American Conservatism's Assisted Suicide

[ZoSo]

A letter posted on Andrew Sullivans blog today:


I had been reluctant to acknowledge how flawed and dead the conservative movement has become; that's over now. No more excuses, no more clinging to old visions of rational discourse and principled debate. I really have witnessed the death of conservatism and its replacement by a kind of toxic babbitry which would be merely laughable or cringeworthy if it were not also so extraordinarily dangerous.

This election year has been a series of revelations and disillusionments--the crudely ugly tactics of Limbaugh and Hannity (and--worse--their embrace by Buckley's heirs at National Review), the thinly-veiled racism and nativism of the campaign against Obama, the transparently cruel and God-hating ideology of movement Christians; but--even though dismayed by McCain's bizarre campaign--I had retained some illusions as recently as this morning. I believed McCain to be at least a patriot, sincerely concerned with issues of national security.

His nomination of Sarah Palin ended that illusion, too.
No remotely serious politician--no honest patriot--would think of placing this individual a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, however admirable she may be, however lively her biography.

Moreover, the elation on the right regarding Palin's nomination made clear to me that none of them has ever been remotely serious about national security, either. On the contrary, as the left has insisted for years, for them it really has all been about political advantage, noise and bluster and ugliness with no core of principle, no genuine strategic commitment.

The very same people who, only yesterday, insisted that Obama's resume was too dangerously thin to entrust him with the oversight of our national security, today are celebrating Palin's accession as a triumph for conservatism (evidently this is because she is hostile to both abortion and polar bears). Their hypocrisy is staggering--they truly do believe in nothing but their own entitlement to power by any means.

And I'm very much afraid I must conclude this is as true of McCain as it is of his ghastly cheerleaders, the Limbaughs and the Hannitys. Nothing else could explain the elevation of a woman so singularly unqualified in every aspect save gender.

[sirs]

LOL.....well that's 1 pretty twisted opinion.  But hey, that's largely what the 1st amendment is all about, right?  The right to say and repeat whatever stupidity one wants to, aimed any given political figure or party.  Hell, if this letter had been posted in Iraq, under Saddam's regime, and aimed at Saddam, the government would have him and his family rounded up and shot....if not worse.  God Bless America.......& leftist idiocy     

[Michael Tee]

<<toxic babbitry >>

beautiful

The letter was dead-on.  McCain simply can't have it both ways.  If Obama's "inexperience" renders him unfit to be C-in-C and places the country in danger, there is NO WAY this babe is any better qualified in that regard. No fucking way.

The conclusions are obvious:  either McCain is

1.  a senile fool given to snap judgments and/or captivated by a pretty face (he narrowly escaped such conclusions with Vicki Iseman, he might not be so lucky this time); or

2.  a fucking hypocrite, voicing high concerns and alarms regarding Obama's "inexperience" and then jettisoning all such concerns when the potential C-in-C is equally inexperienced but from his own Party; or

3. a  a fucking racist, willing to entrust to a white woman what he would not entrust to a black man; or

4.  any two or all three of the above.

This is going to send the McCain candidacy down in flames.  I don't see how he can survive this gaffe.  There is no way out.  And as an added bonus, you can bet your ass that Miss Almost Alaska is going to fuck up majorly and soon on this campaign.  How do I know that?  I am an excellent judge of human nature.

[sirs]

Speaking of twisted opinions           

[Plane]

<<toxic babbitry >>

beautiful

The letter was dead-on.  McCain simply can't have it both ways.  If Obama's "inexperience" renders him unfit to be C-in-C and places the country in danger, there is NO WAY this babe is any better qualified in that regard. No fucking way.

Oh ye of little imagination.

Is it really inappropriate for the understudy to be less experienced than the main actor?

Is the on the job training needed by one of both teams better to be needed by the boss or the spare?

Obama practily admitted his need for experience in his selection of a very wonky wonk.

But why would Senator McCain need an establishment man? He has been wrestleing with the establishment his whole life .

