Monday, October 20, 2008

Fair is fair from the other side . . .

Yeah. It's too easy to forget how all the conservative, "religious right" leaders, just a few months ago, wanted nothing to do with McCain.

It was a few years ago, actually, that McCain first crossed my radar. Remember the McCain-Feingold bill? But that was merely the most obvious aspect of McCain's unsuitability.

James Dobson of Focus on the Family said, in a January 2007 interview, he "couldn't support [McCain] 'under any circumstances'" . . . not only because of McCain-Feingold, but because of McCain's lack of support for male-female marriage, and because of his support for legislation that would create "obstacles for ministries such as Focus to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation."

And then, as Warren Mass and William F. Jasper note in a recent article,
Right up to the Republican convention in St. Paul in September, some of the most visible and vocal conservative leaders were still tepid at best toward McCain, or were still vowing to sit out the election in protest. McCain's long record of crossing the aisle to cosponsor big-government, liberal-left legislation with Democrats like Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and Russ Feingold had understandably alienated him from most of the party faithful. His antagonism toward the religious right had not helped either. His reference during his 2000 presidential run to the Rev. Jerry Falwell and other social conservatives as "agents of intolerance" played well with the liberal media, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), and the homosexual set at the Log Cabin Club, but cost him dearly among mainstream voters, as he later admitted.

Conservative pundits and commentators kept the airwaves and the blogosphere roiling with anti-McCain invective. "McCain will kill conservatism as a dominant force in the Republican Party," Rush Limbaugh declared on his radio show on January 11 of this year, during one of his many rants against the Arizona senator.

"If he's our candidate, then Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," threatened Ann Coulter on Fox's Hannity and Colmes. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism," Coulter opined. "John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is — he is bad for the country," she said.

Sean Hannity, an early booster of Rudi Giuliani, repeatedly blistered McCain on his radio and TV programs as beyond the pale. "There is clearly an effort [by the media] underway, I think, to convince us, the voters, to go for either, say John McCain or Mike Huckabee," Hannity declared in January. "If you ask me who are the two more liberal candidates in the Republican primary, I would say, it's John McCain and Mike Huckabee."

"McCain is not only not conservative enough; he also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back — not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them," wrote David Limbaugh, Rush's younger brother and a columnist for and "McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media," said David Limbaugh.
But, as Mass and Jasper note, "What a difference a few weeks can make! In the blink of an eye, politically speaking, Sen. John McCain has gone from pariah to darling among much of the indispensable conservative base of the Republican Party."

Now, after having wavered for the last week or so as a result of Mike Rosen's column, I think I've decided I'm not going to "buy" McCain's--or the Republican Party's--supposed "conversion" to conservatism. I'm going to vote for a third party candidate who better expresses my interests and concerns.

Yes, despite the pro-life issue that clearly differentiates the two major-party candidates, and the issue that has gotten me to "buy" the "promise" of the Republican Party for too many years in the past.

Clearly, these guys (and gals) are no friends of integrity. Not "even" Palin. . . . Or, perhaps I should say, most especially not Palin.

Since, as I am waking up to realize, my vote won't change much of anything whether a Republican or a Democrat is in office, or whether the Republicans or the Democrats dominate Congress, I would like to "vote my conscience" in hopes that, over time, more people will become fed up with the "unlimited government" Republicrats who completely dominate national politics . . . and maybe a third party really will become viable as a force on the national stage.

So let me analyze Palin and McCain from the "other" side. . . .

No. I will let "the other side" do it for themselves.

I'm afraid WWSPD--What Would Sarah Palin Do? cuts a bit too close for my comfort due to the fact that I, myself, have communicated about the questions concerning Obama's legitimacy as a presidential candidate. And so those questions are turned, a bit, on their head: "Jesus 'Hussein' Christ? Without an original birth certificate, we'll never know!"

The author of the article writes:
I’ve reluctantly come around to the view of Sarah Palin, John McCain, and other luminaries that we must judge our fellow citizens by their associations - and we must assume that you at least partially endorse the views of anyone you pal around with. Hence - Barack Obama pals around with a terrorist - by which I mean he served on the board of a charitable foundation with this guy, along with a bunch of conservative Republicans. Therefore, Barack Obama does not see America as you see America and as I see America.

Clear. Logical.

So, I decided to see who else I could disregard because of their poor judgment and unsavory associations. Now - I first thought about Sarah Palin herself, whose husband is a member of a political party whose founder recently declared: “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government” among other nice tidbits; worse, Palin herself has spoken at this party’s convention and was at one point thought to be a member by their spokesperson - before the McCain campaign corrected her. I mean, in this case, Palin isn’t just palling around with this group - she’s associating herself with their politics by speaking at their convention - and her husband believed in the party enough to join! But then I realized that I know Sarah Palin - and Sarah Palin wouldn’t endorse those views. Obama on the other hand. . . .

And then of course, I started thinking about John McCain and the mafia connections behind his wife’s vast fortune and his requests that leniency be given to terrorists who killed many Americans and attacked Madison Square Garden, JFK Airport, and Lincoln Center among other targets. But I know John McCain - and I know he loves America - so I put these unsavory associations out of my mind.

Then of course, I came across this other guy - a peacenik, with long hippie-like hair, preaching namby-pamby, weak-kneed, anti-American values like forgiving enemies and avoiding violence and caring for the poor and telling people they should pay their taxes - basically a filthy liberal. He seems to have influenced a lot of people - so I wanted to point out that not only was this guy born in what was called in his day, “Palestine” - making him likely an Arab.

This guy apparently was well known for palling around with tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers, and political radicals [Zealots advocated the overthrow of the Roman government]. He even attacked the religious authorities saying that the tax collectors and prostitutes were better than them. The guy also seethes with class resentment and seems to be trying to wage class warfare.

Clearly, the guy is a dangerous liberal with worrying bloodlines who’s going to wage class war on the rich. That’s not what this Christian nation needs. Enough of this WWJD. It’s time for WWSPD!
Except . . . I don't know! What would Sarah Palin do if she became president . . . or, even, vice president?

I don't think I have any idea! Do you?

Y'know something? In the end, I don't think she really has any idea, either! She has no well-thought-out political philosophy . . . any more than do just about any of the other major party candidates for public office. With just a few exceptions. Ron Paul comes to mind. . . .

I mean, what do you get from Palin's answers to these direct and, one would hope, relatively simple questions?


Or, even, Couric's question about how she helped to develop her worldview: "In terms of establishing your worldview . . . what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for [the vice presidential nomination] to stay informed and understand the world?"

I have to confess, these interviews, for me, make the following ad rather pointed. (Now that you've watched Cafferty's clip and commentary, you can skip the central portion of the ad and merely watch and listen to the beginning and the end):

And the entire fiasco makes the mocking videos like the following one rather sadly humorous as well:

blog comments powered by Disqus