August 29, 2018

"With the presidential election only 3 weeks away, John McCain faces a stark choice: Will he go down in history as a principled conservative who lost an election standing on his convictions? Or..."

"... will he go down as an opportunist who lost while bringing out the darkest elements in American politics?... After 8 disastrous years of Republican rule under George W. Bush, all of the tides of history point towards a Democratic victory on November 4th. Obama’s principle [sic] obstacle to the presidency has been whether a majority of Americans were ready to accept him as Commander in Chief... McCain’s campaign believed that their only chance was to change the subject from the economy and make Obama scary and unacceptable, a man who 'pals around with terrorists.' In the face of the vast economic crisis, that strategy appears to be failing, turning off moderates who want answers to their problems, even as it may be firing up the base. More disturbingly, McCain’s strategy is bringing out the dark underbelly of American politics — a strain of hate-filled nativism and racism that always lurks just below the surface of parts of the American political psyche. Historian Robert Hofstadter called it 'the paranoid style in American politics.' This strain is showing itself in increasingly angry crowds at Palin/McCain rallies which yell 'terrorist' and 'off with his head' about Obama. Even McCain himself appears to be taken aback by the virulence of his crowds’ reaction, partially defending Obama over the boos of his own supporters. Since it was the Palin/McCain campaign that had unleashed these forces with its implications that Obama was sympathetic to terrorism, John McCain has reached the point of political schizophrenia. John McCain is now at a crossroads. At this historical moment, he has virtually no path to win the presidency. The question is whether he will lose with honor or lose with disgrace. Will his legacy be like that of his Arizona Senatorial predecessor Barry Goldwater, who ran a campaign of conservative principal in a liberal year and lost in a landslide, only to see his principals [sic!] come to power 16 years in the form of Ronald Reagan? Or will his legacy be like some combination of Richard Nixon, Robert Dole and George Wallace, one of a man whom, in his overweening ambition for victory, took the low road and tapped the dark forces of American politics to his own everlasting shame and dishonor?"

From a HuffPo column published 3 weeks before the 2008 election. I thought it was interesting to read in the context of the McCain post mortem.

Those questions at the end make me want to ask: Is Trump the dark legacy of McCain?

199 comments:

rhhardin said...

one of a man whom, in his overweening ambition for victory, took the low road

who

Temujin said...

Every Republican or Conservative is a racist/bigot/homophobe/xenophobe, etc etc while they are actively participating in life. When they either die, or bash other Republicans or Conservatives, they become likable and you'll hear liberals sigh, "Why can't they all be like him/her?"

It's old and tired. I guess it still works in some circles. But it's pretty vacuous.

Curious George said...

"Is Trump the dark legacy of McCain?"

No, he is the legacy of Obama, and the radical left swing of the party.

rhhardin said...

"I admire Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it." - McCain

Michael K said...

HuffPo is the relaible leftist nut example. I used to read it before the election but it has gone far off the deep end.

In 2008, McCain was stumbling toward the inevitable loss. His campaign had some good policy suggestions but he had no idea what they were or how to explain them.

He actually had a good health care reform policy on the web site but had no idea what it said.

His entire campaign was biography, mostly about Hanoi.

JackWayne said...

McCain was the dark precursor of Trump The Lightbringer seems more appropriate.....

Matt Sablan said...

HuffPo, WaPo, the NYT -- all questioned McCain's character and even his sanity during that election cycle. The pretend respect for the man is almost angering.

Sarah from VA said...

Is he sure he doesn't mean "principaled" conservative? He seems to have the definitions swapped everywhere else, might as well be thorough about it.

sparrow said...

Trump is reaction to Obama and the insular elite, which includes McCain.

Wince said...

In retrospect, it's clear who covertly brought the "paranoid style" into the government itself, and the intelligence and law enforcement "communities" in particular. There's a reason Althouse has a"Obama is like Nixon" tag.

From Hofstadter's original 1964 Harpers article.

But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.

Of course this term is pejorative, and it is meant to be; the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good. But nothing really prevents a sound program or demand from being advocated in the paranoid style. Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content. I am interested here in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent.

Martin said...

"Those questions at the end make me want to ask: Is Trump the dark legacy of McCain?"

In answer to your question, Althouse--No, but Trump may be the answer to the dark legacy of Obama. In 2008 we were told that the way to finally erase the stain of racial prejudice was to elect the black guy, which we did. He wasn't even sworn in before the racial (and soon, gender) polarization picked up, emanating from him, his minions like Holder and Perez, and his supporters in academia and the media. They all kept at it for 8 solid years. THAT as much as anything else is why we have Trump.

The only McCain-Trump connection that I can see is that McCain played the liberals' game and lost graciously, never really fighting hard (similar to Romney in 2012). That left a lot of people desperate for someone who would fight, and willing to overlook a lot of flaws for that one feature. That would include people like me.

walter said...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mccain-defends-obama-real-story_us_5b821dffe4b03485860129c4


Just three days before McCain’s moment in Minnesota, his campaign released an ad attacking Obama for his ties to William Ayers, a founder of a radical anti-Vietnam War group that had ceased to exist when Obama was still in grade school.

“Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers . . . friends,” the ad began. “But Obama tries to hide it. Why?”

The advertisement, combined with the increasing likelihood of an Obama victory, had unleashed the torrent of Republican anger that Palin helped stoke. At a rally in Florida she had whipped up supporters by telling them that Obama liked to “pal around” with “urban terrorists,” prompting a person in the crowd to shout “Kill him!”

The day before the Minnesota rally, McCain and Palin appeared together in Waukesha, Wis. The senator seemed shocked by supporters who shouted “Terrorist!” and “Off with his head!” at the mere mention of Obama’s name in association with Ayers.

McCain was also visibly uncomfortable with the Ayers line of attack that was being perpetuated on television and at rallies in his name.

“I don’t care about old washed-up terrorists,” he said at the rally, and instead suggested that the real question was whether Obama had lied about the extent of his relationship with Ayers.

His discomfort was even more apparent the next day in Minnesota.

“We would like you to remain a true American hero, [but] we want you to fight,” one supporter railed.

“I will fight, but we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama,” McCain said to a chorus of boos from the crowd.

Another man, who said his wife was pregnant, told McCain that they were “scared, scared of an Obama presidency. We don’t want to bring up our child in a country. . . . [run by] someone who cohorts with domestic terrorists like William Ayers.”

McCain called his opponent “a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

More boos.

Finally came the comment from Gayle Quinnell, 75, of Shakopee, Minn., wearing the red shirt, who called Obama an Arab.

After the rally, a CNN reporter tried to explain to Quinnell that Obama’s father was a Muslim but that the candidate had always been a Christian.


“Yeah, but he’s still got Muslim in him,” she said.

Quinnell was parodied on “Saturday Night Live” a few days later in a skit that featured a crazed McCain-Palin supporter wandering through the “Weekend Update” set and proclaiming that Obama was “50 percent Egyptian. He’s gonna change the White House into a pyramid.” Quinnell said later that she found it funny.

Quinnell’s daughter told reporters that her mother did not have access to the Internet and had read that Obama was a Muslim during a visit to the library. At the time, Quinnell worked supervising children with mental disabilities during school bus rides.

vermonter said...

I particularly like:

"Since it was the Palin/McCain campaign that had unleashed these forces"

Who knew that Sarah Palin was on the top of the ticket?

John said...

After 8 disastrous years of Republican rule under George W. Bush

Did that ever give any of the regulars pause? Or you all just instantly latch on to the latest talking points? Is it far enough in the past that you can be honest?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

What the hell did Bob Dole ever do to liberals? Ridiculous.

Hey speaking of people who compared Sen McCain to George Wallace please don't forget my congressman the honorable John Lewis: Politico 2008 article

Civil rights icon and Georgia congressman John Lewis is accusing John McCain and Sarah Palin of stoking hate, likening the atmosphere at Republican campaign events to those featuring George Wallace, the segregationist former governor of Alabama and presidential candidate.

"George Wallace never threw a bomb," Lewis noted. "He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights"

As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all," Lewis said today"

Lewis's sharp words may be dismissed as those of a partisan Democrat in a campaign season. But the former head of SNCC and hero of Selma is somebody who McCain has lavished praise upon over the years, including admiring him in a book on courage and bravery and repeatedly invoking Lewis's name in public appearances.

Appearing with Barack Obama at a forum at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in August, McCain included Lewis as one of "three wise men" he would consult as president.


Funny, isn't it?! Back in 2008 the mild and sedate campaign events of McCain/Palin were likened to KKK rallies and the the tone of the Republican campaign was compared--by smart elite types, naturally--to lynch mobs. Then 8 years later with the Trump rallies the Media played the "no, for real this time, there's an actual wolf!" card and are still shocked at the lack of reaction.

Mr Wibble said...

Those questions at the end make me want to ask: Is Trump the dark legacy of McCain?
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:00 AM on Aug 29, 2018


Trump is the legacy of McCain, but not for the reason the left things. This is what Trump supporters have been trying to get through the heads of the GOP establishment: you ended up with Trump due to Bush, McCain, and Romney. McCain spent decades seeking media approval only to have them turn on him during the campaign. He also treated conservatives with disdain, especially the Tea Party and other outsiders. He often seemed willing to betray the right for the chance to win praise in the media. Bush refused to defend himself against the attacks from the left, leaving conservatives feeling abandoned in their defense of him. Romney was perhaps the most decent man to ever run for President, but like Bush refused to get down into the mud and fight.

