« PBS wants to know what you think about Sarah Palin | Main | RE: RE: 'Tax Break?' »

McCain Is the Right Man, and the Right Choice

Barack Obama is no leader. When he first announced his candidacy for President, I admit that I was hopeful that he meant what he said, that his would be a candidacy which judged issues by the merits of their arguments, not the political posture behind them. But as I learned more about Barack Obama, I came to understand that he was just one more liar, another in a long line of con men who thought that integrity was not a virtue, but merely a shade of rhetorical inflection, that to him a 'courageous' man was not one who stood by his principles no matter the cost, but merely a man who timed his statements to gain political capital through ingenuous pretense. I became so disillusioned, that I stopped and wondered if I was being too harsh on the man, and missing his moral core. But for all the glamour to the man, I cannot find a single instance where Barack Obama accepted a difficult course and persevered against the weight of wrong-headed public opinion, where he ever bore injustice with dignity, or where he took on a difficult and thankless task because it needed to be done, with no personal reward or advantage made apparent. Barack Obama speaks with grace and eloquence, but only of himself.

The alternative, then, is John McCain. Ironically, at the same time that I was seriously considering the potential merit in the arguments of Senator Obama, I held those of Senator McCain in no small measure of contempt. I found McCain-Feingold an abominable law, his stance on Immigration wholly unsatisfactory, and even the man's temperament got on my nerves. I found myself hoping for a new Reagan, but failing that, sure we could avoid handing the party nomination over to a man who was far to pally with the Democrats. As time passed, I gradually began to come around, however. It began, as it did for many Americans, with the indisputable heroism of McCain during Vietnam. Those on the Left mock the man for his rank at Annapolis, but they fail to understand that that place is where the man began, that his story grows a great deal from that place. John McCain endured five years of torment from truly evil people, his leadership in that place and time is proven by the accounts from his fellow prisoners, and his valor in refusing to leave ahead of fellow prisoners is undeniable. But that is not all there is to John McCain. As a Senator, McCain is the man most known in the Senate for working with anyone who would help to get the job done, where Obama pretends that he would consider crossing the aisle in partnership and goodwill, John McCain can point to more than many significant occasions where he has already done that. John McCain, in fact, has lived and worked by the very principles that his opponent says are most needed in the White House.

The evidence can be found in the campaign this year, as well. While the media pretends that McCain is running a negative campaign, it was McCain who ran an ad congratulating Obama's historic nomination. When Palin's nomination was announced, Obama at first could not rise to such a level of grace and dignity. And the events of recent days have shown that McCain anticipated the present financial crisis, even though he humbly says that he did not see it coming quite as it happened. Yet Obama not only cannot credit McCain for his attention to the problem ahead of anyone else, he lies about that and his own position on the issue in hopes of hiding his own inadequate preparation.

Americans are not often fooled, and never permanently. Between the two major candidates, one loves himself and thinks the office would serve his purposes well, but he has never sacrificed for his country, while the other clearly loves America and serves her interests ahead of many personal ambitions. One man desperately evades examination of his own opinion, while the other understands the need for a core integrity. The man who would be President thinks he can figure out the job once he gets into the office, while the man who will be President has the experience, judgment, and resolve to protect the country's security, commonwealth, and future. John McCain is simply the right man to be President, because no one else at the top of the ticket available to voters in November is qualified or ready.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31708.

Comments (48)

Whoa! Stop the presses! A r... (Below threshold)
wbgonne:

Whoa! Stop the presses! A right-wing Republican has endorsed the . . . . Republican candidate for president. I bet the O-Man feels awful about losing your vote. I'm sure it was a wrenching decision for you. Take a rest now.

Ha! What would be even bet... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Ha! What would be even better is if Obama just forfitted. That would save a hell of a lot of time.

wbgonne~

You're so *yawn* original. Of course you forgot to mention that Obama is the wrong choice. Details...

"Ha! What would be even bet... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Ha! What would be even better is if Obama just forfitted. That would save a hell of a lot of time."

Nope. Don't want to see that - even in jest. we're best served by a sane and rational two-party system - but I think the Democrats are going to have to hit bottom before they can recover their sanity. This might be the election for that.

If you vote for OBama you m... (Below threshold)
retired military:

If you vote for OBama you might as well vote for Reid as president and Pelosi as VP. That is what you will be getting. OBama will learn the lessons of office very quickly and just how much of a figurehead he is if he gets elected and doesnt want to follow the rules that the adults lay out to this neophyte.

