-Hugh Hewitt
One of the things that has been bugging me of late, is the toxicity on the right. I’ve been guilty of participating and perpetuating it myself. But it’s getting to be absolutely ridiculous. What am I talking about?
I am talking about this need amongst conservatives (especially in the blogosphere) to demonize Republicans like John McCain.
Sure, I’ve been angry at him at various times over the same issues that many conservatives have found fault with him on. But the level of anger is approaching a hyperbolic level of rhetoric that brims over into the realm of dishonesty and spin.
Purists love distancing themselves from Bush, Huckabee, and McCain; for not being conservative enough for them, these Party purists feel the need to disown Republican leaders who fail to remain immaculately conservative on issues, in a country where half the country is not conservative.
Sometimes, I think the anger being expressed by some, is not genuine anger, but vague resentment by those merely regurgitating the mood of the conservative ‘sphere. Which leaves conservatives baffled and scratching their heads when someone they anoint as a “true conservative”, like Duncan Hunter, turns around and endorses Mike Huckabee (much ridiculed as inept on foreign policy, and derided as a Democrat in sheepdog’s clothing). Or how about Fred Thompson’s friendship with John McCain, along with the rumors of a McCain endorsement, in the event that Fred endorse anyone at all? Would Ronald Reagan be “conservative enough” for the harsh crowd today, who populate the “angry-as-hell” fellowship of right-wingers (many claiming to be “Reaganites”)? How does one rationalize away, the number of prominent military generals who have given their endorsement to McCain’s candidacy (most recently, General Norman Schwarzkopf)? Are these all RINOs? Have they “sold us out”? We scratch our heads, not understanding, but I believe this is because we conservatives somewhat live in our own echo chamber, within the blogosphere. 67% support of Fred Thompson amongst bloggers gives us the impression that Fred’s got “Joementum”; when in reality, it’s McCain who’s got the “Joementum” on his side.
As Michael Medved points out, many prominent members of the “Reagan Revolution” in the Senate leadership have come out in support of McCain:
– Jack Kemp, Senator Phil Gramm, Senator Dan Coats, General Alexander Haig, George Shultz and many more – proudly back Senator McCain. The conservative Senators who know McCain best – John Kyl, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott – support his presidential campaign after working with him in the Senate for years and seeing his commitment to Reaganism. During the six years he served in Congress under President Reagan, McCain supported the administration as one of its most effective “foot soldiers.” Unlike many of his critics, McCain echoes the Reagan approach – not the Buchanan approach – to free trade and immigration reform.
John McCain is worthy of criticism. He’s worked hard for it, and has deservedly earned it. But he is still a Republican, with a lifetime conservative rating of 83 by the American Conservative Union, for his Senate voting record (I believe Lieberman, interestingly enough, scores a 17). To paint him as being something other than a true red-blooded conservative Republican is to ignore this fact, and focus on hyperbolically ventilating the hot-button issues for which we have not forgiven him for: campaign finance reform, immigration, “the Gang of 14″…and yes, much more. The criticisms have merit; of course they do! But, angry conservatives have also muddied the issues, by over-exaggerating some of the indignation and outrage, misrepresenting the other side of the facts. These issues are not always so black-and-white as the demonizers want to make them out to be. I suppose it’s easier to be angry at someone if you can demonize him, further than the actual facts will allow.
As Victor Davis Hanson reflects in regards to the “conservative ownership” of Ronald Reagan,
When a candidate today says, “Reagan would have done this or that,” he apparently has a poor memory of what Reagan — the often lonely, flesh-and-blood conservative in the 1980s — was forced to do to get elected, govern and be re-elected. While in office, he proved more often the pragmatic leader than the purist knight slaying ideological dragons on the campaign trail.
I believe that similarly, right or wrong, McCain’s maverick positioning, often going against the conservative grain, and rubbing us all the wrong way on a number of levels, should be understood, with respectful disagreement on substance; not just knee-jerk soapboxing demagoguery, twisting his actual position, to make it all seem worse so as to be more palatable to lay into him.