You got Trump because conservatives looked back on the last three presidential candidates and decided that the establishment could do nothing for them. Better to gamble with Trump.

Ann Althouse said...

McCain saw himself headed for defeat, so he did something big: choose Palin. But he didn't fully commit. Nevertheless, that campaign displayed something that Trump saw and committed to. And you see what happens.

Mr Wibble said...

Did that ever give any of the regulars pause? Or you all just instantly latch on to the latest talking points? Is it far enough in the past that you can be honest?

I saw it, but I'm so used to it that I just ignore phrases like that.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

It's important to remember that the same media that cry their crocodile tears for McCain now that he can be used to bash Trump were vilifying him just 10 years ago.

Fuck the huffington post, all these lefty twats, and McCuck himself. I didn't get invited to his funeral either, but much like NFL games, its more fun to celebrate from home.

John said...

I'm so used to it that I just ignore phrases like that.

So the rule wasn't disastrous in your mind? Things were just great in 2008?

Matt Sablan said...

"Did that ever give any of the regulars pause?"

-- It's the HuffPo. In 10 years, they'll be talking about how Trump had the good sense to befriend Russia and put the Cold War behind us, but this new generation of warmongering McCartyhites can't stop poking the bear. I give as much thought to what they write as they do.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Huffington Post, 2008: Is John McCain Mentally Fit To Be President

Honestly I could to that all day.

In addition to calling him senile and racist I remember a bunch of Dems talking about how unstable McCain was and how his temper and propensity to hold grudges would cause war.

Here, this took 8 seconds to find:

WashPo 4-20-08 McCain: A Question Of Temperament

traditionalguy said...

Yes. Trump is the antidote to the end America disease embodied by Soros's man Obama and installed in the White House by Soros's man McCain who threw the 2008 fight for cash.McCain worked hard to lose.

Mr Wibble said...

So the rule wasn't disastrous in your mind? Things were just great in 2008?

The claim was that Bush was eight years of disaster. That's simply not true. GDP growth was moderate, certainly no worse than the Obama years, and by 2008 Iraq was stabilized and the war in Afghanistan hadn't increased yet.

Robert Cook said...

McCain was always an opportunist and an advocate of our imperial actions. No hero, not principled.

Confused said...

Thanks for highlighting this terrible column. Terrible content, terribly written.

Two questions: Why did the author include Bob Dole, and who calls him "Robert?"

Leland said...

Considering the economic growth and sustained peace, I'm not seeing the darkness with Trump.

Considering his betrayal of his running mate; I will say McCain seemed to go low. Lying to constituents about your platform is pretty dark.

Jake said...

Have they been crying wolf forever, or what? Anyway, when the author doesn't know the difference between principle and principal, well...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

If McCain is the dark (racist term, by the way) legacy of Trump it's in the following way:
McCain at several points stuck up for Obama and was eager to the point of easy parody to concede defeat to Obama. He didn't go as hard or as dirty against Obama as the Obama campaign went after him (as witness by the Lewis attacks, other charges of crypto racism, etc) and the day after the campaign ended McCain eagerly forgave and embraced those same people. He seemed damn near happy to have run a shitty campaign and "given us Obama."

Dissatisfied GOP voters noted that. They noted McCain basking in praise for selling them out--I mean "reaching across the aisle"--and taking pleasure in punching right.

That's the meaning behind the alt-right favored insult "cuck," isn't it? Someone who takes pleasure in the humiliation their opponent subjects them to--who actively wants to lose and thanks the winner for defeating them.

Anyway many GOP voters were pissed about McCain doing a crappy job running and blaming the populist right (in the form of Palin supporters for the loss). They stayed mad when the bit their tongues and voted for Romney (having been told only a centrist-appealing moderate could win) only to see him get smeared and lose. They then refused to line up behind Jeb! or Kaisich as their True Conservative betters demanded...and went for Trump.

So yeah, McCain's influence is back there, but probably not in the Left thinks.

Big Mike said...

McCain will not go down in history as a “principled” ANYthing.

John said...

. GDP growth was moderate, certainly no worse than the Obama years,

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Ray - SoCal said...

So McCain lost by being a principled conservative, while Trump win by being unprincipled?

I have never seen that type of article about a Democrat in on principles.

Harry Reid:

"Well, they can call it whatever they want, Romney didn’t win, did he?"

Matt Sablan said...

McCain in no way went low in his campaign; he stuck to his funding promise, Obama didn't. Obama's early ads included making fun of McCain's inability to use a computer due to injuries suffered from torture. McCain's early ad? One included him congratulating Obama on winning his primary.

It is complete ignorance of history to believe McCain's campaign was in any way "low." It was harsh, but he refused to take some attacks he could have, while Obama let his surrogates call McCain a racist and a "songbird" without checking them.

Big Mike said...

I agree with Martin’s comment at 9:25 and Mr. Wibble’s comment at 9:31. But for me the critical factor was that I would crawl five miles over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton, and I still would.

Matt Sablan said...

"They stayed mad when the bit their tongues and voted for Romney (having been told only a centrist-appealing moderate could win) only to see him get smeared and lose."

-- I warned the left: Insulting and smearing moderates like McCain and Romney (both of who I liked) was not going to make the right think they should move further left. They'd be like the minister's daughter: Well, if I'm going to be told I'm getting a fire-breathing right wing arch conservative, even with Romney -- I might as well NOMINATE a fire-breathing, right wing, arch conservative.

Big Mike said...

And I defend President Donald Trump for the same reason Lincoln refused to sack Grant over the latter’s dlleged drunkenness: “He fights.”

Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt Sablan said...

"But for me the critical factor was that I would crawl five miles over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton, and I still would."

-- I knew that if Trump did anything wrong, everyone would check him. I've been proven right there; I also worried that Clinton would have no checks what-so-ever. I've been proven right there too, if past history is any proof.

So, while I'm no Trump booster, I feel it is best for good government to have gotten a Trump -- who if he did do anything wrong, we'll know -- to a Clinton, who can destroy subpoenaed evidence and have nothing happen to her.

Nonapod said...

To be fair, I don't believe any realistic Republican candidate could have beaten Barrack Obama back in 2008.

narciso said...

Should I link the jones memo again, he stabbed her in the back with a carving knife, he threw her to the wolves, to your favorite candidate, professor, who directed a whispering campaign that accused her of being an adulteress of carrying her daughter's child, this was after she gave a key note speech McCain didn't deserve.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Democrats love dead Republicans. And LLRs!!

Michael K said...

So McCain lost by being a principled conservative, while Trump win by being unprincipled?

"Principled Conservative"= loser.

McCain was good at that.

buwaya said...

The true darkness came with the treatment of Palin after the election.
The election was done and over with, but that would not do.

There was a concerted campaign to drive her out of office, and public life.
It was remarkably vicious and sleazy, well financed, and broad-spectrum. She was obviously seen as a danger. But there was a backlash.

What went down re Palin in 2009 probably went further to alienate the volk from the system than Barak Obama. And the powerful reaction of 2010, or the campaign thereof, caused the system to concentrate power much further in the bureaucracy instead of overt politics. It became clear that an executive aligned with the bureaucracy and the MSM machine had effective impunity. Elections were meaningless.

Michael K said...

I am coming to wonder more and more, how much of the left's "Russia Collusion" Hoax is being funded by China ?

Chuck said...

This is a very, very fine post by Althouse.

Yesterday, I was trying to recall the various ways that certain major media actors in 2008 sought to demonize McCain, and I thought, If I were arguing with a member of the media who claimed that while the media might have fallen in love with the ever-so-attractive Barack Obama in 2008, it was nevertheless a clean campaign where McCain was not villainized, to what would I cite them? I do remember a small, revealing cartoon in the New Yorker at the time, in an unflattering profile of McCain, depicting a bulbous-headed McCain in a tiny jet fighter dive bombing a target, Kamikaze-style.

Anyway, if I had such a question, this Althouse blog post is a terrific exemplar and I am grateful for it. Kudos.


Drago said...

The day the dems wiped out the republicans and John McCain went down to defeat and graciously, graciously, very very graciously praised the fellow who defeated him (who would later go on to completely weaponize the federal bureaucracy against republican base voters...which McCain also assisted), might, might, just go down as the most glorious day in the entirety of LLR Chuck's life.

Perhaps.

I'm sure obamacare passing was a real banner day as well for him.

Michael K said...

There was a concerted campaign to drive her out of office, and public life.

It really was amazing and a preview of the treatment of Trump.

Kevin said...

I see a theme:

Clinton's campaign believed that their only chance was to change the subject from her bathroom server full of top secret e-mails and make Trump scary and unacceptable, a man who 'pals around with Russians and White Nationalists.' In the face of the vast economic stagnation and unsustainable trade imbalances, that strategy appears to be failing, turning off moderates who want answers to their problems, even as it may be firing up the base. More disturbingly, Clinton's strategy is bringing out the dark underbelly of American politics — a strain of hate-filled anti-American globalism and racism that always lurks just below the surface of parts of the American political psyche. Historian Robert Hofstadter called it 'the paranoid style in American politics.'

Drago said...

Some members of the media called obama "magnificent".

Some LLR's did as well......

Big Mike said...