While the media pretends... (Below threshold)
Brian:

While the media pretends that McCain is running a negative campaign

Pretends?! The number of lies McCain is telling is documented and unprecedented, even Fox News is calling him on it, even Karl Rove says he's gone too far, his campaign acknowledges it but says they don't care because they're playing to win, and it's all just "pretend"?

You haven't just "come around" to McCain, DJ. You've crushed his sprinkled donuts into your Kool-Aid.

Nope. Don't want t... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Nope. Don't want to see that - even in jest. we're best served by a sane and rational two-party system

I know, but it was still fun to say.

"McCain Is the Right Man, a... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"McCain Is the Right Man, and the Right Choice"

Yeah! Obama probably doesn't know where Spain is either. Probably thinks he can fire the SEC chair too.

Wait, wait, wait DJ. The go... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Wait, wait, wait DJ. The governor has stated she's the one who's going to be the president, aka "The Palin/McCain administration."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/the-palin-mccain-administ_n_127567.html

Question: do the Republicans have to have another convention to ratify her move to the presidential slot?

Question: do t... (Below threshold)
RFA:

Question: do the Republicans have to have another convention to ratify her move to the presidential slot?

Nope. McCain will retire and just leave it to her. She'll get Bobby Jindal to be her VP and it will be sewn up for a while.

RFA - "Nope. McCain wil... (Below threshold)
marc:

RFA - "Nope. McCain will retire and just leave it to her. She'll get Bobby Jindal to be her VP and it will be sewn up for a while."

With Bill Clinton's assistance: "No, she is an instinctively effective candidate with a compelling story and I think it was exciting to some that she was a woman that she is from Alaska," Clinton said. "And she grew up and came up in a political and religious culture that is probably well to the right of the American center but she didn't basically define herself in those terms. She said 'this is where I am from, I am not going to impose this on you, this is what I want to do that I think we can all be a part of.'"

He added: "She handled herself well so no, I wasn't surprised. I think that you know I disagree with them on many issues and that's why aside from my party affiliation I would be for Obama and Biden anyway but I get why she has done so well. It would be a mistake to underestimate her...her intuitive skills are significant."

That's good....the person w... (Below threshold)
JFO:

That's good....the person who may be president (god forbid) is qualified because she has good intuitive skills. Now if she could just figure out where Europe is she'd be the one.

JFO - "That's good....t... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO - "That's good....the person who may be president (god forbid) is qualified because she has good intuitive skills. Now if she could just figure out where Europe is she'd be the one."

Soi JFO who was it that pointed her in the direction of Germany when she visited the Mil hospital there?

Brian,Yes, pretend... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Brian,

Yes, pretends. Similar to the way you pretend to ever have a point.

In a revealing slip in an interview with ABC recently, Mr. Obama said, "If we're going to ask questions about who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily." That he is in fact winning the contest for the most negative campaign could well spell his defeat.

Source

I'd say it was the pilot wh... (Below threshold)
JFO:

I'd say it was the pilot who flew her plane. Unless she does that too.

"Now if she could just figu... (Below threshold)

"Now if she could just figure out where Europe is she'd be the one."

She'll as plenty of time to learn all about euro-wienies. But for Obama it's too late. He should have known long ago how many states he wants to be President of...

JFO - "I'd say it was t... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO - "I'd say it was the pilot who flew her plane. Unless she does that too."

And by extension you mean what? That she was too dumb to know where she was while on the ground?

Come on spit it out, you know you want to.

Or take the reasonable tact and admit you made a stupid comment.

P.S. Do you know she's not a licensed pilot? I do, do you?

Oh marc, i don't doubt you... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Oh marc, i don't doubt you know she's a licensed pilot. As i said yesterday you know everything about anything.

I have to admit my error - gulp - about Palin and Europe. It's McCain who doesn't appear to know where it is, well at least where Spain is. I saw today where he thinks it's in South America, or maybe even Mexico. Perhaps this is why she put herself at the head of the "Palin/McCain" ticket today.

jfo or brian,in li... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

jfo or brian,

in light of Biden's comments today, what do you think of the 38% of Americans who don't pay taxes and are therefore (according to Biden) unpatriotic scum? These poor bastards shouldn't even be considered Americans, right? (according to Biden).

