of the examples you provided came before I was born. I certainly don't think that arrogance is exclusive or new, however it still is what it is.

kmorrison - PurplePeopleVote.Blogspot said...

Mike,

Overall I agree with you. Many seem to be having a temper tantrum that their guy isn't the nominee. However, for the radio personalities I think McCain is a threat to them. Someone who is willing to compromise is more dangerous because it changes the argument's paradigm. There couldn't be anymore simple black and white or right and wrong if your leader doesn't see the other side as horrible people that are always wrong. Compromise and tolerance are the antithesis of what these talk show personalities feed off of, and therefor McCain threatens their livelihood.

Though to the rest of us he provides a welcome break in all this bitter and nasty partisanship.

mike volpe said...

That is an interesting perspective, Morrison. That may very well be true. Though, if it is true, then all I ask is that they vote for him because frankly out of the choices he is still best.

If they want to rail against his brand of politics they can go ahead. They need not show any support but their vote.

No one is asking for them to compromise principle. Voting isn't about finding the perfect candidate. It is about finding the best candidate out of the group.

wooga said...

It was - in some respects - a GOOD thing that the Republicans lost in 1976 when the hard core conservatives sat out. That's because it gave us Jimmy Carter, who was such a bad president that it finally convinced the nation to give up the decades long stranglehold the the Dems held on DC.

If Obama were President, he would do a lot of short term damage, but it would ultimately lead to a 20 year rebound of Republican domination. If McCain wins, the opposite might happen (but probably won't). Personally, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain if (1) he gives some concrete pro-borders enforcement pledges, and (2) Huckabee has no role at all.

You need to look at things from a generational standpoint, and not be so shortsighted. From a long term perspective, the short term damage of an Obama presidency is definitely outweighed by the long term damage a Huckabee presidency would do. McCain is a closer call, which is why he still has the chance to win some of the base back. But to simply dismiss the conservatives as arrogant is intellectually lazy.

mike volpe said...

wooga,

your whole post reminds of something a late friend of mine was fond of say,

"if if was a fifth we'd all be drunk".

You just created a scenario to try and rationalize why losing would be good. That is nonsense, it is no less nonsense to say it was good for the Republican party that they lost in 1976. Furthermore, it was not good for the country.

Dress it up all you want, and rationalize all you want, but losing is never good, and anyone with an agenda that is different than winning during an election is one that is arrogant. It is just that simple.

All I am asking of the Conservative establishment is to do what you are doing. If voting for the candidate they think is best out of the group that is there is too much, then with all due respect to all of you, that is plain arrogant.

Anonymous said...

As a conservative I can't only concern myself with John McCain's
current stand on the issues but with what his ego and lack of political principle will cause him to morph into.

mike volpe said...

As someone who loves to debate, I can only say that a personal attack with nothing behind is the weakest form of debating.

Your entire statement is incendiary and irrelevant. You don't know McCain and you have never met him and you presume to make personal judgements about him.

So far, all the so called Conservative establishment have not done much to make their case to me why they have legitimate reasons to not vote for McCain. So far, what most of you have said only gives further evidence that this has become nothing more than an arrogant exercise.

Anonymous said...

Conservative Establishment? What conservative establishment? We are seeing how conservatism is dying in America. When did I ever hear the so-called "conservative establishment" speak of their outrage about our out of control GOP spending, war of choice, curruption, sex scandels, or our executive branch acting like a monoarchy. Rush, Laura, Sean, etc. are a bunch of phony conervatives. They showed how non-conservative they are when they backed Mitt Romney.

We can only judge a candidate by their past actions. Romney's record in Mass. speaks for itself. He raised taxes, was pro-gay rights, pro-choice, employed illegal immigrants, and created a healthcare plan that punishes people who choose not to participate. When does this make a candidate a conservative?

Let's not forget that Mitt also lied about his hunting adventures and actively avoided Vietnam by going to France on a deferment.

If a democrat had Romney's record, the Limbaughs of the world would be calling him a left looney liberal, but some reason it was ok for Mitt.

Maybe conservatives should actually act like conservatives and then they can talk.

SImply calling yourself a conservative does not make you a conservative.

mike volpe said...

To be fair, many in talk radio were screaming a lot about many of Bush's large spending programs.

I agree that the Conservative establishment and Mitt Romney was nothing more than a marriage of convenience, but they were out front in criticizing Bush's extravagant spending throughout his first term.

wooga said...

"...but losing is never good, and anyone with an agenda that is different than winning during an election is one that is arrogant. It is just that simple."