[BT]

It really is amazing that these folks don't see by bashing Palin they are bashing Obama. And Obama if elected is in charge, not waiting in the wings for something to happen.


Is that a nuance they don't see?

[ZoSo]

It really is amazing that these folks don't see by bashing Palin they are bashing Obama.



So now any criticism of Palin's selection will be considered a "bashing' ?

[ZoSo]

Obama practily admitted his need for experience in his selection of a very wonky wonk.


Bush did that by selecting Cheney. We all know how that turned out.

Obama chose Biden to demonstrate to doubters that he's a serious man.

McCain's choice of Palin says his personal ambition to be elected to the office he feels destined to hold trumps his countries national security. So much for "country first".

To McCain, Sarah is the default vagina, a pretty tool used tp gain the support of Evanglicals and a handfull of Hillary supporters that never took the time to learn what she stands for.


How long do you suppose it will it take the McCain handlers to program Sarah effectively enough to talk to people like Chris Wallace or Tom Brokaw?

[Michael Tee]

<<It really is amazing that these folks don't see by bashing Palin they are bashing Obama. And Obama if elected is in charge, not waiting in the wings for something to happen.

<<Is that a nuance they don't see?>>
================================================

No, what YOU don't see is that by endorsing Palin, McCain has also endorsed Obama.  If SHE'S good enough to step in tomorrow (and he MUST say that she is, otherwise he's telling America, "I've gambled your security, which I claim is so vital, on my not dying before Palin gets up to speed") then so is Obama.

What Palin's nomination really says is that McCain is a fucking hypocrite, and his claim that one needs some undefined "experience" to be the civilian C-in-C of the armed forces is largely a crock.  The Constitution DOES NOT REQUIRE that the C-in-C have military or any other kind of "experience," ONLY that he or she be American-born and I believe be of a certain age, 35? or over.  McCain himself demonstrates the relative insignificance of the "experience" requirement by picking Palin.

To claim that Palin has any significant edge over Obama in being experienced enough to be C - in - C is absolutely ludicrous.  The title is symbolic of civilian control and oversight of the military, was never meant to imply that the President had to be a military man able to take operational control of the armed forces at the drop of  a hat, otherwise the Constitution would have required that the President BE an officer with a specified minimum rank and minimum number of years of service, and in part was meant to prevent a coup-d'etat by some charismatic and politically ambitious general.  Douglas MacArthur, for example, although I certainly don't mean to imply that MacArthur ever considered the option.  (See the film Seven Days in May for a great fictional depiction of a MacArthur-like figure who DID consider the option.)

What really happened here was that McCain arbitrarily claimed some phony, irrelevant distinction between himself and Obama (some undefined "experience" qualifying one to be capable of assuming the role of Commander in Chief on day one) before he selected his own running mate, which was a stupid enough thing to do, and he then compounded his error by making a selection in complete disregard of the phony distinction he had just constructed.  Anyone who can't, with a little help from Obama, Biden and their speech writers, see what a phony, lying hypocrite McCain must be, is willfully blind.

The beauty part of it is, by vallidating Obama as C-in-C, the senile old fart has instantly trivialized his own strongest selling point, his "service" to the nation in committing its biggest atrocities and fighting its biggest war of unprovoked aggression, his long captivity, essentially because of his war crimes, and his alleged "torture" at the hands of the Vietnamese, all of which duly impressed the redneck crypto-fascist morons whose votes he depends on. 

Adios, wrinkly old guy with multi-millionaire beer heiress second wife.

[BT]

So now any criticism of Palin's selection will be considered a "bashing' ?

Not only that but it is obviously misogynistic.

How much experience did Edwards have when Kerry picked him? Less than or equal to Palin, that is for sure. So anyone who is bashing the Palin pick from the dem side is in the words of that senile old commie fart Mikey a huge fucking hypocrite themselves. Especially when taken in the context that 18 million primary voters agreed with Hillary that Obama would not be ready on day one.