JFO - "Oh marc, i don't... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO - "Oh marc, i don't doubt you know she's a licensed pilot. As i said yesterday you know everything about anything."

Got suckered into that didn't you?

She's not licensed, her husband is.

Glad (not really when source is considered) you think I know "everything about anything" yesterday or anyday. It only shows how ignorant you are to assume something so far from the truth.

nehemiahWhen you s... (Below threshold)
JFO:

nehemiah

When you show me that Biden called people scum, I'll answer your question. Till the, crawl back into your cave with marc and scrapiron.
depp=true
notiz=Putt up or shut up, where's the cave?

nehemiah - you were remiss ... (Below threshold)
marc:

nehemiah - you were remiss in skipping the part about Biden thinking paying taxes is a religious experience.

Or something, with Slo Joe it's hard to tell what he means. (unless he makes a racial slur in a 7/11)

JFO & BrianI have ... (Below threshold)
Larry:

JFO & Brian

I have a point to make with you guys vis a vis DJs post.

You are not here by right of suffrage. You are here and tolerated because most conservatives are, well, tolerant of dissent. We argue our point of view, but we don't try to stifle those who hold a different point of view unless they are rude or abusive. We really believe in freedom of speech. We have even be known to enjoy the debate because it gives us a chance to vet the foundations of our opinions against those of someone else. The far right isn't in charge of anything in the conservative movement. Or at least that is my opinion now that pit bull idiot Tom DeLay has been ejected from public office.

Most conservatives tend not to be solipsists.

Contrast this with what a very large percentage of those who style themselves as "Progressives" do in terms of free speech.

"The Obama campaign sent out an emergency "Obama Wire Alert" to supporters, urging them to stir up trouble for Freddoso, whose book is now number 5 on the Times' bestseller list (hardcover nonfiction), the Chicago Tribune's blog, The Swamp, reports. "The author of the latest anti-Barack hit book is appearing on WGN Radio in the Chicagoland market tonight, and your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don't gain credibility," the political all-points bulletin read."

This isn't the first time Obama's campaign has tried to slime someone simply for having a difference of opinion backed up by fact OR even more important, attempting to GET the facts, like Stanley Kurtz. Freddoso is no Corsi, who did the McCain campaign no good by writing a stupid book on Obama. Freddoso's book is NOT stupid, it is a solid and fact filled report with its commentary held to conclusions based on facts.

Contrast how you are able to post here without ejection by Jay because you are civil against the policies of Lee Ward, who sooner or later ejects anyone who disagrees with him no matter how civil that person is. It is what you guys do when you have the power. And that scares me.

DJ has posted a very emotional position paper from the heart. You have ridiculed him. Is that really the way you want people to see you and the political culture you represent? Why are you guys so, so, intolerant of anyone and everyone who doesn't think like you?

I just don't understand it even if I have a name for it, which is solipisism.

JFO - "When you show me... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO - "When you show me that Biden called people scum, I'll answer your question. Till the [sic], crawl back into your cave with marc and scrapiron."

Aww, what's the matter, can't take the heat so you resort to invective?

Would you settle for Biden's racial slur?

""in Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 (a chain store) or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.I'm not joking."

And some if not all of you dems, progressives, DUmmies, left-wingers and lefturds are worried about Palin and her quals.

Arghhh, all that wor... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Arghhh, all that work and I spelled solipsism wrong. Yea, it is funny. . .

"Arghhh, all that work ... (Below threshold)
marc:

"Arghhh, all that work and I spelled solipsism wrong. Yea, it is funny. . ."

Far more work than they deserve, or sadly I suspect fully understand.

Larry, that seems to be the... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Larry, that seems to be the style of most leftists that come here. I would say that sometimes my comments seem a bit smug toward them, however, look at what I am responding to. I respect DJ's writing a lot, and you would think that would warrant more thoughtful responses. For me, after a while, it's pretty cut and dry what the liberal stance is: If you can distract with a disrespectful, sarcastic remark, you really don't have to think much about what you are saying and still be "heard". Come to think of it, it's almost like an Obama vote of "present" that could easily mean "no" when convenient.

You really should talk to y... (Below threshold)
Cardinal:

You really should talk to your doctor about changing your medications...they are interfering with your understanding of reality.

You really should ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
You really should talk to your doctor about changing your medications...they are interfering with your understanding of reality.