Think about warfare. You have to pick your battles, and some small victories are not worth the cost. You can lose battles and win the war, just like you can win battles and lose the war.

Or football. Sometimes you punt, rather than "going for it" on 4th down, so that you end up with better field position later on.

How many analogies do I need to make? Nixon won his election, but in doing so he relied on watergate, which did tremendous harm to the Republican cause.

My desire is to have Republican control of Washington for the maximum number of years out of the next 60. I know that there is no way the Republicans will win every election, and we will HAVE to lose some of them.

"...nonsense to say it was good for the Republican party that they lost in 1976. Furthermore, it was not good for the country. "

What?! By having a feckless Carter in office, we got the Reagan revolution, huge tax cuts, a booming economy, and cold war victory. If Ford had been in office in 76-80 (during the gas crisis, recession, hostages) the country would have voted for Dems in the 80s - not Reagan, and the Soviets might still be around.

Put simply, losing is NOT always a bad thing. The reality is that the public far too often blames cyclical events on the party in power, and it is best to be out of power when these events occur (e.g., Clinton winning based on the economy).

mike volpe said...

What a ridiculous rationalization...you all have some sort of nebulous and undefined agenda that in the best case scenario may or may not happen. Worse than that, it is a scenario that will take years and years to achieve.

Is this really what you hope to accomplish, because if it is then I will add delusions of grandeur to arrogance as personal failings of folks like you.

While your twenty year plan goes into place, the Democrats will try and lose in Iraq, socialize medicine, let the tax cuts expire, and put into place as many judges as possible that see not only abortion as legal but partial birth abortion.

What sort of wrench will that put into your plan?

Scipio said...

Good post Mike. It does appear to me that the Rush et al crew is more upset about their loss of influence than anything else. My warning for the Rush group is that, if you sabotage this election - resulting in 4-8 years of Hillary that bring about (1)the appointment of 2-3 liberal judges on the Supreme Court, (2) a lose in Iraq, and (3) an increased socialization of our economy (once you socialize, its tough to go back), will true conservatives and libertarians ever forgive them? They may find that their attempt to retain power will result in their complete demise as conservative voices.

Anonymous said...

I seldom comment on these pages, but Mike and Scipio hit it right on the head and I have to support them. If we let Hill or Hussein win this one the result may be irreversible. I'm finding it hard to do myself, but I will be voting for McCain after reading this stuff.

mike volpe said...

All that I ask from all those in the Conservative movement is to simply exercise your most basic right, voting, and choose the best candidate out of the group.

Giving up that right for some nebulous agenda is to me not only arrogant but counter productive.

Also, just call Barack Obama, Barack or Obama, there is no reason to try and take a cheap shot by employing his middle name.

CharlieinJAX said...

How about if we stay home because of disgust, disenfranchisement, or distintrest in what the RNC has become...

Have a good time trying to appeal to the center. It doesn't exist.

Not arrogance, just resignation.

mike volpe said...

Actually, Charlie, it sounds like arrogance. Giving up your most basic right because no candidate lives up to some ideal you have is arrogant. Taken to its extreme no one would ever vote because no candidate is perfect.

For you to decide to stay home, rather than vote for a flawed candidate, is the height of hubris. Everyone is flawed. No political party is perfect. What you are saying is that since the party dared to not do things how you liked them, then you are going to show them.

In other words, since you didn't get your way you are going to stomp your feet and throw a hissy fit. That, like I said, is the height of arrogance.

All I am asking you to do is to exercise your most basic right in November and choose the best candidate out of the group that is available...not your ideal candidate...not a candidate that meets some sort of undefined threshold...just the best out of the group that is there.

Anonymous said...

Using Barack's middle name "Hussein" is another example of the "rightwing" keeping its racist and xenophobic unneeded reputation alive. Whose middle name do we use? .

Saddam Hussein was a terrible monster, but I am sure that there are plenty of Hussein's who are assisting our soldiers in Iraq. It is a very common name in the region.

Our conservative ideals often get lost in the garbage that many of loud mouthed conservative talking heads spew. Coulter sounds great when she is preaching to the choir, but she isn't exactly winning new members to the conservative movement.

We can clean up the foolishness and grow as a party and movement, or we can sound like a bunch of foolish reactionaries and continue to shrink.

mike volpe said...

Good points, and I did point out that the personal attack on Obama was uncalled for and cheapened the process.

wooga said...

"Is this really what you hope to accomplish, because if it is then I will add delusions of grandeur to arrogance as personal failings of folks like you."

The 'stomping feet and staying home' crowd is not demonstrating "hubris" or "arrogance." Words have meaning, and they don't fit here. The correct words are selfish, stubborn, self-righteous, or idealist.