@Matthew Sablan, I question whether Trump actually is a “fire-breathing, right wing, arch conservative.” He strikes me as the least ideological, most pragmatic President of my long lifetime. However he probably seems like an arch conservative to someone who is so far off on the extreme left that they see no difference between the political center and the Alt-Right.

Matt Sablan said...

Well, I think for a lot of people, they were fine at the Fire Breathing part.

paminwi said...

Trump is the result of Dole, McCain and Romney combined. All good men who were pushovers. Even Bush ended up being a weenie. This comes back to the lefties being bullies for years. The old story of either you get bullied or you punch back harder than the to stand up for yourself is Trump. That saying worked for my kid in school after he got kicked in the head by a nasty kid and my son punched him out good and hard. I got a phone call from the school-saw the damage to my kid's head-told the pricipal the other kid had it coming. My son would NOT apologize. And we were out of there. Never happened again. This may not work so completely in politics but you at least gotta try!

chuck said...

> Is Trump the dark legacy of McCain?

I think of him as a light worker, to quote a phrase.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Is President Trump the dark legacy of McCain?

I think a case could be made that he is a legacy of McCain's campaign. I would say "bright" rather than "dark" though.

McCain was probably one of the few people Obama could have won against. Since he did win, he resulted ultimately in the election of President Trump. I predicted this back in 2008, that an Obama presidency would allow DC to finally bottom out and elect someone who could fix things. I was a reluctant supporter of Mccain in 2008 but only for Sarah Palin.

I was a more enthusiastic supporter of Obama in 2012 quoting Lenin "Worse is better". In the full context of the way Lenin meant it. You can't have a revolution until all hope of any other solution is gone. Romney would have kept us bubbling along. There might have been comfier chairs and better table service on the Romney handcart but it was still headed in the same direction. Straight off the cliff.

If you had asked me whether I thought Donal Trump would run and, more importantly, win, I would have laughed at you. I had my hopes on Ron or Rand Paul, ted Cruz, Gary Johnson (for a while) or other liberal candidates.

Boy was I wrong. Much as I still like their ideas I had no idea of the blizzard of bullshit that would be thrown at the president. I suspect they would have been forced to knuckle under.

So perhaps there is something good that McCain did after all. He brought us, indirectly, President Trump.

John Henry

narciso said...

Robert McCain (a distant relation) proved their was a pipeline to a,particular degenerate who churned out these rumors.
They were the source of many of mcguinness's claims that the publishers knee to be false.

chuck said...

> There was a concerted campaign to drive her out of office, and public life.

And where was McCain then? Palin helped McCain get reelected in 2010, AFAIK, he never reciprocated her loyalty.

Drago said...

chuck: "> Is Trump the dark legacy of McCain?"

Only a part of it really.

The sellout of republican base voters and the industrial heartland began before McCain. Not that McCain didn't also support the trashing of the republican, he most certainly did and he always relished the opportunity to protect his dem pals and attack other republicans.

But the reality is that after Reagan, starting with HW, the republican establishment openly joined up with the dems on economic policy and then, later in the 90's under Clinton, on military policy as well.

The Clinton/W years were the high water mark for the those that took the opportunity to completely sell out the US and reward their fellow globalists through astonishing and breathtakingly suicidal trade deals which transfered trillions of dollars and millions of jobs to other nations all the while the US was expected to continue to act as the global mercenary force for these same "better than thou's".

But no one expected Trump to come along and upend their cushy little deals. So now they, like LLR Chuck, are screaming like stuck pigs and are doing everything in their power to overturn the last election and restore the dems to full power to complete their mission.

narciso said...

The 27 million he saved from the campaign, when he had the choice to declare bankruptcy over the ethical jihad or resign her office, got him past the post.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

I meant to mention this yesterday but there is another reason McCain was the perfect opponent for Obama.

I've never believed that Obama was not born in Hawaii. But in the primaries and general there was a lot of talk about his being born in Kenya. A lot of serious people, including Crooked believed and/or were promoting it.

There was little talk about his not being a US citizen or even a citizen at birth since he would clearly have citizenship through his mother regardless of where he was born.

But back in the olden days of 2008, people still generally thought being a "Natural Born Citizen" meant that one was a citizen by birth (Born in the US) rather than a citizen by statute.

McCain was definitely not born in the US and was definitely a statutory citizen rather than a natural born citizen under the traditional understanding. It was the perfect vaccination for Obama.

"Hey, you were born in Kenya. You are a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen."

"Oh Yeah? Well what about McCain? There is, legally and constitutionally no difference between being born in Panama and in the US."

John Henry

Big Mike said...

So the rule wasn't disastrous in your mind? Things were just great in 2008?

2008 was the logical conclusion of economic policies put into place by a Democrat Congress in 2006. You need to go read The Big Short, or watch the movie (both available through the Althouse Amazon portal). Bush tried to push legislation that would have shored up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but was fought to a standstill by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and, especially, the lamentable Barney Frank. When, thanks to federal regulations, banks are required to lend money to people who cannot possibly pay it back, then what to you think is going to happen?

Sebastian said...

"McCain’s strategy is bringing out the dark underbelly of American politics"

Progs can't help themselves, with their usual, racist "dark" rhetoric.

"a strain of hate-filled nativism and racism that always lurks just below the surface of parts of the American political psyche"

Fortunately, we have prog intellectuals who detect it there.

"John McCain has reached the point of political schizophrenia"

But since he lost and turned against Trump, all is forgiven.

"tapped the dark forces of American politics"

Ah, those "dark" forces again.

"Those questions at the end make me want to ask: Is Trump the dark legacy of McCain?"

No, he is the illuminating correction to the dark legacy of McCain--the legacy of losing, the legacy of insulting others with impunity.

Of course, Trump also has turned, sorta kinda, against McCain's "stupid" wars.

Purpleslog said...

The repubs should have done a Mitch Daniels/McCain ticket in 2008.

narciso said...

I still find it suspicious that Lehman would implode at that critical moment, there has never been a bust out 60 days from an election.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...


Blogger Big Mike said...

And I defend President Donald Trump for the same reason Lincoln refused to sack Grant over the latter’s dlleged drunkenness: “He fights.”

Fighting is nothing. Winning is everything.

Kind of what Lincoln meant about Grant and what I think you mean about President Trump. He not only fights, he wins. (Both of them)

President Trump has not lost a single major battle yet, though a few are still to be decided.

BTW: If you are looking for something to read, try Grant's memoirs. I am about 75% of the way through and very good. A bit too much minutia about the battles and it looks like nowhere near enough about his presidency. Still well written and interesting.

John Henry

Mr Wibble said...

The true darkness came with the treatment of Palin after the election.
The election was done and over with, but that would not do.

There was a concerted campaign to drive her out of office, and public life.
It was remarkably vicious and sleazy, well financed, and broad-spectrum. She was obviously seen as a danger. But there was a backlash.


Palin was a preview of their plan for the rest of us. The same treatment she received is now being applied to regular Americans who dare to oppose far-left orthodoxy. The goal is to make people afraid to voice any opinion that isn't extreme progressive, and to hold to a view in the face of an ideology that changes daily, because to do so is to invite the destruction of your entire life: your job, your family, everything.

Mr Wibble said...

Fighting is nothing. Winning is everything.

Kind of what Lincoln meant about Grant and what I think you mean about President Trump. He not only fights, he wins. (Both of them)


You have to be willing to fight even if you can't win. Losing can be valuable, if you make victory too expensive or too painful for the other side.

Mark Nielsen said...

Trump is not the legacy of McCain, nor of Obama, though that's closer. He's the legacy of the lows to which the press stooped in the Obama years, together with the memory of Republicans like GWBush, McCain, and Romney who wouldn't fight back. I say that as someone who genuinely liked all three of those former Rs and is not too fond of the demeanor that Trump has brought to the office. But I admit to loving it when he sticks it to the press. Can't get enough of it.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

"Oh Yeah? Well what about McCain? There is, legally and constitutionally no difference between being born in Panama and in the US."

Big OOPSIE!!

There is, legally and constitutionally no difference between being born in Panama and in Kenya."

John Henry

narciso said...

She was a subject of lawfare directed through the offices of Perkins and coie, quelled surprise, the final straw was there was an ethics complaint over the legal defense fund that she set up to defend herself against ethics complaints that had cost her 500 k

Michael K said...

But the reality is that after Reagan, starting with HW, the republican establishment openly joined up with the dems on economic policy and then, later in the 90's under Clinton, on military policy as well.

I think it began when the Democrats were able to force out Gingrich. He led the 1994 campaign which took Congress and horrified the usual suspects, like Peter Jennings who said. "The public had a tantrum" after the election.

The pushback was immediate. Gingrich, like Nixon 20 years before, gave them some ammunition but the agenda was to force him out. A blizzard of ethics complaints was one mechanism. Just like the methods used on Sarah Palin 20 years later. He was paralyzed responding to them.

It doesn't work with Trump because, A He has lots of his own money, and B He doesn't give a shit and neither do the voters.

Forcing Gingrich out gave us Hastert, who was a crook from the Illinois Combine, and the Administrative State had control again.

Did you notice no spending was cut? The "Balanced Budget" was done by raiding the Social Security trust fund. It had a surplus just then because the Baby Boomers were working and not retiring yet.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Trump is the legacy of policymakers’ absolute indifference to the consequences of their policies.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

The Americans who supported Sarah Palin were right, and the dupes and dopes and dips who voted for Obama supported the forces of evil. We haven't even scratched the surface of Obama's wickedness yet, nor the democrat party crimes and corruption, but we do know that Palin was dead-on in her assessment of Obama, a pal of terrorists, and McCain was dead wrong, as usual, in his judgment that Obama was a good man who would be a good president.