You should really stay on topic and apply logic to your comments. I understand that some people are distracted with I/M's and other websites, however, so maybe you are just lost.

... has anyone else noted, ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

... has anyone else noted, that no Lefty has come about and pointed out any leadership examples for Obama, no cases where he did in fact do the right thing and take the hit rather than the easy road? Not one of them has come forward with even one example to say 'No DJ, here and here are places where Obama crossed the aisle and stood with a Republican against the Democrats when he though the Republican was right'. In other words, for all their furious spittle-flecked monitor screens, they cannot refute what I said, so all they can do is stew and sputter.

Love it when they prove my point.

Oh come one DJ, their good ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Oh come one DJ, their good at somethin' - like spouting that latest from The Memo, "McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time" is a good example.

All the while ignoring that figure includes a butt load of procedural votes and other admin type trash that is meaningless.

They also ignore Obama voted with his party nearly 97 percent of the time (2007), almost 10 percentage points higher than the average for Senate Democrats.

Hardly the "centrist" he's slowing edging his way towards since dispatching Hillary.

Sure DJ, because they have ... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Sure DJ, because they have fallen in love with his rhetoric instead of his deeds, which are few and far between except where he can help his friends, uh, except the ones he has thrown under the bus, a list that is way longer than the Rev. Wright.

Ever notice DJ, it is hard to find long term associates coming forward with public statements of support for Obama. I mean the Illinois Legislators as a group have not been beating the doors down to support him. If you have read Freddoso, you can guess it is because of a general lack of respect for Obama. Emil Jones used to take bills away from more deserving legislators and given them to Obama to help Obama move up the ladder.

Who would know Obama better than his associates?

One of these days I want to persuade Jay to post a diatribe on the long term cost of political infatuation, one of the more stupid human emotions and one which certainly applies as the foundation for Obamania.

I'll bet McCain knows how m... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I'll bet McCain knows how many states there are. Drummond nailed it with is assessment of Obama. A liar who will say anything to get what he wants. If any of you blind rats chasing the Obamacheese can quote something McCain lied about, please do otherwise STFU.

In a revealing slip in a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

In a revealing slip in an interview with ABC recently, Mr. Obama said,

Oh, good, back to word games. Clearly Obama meant he "wins that contest" because he has fewer negative ads. But hey, why use your brain when you cite Karl Rove telling you what to think instead?

Oh, yeah. Clearly.<p... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Oh, yeah. Clearly.

"Despite perceptions that John McCain has spent more time on the attack, Barack Obama aired more negative advertising last week than did the Arizona senator, says a new study released today.

Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican convention, compared to 56 percent of the spots run by McCain."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_airs_more_negative_ads_s.html

I prefer word games over bad metaphors any day:

Brian~

You've crushed his sprinkled donuts into your Kool-Aid.
Larry, I appreciate where y... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Larry, I appreciate where you're coming from. But you have not been here long (from my recollection and recognition of your name), and you may not yet realize that Wizbang is not the civil, truthful, free-speech loving, deeply thoughtful font of conservative thinking that you may wish it to be.

You picked the wrong post to pose your question, as DJ is the one Wizbang author who most egregiously makes up claims and then refuses to support them in any way. His rebuttals to challenges, even the most respectful, are almost always limited to dismissive 1-2 sentence insults.

This "emotional position paper from the heart", as you call it, is one of many where DJ suddenly has a catalyst-less epiphany that conservatives good, liberals bad. In this one, he seems to have spontaneously realized that McCain was a POW, and that he's a maverick, and therefore he's the right man for the job.

And now that the decision is made that McCain's the right guy, he can then proclaim all criticism and character attacks on McCain as false, and the same upon Obama as true. Kind of backwards, though, to allow the conclusion to recast the facts that led up to it. McCain now has "core integrity", even though every major news source in the country (including Fox) now documents the lies coming out of his campaign. And I'm castigated because I dare to point this out, using such harsh language as "drinking the Kool Aid".

As for "free speech" on this site, sure, Jay can ban anyone he wants. But before you cast a broad brush over conservatives as so tolerant and respectful, you should spend more time here. Posts from the right can be as rude, abusive, and obscene as they want, with never so much as "tsk" from anyone around. (Familiarize yourself with scrapiron, jhow66, and marc). One Wizbang author is even known for peppering her articles with obscenities and Nazi references.