One example of the rhetoric that I have found personally distasteful, is in relation to his personal history as a war hero. I’ve heard him maligned by conservatives for him having been captured, and breaking under torture. That he was a failed pilot for having been shot down; and a failed POW, for not having been killed. Read the details of his POW years, and you tell me again that John McCain is not a hero. I may disagree with him over the waterboarding issue; but I absolutely respect his perspective, based upon his war experience. My disagreement is in distinguishing that there is a difference between, say, sleep deprivation, and gouging someone’s eyes out with a spoon. If it’s true that we have only used waterboarding twice, and used it on the worst of the worst with successful results, then I’d say “never say never” on whether or not we should ever use the tactic. Michael Bowden, author of “Black Hawk Down”, wrote a couple of articles that I think are two of the best cases put forth on why waterboarding should be illegal, but used under certain extraneous circumstances for the greater good. Read:
Excellent pieces, with an example of an actual instance of a German police officer who saved the life of a buried child by threatening the kidnapper with torture. Time was of the essence, because the child was suffocating.
Because of all the hoopla surrounding the waterboarding issue, we’ve essentially ruined that tactic in dealing with terrorist scum like Abu Zubaydah.
Sorry to sidetrack on the torture issue; I had meant to do a post on the two articles weeks ago, but got sidetracked; otherwise I could have just linked to the previous post, instead of elaborating a bit, here.
Anyway…
American Power is a strong McCain supporter, so anyone who wants to see “the other side” of the McCain argument, should go look at his McCain posts.
Well-worth a read, whether you agree or not: Michael Medved 6 Big Lies on John McCain
And in case you think I am shilling for John McCain, here is Hugh Hewitt Do Conservatives Still Care About the Courts?
John McCain is not my candidate of choice. But if he ends up being the nominee, we had all better rally behind him and band together against the kind of America that Democrats wish to have us living under. My biggest issue is in regards to who can keep us safe. It’s the reason why a liberal such as Joe Lieberman, has crossed-over party lines, and thrown in his support of John McCain. It’s not because he supports conservative causes; it’s a matter of prioritizing the issues. And the current war with Islamic militants, with staying on the offense, trumps all.
I don’t know how much John McCain “gets it”, in regards to the overall war against Islamic terror; but he has been unwaveringly steadfast on Iraq. He stuck his political neck out on the surge, delivering a stellar speech last year. Don’t ever forget that. John McCain is John McCain, and sometimes we can roll our eyes over that; and other times, he does deserve respect and admiration; and our gratitude.
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled McCain-bashing. [/soapbox rant]
“That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; NOT a 20 percent traitor.”
Ronald Reagan, quoted on KCBS radio in 1972 by Reagan’s gubernatorial chief of staff
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Wordsmith! Please he’s not worth it. He’s a Handgrenade with a loose pin. I respect and will defend you, but he’s not worth it.
I like McCain personally, but couldn’t vote for him unless, as his mommy said, I held my nose and had to. Everytime I start to like him I remember the Gang of 14 who opposed the President’s up and down vote for judiical nominees… McCain joined with Reid and Democrats to preserve the fillibuster against Roberts and Alito! What the??
And his position/record on illegal immigration is horrid.
The problem with using the ACU rankings is that they’re not weighted at all, so every vote counts the same, and we all know that they aren’t. So while they’re a useful start, they’re just that. A start.
Which would you rather have? An 80 percent ACU guy, but who on the other 20 percent leads the opposition, denigrates his opponents and drags others with him that might otherwise not have defected, or a 70 percent ACU guy, who’s at least not hostile to the 30 percent he doesn’t personally support.
That’s the choice we’re given here, and it’s not particularly a good one.
One final comment. You say:
“But if he ends up being the nominee, we had all better rally behind him and band together against the kind of America that Democrats wish to have us living under.”
I heard a bunch of similar talk before the 2006 midterms, and we saw how that turned out. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
Will I, and the many thousand other people who have said we won’t vote for McCain ever, under any circumstances, share in the blame for a Democratic administration? Of course. But we’ll share it with the people who didn’t believe us when we told them that.
Which conservatives principles left should we not throw under the bus so we can keep the name ‘republican’ on top? I’d like to know so I can fall in line.
I understand your sentiment Word, but in some of the biggest issues of our time, other then the WOT, he has failed, and failed miserably. Reagan was pragmatic and just like the post you linked to of mine, he did waver on some conservative issues, but he was the great communicator. He would waver but you felt like he really was doing it for the greater good. With McCain he basically calls those who disagrees with him racist. Not good.
