George Will questions McCain's ability to be president.

Socrtease

Verified User
Lets see how you conservatives spin this?

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/646189.html


McCain Loses His Head

By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A21

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."

-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."

To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."

Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.

In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)

By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?

On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
 
what is there to spin?
I figured some (not you in particular) would try to tell me how George Will has lost his way, how is really isn't a conservative any more. Will is the conservative's conservative. This is as close as you can come to him endorsing NOT voting for McCain.
 
I figured some (not you in particular) would try to tell me how George Will has lost his way, how is really isn't a conservative any more. Will is the conservative's conservative. This is as close as you can come to him endorsing NOT voting for McCain.

In the heat of an election I think you see a lot more partisanship come out but my guess is many conservatives would not say Will is completely wrong. I have a lot of questions about McCain and while I'll still vote for him (i'm in California so it's essentially irrelevent) I can't say I have very high hopes (I had high hopes for Bush in 2000, I'll never do that for another politician again).
 
26 views and I keep waiting for Lil Nut, who just spoke so highly of Will, to come to this thread and refute him.
 
Conservatives have never really liked McCain. So why should they "throw Will under a bus" for criticizing McCain.

Most conservative will hold their noses and vote for McCain because they would rather have a moderately liberal republican than a left wing democrat. Issues that Obama dismisses as "clinging" due to frustration over the economy are, in fact, central to modern conservatism, whether the economy is good or bad. And they see Obama as a serious threat to those issues, especially when it comes to SCOTUS appointments. So they'll support McCain at the voting booth.

But do not mistake that for actual support of McCain. Even though they'll be voting for him, few conservatives will object to a fellow conservative dissing McCain.
 
Now, PARTISAN REPUBLICANS are a different kettle. They'll kiss the rosy sphincter of anyone with "R" behind their name.
 
No different than Partisan Democrats.
Absolutely. Partisans of both parties have learned to like the taste of shit, since they are willing to eat so much of it.

I was a registered democrat until 4 years ago. But since I don't like the taste of shit, I was told to pack my bags. Been registered independent since.
 
26 views and I keep waiting for Lil Nut, who just spoke so highly of Will, to come to this thread and refute him.
I dunno where GL is from, but basically this thread has been replied to by conservatives from WA, CA and CO. The dumb ones tend to be Southern - a region still sufforing from a history of liberal populism and ignorance. I refuse to accept any of them as conservatives, although Dixie will tell you I am some kind of history revisionist leftist...
 
I dunno where GL is from, but basically this thread has been replied to by conservatives from WA, CA and CO. The dumb ones tend to be Southern - a region still sufforing from a history of liberal populism and ignorance. I refuse to accept any of them as conservatives, although Dixie will tell you I am some kind of history revisionist leftist...

Only an idiot like you would think it's a liberal idea to wage wars and ban gay marriage. That's squarely in the conservative field.

Besides, of course, the neo-liberal policy all the southern senators support.
 
Only an idiot like you would think it's a liberal idea to wage wars and ban gay marriage. That's squarely in the conservative field.

Besides, of course, the neo-liberal policy all the southern senators support.
There is a difference between the New Left and liberal populism, genius. I'm not sure which is more retarded, but liberal populism has been around a lot longer.
 
There is a difference between the New Left and liberal populism, genius. I'm not sure which is more retarded, but liberal populism has been around a lot longer.

You aren't even making sense.

Are you suggesting I merge classical liberalism (which is elitist) and populism? That doesn't make sense.

450px-Naomi_Wolf_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg
 
You aren't even making sense.

Are you suggesting I merge classical liberalism (which is elitist) and populism? That doesn't make sense.

450px-Naomi_Wolf_at_the_Brooklyn_Book_Festival.jpg

Classical liberalism was in no way elitist. Jefferson & Jackson were classical liberals and they believed in "the people." Adams and Hamilton were conservatives and very elitist. During the 20th Century, liberal populism died off in the Democratic Party and yielded to ordo liberalism (elitist), and then liberalism pretty well died off entirely and the New Leftists emerged. At the same time, the paleoconservatism of the GOP began to die off and populism began to take over.
 
Classical liberalism was in no way elitist. Jefferson & Jackson were classical liberals and they believed in "the people." Adams and Hamilton were conservatives and very elitist. During the 20th Century, liberal populism died off in the Democratic Party and yielded to ordo liberalism (elitist), and then liberalism pretty well died off entirely and the New Leftists emerged. At the same time, the paleoconservatism of the GOP began to die off and populism began to take over.

Actually, many a liberal party died off because they passed universal suffrage and then kept on talking about elitist free trade and such that appealed to their old upper class base, and they were basically cannibalized by socialists. The upper class then just went wholly over to the conservative party, or tried to make little elitist sections in the socialist party where they could.
 
Actually, many a liberal party died off because they passed universal suffrage and then kept on talking about elitist free trade and such that appealed to their old upper class base, and they were basically cannibalized by socialists. The upper class then just went wholly over to the conservative party, or tried to make little elitist sections in the socialist party where they could.

Yeah, I wish it was still that way and the GOP was run by New England and Ohio conservative upper-class elitists. The South could still be the only region voting Dim, and all would be well. I think that the conflict between the moderates and the stalwarts went on too long, and by the time Goldwater ran, the conservative wing was too badly damaged. 1952 would have been ideal for Taft to have won out - the stalwarts would have maintained their isolationism and anti-war streak, and they would have held control over those traditionally GOP regions.
 
Yeah, I wish it was still that way and the GOP was run by New England and Ohio conservative upper-class elitists. The South could still be the only region voting Dim, and all would be well. I think that the conflict between the moderates and the stalwarts went on too long, and by the time Goldwater ran, the conservative wing was too badly damaged. 1952 would have been ideal for Taft to have won out - the stalwarts would have maintained their isolationism and anti-war streak, and they would have held control over those traditionally GOP regions.

You're insane if you think that the Republicans could have stopped the northern - or southern - realignment. The Republicans just didn't mesh with the at all anymore. The south just finally provided an ample home for the truth of conservative philosophy.
 
Here--watch me spin it back to reality for you.

McCain and Palin have actually done something in their political careers. McCain shot down fighter planes to defend us, while obama was shooting staples in a telephone poll.

The fact is obama has not done a thing--ever. Go take a trip to the South side of Chicago, where he helped organize the poor community there with help from Rizo. Rizo is in prision, and the homes are borded up.

Now--if we want to be entertained by spin--Name one thing obama has done, to make him qualified to be president? Just one!
 
Here--watch me spin it back to reality for you.

McCain and Palin have actually done something in their political careers. McCain shot down fighter planes to defend us, while obama was shooting staples in a telephone poll.

The fact is obama has not done a thing--ever. Go take a trip to the South side of Chicago, where he helped organize the poor community there with help from Rizo. Rizo is in prision, and the homes are borded up.

Now--if we want to be entertained by spin--Name one thing obama has done, to make him qualified to be president? Just one!

McCain shot down fighters to defend us??

Who was attacking us? North Vietnam? I am not putting down his military service by any means. But when you sling out bullshit about him "defending us", you need to show who was attacking us.

Vietnam was a clusterfuck from day one. We had no business there. We didn't fight like we wanted to win. And there was no purpose to the entire fiasco.
 
Back
Top