Drago said...

Big Mike: "Bush tried to push legislation that would have shored up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but was fought to a standstill by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and, especially, the lamentable Barney Frank."

Absolutely true.

No matter how often LLR Chuck attempts to cover for the dems.

Drago said...

Pookie Number 2: "Trump is the legacy of policymakers’ absolute indifference to the consequences of their policies."

Not just indifference. Their self-awarded immunity and shield against the consequences of the their actions, decisions and policies.

GW Bush doesn't care about the rancher on the southern border who gets overrun by illegals who destroy his property and threaten his life and the lives of his family members.

GW Bush cares deeply for and has fond memories of his mexican national nanny, so, you know, that's all that matters. Who cares if your kids have to go to school with MS-13 members roaming the halls?

Chuck said...

Question: "Is Trump the dark legacy of McCain?"

Personally, I don't know. I can see credibility and nuance on both sides of the question.

But coming from TrumpWorld, I see this reponse:

Mark Nielsen said...
Trump is not the legacy of McCain, nor of Obama, though that's closer. He's the legacy of the lows to which the press stooped in the Obama years, together with the memory of Republicans like GWBush, McCain, and Romney who wouldn't fight back. I say that as someone who genuinely liked all three of those former Rs and is not too fond of the demeanor that Trump has brought to the office. But I admit to loving it when he sticks it to the press. Can't get enough of it.

Which I take as a simple "Yes," in answer to the original question. Isn't the longer answer, "This is how you get more Trump..."?


The notion that, "We got this way because we're pissed off. Obama pissed us off. McCain and Romney pissed us off. The Bushes pissed us off. NAFTA pissed us off. The TV networks piss us off. The Washington Post pisses us off. NFL players who kneel during the national anthem piss us off."

The only people and things who don't piss you off are the people and things who demonstrate as you do, your own preferred level of piss.

PM said...

Big Mike: "But for me the critical factor was that I would crawl five miles over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton, and I still would."

That and realigning SCOTUS, which is one Kavanaugh away.

chuck said...

"Bush tried to push legislation that would have shored up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but was fought to a standstill by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and, especially, the lamentable Barney Frank."

Bush didn't fight hard enough. It may not have seemed that dangerous at the time, or perhaps it was simply his disinclination to fight. He was a rope-a-dope sort of guy except he never got off the ropes.

gilbar said...

in ten years (20 years?); will anyone on earth know who John McCain III was?
He was some sort of a navy guy, wasn't he? Fought in WWI?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Their self-awarded immunity and shield against the consequences of the their actions, decisions and policies.

Possibly - but I think people would broadly prefer effective policies even if the policymakers remain smarmy and insulated.

buwaya said...

But Chuck, that is always true.
It is human nature.
Look anywhere, anytime.

Hagar said...

I am reading a history of America in WWI and am struck by the similarities of Woodrow Wilson to John McCain. No one knew or could understand what was going on in his head nor predict what he was going to say or do next.

Ralph L said...

will anyone on earth know who John McCain III was?

He'll be the answer on Jeopardy that everyone misses.

buwaya said...

If the Democrats ran things as Lee Kwan Yew did, you would be satisfied with a de-facto party dictatorship. Or the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), from the 1950's to the early 90's. Or many other cases around the world.

A successful, efficient hegemonic system is likely to remain acceptable for a very long time, if it delivers.

In the US it is obvious that the politico-bureaucratic-corporatist system does not deliver, or has stopped delivering for the median person, for nearly two decades now.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger Teller said...

That and realigning SCOTUS, which is one Kavanaugh away.

I predict Kavanaugh on the bench in September.

Even cooler is the possibilities.

President Trump has the possibility of appointing at least 2 more justices. RBG can't hold on much longer. If the Repos get a solid win in November, Clarence Thomas might decide to retire. That would give him 4 by 2020.

I can see the possibility of 5 by 2020 and the near certainty of 6-7 by 2024.

I read the other day that President Trump is on track to have appointed fully half of all federal judges, at all levels, by 2020.

Hey, Fopdoodles etc., which is more important: Conservative principles or conservative results?

I like principles but I like principals (as in sitting judges) even more.

In addition to judges, President Trump has delivered more conservative/liberal govt than any 10 other conservatives could have ever hoped to. He gets things done.

Soooooooo much winning.

John Henry

Anonymous said...

John: Did that ever give any of the regulars pause? Or you all just instantly latch on to the latest talking points? Is it far enough in the past that you can be honest?

Wut? That statement didn't give me pause because I'm a rightie who agrees with it, and I'm not the only regular around here who does. Other regulars don't agree, as Mr. Wibble explained to you. (Aside from that, it just wasn't interesting.) The regulars around here have different views of Bush. What's your point?

Do you actually read what regulars around here have opined over time, or do you instantly jump to silly comments that apparently pass for mind-blowing gotchas in your mind?

bagoh20 said...

It was a terrible choice. Palin was the only one in the race who was anywhere near the successful path of the nation which is now our present.

Real American said...

McCain wasn't a principled conservative, but he did what he needed to do to get by in the GOP. He lost in 2008 because he was a war candidate in an economy election. He also failed to attack his opponent on the right things - Obama's lack of experience and accomplishment. He also lost because, like a crazy person, he suspended his campaign to go try to bail out Wall Street and came off like a guy who wasn't in control of anything.

He picked Palin as a gamble, to be sure, but he did it mostly to sure up his base. It worked. Many voted for him instead of staying home.

I think he also underestimated how much the media would attack him during the general election and smear him as a racist like they do all other GOP presidential candidates. McCain got a lot of good press attacking other Republicans and Bush, especially, and of course, they loved his Campaign Finance Reform. But the media didn't pick him up in 2008 because they were in love with Obama.

Michael K said...

In the US it is obvious that the politico-bureaucratic-corporatist system does not deliver,

Instapundit has been saying for a decade that we have the worst ruling class in our history, maybe since Louis XVI.

And you know what happened to him.

I posted this a year ago at Chicagoboyz.

I call it a "principal agent problem." As Alex Comfort once said, "In Britain the civil service is a calling. In America it is a rogue form of private enterprise."

narciso said...

No McCain was a little more like teddy Roosevelt, the great white fleet was an expression of 20th century expansionism.

Ray - SoCal said...

I have been surprised at the funding China has done of think-tanks in the US.

And to find out China was getting copies of Clinton's e-mails in real time - amazing feat - kudos to their hackers.

And barely a mention in the press, but lots of ink about Russia, Russia, and Russia.

China seems to have a more effective PR machine in the US than Russia. Russia seems to be more focused on just causing problems in the US, or funding anti Fracking, etc. stuff.

Very observant point.

>Blogger Michael K said...
>
> I am coming to wonder more and more, how much of the left's "Russia Collusion" Hoax >is being funded by China ?

Michael K said...


Blogger chuck said...
"Bush tried to push legislation that would have shored up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but was fought to a standstill by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and, especially, the lamentable Barney Frank."

Bush didn't fight hard enough. It may not have seemed that dangerous at the time, or perhaps it was simply his disinclination to fight. He was a rope-a-dope sort of guy except he never got off the ropes.


Bush admin people testified but the Democrats took Congress in 2006 after 12 years in GOP hands and went on a rampage, mostly against the war. Bush was obsessed with the war and, while he ran in 2000 as a domestic president, the 9/11 attacks wiped that off his radar.

The GOP Congress, once Hastert was Speaker, was no help.


Anonymous said...

Both the left and conservatism(tm) are ideologically stale and tired, but it's pathetic that the tropes from the left haven't changed since 2008. Or 1988. Or 1968. Even as we speak, there's an editor out there accepting or assigning the same article from some opinion writer, that will require no more effort from the writer than is necessary to execute a search-and-replace for a few names.

Muh Hofstadter. Muh Authoritarian Personality. Muh Dark-souled Nativists. It was all bullshit that offered insight only into the paranoias of the writers, not the subjects, and it still is. Only now with less insight than ever.

What cohort has to die off before these stinky ideological hub-boxes can be aired out?

Matt Sablan said...

I don't think Bush was "disastrous." A lot of things he could have done better. At least, unlike Obama, he did not even fail on every one of his own metrics for success.

Matt Sablan said...

"He also lost because, like a crazy person, he suspended his campaign to go try to bail out Wall Street and came off like a guy who wasn't in control of anything."

-- The worst part was before he did that, he refused to, and the Democrats claimed they needed his leadership in DC to help. So, finally, he decided to do it, on the understanding that Obama would come back and help too.

Turns out, they didn't ever ask Obama to stop campaigning. Because it was just a trick to make McCain look crazy, even though he was *doing what Democrats and the media were asking him to do: Show some leadership and come back to DC.*

Yancey Ward said...

Trump ran to the center of the electorate- that was the critical thing that got him elected. If you continue to define left, center, and right the same way it is done in D.C., then you will continue to misunderstand Donald Trump's appeal.

Chuck said...

Real American said...
McCain wasn't a principled conservative...


I think that McCain was a highly-principled conservative. As principled, in his own way, as Rand Paul.