But I agree completely with rallying behind him if the nominee. If for no other reason then the simple fact that the next President will pick the next Jurist on the SCOTUS. People like Skip and JPM would not vote to teach everyone a lesson without realizing the next Jurist will be there for the next 30 years. Is that worth it? A liberal majority on SCOTUS for many years to come? After the next two retire the rest of them are still relatively young and will be there for a long time.
More pro-2nd amendment laws? Forget it.
More anti-abortion laws? Forget it.
More anti-illegal immigration laws? Forget it.
More affirm action laws….You better believe it…..and so on and so on.
Makes no sense to me..
We’re going to have that regardless. It simply cannot be helped. On average, every President gets to put one person on SCOTUS, and on average, about half of the ones that the Republicans put on go bad. So until and unless SCOTUS is term-limited that’s not a solvable problem.
And using that as logic, you’re basically saying “I don’t care how bad a nominee is, if he’s got the (R) after his name I’m supporting him.” And that’s certainly your right, but its not a good idea, in my view. You’re focused on the short-term damage that another Clinton term would do. But the damage that McCain would do is long-term. By rewarding his behavior you’ll be inviting everyone to move to the left. What happens when, in 2016 there are 5 senators trying to out-maverick McCain’s record, to position themselves for a presidential run later? Even if the Republicans had a 60 seat majority they would be able to do nothing, because one of the 5 would be leading a break on every single issue of importance.
Also, people keep trying to bring up the spectre of another Clinton presidency. What did the first one give us? It gave us welfare reform, a Republican congress that actually remembered what it means to be Republican, and no real net change on the skew of SCOTUS. The country survived 8 years of Clinton 1, if necessary it will survive 4 years of Clinton 2.
“Okay, back to your regularly scheduled McCain-bashing. [/soapbox rant]”
Thank you for the “fair and balanced” post WS. While there are many flaws McCain has “gut-punched” conservatives over the years, and he’s only the past few years heard us loud and clear. The fact that he has even nudged on his immigration stance leaves some hope. More can be said after Feb 5th.
(is this the comment flavor of the weeK? 🙂 Actually, I like this modus, but still miss the preview)
I,m really getting a sick feeling in my stomach listening to so call conservatives back McCain. I’ve never voted Democrapic in my 45 year voting record, except in John Mcinsanes case I never voted for him. Three votes out of all those years for the Libertarian on the Ballot. I will Never vote for him under NO circumstances.
It’s going to happen anyway? Huh? McCain is not that great of a Republican but he sure is a better then Hillary/Obama and the chances of him putting up a good SCOTUS is WAYYYYY better then the odds we would get with Obama/Hillary, which is zero.
Amazing.
Don’t bet on Scotus appointments either. How many times must he stab us in the back before we realize he is our natural enemy. Just the talk that we will rally around him makes his nomination more inevitable. Instead of this talk we should all work to insure he is not our nominee. Please people wake up.
Actually My age plays in my favor, it’s you younger guys and gals that will have to pay,and pay, and pay, but its your choice.
I would tell you the same thing, wake up! If he is the nominee then there is a better chance of getting a conservative justice then with Hillary/Obama. Your being completely dishonest if your trying to tell me the odds are the same. Pure hyperbole. Read my posts and you will know I do not back McCain, but I will be damned if I just hand over the keys to this country to socialists to get even with people.
At the Florida debate Thursday McCain couldn’t come up with with a single example of Democrat corruption but
referenced the bridge to nowhere, Jack Abramoff,and other Republican scandals over and over. I just think he is running in the wrong party primary and if you think he is entitled to head this party maybe you just need to declare yourself a Democrat.
Rofl….yeah, thats it. I’m a Democrat.
I’m sorry if I offended you, I really don’t mean to. My only effort is to try and show every one just how bad a person McCain is. I would rather the country be destroyed by an enemy than some one who claims to be in our camp. I love your blog and sound logic, but McCain is not the answer. Defeat him and all will be well, we will defeat Hillery and even gain seats in congress. Our first job is to defeat the enemy in our own ranks.
Jain, no apology needed, didn’t take offense and I agree, I’m hoping he is defeated in the primary and have done many posts on the guy to do my part in ensuring that happens (but doing my part to ensure Fred gets elected didn’t work out that well either) but what I’m talking about is if he is not defeated in the primary and he is our nominee.
I am not on the side of teaching lessons when it comes to the Presidency because of two reasons. The WOT and SCOTUS. Being in law enforcement I know intimately what happens to society when we get a liberal court, and that lasts for decades. While its no sure thing he would appoint a conservative judge, it is a sure thing that hillary/obama would not.