Similarly, I do not understand how I have "delusions of grandeur" because I point out that a short term defeat, because it causes the loser to self-critically address his weaknesses, frequently leads to long term victory. How is that falsely attributing importance to myself? If I stayed home and McCain won anyway - sure. But your whole point is that people staying home will give the race to Obama or Clinton.

If Clinton wins in 2008, it will be like Clinton winning in 1992... 2010 will be a great year for Congressional Republicans. Of course, I (and I'm sure 99% of the current anti-McCain complainers) will in fact vote for McCain, assuming he at least adopts a few core principles: enforcement before amnesty, and no statist-populists in the White House. Those two small things will placate the fiscal, federalist, libertarian, and nativist wings of the Republican party.

For McCain to blow off those wings would be... I don't know... "arrogant."

mike volpe said...

Again,

"if if was a fifth we'd all be drunk".

You have just come up with a scenario that you not only can't guarantee will happen, but most people can see is one that is too far out in the future to even make a prediction on. You say that this is the reason that you are doing what you are doing.

Are you really this arrogant?

You want to throw away an election allow someone that you hate to be President because of some sort of fantasy about the future that is so far out in the future that in reality no one knows what will happen that far out.

Talk about arrogance and delusions of grandeur, there it is.

Anonymous said...

The conservative era is over. It was killed by GW Bush and people like Rush. All talk and no action.
Move to middle. It's where thing have alway gotten done.

wooga said...

I'm making my predictions as a student of history. History is a very reliable indicator of where things are going. Arrogance is believing that the immediate future is somehow going to break all of the established historical rules and patterns.

The out of power party is almost always poised to make great gains in off year elections (2010), and my other predictions are only a few years further out (2012, 2016). You are making predictions about what Clinton/Obama will be able to accomplish in the next four years. How is that different from what I am doing, except in matters of degree?

Again, I AM going to hold my nose and vote for McCain, unless he: (1) refuses to make a formal pledge saying the exact thing he promised in a robo-call to me (establish widespread acceptance that the borders are secure BEFORE even entertaining the idea of general immigration reform), or (2) nominates such an offensively anti-conservative VP like Mike Huckabee.

Those aren't big demands at all. It's simply asking McCain to adopt conservative principles and be a Republican. Abandoning principles for short term gain is what cost the UK Conservative Party power. I would prefer not to go that way. This means I wouldn't vote for Satan (R) either!

Smitty said...

Thank you for saying what I have been thinking. It's like the conservatives want to take their ball and go home because they can't be team captain. I know that I have personally voted for people that I did not like or agree with on many issues, because they were the best choice at the time. Adults know how to compromise and deal with reality instead of making up fantasy scenarios where it is better to lose.

Where was the conservative candidate who could've defeated McCain? It's not McCain's fault that they didn't field a candidate that could beat him. McCain has won and everyone needs to grow up and act like an adult and not a child.

Daniel J. Cassidy said...

Don't worry, Mike, many of us will "exercise (our) most basic right in November and choose the best candidate out of the group that is available." The Constitution Party will hold its convention in mid-April, and this conservative is very confident that I will be able to support their platform and their candidate.

TricKracker said...

The end of the world comes every four years.

Anonymous said...

I think Rush is doing a tremendous service for true conservatives and the country. By disasociating Mcain from conservatism Rush allows us to vote for Mcain without the worry of conservatism taking the blame for M cains potential failings.In effect Rush is providing us with a disclaimer that can save consevatism if Mcains liberal tendencies do prove harmful.

Anonymous said...

You want specifics? very well...

First off, there is no Conservative establishment... most of us don't even bother with talk radio...

Second. McCain Feingold was the worst abrogation of free speech in modern America. UNIONS can use money to say things... but I can't.

Third: The border. I guess you'd call me a nativist because I think the whole multiculture thing is a failed experiment. I like America, and people who come here need to join OUR culture, not bring theirs to supplant it. McCain WILL open the flood gate of the border even further.

Fourth: His war record. Do you know that he was such a great pilot that he managed to loose FIVE AIRCRAFT in his carreer? Yes, I applaud his stoicism in prison, but that does NOT make him a great military expert.

Fifth: He is a Washington insider. He is part of the Problem... and has been for years. He is not, IMO, part of the solution.

Specific enough...

And by the way, you are just looking for an arguement, not really looking for why people won't support McCain... so I'll move on...

mike volpe said...

First, there is a Conservative establishment. It starts with talk radio, Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, etc. Talk radio gets filtered into the conservative blogs and so on. I know this because as a blogger, I can't help but find a plethora of blogs that all say the same thing and they are all roughly the same as what talk radio is saying.