Which reminds me, what is it with you lib's and your short term stoner memory. McCain is the evil one when questioning Obama's experience when that was Hillary's theme song and  Pa Bush was the evil one for bashing Dukakis about Horton, when that was Gore's theme.


Back to you.

[Michael Tee]

<<How much experience did Edwards have when Kerry picked him? >>

Uh, what's that got to do with anything?  Is Kerry running in this election?  Is Edwards?  I thought the candidates were McCain and Obama.

The Republican who IS running (a) made a big deal of his opponent's "inexperience" and then (b) picked someone to replace him instantly if need be, who was of no visibly greater "experience" than the "inexperienced" opponent whose "inexperience" he had constantly been denouncing. 

What is so hard to understand about that?  It's as if he had been denouncing Obama for being blind and then picked a blind woman as his own VP.  Kinda hypocritical, no?  Almost as if being blind were really no big deal in the first place, even though he said it was.

<<Less than or equal to Palin, that is for sure. So anyone who is bashing the Palin pick from the dem side is in the words of that senile old commie fart Mikey a huge fucking hypocrite themselves. >>

Except that they're not bashing Palin for being inexperienced, they're bashing senile old fascist war criminal McCain for hypocrisy.  Get it?  It's not really all that hard to comprehend, is it?

<<Especially when taken in the context that 18 million primary voters agreed with Hillary that Obama would not be ready on day one.>>

I get it.  Hillary always speaks the truth, so if McCain says what she said, then it can't be a lie.  Brilliant.  Hilarious.  And BTW, unless you just read 18 million primary voters' minds, you don't really know what any of them thought about the specific charge of "inexperience" or indeed what factors influenced them to vote as they did.  I dunno, BT, your reasoning powers seem to be deteriorating as we speak.  Maybe you should be a little more cautious in throwing around such terms as "senile," "old" and "fart."  Never know what can come back in your face when there's a breeze.

<<McCain is the evil one when questioning Obama's experience when that was Hillary's theme song >>

Let's keep it honest at least.  McCain is the evil one for questioning Obama's experience and then himself picking someone at an equal level of experience.

<<and  Pa Bush was the evil one for bashing Dukakis about Horton, when that was Gore's theme.>>

I wouldn't even want to go there.  GORE made up Willie Horton ads?  Anyway, it is TOTALLY irrelevant to this particular election.  Throws no light at all on whether or not MCCAIN is hypocritical, which seems to be a much more relevant toic.

[ZoSo]

Not only that but it is obviously misogynistic.


I agree, to "bash" Palin would be misongynistic.

She seems like a lovely woman. She must be for McCain to refer to her as his "partner & soul mate" after meeting her once.

I don't consider questioning her qualifications to be anymore a  "bashing" than questioning Obamas qualifications.

I also don't share your interest in Edwards, Dukakis, Papa Bush OR   Liberal dope smokers but I do  enjoy reading Mikeys postings....soooo



Back to you.

[Plane]

Inexperience isn't a bad thing in a Vice President , the experience of being the vice president includes remaining well breifed all the time and being in the room when the decisions are being made.

It just includes no real power.

So is it more appropriate to place a vice president in an on the job training program , or a president|?

[Plane]

<<It really is amazing that these folks don't see by bashing Palin they are bashing Obama. And Obama if elected is in charge, not waiting in the wings for something to happen.

<<Is that a nuance they don't see?>>
================================================

No, what YOU don't see is that by endorsing Palin, McCain has also endorsed Obama.  If SHE'S good enough to step in tomorrow (and he MUST say that she is, otherwise he's telling America, "I've gambled your security, which I claim is so vital, on my not dying before Palin gets up to speed") then so is Obama.

What Palin's nomination really says is that McCain is a fucking hypocrite, and his claim that one needs some undefined "experience" to be the civilian C-in-C of the armed forces is largely a crock.  The Constitution DOES NOT REQUIRE that the C-in-C have military or any other kind of "experience," ONLY that he or she be American-born and I believe be of a certain age, 35? or over.  McCain himself demonstrates the relative insignificance of the "experience" requirement by picking Palin.