Not willing to take that bet.
I sure hope your right, but my gut and my knowledge of McCain tell me to work harder than ever so that good people like you and your readers don’t have to make that impossible choice. If all else fails PRAY.
I’m pretty much where Amy is. I don’t care for McCain at all, but would probably hold my nose and vote for him in a general election only because the alternative would be even worse. That said, I would crawl over broken glass to cast a vote against him in a primary. His latest stunt today, telling a BLATANT untruth about Mitt Romney’s position on Iraq, has really got me peeved. I suppose I should be content to know that resorting to such a lie is an obvious indication that even John McCain knows his campaign is collapsing in Florida. So much for “straight talk.”
I’ve posted about McCain’s dishonest accusation on my blog.
skip wrote:
Another thing is, the 83 ranking is a lifetime average. I don’t know what his score has been for each year, but I heard it’s been going down; or at least isn’t always at 83. I believe last year, it was 60-something.
From my earlier post, citing American Thinker:
The next 4 to 8 years is hardly an “average term”.
In partial essence, yes. I’m not asking you to put forth a candidate that is so watered down, that he is indistinguishable from the Democratic candidate; but what I am saying, is that the “R” in front of a candidate’s name is important. Party loyalty, is important (until such time, as the opposition party becomes more conservative than the Republican Party). Even one of McCain’s staunchest critics, Hugh Hewitt, would agree. Besides the Presidency, winning House and Senate seats is vital to being able to control the direction of the country. The party who commands the majority in Congress, gets to legislate. This is why even “RINO”s can be more desirable than the alternative, which is giving up a Senate or House seat to the Democrats. THAT is harmful.
Remember also: primaries are for teaching lessons; but when it comes to the general election, winning is better than losing. which is also why electability matters; and taking that into account is smart politics. Sticking to party, is smart politics, and is ultimately principled.
As I said in my post, half the country does not tilt in your direction, politically. Simply putting forth your conservative dream candidate, if you also know that he has negligible chances of convincing independents and cross-over voters from the other party that he will make a fine president, is not good enough. “Oh, but at least I stuck to principle, and voted my conscience.” Nonsense. I’d rather vote for a candidate who shares Electability has to be taken into consideration. And sitting out an election because you don’t agree with the GOP nominee on 40% of the issues, only insures that the other party will put into office their candidate, with whom you are in disagreement 95% of the time.
From Hugh Hewitt’s 2004 book, “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat”, pg77:
skip writes:
*sigh* I knew this would happen; and it’s exactly what I wanted to avoid: defending McCain. But here we go:
In my opinion, should McCain be the nominee, it is vital that we support him and the GOP, because the long-term damage should we enable Hillary or Obama to be elected is long-term. Just on the issue of Supreme Court Justices, alone. But also think of national security. On this issue, I trust McCain more, to keep my country safe, as far as one man in the big chair has the means to do so. So no, I’m not focused on “the short-term”.
It’s not about rewarding bad behavior. If not “choosing the greater of two goods”, then it must be about holding your nose and choosing “the lesser of two bads.” I repeat: Primaries are for teaching lessons, general elections are for winning them. Willfully losing an election is narcissism and selfishness, at heart. It does nothing to advance the conservative movement.
rovin wrote:
Curt, I’m not sure I like this disqus thingy. Also, what html coding am I able to publish? In the other one, I am able to publish photos in the comments. Does this still hold true?
jainphx wrote:
You’re not misunderstanding me, are you, and think I support McCain? What I disapprove of is the hyperbolic tone of anger. Kinda like this one by you:
steve smith wrote:
Was that directed at me, or a generalized statement for McCain supporters? Because if you think I am a McCainanite, you didn’t read the post I had written. I guess it’s true: Seething rage does tend to blind.
jainphx wrote:
On this blog, I do believe you are preaching to the choir. Yes?
I hope readers can comprehend what I am saying, and not knee-jerk react with McCDS- McCain Derangement Syndrome. I’d be shocked if any one had something anti-McCain to write, that I haven’t already heard before.
I think it’s reasonable to criticize McCain, without conflating the criticism into smears and exaggerated indignation. His demerits should stand for themselves without hyperventilating them and hyper-exaggerating the case against him.