Now, either everyone came to the same conclusions on their own or the conclusions are filtering from roughly the same source.

Second, there is a large list of things that you don't like about McCain. Many of the things I don't like about him either, but are you saying he is a worse candidate than the alternative? Are you saying that Barack Obama would do better on illegal immigration?

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2007/12/last-week-senate-debated-bill-that.html

Do you think that the Fairness Doctrine is better than McCain/Feingold? I don't and frankly while McCain/Feingold is a bad bill, it has been turned into something it isn't through hyperbole. It's actual effect is a lot smaller than the effect that some place on it.

The personal attack on his war record is beneath me and typical unfortunately.

He maybe a Washington insider and maybe that makes him part of the problem, however, again, does that make him worse than the alternative?

wooga said...

"Are you saying that Barack Obama would do better on illegal immigration?"

Well, Mark Krikorian at National Review says
here:
He’s [McCain is] so bad that Americans for Better Immigration ranks his performance in office as the worst of all the presidential candidates — including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (See the GOP grid here and the Democratic one here.)

Personally, I think McCain would be slightly better than Obama on immigration, and a wash with Clinton. If immigration is the 'be all and end all' - voting for Clinton over McCain is not such a bad idea. Other concerns tilt the scale back in McCain's favor, but no serious person can contend that McCain is, currently, substantively to the right of Clinton.

My overriding concern with Obama is his "corporate patriotism" proposal which smacks of Italian style fascism. The only way McCain could top that in horror is by bringing along a progressive populist like Huckabee.

mike volpe said...

Let me see if I understand you correctly, I post an article about the arrogance of the Conservative establishment and your rebuttal is a hit piece from a member of the Conservative establishment.

Anyone that sees no substantive difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton is someone I stop listening to.

Again, I don't care what problems you have with McCain, because they are small potatos compared to the problems you would have with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, because you refuse to acknowledge those problems, you continue to provide further evidence of your arrogance.

Anonymous said...

What a JOKE. What a pathetic piece of non-reason. Why "arrogant"? Cause it's the biggest word you know?

"That's because there is nothing more arrogant to me than having any agenda other than winning during an election."

Here is a word you are apparently unfamiliar with, "principles". Anyone who thinks that winning is everything has no business lecturing others on....anything.

John McCain is perfect for you, but so would be the Democrat. Looks to me like the old, bitter man is going to get his hat handed to him in the general so you better vote Democrat or you will be "arrogant for having an agenda other than winning"

"What does it benefit a man to gain the whole world (or Presidency) if looses his soul?"

mike volpe said...

With all due respect, there is nothing but rhetoric in your rant. If you think that not voting makes you principled you are mistaken. Voting is the most basic right, and giving it up because none of the candidates are acceptable enough is the height of arrogance.

Yes, elections are about winning and losing, period. I don't know if you heard but tonight someone will win and someone will lose. That is principle. If you start making elections about something beyond that then you are arrogant.

wooga said...

"Anyone that sees no substantive difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton is someone I stop listening to."

Did you even READ my post? I specifically said there WERE other issues which weighed in McCain's favor, but when ONLY looking at the one issue of immigration, there is no substantive difference. Then I linked to a Krikorian piece which backed that position up (by itself and in its own links).

Yet instead of actually trying to identify a difference between Clinton and McCain on immigration, you proudly proclaim that you aren't even going to listen to McCain criticisms. Look, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so to dismiss criticism simply because it comes from National Review is an ad hominem logical fallacy (BTW, since when did National Review become apostate? Your dismissal of NR is highly telling of where your true loyalties lie).

This is exactly what annoys conservative intellectuals about the McCain sycophants. Rather than defend McCain on the issues, you dismiss all criticisms out of hand with appeals to some amorphous concept of party unity over principles.

Wow, it seems you need to read the dictionary for the proper definition of things like "arrogance" and "delusions of grandeur". There is an awful lot of projection going on in your posts!

mike volpe said...

Anyone that sees no substantive difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain on the issue of illegal immigration is also one I stop listening to...

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2007/12/last-week-senate-debated-bill-that.html

as you will see if you read this piece, there is plenty of differences between the two. Claiming there is no substantive difference is just nothing more than demagoguery.

Again, pointing out every single little thing wrong with McCain is background noise.

This election will offer you choices, now if you believe that there is no difference in voting for John McCain on the one hand and either Obama or Clinton on the other, then make that case, but that is patently ridiculous.

Again, all that I ask is that everyone vote for the best candidate out of the choices they have.