McCain was also a highly imperfect Republican. Was McCain-Feingold "conservative"? Was it not conservative? Was it liberal? Had I been in the Senate, I would have fought against McCain-Feingold just like Mitch McConnell did; with every word, every procedural gesture he could muster. But McCain wasn't trying to help Democrats; McCain just personally hated the extra full-time job that every member of Congress has, which is to fundraise on a more or less 24/7/365 basis. He (wrongly) thought that his bill might fix that.

Certainly, McCain wasn't any sort of liberal on immigration. McCain was a political compromiser, but just because he wasn't a xenophobe or a protectionist, doesn't ruin his conservative credentials. Only if Donald Trump's notions of trade protectionism, and presidential power, and closed borders mean "conservatism" to you, would you fight the notion that basically John McCain was a conservative.

As much as anybody in Congress, McCain was pro-military, pro-military spending, pro-conservative judges, a general budget hawk, etc., etc.

Matt Sablan said...

"I think he also underestimated how much the media would attack him during the general election and smear him as a racist like they do all other GOP presidential candidates."

-- Exactly; he thought that the left would treat him fairly like he treated them.

He never realized that the left of today was not like the collegial Senate he probably always thought he would deal with.

Yancey Ward said...

Matthew, we are going to disagree on Bush- he was disastrous. The invasion of Iraq was a catastrophe that is still playing out, but now on a much a larger scale. I don't think any president would have avoided an incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11, but I don't think a President Gore would have committed the US and its allies to Iraq, and without Iraq, I think both Syria and North Africa would be stable today and under the same leaders they had at the time.

hombre said...

After all, there was no reason to be concerned about Islamists, open borders (particularly to Islamists, drug cartels and gangs), antipathy toward Israel, Islam-biased, inept Middle East policy.

Sell us down the “high road”, Republican doofuses.

Birkel said...

Trump is the legacy of eGOP forces pushing Reagan to take CIA Bush over Jack Kemp.
That would have rid us of both Bushes and probably Clinton too.

Plus, I think the intelligence agencies are overgrown and altogether too powerful.
Having a CIA guy as VP was a bad small government move.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "I think that McCain was a highly-principled conservative."

LOL

That is such a pathetic, and I must say all too predictable a response from our #StrongDurbinCuckholster Chuck.

But I get it.

McCain hates republicans, republican base voters, actual conservatives and certainly any republican who fights back hard against the dems.

Just like LLR Chuck.

So, again, it makes perfect sense.

No one is fooled anymore. All is exposed. And that my friends is a very very good thing.

BTW, you know who else LLR Chuck respects for his "principled conservatism"? Bill Kristol and George Will. 2 of the biggest "lets elect all dems now!!" brigade.

Qwinn said...

McCain was a Dem plant. Nearly all the conservative votes that similar plants like Chuck point to were cast when his vote didn't make a difference. When the vote was really close, when it actually mattered how he voted, he nearly always went "maverick", handing victory to the Left. The initial Obamacare vote is about the only exception I can think of - that, or he made such a huge stink about changing things leftward in order to get his vote that the conservative bill was rendered useless, allowing him to vote for it.

mccullough said...

McCain doesn’t have a legacy other than his family. He was a senator but was never elected president. He spoke of his small part in history and it is very small. As a senator he was less consequential than Scoop Jackson and 99% of Americans don’t even know who that guy was.


The last decade — since the financial meltdown — drove home the point that the people who are “leaders” in the country are completely out of touch with a large number of Americans.

This has been building for 30 years. No single president caused it. They all have blame to varying degrees. And it’s beyonf politics. Hollywood and the NFL are at war with a large number of their customer base.

Trump had a very intuitive insight into all of this.

His primary campaign was a total bashing of the Bushes. He eviscerated them. Jeb spent a shitload of Country Club Republicans money and got nowhere.

Trump ran against the last 30 years of America. Those years weren’t great.


Birkel said...

McCain supported the IRS actions against the Tea Party.
McCain pushed the bull shit Steele document against Trump.

McCain was about power: his own and that of the state.
He died in office rather than give up his power.
He did nothing about illegal alien immigration and called any effort to curb illegal entry as mean spirited.

Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, would have us forget how poor McCain was for conservative legislative behavior.
Fuck them both.

Yancey Ward said...

Yes, I think the very fact that McCain was used as a conduit for the Steele Dossier tells you all you need to know about McCain and Democrats.

MayBee said...

I think he also underestimated how much the media would attack him during the general election and smear him as a racist like they do all other GOP presidential candidates. McCain got a lot of good press attacking other Republicans and Bush, especially, and of course, they loved his Campaign Finance Reform. But the media didn't pick him up in 2008 because they were in love with Obama.

Spot on

Howard said...

The Clinton's own Trump's ascendancy. They fingered he was the only one Hillary could beat, then she slept through the campaign on Ambien and Chardonney. McCain never had the juice. Also, the conservative blogs did their best to stroke racists during the Obumbles reign and Trump jumped on that bandwagon.

Matt Sablan said...

I wonder how much of McCain/Romney/Bush's good primary press was the result of equivalent Clinton-like pushing of Trump. It'd be interesting if Obama more effectively used Clinton's tactic and actually picked people he could beat.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Matthew, we are going to disagree on Bush- he was disastrous. The invasion of Iraq was a catastrophe that is still playing out, but now on a much a larger scale. I don't think any president would have avoided an incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11, but I don't think a President Gore would have committed the US and its allies to Iraq, and without Iraq, I think both Syria and North Africa would be stable today and under the same leaders they had at the time.

If we were talking amongst fellow conservatives about the Iraq war, I could have a polite and interesting conversation.

But you're talking about Trump, and not any regular Republican or Movement Conservative. And as is always the case with the liar/bullshitter/revisionist Trump, he was for the Iraq war before he was against it:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/101/video/despite-his-claims-donald-trump-did-initially-support-the-iraq-war-760660547760

Larry J said...

Every Republican presidential candidate since Thomas Dewey in 1948 has been smeared by the Democrats and the press (but I repeat myself) as Hitler. When they die, the press often lauds them. As the InstaPundit noted, it seems to the press, the only good Republican is a dead one.

Gunner said...

HoodlumDoodlum:

With the way modern medicine has progressed, Democrats will be able to keep John Lewis alive to compare the Republican nominees from 2020-2060 to George Wallace.

Drago said...

There is no bigger liar and defender of lefty liars than our very own LLR Chuck and his band of merry "TruCons" who call for complete dem victory.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "If we were talking amongst fellow conservatives about the Iraq war,"

LOL

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck, if I considered you an intellectual equal, I wouldn't have to point out that my comment had nothing to do with Trump, or what Trump thought about the Iraq War- it was focused entirely on Bush's decision to launch it.

mccullough said...

Before he died McCain finally admitted Iraq was a mistake.

Phil 314 said...

Disclaimer: I voted for McCain in ‘08.

McCain was running in the wrong time. 2004 would have been better for his brand: stay the course in Iraq etc. By 08 many were weary of war. His campaign “pause” for the economic crash didn’t help. I thought Palin was a net positive for the campaign but I don’t believe McCain knew what to do with her. Palin didn’t presage Trump; the batshit crazy reaction to her presaged Trump.

It would have been hard for any Republican to win against the “historic” candidacy of Barack Obama. And it been hard for any Dem candidate to recreate that constituency.

I live in AZ and I’ve seen the within party disdain for McCain for many years. It really picked up steam after 2008 because he was a


LOSER.

I still have deep respect for John McCain. I wish he hadn’t run for re-election in ‘16 and I wish he hadn’t become so bitter towards Trump. His vote against the skinny Obamacare repeal was not McCain-like. I felt he voted that way to spite Trump.

MayBee said...

Matthew Sablan said..
Turns out, they didn't ever ask Obama to stop campaigning. Because it was just a trick to make McCain look crazy, even though he was *doing what Democrats and the media were asking him to do: Show some leadership and come back to DC.*

We obviously can't rehash this whole thing again, but I really want to highlight this. I have never understood how McCain was seen to be the kook when he as a sitting senator and possible future president went to Washington to help craft legislation. Obama wanted to issue a joint statement and keep practicing for the debate. In hindsight, the best glimpse of the Obama presidency we had during that election.

mccullough said...

I didn’t know Trump talked W into the worst decision since Vietnam Nam. W and LBJ were terrible presidents. Just awful. Maybe it’s a Texas thing.

MayBee said...

Phil 3:14 at 12:13--- exactly

Yancey Ward said...

Given the financial panic, no Republican was going to win the presidency in 2008. I have always thought McCain did about the best he could given events- it would have been easy for McCain to have lost by an even larger margin and leave the Democrats with 65 Senators rather than the 60 they ended up with.

Could McCain have won 2000? I don't know- I doubt it, but that was his best opportunity to be president.

Matt Sablan said...

" In hindsight, the best glimpse of the Obama presidency we had during that election."

-- I think the best example was when Obama promised to accept public financing, and then broke it when he realized how much money he could get.

stever said...

McCain 2008 was the last man standing from a weak Republican field. After the National Review types picked apart the carcasses with their brand of righteous conservatism, Sen McCain drew the short straw and we were left with the consolation prize of a HRC defeat in the Dem race.

buwaya said...

"Also, the conservative blogs did their best to stroke racists during the Obumbles reign and Trump jumped on that bandwagon."

?

You give a lot of weigh to "conservative blogs", with between them a tiny readership. The "bandwagon" was and is of the people, the blogs, or whatever, are a consequence, not a cause. Unlike the left-liberal political side, throughout history the conservatives tend to be the "grass roots", their ideas formed from the cradle onward.