Interesting piece, but the fact you had to apologize over and over for McCain should be a clarion call to your senses. Those who think McCain can win support by reasoning must be advocating the same kind of amnesia that Clinton backers need. You will never convince the conservative base to be energized about his candidacy and relying on Hillary to energize our side is a flawed premise. Voting against someone is not the motivator that voting for someone is. Please be realistic.
Conservatives don’t trust McCain because they are fast learners. Let’s quote John Fund, shall we?
If he gets the nomination, he will not get the support of his base, and everyone knows that but those who are still pushing McCain on us from the right. From the left – they are thrilled at the prospect of our candidate McCain who regularly spits on us in public to show the world how despicably wrong we are. He doesn’t respectfully disagree with us and yet you want us to have the kind of polite disagreement with him that he will not allow.
He won’t nominate a Sam Alito. And you tell me judges are the reason to hold my nose and vote for him. You are ignoring what McCain himself is telling you.
Brand protection will be all we have left if he is the nominee. There is no confidence he won’t turn on conservatives by raising taxes, instituting cap and trade legislation, appointing liberal judges, and granting amnesty to twelve million illegals. Aren’t you listening to him? I am, and he has indicated that he will do just that. As the head of our party he will dumb down the definition of republican and even if we could find a conservative to clean up his messes, how would they get elected with an R behind his/her name? Did you learn nothing from 2006?
No I will not support him because he is not asking me for my vote, you are, because you realize that his nomination puts the WH in peril. Well, darlin’, it puts the republican party in peril, and his lack of wisdom, temperament, loyalty, and a moral compass puts our country in as much peril as his dear friend Hillary. In spite of what you say, this is not the perfect being the enemy of the good, it is the bad being the enemy of good.
This post, while interesting is a NO SALE.
Kathy wrote:
Where have I apologized, “over and over” for McCain? Where have I said I support McCain? It saddens me that McCain Derangement Syndrome is so thick in the head of so many conservatives, that they cannot get the gist of what I am saying in my post.
I “support McCain”?! Must explain why I posted this today.
Realism, is accepting that primaries are for voting the GOP candidate who best represents you; general election is for supporting whoever the GOP pick happens to be, and winning.
And his mention of “the gang of 14”? Why bother? If you looked past your knee-jerk McCain-rage, you’d see that I linked to Hugh Hewitt making yet another excellent case on that topic against McCain.
He’s uncivil to us, so we should be uncivil to him back? Nice.
You can swear up a storm, for all I care. You’re preaching to one of the choir boys. Sorry if I’m not falling in lockstep to hit the same high notes, as you, darlin’.
I am saying, that IF he is the nominee, and you don’t hold your nose and support the GOP nominee, then yes, you can kiss any chance at all of having any more strict constructionist conservative justices nominated in the next 4-8 years, when we have 2-5 justices who are likely to retire within that time frame.
Please, please, focus like a laser beam (to borrow a phrase McCain supporter Michael Medved likes to use, mimicking Democrat Bill Clinton) upon what I am saying.
*yawn*. Go preach it to someone who supports him.
Didn’t you? What happened when Democrats took control of Congress, in part because angry conservative voters wanted to sit it out and teach the GOP a lesson? Who did that hurt? Has that made the country better?
That’s too bad. Maybe you should have taken a closer look at the merchandise I was peddling?
Nice fisking, but you get no points for reading comprehension.
I don’t swear, but if I had to walk around with your brain I’d acquire the skill just to make me more interesting.
What I learned from 2006 is that the democrats have a lower approval rating than republicans, which really helps my Congressman this time out. It was a close election, but he won by less than 400 votes. This time the numbers will improve because he has an R. If you haven’t noticed the number of republican affiliations have grown since ’06.. That’s brand protection.
The question is – did you learn anything from 2006?
You are asking for civil discourse in the fashion of closing the barn door after the horse is gone – thanks for calling me nice – but you should save it for your Mr. Sweetness himself who said that the eighty percent of Americans opposing McCain/Kennedy were bigots. Too late to call for civility. Sarcastically calling me ‘nice’ won’t change history.
The purpose of using a non-specific pronoun such as “those who support McCain” rather than a specific “You who support McCain” might have passed your notice, but from your fisking and reflexive defensiveness, find it an understandable reaction from THOSE WHO CAN’T TAKE HONEST CRITICISM.