Meanwhile, even moderate comments from the left are routinely attacked, warned, and disemvoweled. Or in DJ's case (rather uniquely on Wizbang, I'm happy to say), wholly deleted.

I actually admire Jay's restraint in not banning those who many Wizbang readers routinely call for to be banned. Although in the couple of years that I've been visiting, I cannot recall a single poster from the right who has been banned for abusive language, whereas there are many from the left. I was quite shocked, actually, when I think two years ago Jay once told scrapiron and jhow to "knock it off". But I've never seen more than that against the right. As for our resident disemvowler, I wouldn't be surprised if she never touched a post that was critical of the left, no matter how "rude and abusive" it was.

Fine, I get it. It's a conservative site, and liberals or moderates posting here will get attacked. Nothing wrong with that. But don't start casting the right as respectful and tolerant.

Actually, your own post is a case in point, as it uses a "broad brush" to cast conservatives in a positive light. Without acknowledging a single infraction that may have been perpetrated from the right, you describe conservatives as tolerant. In contrast, all liberals are Lee Ward.

It's just as well for you. "Broad brushes" are a particular peeve by our not-so-impartial comment police. Try to use a broad brush to cast conservatives in a negative light, no matter how respectfully, and you'll find your post quickly dispatched with.

In the end, you want dissent here. If all comments were "yeah!" and "right on!" then all Wizbang would be is DU.

and you may not ye... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
and you may not yet realize that Wizbang is not the civil, truthful, free-speech loving, deeply thoughtful font of conservative thinking that you may wish it to be.

Brian, you are not the one to persuade him of this. You just accused someone of word games when valid sources reported the percentages of each party's ads and Obama had the most. Obama meant it when he said he was winning "handily", so don't try to sugar-coat it with your sprinkles. Dissent is fine if it is valid. When you accuse the writer of "the one Wizbang author who most egregiously makes up claims", then you are crossing a line into the wrong territory, especially with no sources to back it up. You are not the tour guide, and readers like Larry can make up their own minds.

Brian, #33 is probably the ... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Brian, #33 is probably the most intellectually impoverished post you have made to date and one that is clearly not exactly in your favor. You spend your time picking and poking and trying to find something that you can extract from the posts and comments here to support your cast in stone position.

What you don't seem to understand about Obama is that he is nothing more or less than a gifted orator covering a typical and somewhat sleazy Chicago politician. You are blinded by his rhetoric. You are blinded by his style. And if you will read what he says instead of listening to him, I suspect you will be somewhat amazed to find he says nothing.

Just go back and read his book, "Audacity."

I have no reason to love John McCain. He used his best judgement and allowed Colin Powell's son to take over the FCC. McCain really believed that allowing the Telcos to regroup their monopoly was in the best interest of the country. He was flat wrong. And so was Bush on the subject. He made an error of commission and it cost me a ton of money and thousands more just like me and my one shot at the brass ring.

Yet what you see is what you get with McCain, he is a man of honor and conviction and his decisions are what he believes to be in the best interest of the nation.

I really, really wanted to vote for Obama.

Yet after a very long study of Obama which included an open mind for the reasons I gave above, and which included reading one of his books, plus Freddoso's book, listening to Obama, reading his web site and a lot of painful thought, I finally came to the conclusion that, simply put, the man is a charlatan.

I took a look at his empty rhetoric and what people who admired him thought he said, which most of the time didn't match with others because he was using emotional language that anyone could project on. In fact, in his book he clearly states that his followers are going to be disappointed in him for that reason.

Brian, do you want the exact quote?

Do you want to hear from the man himself what he thinks of you?

Brian, when I read his own words about his followers, the hair raised up on the back of my neck. For me, his words expressed contempt for those foolish enough to believe his message.

Brian,You are consis... (Below threshold)
maggie:

Brian,
You are consistently rude, uncivil, cruel, and
a liar. And I am not the police, I'm just the
sheriff. If you don't like the way this site
is operated,leave.
You are not privy to bhe backside of this site,
so you don't know what actions have been taken.
I guess you are of the opinion it's okay to
come into someone elses domain and crap on
their floor with impunity.
Why don't you move yourself over to Blue
where you belong with the rest of the ingrates
who operate on someone elses dime.

Larry - "Brian, #33 is ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Larry - "Brian, #33 is probably the most intellectually impoverished post you have made to date and one that is clearly not exactly in your favor. You spend your time picking and poking and trying to find something that you can extract from the posts and comments here to support your cast in stone position."