The liberal-left tends to work through media and the commercial system, a hierarchical development and deployment of ideas, starting from the intellectual-theoretical peak and then pushed down with institutional imprimatur. Its not always quite like this, but the pattern is almost universal, in spite of the many mutations of the concept of "conservative".

Look at anything contemporary in European and American culture over the last two centuries. Russell Kirk brought this up several times.

Matt Sablan said...

The best dichotomy of the McCain-Obama election though is their memorable early ads.

Obama insults McCain's inability to use a computer, even forcing Biden to retract a statement from the future VP that it was a bad ad because it, you know, made fun of a physical handicap.

One of McCain's earliest ads was a congratulations to Obama.

But, yeah. History will be re-written to make McCain the angry, prone to dirty fighting politician, with Obama the good sportsman.

walter said...

Confused said...Why did the author include Bob Dole, and who calls him "Robert?"
--
Bob Dole here. I would just like to say Bob Dole always calls Bob Dole "Bob Dole".
I do have a daughter named Robin...who really hated my Viagra commercials.

Qwinn said...

Matthew Sabian: Obama always knew he would violate it. He pretended to go along just to give McCain (who was in on the scam) an excuse to "agree" to it, then when Obama reneged, McCain kept it anyway. Why would he have done that, if not because he intended to lose? Picking Palin was just a twofer for McCain, taking out a threat to the Dems in the process of throwing the election.

Qwinn said...

I mean seriously, aside from the Palin pick (which I've explained), give me a single act by McCain during the 2008 election that was more consistent with trying to win the election than with covertly trying to lose it.

Matt Sablan said...

McCain kept to it because of two reasons. Uncharitably, with the Keating 5 scandal available to hit him on, he couldn't take any risks. More charitably, he actually believed that's what politicians should do, and he was going to stick to his ethics, even if it hurt his chances to win.

Which it did, especially since Obama wasn't raked over the coals like McCain would've been for breaking that promise.

Qwinn said...

McCain would've been ranked if he broke it before Obama, but after Obama broke it, his own breaking it would've been easily justified. Keeping it when his opponent wouldn't was obviously crippling to his own campaign. No one who actually intended to win could be faulted for it. McCain just never intended to win.

I mean, even putting aside that issue, did McCain ever hit Obama for turning off credit card verification on donations? People proved that Obama's campaign accepted donations made in the name of "Osama bin Laden" and "Mickey Mouse". Did McCain balk at THAT? No. Instead, he saved his fury for conservatives and Palin.

I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting that the Left infiltrated the Republican Party in the same way they infiltrated every single other institution in the country. What, is the Left simply too noble and honest to pull off such a dirty trick?

buwaya said...

When they picked Palin they didn't realize just how popular she would turn out to be.
That scared them, and I think they hurt themselves badly when they showed their true selves to the volk in persecuting her.

Trump is really the second coming of Palin, with a very similar appeal, in fact, though this might fool shallow thinkers. Trump is however a far better planner, manager, and salesman, and of course has the resources she never had and could never get - because the gatekeepers of political money would have kept her out.

It would make an interesting analysis.

Drago said...

"..give me a single act by McCain during the 2008 election that was more consistent with trying to win the election than with covertly trying to lose it."

That is Reason #1 why LLR Chuck likes McCain so very very much.

Well, that and McCains literal non-stop jihad against republican voters and almost always while seated with his "true base", the lefty media.

Honestly, could McCain possibly shove his own head up Chris Mathews rear end any more enthusiastically?......(checks Political Magic 8-Ball)....

....nope.

Jim at said...

This week - and the gushing over McCain - is nothing more than another chapter in the non-stop temper tantrum over Trump. There is no 'darker' meaning or any deep thoughts.

Next week it will be something else.

buwaya said...

The important thing about populists isn't that there happens to be a talented populist politician.

Its that there is a populist moment, which will inevitably raise a populist figure.
The times make the man.

This is why its a huge error, analytically as opposed to rhetorical tactics, to harp on the man. This truly is pap for the unthinking.

Drago said...

Buwaya: "That scared them, and I think they hurt themselves badly when they showed their true selves to the volk in persecuting her."

And lets not forget that 2 of LLR Chuck's "TruCon" heroes, Nicole Wallace and Steve Sxhmidt, are outdoing LLR Chucks lefty media types in their praise of dems and attacks on republicans.

I know just writing that makes Chuckie swoon. And I do mean swoo-oo-oo-oo-n!

Jim at said...

That left a lot of people desperate for someone who would fight, and willing to overlook a lot of flaws for that one feature. That would include people like me. - Martin

Indeed.

One of the things that just drove me nuts about George W. Bush was his lack of fighting back. The left spewed the nastiest of insults at him for eight years, and he just sat there and took it.

If Bush wasn't willing to stand up for himself, why in the hell should I do it for him?

I don't have that issue with Trump. And that's what pisses off the left the most. We're no longer playing by their rules.

Qwinn said...

Jim: Very much agreed. I do consider his term a disaster, but not for any of the conventional reasons. I supported the Iraq War and do not regret it. Bush's foreign policy was fine in my book - he took the fight to the external enemy. He utterly and completely disarmed in fro t of the domestic enemies, though, and for that, he was a disaster.

Robert Cook said...

"Considering the economic growth and sustained peace, I'm not seeing the darkness with Trump."


"Sustained peace?" What are we doing in the Middle East then? Who are the people we're killing?

Drago said...

"U.S. Workers Report Highest Job Satisfaction Since 2005"

With every additional bullet point of great economic news you can almost feel LLR Chuck shriveling up just a little bit more.

Mark said...

Since we are reminiscing of things said before the 2008 election, here's what one guy said --

Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Sailing on the U.S.S. John Titanic

Wow! What great facilities they have here on the Titanic! What a great ship this is! Yep, this is the best ship ever — sure to beat every other ship ever built!

What an unmitigated DISASTER the pro-McCain people have brought down upon us. You think Hillary has been getting pounded these last few days, losing by 30 point margins, 21 states to 10? Just wait till Obama starts popping McCain upside the head, and dancing and weaving, like a young Mohammed Ali at his prime against an over-the-hill, past-his-prime old-timer who can barely get up off the stool.

The comparison of Obama’s roaring victory rally with 20,000 strong and enthusiastic people ready to march, with McCain’s monotone funeral wake at a hotel conference room with a couple dozen bystanders and a few moderate dinosaurs standing behind him, could not be starker. An inspiring leader McCain ain’t.

All those centrist voters that McCain is counting on — those that made him supposedly the “most electable” — are all going to run to catch the Obama love train. Meanwhile, the McCainiacs are doing their best to alienate the right, rather than reconciling. So, those left behind will have little to no excitement or enthusiasm for “their guy.” Anybody really want to give their time or money to this sinking ship?

It’s going to be ugly.


OK, so the "Obama love train" did start to run into some troubles in late March, but it appears to be picking up steam again. Meanwhile, the prediction of the Obama camp being able to jab and jab and jab at will, with McCain flailing around seems to be right on the mark. Jurassic McCain is going to get pummeled.

McCain is a DISASTER, a total and complete DISASTER.

We are doomed. Maybe if every conservative votes for him — maybe — he might squeak by with a bare majority or plurality in the general election. And maybe the votes will be in the right states in order to get the necessary electoral votes. Or maybe all those centrist voters will decide to be a part of history, and the conservative votes will all be for naught.

But let’s not fool ourselves. If you actively support McCain before the election, if you vote for him in November, then do so with your eyes wide open. Do not pretend, and do not demand that others pretend, that he is something that he is not. Do not adopt the Clintonian tactic of disingenuously dismissing every flaw as if it does not exist and defending those aspects of McCain that you know are indefensible. Vote for him with your eyes wide open, and know exactly what it is you are doing, and why.

Don’t cry “betrayal” if McCain is elected. Go ahead, if you must, and fight to prevent a President Obama. But vote for him with your eyes wide open. A scorpion is always a scorpion, and a tiger is always a tiger, even if we hope for them to be something else.

Drago said...

"Steve Duprey, a longtime friend of McCain’s and a senior adviser in his 2008 campaign, said the senator respected Obama, even if the two were never particularly close and wounds from their race were raw for years."

Why wouldn't McCain respect obama. Obama hated the republican base almost as much as McCain and LLR Chuck.

Mark said...

Washington Post, July 31, 2008 --

At a town hall meeting Tuesday, a GOP voter posed a question McCain has heard everywhere from Sparks, Nev., to Dayton, Ohio: Why should Republicans support him?

"I think I speak for a lot of conservatives when I say I'm not very excited about this election," the questioner said, noting that he differs with McCain on issues including "amnesty" for illegal immigrants and the senator's support for "the global warming crowd's agenda."

But rather than rattle off his most conservative positions -- his opposition to abortion and support for the war -- he launched into a long explanation of his role in a compromise on judges, something that conservatives often criticize him for.

He sparked applause from the Republican audience by mentioning his support for conservative Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., but he then noted that he had backed liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer as well.

McCain finished off what was supposed to be an explanation of why conservatives should back him with a pledge to push for a cleaner planet.

"I've stood up against my party many times," he said, "because I've done what I thought was right."


He was a disaster.

Drago said...

Mark: "He was a disaster"

Only because you do not share McCain's and LLR Chuck's perspective.

