Note: Unsourced in Wikiquote.

Nice fisking, but you get no points for reading comprehension.

None?!!! At least I got me some love for the fisking. Thanks. I’m feeling fisky today.

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.

Thank you. I almost thought you were trying to insult me there. But my reading comprehension skills made me see otherwise.

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.

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:

He won’t nominate a Sam Alito.

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.

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

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:

You will never convince the conservative base to be energized about his candidacy

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.

Perhaps I should put on my McDS hearing aide?

and reflexive defensiveness, find it an understandable reaction from THOSE WHO CAN’T TAKE HONEST CRITICISM.

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.

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.

Interesting piece, but the fact you had to apologize over and over for McCain should be a clarion call to your senses.

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.

Those who think McCain can win support by reasoning must be advocating the same kind of amnesia that Clinton backers need.

I “support McCain”?! Must explain why I posted this today.

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.

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.

Let’s quote John Fund, shall we?

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.

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’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’.

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.

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.

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?

*yawn*. Go preach it to someone who supports 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?

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?

This post, while interesting is a NO SALE.

That’s too bad. Maybe you should have taken a closer look at the merchandise I was peddling?

Conservatives don’t trust McCain because they are fast learners. Let’s quote John Fund, shall we?

Then there is the issue of judicial nominations, a top priority with conservatives. Nothing would improve Mr. McCain’s standing with conservatives more than a forthright restatement of his previously stated view that “one of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench.” Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.”

Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative.

Last week’s editorial endorsement of Mr. McCain by the New York Times, which delighted in recounting every one of Mr. McCain’s disagreements with conservatives, didn’t help. “John has to begin a new phase of his campaign,” says one prominent Republican in Congress who is backing Mr. McCain. “He has to decide if he wants to be a leader of the conservative movement that he says he joined after Ronald Reagan inspired him to enter politics in 1982. If he does that, he can be accepted. If he doesn’t, he will have to settle for a shotgun marriage with conservatives.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

From my earlier post, citing American Thinker:

In the next four to eight years, we can anticipate that there will be at least two and perhaps as many as five new appointments to the Court. As of November 2008, when the next president will be elected, the ages of the current justices will be as follows: John Paul Stevens (88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (75), Antonin Scalia (72), Anthony Kennedy (72), Stephen Breyer (70), David Souter (69), Clarence Thomas (60), Samuel Alito (58), and John Roberts (53). The good news for Republicans is that the three youngest justices are solid conservatives, while the two oldest are strident liberals. These two, Stevens and Ginsburg, almost certainly will leave the bench during the next president’s tenure in office. By 2016, Kennedy, Breyer, and/or Souter (not to mention Scalia) also may succumb to age or infirmity. Replacing these justices with solid conservatives may finally accomplish the conservative counter-revolution on the Supreme Court that Republicans have worked tirelessly to achieve for decades.

The next 4 to 8 years is hardly an “average term”.

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.”

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:

Republicans need to keep a majority of Senate seats in Republican hands; thus, we need liberal GOP senators as well as very conservative GOP senators and all those in between.

Which brings me to the subject of incumbents, especially those of your own party that you don’t like much.

Throughout 2003, a small group of conservative activists attempted to rally support to the insurgent candidacy of Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, who declared against incumbent Republican Senator Arlen Specter- a liberal Republican.

The Toomey candidacy came very close to unseating Specter, but it failed by a few thousand votes because serious conservatives understood that Specter keeps the Senate in GOP hands. Even had Toomey won in the primary, he would have been left open to withering attacks in the general election- with no money and Specter “moderates” practicing paybacks- as well as leaving disaffected the GOP voters who have stood with the iconoclastic Specter for many years.

Similar efforts have been launched in the recent past, including one against John McCain by Arizona conservatives who believe McCain to be insufficiently pure.

All such efforts against incumbents of all ideological shades are ill conceived and harmful, with one exception: where an incumbent is too weak to win reelection.

This happened in 2002 in New Hampshire where Senator Bob Smith, the Senate’s oddest Republican duck and an unreliable Republican- he bolted the party once, only to return later- was trailing the likely Democratic nominee in polls. A congressman, John Sununu, took on Smith in a primary and won, and he went on to hold the seat for the GOP in the fall 2002 elections. It was the sort of challenge to an incumbent that made sense, but it is rare.

Neither Specter nor McCain is a weak incumbent in general elections. Conservative purists should not only leave both men alone; they should enthusiastically support their reelection efforts. All the money and effort that goes into campaigns to push them out would be far better spent on helping folk like John Thune in South Dakota, a more conservative candidate than either McCain or Specter, but also a Republican running against a powerful Democrat- Tom Daschle.

Please absorb this basic fact about American politics: majorities, not individuals, govern. Without an understanding of this, the GOP’s return to near permanent minority status- and the powerlessness it includes- is all but guaranteed.

skip writes:

You’re focused on the short-term damage that another Clinton term would do. But the damage that McCain would do is long-term.

*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”.

By rewarding his behavior you’ll be inviting everyone to move to the left.

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:

(is this the comment flavor of the weeK? Actually, I like this modus, but still miss the preview)

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:

I,m really getting a sick feeling in my stomach listening to so call conservatives back McCain.

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:

How many times must he stab us in the back before we realize he is our natural enemy.

steve smith wrote:

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.

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:

My only effort is to try and show every one just how bad a person McCain is.

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.

I’ve posted about McCain’s dishonest accusation on my blog.

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.