To claim that Palin has any significant edge over Obama in being experienced enough to be C - in - C is absolutely ludicrous.  The title is symbolic of civilian control and oversight of the military, was never meant to imply that the President had to be a military man able to take operational control of the armed forces at the drop of  a hat, otherwise the Constitution would have required that the President BE an officer with a specified minimum rank and minimum number of years of service, and in part was meant to prevent a coup-d'etat by some charismatic and politically ambitious general.  Douglas MacArthur, for example, although I certainly don't mean to imply that MacArthur ever considered the option.  (See the film Seven Days in May for a great fictional depiction of a MacArthur-like figure who DID consider the option.)

What really happened here was that McCain arbitrarily claimed some phony, irrelevant distinction between himself and Obama (some undefined "experience" qualifying one to be capable of assuming the role of Commander in Chief on day one) before he selected his own running mate, which was a stupid enough thing to do, and he then compounded his error by making a selection in complete disregard of the phony distinction he had just constructed.  Anyone who can't, with a little help from Obama, Biden and their speech writers, see what a phony, lying hypocrite McCain must be, is willfully blind.

The beauty part of it is, by vallidating Obama as C-in-C, the senile old fart has instantly trivialized his own strongest selling point, his "service" to the nation in committing its biggest atrocities and fighting its biggest war of unprovoked aggression, his long captivity, essentially because of his war crimes, and his alleged "torture" at the hands of the Vietnamese, all of which duly impressed the redneck crypto-fascist morons whose votes he depends on. 

Adios, wrinkly old guy with multi-millionaire beer heiress second wife.

What the elder McCain has in common withPalin that really makes them kindred is the effort against the entrenched intrests in their own party .


A lack of military experience is a serious lack for someone who must make decisions that use the lives of servicemen as policy tools, the American people sometimes are willing to put up with a disadvantage like that , but sometimes war seems likely.

[Kramer]

A letter posted on Andrew Sullivans blog today:


I had been reluctant to acknowledge how flawed and dead the conservative movement has become; that's over now. No more excuses, no more clinging to old visions of rational discourse and principled debate. I really have witnessed the death of conservatism and its replacement by a kind of toxic babbitry which would be merely laughable or cringeworthy if it were not also so extraordinarily dangerous.

This election year has been a series of revelations and disillusionments--the crudely ugly tactics of Limbaugh and Hannity (and--worse--their embrace by Buckley's heirs at National Review), the thinly-veiled racism and nativism of the campaign against Obama, the transparently cruel and God-hating ideology of movement Christians; but--even though dismayed by McCain's bizarre campaign--I had retained some illusions as recently as this morning. I believed McCain to be at least a patriot, sincerely concerned with issues of national security.

His nomination of Sarah Palin ended that illusion, too.
No remotely serious politician--no honest patriot--would think of placing this individual a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, however admirable she may be, however lively her biography.

Moreover, the elation on the right regarding Palin's nomination made clear to me that none of them has ever been remotely serious about national security, either. On the contrary, as the left has insisted for years, for them it really has all been about political advantage, noise and bluster and ugliness with no core of principle, no genuine strategic commitment.

The very same people who, only yesterday, insisted that Obama's resume was too dangerously thin to entrust him with the oversight of our national security, today are celebrating Palin's accession as a triumph for conservatism (evidently this is because she is hostile to both abortion and polar bears). Their hypocrisy is staggering--they truly do believe in nothing but their own entitlement to power by any means.

And I'm very much afraid I must conclude this is as true of McCain as it is of his ghastly cheerleaders, the Limbaughs and the Hannitys. Nothing else could explain the elevation of a woman so singularly unqualified in every aspect save gender.

SO WHAT - vote for the person you want to run the country. If you want Obama then vote for him if you want McCain then vote for him. Conservatives aren't going anywhere. They will vote for the best choice for them. This person that wrote this is just another run of the mill sniveling sack of shit.