From their perspective, McCain was absolutely perfect...in every single way.

A certain "Washington Generals"-like loser who would do all in his power to drag down as many republicans as he could with him.

Or, as LLR Chuck might say, "perfect".

Mark said...

The true darkness came with the treatment of Palin after the election.
The election was done and over with, but that would not do.
There was a concerted campaign to drive her out of office, and public life.
It was remarkably vicious and sleazy, well financed, and broad-spectrum.



And that campaign of treating Sarah Palin with contempt began with the McCain camp. And it did not begin after the election, but before.

buwaya said...

"What are we doing in the Middle East then?"

At the moment, for the most part, getting Middle Easterners to do the fighting.
Its worked pretty well. The Kurds and Iraqis finally took Mosul, the Kurds took Raqqa, and between some group or another have pretty much expunged ISIS.

All with just the occasional US smart bomb and a couple of hundred US special forces.

The Turks got too big for their britches and economic pressure is making Erdogan sweat.
The great Turkish march to glory is on hold.

Gospace said...

Trump was elected because of Hillary. She's responsible for his rise in the primaries, because everyone on the the Democrat party thought he'd be the easiest to beat. And she's responsible for his election, because as stated above, a lot of us would crawl over broken glass to vote against her. And further, she's solely responsible for the idiotic decision to campaign only in states where she was already going to win. She did receive advice to campaign in the swing states- from someone who knew- her husband. But she knew better than him, and ignored the advice.

But then, we must also admit that Trump is responsible for Trump. Hecampaigned to win the electoral college. Didn't care if won the popular vote. He ran to win the votes where it counted. Brilliant, inspired, or dumb luck? Take your pick- he won, she lost. He must have had something to do with it.

Mark said...

Another pre-election story --

Friday, July 11, 2008

The Character of John McCain

When did I begin to have such antipathy toward McCain?

It started back in early 2000. Actually, during that election season, I was open to supporting him and backing him for president. That's because I did not know that much about him except for his claim to be a conservative and his POW experience. But as I watched his conduct and remarks in the 2000 campaign, including listening live to his melt-down with on the Michael Reagan radio show, I began to oppose and then dislike the man. His opposition to overturning Roe played a big part. His paranoid-schizophrenic behavior played a part.

Also playing a part was learning, back in 2000, about how he dumped his faithful first wife -- the heroic first wife who remained faithful and diligently worked for his return when he was a prisoner of war. In return for first wife Carol's steadfast love and fidelity, John McCain gave her repeated adulteries and infidelities, before finally dumping her overboard into the ocean like refuse in favor of a newer, younger, prettier babe. (And if you read the Newsweek article on second wife Cindy, you will see that McCain has often treated her with abandonment and disdain as well.)

This much I already knew about John McCain, and such dishonorable and contemptible behavior is enough to disqualify him to any authentic defender of marriage and family values. Now, the Los Angeles Times has picked up the story.

Michael K said...

I have always thought McCain did about the best he could given events- it would have been easy for McCain to have lost by an even larger margin and leave the Democrats with 65 Senators rather than the 60 they ended up with.

There are two bases although I wonder if the Democrats can hold onto their old base while going Socialist.

McCain got the Republican base votes, which is around 40%.

He was painfully inept, a sort of Dole redux.

Reagan made a mistake choosing GHW Bush, although I know why. He was still an object of suspicion by the people like Chuck.

If he had chosen Kemp, it would have been very interesting.

Maybe Trump would never have happened.


When they picked Palin they didn't realize just how popular she would turn out to be.
That scared them, and I think they hurt themselves badly when they showed their true selves to the volk in persecuting her.


Yes, it was like a kid lighting a haystack on fire. I knew about her from traveling to Alaska. I almost bought a house there. I still have an Alaska medical license.

When Kristol and those guys came back from an Alaska cruise, I knew they had seen what I saw.

She still reminds me of a women I knew on the Mission Viejo City Council. She was hated by the clique.

She would read the city check register at meetings and ask the city manager what they were.

Palin was hated by the Murkowski machine for all the right reasons. The left did a number on her but they had help.

Michael K said...

first wife Carol's steadfast love and fidelity, John McCain gave her repeated adulteries and infidelities, before finally dumping her

I was wishing Ducey would appoint Carol to the Senate seat but she lives in Virginia. She worked in the Reagan White House at one time.

n.n said...

The diversity of 2008 was characterized by racism and gerontophobia, that was only superseded by an overt and progressive sexism. Today, it has been qualified anew. Pro-Choice yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Mark said...

One more, a day-after post that someone wrote --

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

The Inevitable Happens

Now do you McCain folks see why we went ape-sh*t when he became the inevitable nominee?

Look, when you got one guy attacking and running against the Republicans, and you got the other guy who is a rabid, pro-abortion Marxist, the Republican ticket hasn’t got a chance.

That there was no one better who was running, for that, too, McCain should be held to answer. He spends the last seven years fragging his own party, giving the opposition cover for attacking conservatives and Republicans, including legitimizing Bush-hate, with the result of not gaining the respect of Dems and independents, and only sabotaging the Party, so is it any surprise that any possible up-and-coming stars out in the states were snuffed out in the crib and, thus, not in a position to run?

Time to settle all family business. The McCain camp, big-tent moderates, anti-Palin elites. Give them the Carlo Rizzi treatment. It’s not personal, it’s strictly business.

It is John McCain and his “maverickism” that blew a gaping hole in the Republican Party; it was McCain and his anti-Bushism that helped foster and feed totally irrational Bush-hate, thereby dragging down, not only Bush, but conservatives and the entire Party; it was McCain and the Gang of 14 and the rest of the “Republican” moderates that have decimated the Party.

It was this idea, for way, way, way too long of “let’s not do that,” that we must have a big tent and must support and elect a whole bunch of people on the Republican ballot who are antithetical to Republican and conservative principles, that left us with nary a single viable candidate for president this year. It was maverickism and big tentism that left us with a tent full of squishes and worms and slick used car salesmen.

This idea that McCain would be the Dems’ worst nightmare, because he is so loved by Dems and independents, pushed on us by elites and those who know better than anyone else (like the Maverick), was a blatently obviously falacious idea from the get-go because it was clear that they would all abandon him as quickly as they could. It was clear to all who had eyes to see that the most likely outcome was total ruin. And that is what McCain has brought us.

Well, if we have now crashed and burned, the wisest thing to do would be to rebuild the right way, to purify, and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

In case you all think that all my venom is directed toward McCain, his “moderate” friends, and the sh*t-for-brains elites, if folks are worried about what President Obama is going to do, let not your heart be troubled.

I’m sure that if Sean Hannity only keeps pounding away on Rev. Wright and William Ayers a couple more thousand times, the country will see Obama for who he really is.

If only we had run that play a few more times. After all, when it failed to work the first 17,342 times it was run, surely it would have worked the next time!

Looks like the laugh is on us, as we have been suffering under the total delusion that, in the fight against Communism, we won and the Commies lost. The truth is, more and more, it is apparent that we lost.

Let’s not forget, comrades, in true Communism, it is not the government that controls everything, rather, it is the Party that controls everything, especially the media. Is there any institution of American society that is not controlled by the Party? The media, the schools, the courts, the government, the entertainment industry, much of industry — all of these are controlled by the Party. Even some of our religious denominations have been infiltrated and controlled by Party members. Meanwhile, too many of the non-Party members have sold them the rope to hang us all.

Anonymous said...

A lot of HYPOCRISY being committed surrounding McCain's death.

Anonymous said...

This mock up of the NYT front page says it all about the HYPOCRISY of the Left and Never Trump crowd. It's perfect!

narciso said...

Mission accomplished:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6106613/South-Africa-withdraws-white-farmland-redistribution-bill-Trump-tweet.html

John said...

McCain was probably one of the few people Obama could have won against.

How delusion are you people? Republicans controlled the White House for 8 years and congress for 6 years and at the end of all that the economy was in free fall collapse. We won't even add the Iraq War which Trump has confirmed was a huge mistake.

Mark said...

There was a time a few weeks before the 2008 election where McCain/Palin pulled ahead.

Then the Maverick pissed it away.

John said...

There was a time a few weeks before the 2008 election where McCain/Palin pulled ahead.

And then the economy collapsed. Remember McCain suspending the campaign to rush back to DC and deal with the collapse?

John said...

It's amazing how much can be stuffed down the memory hole in the service of partisanship.

Qwinn said...

I must protest the idea that Republicans lacked a good candidate in 2008. Fred Thompson was awesome, and he was at that time the first candidate I ever happily pulled the lever for.

I cannot express the amount of rage and desperation I felt as Fred was denounced and defeated for insufficient "fire in the belly" only for us to be handed McCain instead. The only fire McCain ever showed was in attacking conservatives, while Fred was the only one to attack the Left consistently and without apology.

Qwinn said...

John: It was the Dems' shenanigans with Fannie and Freddie that caused the collapse. You can blame Republicans for failing to stop them, but you can't claim the Dems were therefore the obvious alternative to fix things.

Qwinn said...

Fred had all of Trump's virtues without any of Trump's flaws. The GOPe rejected him because of insufficient "fire in the belly" and gave us McCain instead.

Well, they couldn't claim Trump lacked fire in the belly, mainly because of the things they considered to be Trump's flaws, and THAT is why you got Trump.

Jim at said...

Republicans controlled the White House for 8 years and congress for 6 years and at the end of all that the economy was in free fall collapse.