None?!!! At least I got me some love for the fisking. Thanks. I’m feeling fisky today.
Thank you. I almost thought you were trying to insult me there. But my reading comprehension skills made me see otherwise.
It’s a worthy point. A Republican majority that didn’t behave like a majority worked hard to earn the loss. But losing House and Senate seats, just to “prove a lesson” to the GOP? Gambling upon the incompetence of the opposition party is not a smart strategy. We are fortunate that the Pelosified 110th Congress has proven itself a lame donkey Congress and that President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have held together; especially when it comes to the war, with one surrender resolution after another. The Democrats tried over and over again to attach a troop-withdrawal deadline onto military-spending measures, but couldn’t get enough support needed to override Bush’s veto. President Bush has been resilient even though he lost the majority in both houses of Congress. We were lucky, not smart.
Incumbents can be difficult to unseat, and I’m not sure if it is ever a good idea to purposely buy lemons with the assumption that making lemonade in the next election cycle is all but guaranteed. I didn’t need to have Democrats win seats to know that Democrats in office are bad, and that Republicans in office weren’t doing what I wanted. Republicans right now are suffering from setbacks in recruitment, retirements, money and efforts to craft an election strategy. I see a very real possibility that we may lose more seats in the House… possibly up to 8 in the Senate.
If McCain is the GOP nominee, and you refuse to come to bat for the GOP to “teach them a lesson”….are you also going to rest your hopes on a Democrat-led country having low approval numbers as an indicator that the GOP has “learned its lessons”, and will shape up for 2012? Of course election losses forces the losing side to reevaluate itself, to figure out what they need to do to win. How much damage, though, are you willing to subject the country to, by giving the reign of power over to the Democrats for the next 4-8 years?
I repeat: 2-5 vacancies are likely to occur in the next President’s term. I will gamble on McCain over Hillary or Obama, on putting forth justices who remain on the bench for decades.
Hugh Hewitt interviewed John Fund, today, btw. Fund stressed that his piece not be misconstrued and conflated, that McCain WON’T nominate a Samuel Alito justice, but that he might not nominate one. Fund also pointed out, to be fair to McCain, that McCain has been stellar in always supporting every conservative nominee who’s come up, like Robert Bork (who doesn’t support McCain), Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and yes, Samuel Alito. Fund stressed the distinction between who McCain might nominate, as opposed to who he will support, as someone else’s appointment pick. And Fund was right in making his point, as you exemplified how he writes one thing, and the McCDS sufferers hear this:
MIGHT not, is the operative word, here. Thanks for helping me put forth my case on how those suffering from McCain Derangement Syndrome are resorting to spin and hyperbole to get across their case. There shouldn’t be a need to do so. The case against McCain is a strong one, without resorting to a witch-hunt’s dishonesty.
I suppose that’s the flaw in “fisking”, as it can take a statement out of context, or isolate it from the context. If you look at your overall tone, and places where you specifically addressed me as though I were a McCain supporter, it leaves the impression that this is how you are perceiving my positioning. Objectively speaking, isn’t this a possibility? For instance:
Perhaps I should put on my McDS hearing aide?
You’re kidding me?! I knew I was stepping into a hornet’s nest with posting this on FA, where Curt himself has posted one anti-McCain tirade after another. I support him on it, because I don’t want McCain to win in the primaries either. What I can’t abide, is the dishonesty in the criticism.
For instance:
McCain’s war record and POW status has little to do with his ability to lead a country. But to feel so much hatred toward McCain as to slime him as not being a war hero, because he failed as a pilot by “allowing” himself to get shot down (imagine, criticizing every soldier who has died in the current war as a “failure”, because they “allowed” the enemy to kill them), and breaking under torture and beatings. As I recall, McCain, once it was found out he was the son of a four-star admiral, he was given the opportunity to leave, yet refused to leave the prison camp because the other POWs were still held captive.
McCain is a war hero. A great American, a lousy Senator, and a terrible Republican.
And if he is the GOP nominee, I will support him over Hillary or Obama. Because even a terrible Republican with whom I might disagree with even as much as 60% of the time will be better than installing a “wonderful” Democrat with whom I will disagree with, 95% of the time.
“That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; NOT a 20 percent traitor.”
Note: Unsourced in Wikiquote.
Mike, isn’t it sourced to “KCBS radio in 1972 by Reagan’s gubernatorial chief of staff”?