Truer words were never spoken, all one has to do is flip back 24 hours peeing his panties over a few words that easily could be interpreted either way.

You just accused someone... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You just accused someone of word games when valid sources reported the percentages of each party's ads and Obama had the most.

Yep, and you know what? I was wrong. I admit it because a) it's a rarity, and b) you backed it up with a source. I dare say that sources are not so readily accepted by the right.

When you accuse the writer of "the one Wizbang author who most egregiously makes up claims", then you are crossing a line into the wrong territory, especially with no sources to back it up.

I stand by the claim. As for me, I routinely back up my claims with sources. In fact, one commenter used to deride me as "linky" because of the numerous links I provide in my statements. It's unfortunate that I goofed in the same thread where I make that claim, and I'm sure it weakens it, but there it is.

You spend your time pick... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You spend your time picking and poking and trying to find something that you can extract from the posts and comments here to support your cast in stone position.

It's called "providing counter examples to your claim".

What you don't seem to understand about Obama is ...

Oh, I understand. Obama is certainly not my first pick, just as McCain is not yours. I have never claimed Obama is perfect. Just as you find fault with McCain, I find fault with Obama. Just as you weigh all and come on the side of McCain, so I do with Obama.

Yet what you see is what you get with McCain, he is a man of honor and conviction

Now you are the one being blinded by your cast in stone position. His lies are fully documented and supported, and his campaign has been called the least honest in modern campaigning. Yes, yes, that's just the MSM, so we can dismiss it, right? Far easier than trying to counter the evidence.

This is not a defense of Obama. Every campaign is sleazy, including Obama's. But calling McCain a man of honor is a partisan opinion that ignores rationality.

You are consistently rud... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You are consistently rude, uncivil, cruel, and a liar.

I give what I get, and I challenge you to back up the claim of "liar". The right is routinely "rude, uncivil, cruel", with no admonition from you. If you say things are done on the "backside of this site", I will not doubt you. But if so, they are done quietly, while the left is publicly excoriated. It is, in the least, a double standard.

If you don't like the way this site
is operated,leave.

All I ask are fairness and evenness. Someone on the left saying "crawl back in your cave" is disemvoweled, while obscenities from the right are routinely overlooked. As I said, Jay, with all that I disagree with him about, is at least fair in the management of the site. I suppose it is too much to expect that of others.

all one has to do is fli... (Below threshold)
Brian:

all one has to do is flip back 24 hours peeing his panties over a few words that easily could be interpreted either way.

Yes, "peeing in my panties". Such a non-rude and civil comment. Oh, and the "interpretation" of mine was backed up by video. There I go again, providing a source.

OK, everyone back off Brian... (Below threshold)

OK, everyone back off Brian. He said something almost nice about me, so he's granted absolution.

Seriously... why is it Brian and his ilk only praise me as a backhanded attempt to slam one of my colleagues? It's so damned transparent.

No, maggie doesn't do her job the way I would. No, DJ doesn't write the kind of stuff I do. (Well, for the most part.) But guess what? I'm not them, and they're not me. I don't have maggie's job, and I wouldn't want it. It's not "me." And I'm not DJ, with his vastly different experiences and interests and skills.

And they're not me.

It's called "diversity." It's called allowing people to carve out their own niches, do their own things.

Just yesterday I disemvowelled and warned a longtime commenter and regular supporter of this site. I didn't particularly enjoy it, but then I don't enjoy any time I have to exert my authority as editor. I'm lazy. I'd rather just sit back and let things flow, and I don't like it when I have to get up and do stuff.

Brian, that laziness is your salvation here. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd take your praise of me, go back through an array of the comments you've made on my pieces and about me, and decide you're a lying POS (and I don't mean "Point Of Sale") and ban you. Instead, I'd rather start work on my daily opinings.

Everyone else who might see this, take heed: I'm tired of being praised by my regular detractors just so they can slam my colleagues. It's a cheap stunt, way too obvious, and I'm rapidly losing my patience for it.

J.

Ok Brian, you have c... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Ok Brian, you have convinced me of the sincerity of your beliefs. I just read the post you made several above mine where I posted and went to bed and didn't read it. So now I have a better picture of you instead of what I formed from your sniping. And yes, I haven't been here all that long. I actually started reading here because I sent an email to Lorie over something she wrote elsewhere and she asked for my permission to repeat it here. She hasn't, yet. I don't know that she ever will, but my curiosity was aroused and I started reading.