Nope. Eighteen months during the first two years of Bush's term, Congress was split control ... with Tom Daschle being the Senate Majority Leader. Republicans controlled both Houses from 2002-06, and then the Ds took over control of both.

One could blame Bush for the economic freefall. Or one could point to what happened when the Ds took over Congress. Or both. Only silly people blame just Republicans for what happened in 2008.

walter said...

Speaking of 'holes, Frankly speaking:
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Finally, McCain is truly free of the "wacko birds".

Mark said...

Remember McCain suspending the campaign to rush back to DC and deal with the collapse?

I repeat myself - "the Maverick pissed it away."

Jim at said...

Remember McCain suspending the campaign to rush back to DC and deal with the collapse?

So we agree. McCain was a shitty candidate who ran a shittier campaign.
Glad we cleared that up.

Mark said...

Republicans controlled the White House for 8 years

And during that entire time Senator Queeg was undermining and sabotaging the White House, which in return foolishly tried to appease and placate him.

Ken B said...

Wow. The anti Trumpers are screaming TREASON and finding Russians under every bed, and you think maybe it's Trump who exemplifies the “paranoid style”?

Ralph L said...

Everyone tried to (and still) blame Wall Street for the bubble, but it was the tens of millions of Americans hoping to make lots of money in a rising market that pumped in the air.

Wall St only facilitated the growth of CRA-required high risk loans by chopping them up and hiding them in the better ones, thereby delaying the reckoning. They and their securities buyers thought they were reducing risk, when they were actually spreading and eating poison.

McCain fed into the Panic in Washington by showing up with no plan.

langford peel said...

John McCain crashed his campaign the same way he crashed his airplanes.

I doubt you could find a worse example of a Republican Senator in American history. A blood thirsty war monger and as courrpt as the day is long.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

BUMBLE BEE said...

narciso's comment about Lehman folding reminded me of a question. GWB said in televised press conference that a huge sum of money "moved", causing financial instability threatening near total collapse. I never heard who "moved" what, and no one held a fireside chat explaining the tumble. Very unseemly that.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Matthew Sablan@11:33AM Wrong! McCain immediately suspended his campaign and announced that he was returning to DC to "do the job that he was elected to do", and he invited Obama to join him in addressing the issue that everyone was calling the greatest economic disaster since the crash of'29. The press immediately declared that McCain was panicking, while Obama was showing a reassuring cool by going to his rallies and being the subject of adoration while the economy tanked. Obama pitched in by criticizing McCain, and saying that he could do two things at once. After a couple of days, Obama started looking like the feckless asshole he is, kissing babies in Iowa while McCain was in Washington tackling the disaster. At that point, Obama joined McCain in DC, and the press praised him to the skies for coming around to what they had been impaling the other guy for, and continued to denigrate McCain as having panicked.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Certainly, McCain wasn't any sort of liberal on immigration.

Right. When cornered in funding for the Wall in 2008, he literally gritted his teeth and said, “I’ll build your damned wall.” He was pandering in his typically prickly and disingenuous way. He didn’t wanna build a wall. He was a squish on immigration.

walter said...

"In the context of proposed immigration reform, the Gang of Eight consists of the following four Democratic and four Republican senators:[4]

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-CO
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-AZ
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Sen. John McCain, R-AZ
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY[5]"

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Maybee@12:14PM. Absolutely correct. McCain did the right thing and was murdered for it, Obama acted like the lightweight dipshit that he is, and the press portrayed him as "Presidential".

Qwinn said...

Yeah, I had to scroll up to see who could've claimed with a straight face that McCain wasn't any kind of a liberal on immigration. Who among us could lie so brazenly? Inga? Freder maybe? Who the hell would even try to pass off such an insane avalanche of bullshit and expect not to get called out on it?

The answer did not surprise at all.

LA_Bob said...

"...More disturbingly, McCain’s strategy is bringing out the dark underbelly of American politics — a strain of hate-filled nativism and racism that always lurks just below the surface of parts of the American political psyche...."

In 2008, Slate's Jacob Weisburg more or less said an Obama defeat would have to be blamed on racism.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2008/08/if_obama_loses.html

Couldn't possibly be that you just didn't like Obama's politics, right? I've just detested Weisburg ever since.

Michael K said...

It's now been confirmed that Sarah Palin was not invited to the McCain funeral and told to stay away.

What a class act those people are,

Breitbart News has independently confirmed an earlier report in People magazine, which reported that Palin was not sent an invitation, and was told through intermediaries to stay away from the ceremony.

McCain fundraiser Carla Eudy confirmed to People that Palin had not been invited — possibly, People speculated, at the behest of the McCain family.


narciso said...

well she went beyond the call of duty, the enquirer also savaged her son, who fought in Nineveh and later helmand province, perkins and coie, took their pound of flesh, you shunned her, you got trump in spades,

Michael K said...

Maybe Ducey could appoint her. She lives half the year in Phoenix.

Wouldn't that cast the cat amongst the pigeons !

buwaya said...

"Sarah Palin was not invited to the McCain funeral and told to stay away."

And yet she never criticized him, endorsed him, and campaigned for him.
The problem is that she and her people, the true American volk (broadly speaking) have cooties.

This is a fundamental class-conflict, an inherent tribal odium, quite separate and prior to politics.

buwaya said...

"Maybe Ducey could appoint her. "

That would be very popular among the volk.
The MSM would go wild.
They would forget Trump for a week, maybe.

Unknown said...

McCain as a politician acted as if the years he spent in VietCong custody were effective.

Michael K said...

He was a squish on immigration.

It was more than a "squish." He had a Mexican national as his staffer in immigration,.

rcocean said...

"confirmed to People that Palin had not been invited — possibly, People speculated, at the behest of the McCain family."

I don't understand the "possibly". The McCain family is in charge of the funeral. And if they can invite or un-invite anyone they wish (assuming they aren't an obvious security threat!)

I suppose all the McCainiacs will try to downplay this, or make it look like Palin brought it on herself. Which is BS.

I also noticed that there's not one Conservative Republican at the National Cathedral event -as speaker or Pall bearer. The closest we get is Miss Lindsey, and who the hell can figure out what he is.

rcocean said...

Republican Speakers and Pall Bearers -

Jeff Flake (RINO), Bloomberg (Liberal), Miss Lindsey, William Cohen (Liberal served under Clinton), Bush II, Tom Ridge (Never Trumper) , Phil Gramm. Kelly Ayotte (Never Trumper)

rcocean said...

BTW, Disgraced, unemployed former CBS hack Dan Rather has blasted "openly racists comments" from public officials.

The per "the Hill" - I only noticed because I'd been reading about the McCain funeral.

Everyone who reads the "The Hill" must be over 60. Nobody else remembers him or cares.

Ray - SoCal said...

I was surprised the Palin is not being invited to McCain's funeral.

She has been very positive /classy about him, and even helped him get re-elected.

I don't think it's the McCain family that made the decision, but Senator McCain that did, just as he made sure Trump was not invited.

Any more shoes left to drop?

Marcus said...

When I read the reports of Palin being "uninvited" or told to stay away from the funeral, it just reinforced my belief that I am glad he is gone.

Classless piece of shit. Even in death, he couldn't do the right thing.

Big Mike said...

Agree with Marcus.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"It's now been confirmed that Sarah Palin was not invited to the McCain funeral and told to stay away."

Fuck him, that cunt wife of his, and that cunt daughter. If the Arizona governor appoints either of them to the Senate people should march on the governors mansion with pitchforks.

Michael K said...

I was suggesting that Ducey appoint Phoenix resident Sarah Palin to the Senate seat.

If she was good enough for McCain in 2008, she's good enough for us.

narciso said...

It's a nice gesture, Michael, but she sold the house down there,

Qwinn said...

She lived there for some time. She's got a hundred more times the credibility to be an AZ Senator than Hillary had to be a NY one.

Yeah, I know, rules are for the little people.

Sam L. said...

Ah, the PuffHo. OY!! I don't think Trup's the legacy of McCain. He's the legacy of those trash-talking Dems, and he can out-trash-talk any 5000 Dems you can name.

Paco Wové said...

"It's amazing how much can be stuffed down the memory hole in the service of partisanship."


And also when you have a partisan axe to grind.

narciso said...

This pertains to last night's thread:



https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/pakistans-new-pm-going-to-un-to-stop-all-muhammad-cartoons-and-geert-wilders-upcoming-contest

Koot Katmandu said...

I would say it is pretty dark to tell your presidential running mate they are not welcome at the funeral. He also let it be known that PDT is not welcome. Look who is doing the eulogy Obama and Bush. Pretty much tells you McCain was a huge part of the demise of the working class in america. He played a major role in mess PDT is trying to clean up. PDT may not be a shining example of manhood and role model. However, I will take him over 10 McCain's

I really think McCain's shunning of PDT and Palin will back fire and only increase their popularity with the people who elected PDT and those voters who like the changes they see happening.

Robert Cook said...

"If she was good enough for McCain in 2008, she's good enough for us."

That's a pretty low standard.

ManleyPointer said...

Dole is the kind of "Greatest Generation" politician that Brokaw gushes about. He took a few mild shots at Clinton's character. Even Clinton supporters concede he absolutely deserved that.

Seriously, overwhelming ambition? from Bob Dole?

ManleyPointer said...

The the man sold boner pills, for crying out loud. That's how inoffensive & mild he was.