Saturday, February 02, 2008
Has McCain Derangement Syndrome peaked?
Ann Coulter, in apparently endorsing Hillary Clinton over John McCain ("apparently" because one cannot always exactly measure the correlation between Ann's words and her actual opinions), seems to have called a top in "McCain Derangement Syndrome." MDS, for those of you who are not familiar, is the hatred of John McCain to the point of irrationality, up to and including political self-immolation if that is what it takes to keep him out of the White House.
In the past few days, various leading conservative pundits and bloggers have called for a big cleansing breath, including Jonah Goldberg, Roger Simon, and, most hilariously, Bill Whittle and Rachel Lucas:
Okay fine. Not your ideal Republican, despite his pro-war, pro-killin’-terrorists record. But. But. BUT.
Just what in the hell kind of crack are Ann Coulter and lots of other conservatives (even the normally brilliant Michelle Malkin) smoking when they say they won’t vote for him if he’s the Republican nominee? Coulter actually said last night on Hannity and Colmes that she would campaign for Hillary instead. Granted, she probably didn’t mean that, but good god damn!
I’ve read several dozen blogs yesterday and this morning, and there are even comments on my own blog, saying that if McCain is the candidate, they won’t vote at all. ARE YOU PEOPLE SERIOUS?
Let me get this straight: you’d rather have Hillary Clinton, a bona fide socialist, liar, all-around bad person, as president. You’d rather have Obama, the senator with the most liberal voting record, as president.
Really? I throw up my hands in disgust. I truly do.
Read the whole thing. Unless, of course, you object to bad words or the demonization of our enemies.
As an aside, this is not -- necessarily -- a harbinger of a TigerHawk endorsement of McCain. I am going to devote a little time this weekend to thinking through the McCain/Romney choice, about which I am genuinely torn, and will offer my pre-Super Tuesday endorsement in time for you to mark your ballots accordingly (whether for or against my choice, depending on your reaction to my reasoning).
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
12 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Feb 02, 10:17:00 AM:
MCCAIN is going to make dole '96 look like good in comparison. mccain has all of dole's drawbacks, coupled with the fact that a huge number of people in the gop are extremely antagonistic towards mccain. give all the warnings you want, but human nature is what it is. the white glove set may get the nomination, but they are ultimately going to be the ones responsible for a hard left dem getting into the white house. hello 1976; sigh.
By 
GreenmanTim, at
Sat Feb 02, 10:28:00 AM:
Two bits from your left of center cousin:
It appears to me that character and consistency matter, perhaps to different degrees, no matter what side of the aisle you occupy. Voters use both metrics to predict how a candidate will behave if entrusted with high office, and to determine whether Presidential aspirants "understand people like me" and whether we "know where they stand".
There is a third metric, or rather suite of skills, that I value in a chief executive and these have to do with core political competencies. Relevant experiece, yes, but more than that the style of leadership, the ability to accomplish the key tasks at hand. Political effectiveness is never as inspiring or lofty as ideological purity or "damn the torpedos" adherance to a failed policy for the sake of consistency, but to me it is a critical consideration. I want a president who is effective over one who says the right things but fails to deliver.
By these measures, I rate McCain higher than Romney on character and core political competencies. Neither has been consistent in their voting records if defined by unwavering policy positions. But still, with McCain you know that he is true to core convictions even when these differ from party dogma, while Romney is an opportunist who alienates any who do not toe the line and will have very short coattails indeed.
Which candidate is more likely to add Republican seats in Congress in '08? Which is more likely to be effective as a minority party president? For examples of how Romney did in that role, see his single term as governor in Massachusetts.
By , at
Sat Feb 02, 10:30:00 AM:
I say amen. I always felt that one of the things that separated us from the 'left' was that, contrary to how we are potrayed in he MSM, we are actually more tolerant of disagreement in our party. Witness that thy threw Al Gore over the side in 2000 for not bein liberal enough. So many of my fellow conservatives want to back Romney as the 'conservative' choice, eh? A guy who said he was an indepedant during Reagan-Bush, ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in '94, was pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-gun control, instituted Clinton Care in MA, criticized the 2003 tax cuts, and said that the Immigration bill he now demonizes sounded 'reaonable'? All this before he 'saw the light', or the opinion polls. It is timeto face facts: John McCain is the most consistent, reliable conservative running, and the most prepared to lead our nation in war and peace.
By Andrew X, at
Sat Feb 02, 11:43:00 AM:
I was, and am, a Clinton dis-liker, not a Clinton LOATHER. I thought that Billy Jeff actually rolled his adversaries a lot just by driving them sheer bug-nuts. And many on the left were amused by that when he did it, with good reason.
Then I was highly amazed to watch those very amused lefties, who were so much smarter, more nuanced than us proles, and generally more open-minded than those caveman Clinton-haters, do the EXACT SAME THINGS while in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
As Admiral Kirk once said, "Khan.... I'm laughing at the 'superior' intellect."
Well, do Coulter and Co have any idea how much they sound like, for example, the lefties talking about Joe Lieberman during the Leiberman/Lamont race? Do they WANT to sound that way? Are they of course principled, whereas the Lamont Cossacks were arrogant Haters getting off on hate and cursing their enemy... a Democrat for criminy sakes! "It's a totally different thing!" Uh huh.
I am not a big fan of much of what McCain has supported over the past decade, but he is were he is because of the failures of conservatism to field a good candidate, Romney nonwithstanding. (If Romney prevails, he IS a good candidate, but we all see the current numbers) That's on conservatives themselves, not McCain.
I guess the point here is the absurd obliviousness on both sides of so many who act EXACTLY like the people they hate the most, and seem utterly uncapable of seeing it because they are lost in the throes of the almost religious exctasy of ideological purity.
If such people really will take their marbles and go home just because the sidewalk has a crack in it and is not "perfect", they will cede the field to those willing to stay and play the game.
Two words come to mind that I have directed to the left all too often of late: Selfish, and Childish.
If this is Ann and Co's response, those two words have to apply. I would have thought she is smart enough to see it for what it is. Apperently, I would be wrong.
By , at
Sat Feb 02, 12:16:00 PM:
The only difference I can see between a McCain, and Hillabama Presidency will be who gets the blame for it.
I'll be (for the first time in my life) voting for the Dem.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Sat Feb 02, 12:54:00 PM:
The only difference I can see between a McCain, and Hillabama Presidency will be who gets the blame for it.
You see no differences between the two on: taxes, spending, Iraq?
None?
We're not talking about the snail darter legislation either. These are pretty substantive policies.
By , at
Sat Feb 02, 01:20:00 PM:
"the white glove set may get the nomination, but they are ultimately going to be the ones responsible for a hard left dem getting into the white house."
Correct, it's on the guilty -those who actually belive there's enough there's enough liberal and far left votes to carry McCain to a crushing victory - that the blame falls in it's entirety. Not on the victims who denouce that false and very bizarre reasoning.
By Kinuachdrach, at
Sat Feb 02, 01:25:00 PM:
It is worth looking at the actual numbers of votes cast in Presidential elections, not just the media-beloved percentages.
Since Watergate, votes for the Democrat nominee have climbed steadily at about the rate of population growth. Votes for the Republican nominee have gone up and down like a yo-yo.
There are apparently millions of Americans who will never vote for the Democrat, who might vote for a Reagan, and who otherwise will not vote at all. Those "Contingent Voters" decide presidential elections.
If Republicans nominate someone who cannot win the support of the Contingent Voters, then the Democrat candidate wins. McCain is a lot closer to a Dole than a Reagan -- if nominated, McCain will lose for sure.
By , at
Sat Feb 02, 02:17:00 PM:
given that both mccain and hillary have no principles or ethics, why do some insist on lending creedence to what either says ? they are very similiar in temperment and personality, and both can be counted on to damage the country if elected.
it's like saying the rattlesnake is better than the cotton mouth. but if you want to live in a fantasy world for a little longer, go ahead.
ultimately, a vote for mccain *is* a vote for hillary (or obama)
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Feb 02, 02:18:00 PM:
My father and I were driving along Route 29 in Maryland yesterday and as a joke fiddled over to the Rush Limbaugh bleat-feast on an AM station (his car; I have XM). I swear a lady called in frantic about how much she hated McCain. She thought Romney was a tool and a faker, and wasn't a Jesus freak so she wasn't all that hot on Huckabee (plus she felt Huckabee was a closet "socialist"--I loved that one). In short, she told the procine junkie that if the Dems nominate Obama and the VP wasn't Hillary (or some other Ted Kennedy ally) she would vote for Obama over McCain OR Romney. It rendered Limbaugh speechless.
Note how Fox "News" is downplaying all of this right wing and indeed comprehensive GOP angst and concentrating on Hillary with dried up civil rights fossils. You'd think Bill was in bed with Roger Ailes.
Maybe the Rapture IS coming? I better switch to the Huckabee camp then...
By , at
Sat Feb 02, 08:13:00 PM:
Angst? gee ... one lady alleging to be a republican on the radio and you're ready to call this a representative sample?
The fact that the NY Times endorsed McCain is all I need to know. In my view, that means they know he's the most liberal choice, and the most beatable.
I for one do not like the guy, but I damn sure am not going to vote for Hillary or Obama. You could run that kook Paul with David Duke as his Veep and I'll for him over another 4 years with the Clinton's, or a president pimping Air Force One.
Just sayin'
By , at
Sat Feb 02, 09:45:00 PM:
Most liberal Republican = Most beatable? Since when?
Generally speaking, the ideologues and party minions are what drive the primaries; candidates swing to the wings to win their nomination because most of the people who bother to vote in the primaries are fairly extreme in their views.
In the general election, the candidates have to backpedal from the extremes to a centrist view because, believe it or not (no matter what crowd you hang out with), most Americans are centrists and, nowadays, politically independent. (i.e. without a particular party loyalty) Theoretically, the candidate who can manage to motivate the most centrists will win the general election.
Therefore, if your opponents are liberals you don't beat them by being conservative. You beat them by being centrist because the people who are turned off by the liberalism but who aren't necessarily conservatives are more likely to vote for you, and there are way more of them than there are hard-core conservatives who will be turned off by centrist views.
If a candidate manages to pull off a centrist platform and survive the primaries (risky, but happens from time to time) then they have more appeal in the general election because they are seen to have always maintained centrist views and aren't just changing their stances to fit the electorate du jour. Also, since they don't have to move their platform far they maintain more of their primary support. (that they obviously had since they won nomination in the first place)
There are benefits to a liberal arts education beyond handiness with a fryer...