I would appreciate a response to my suggestion that Obama holds his followers in contempt, or at the least, naive. I will ask you this until you choose to answer because it is important to me as the foundation of why I saw holes in Obama's character that were unacceptable to me as a person.

I haven't a clue what DJ has posted in the past except for his very good analysis of polling. It may well be that he is the equivalent of dailkos from the right as you suggest. That has NOTHING to do with the post I referenced and your response to it with which I took exception. But given your explanation, I have a better idea of where you are coming from; since he, in your opinion, was opinionated in the past and lacked documentation, in your opinion, you choose to go after a post where I, naive that I am, took exception. I understand.

And you are right, posters from the right are often less than cordial, even disrespectful with their comments. After all, this is pretty normal in a political campaign. And I really don't have a problem with most of the left wingnut stuff except where it crosses the line in two areas; made up stuff (dailykos) and attempts to stifle free speech (call to arms over talk radio).

I specifically have NOT chosen to call you out before this one because of those beliefs I carry. Now to the substance of what you said directly to me.

Specifically, you claim that McCain is not an honest person. I disagree with you. While I do understand he is a politician, where you and I both might find that honesty is subjective, I believe that he is a person of conviction and I haven't seen anything that changes my mind. I have carefully looked at the "Evidence" you cite, and where I find it, and yes, it IS MSM and that makes it suspect.

Ever hear of an Author by the name of Heinlein?

Heinlein is the guy who dreamed up an explanation of lying by telling the truth. His first example is to tell the truth so unconvincingly that everyone thinks you are lying. Secondly, he says tell only part of the truth and evidence becomes the lie. A third technique is to partly change the subject and THEN tell the truth.

Since MSM would never tell the truth unconvincingly, we are left with the latter two techniques. And both are used to the point where even Saturday Night Live did a skit on it.

I can give you examples even on Fox, which normally tries to tell the whole story, in my opinion.

I have still seen nothing that convinces me that McCain is dishonest within the boundaries of normal political it jobs in a campaign. In his activities as a Senator, I believe that the evidence is pretty clear from his ASSOCIATES that McCain is honest in his beliefs, even when those same ASSOCIATES think he is wrong.

That is character.

I do not get the same impression about Obama from several sources; his associates and his own words.

Brian, you can vote for Obama because of what you believe he stands for. That is what American is all about. I applaud you for it. By all means knock your lights out. You have the right to vote AGAINST McCain because you are an American. You don't have to have a reason.

That said, do expect me to call you out when you attempt to change the subject or tell only part of the story; see Heinlein above. And I will expect you to do likewise for honest debate.

I make one challenge to you at this point. Have you read "Audacity?" Have you read Freddoso's book? If you haven't, then you don't know Obama.

Brian,Preaching to m... (Below threshold)
maggie:

Brian,
Preaching to me about double standards is
preaching to the choir. I've been dealing
with such standards on a personal and professional level all of my life.

Quit crapping on this domain. Dissent is a
good thing, being crass is not.


Yep, and you know ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Yep, and you know what? I was wrong. I admit it because a) it's a rarity, and b) you backed it up with a source. I dare say that sources are not so readily accepted by the right.

Yes, in a debate I usually do. The miracle in your comment is that you admitted you were wrong. The non-miracle is your claim that you are rarely wrong, unless since you've been coming here, you've graduated from "linky" to "slinky". From what I see now, you rarely ever back up what you are saying and just post lazy, accusatory swipes instead.

I would appreciate a res... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I would appreciate a response to my suggestion that Obama holds his followers in contempt, or at the least, naive.

And McCain called some of his followers "agents of intolerance", but now embraces them. It's not a core issue.

I believe that he is a person of conviction and I haven't seen anything that changes my mind.

I believe he may have been at one time. But for someone who has condemned negative politics, he sure has taken to it.

I have carefully looked at the "Evidence" you cite, and where I find it, and yes, it IS MSM and that makes it suspect.

It's ad hominem to dismiss the claims because of who reports them. Most of them are sourced. Many of them come from independent parties, such as factcheck.org (an organization that McCain has cited himself, but then that condemned his citation as deceitful).

I have still seen nothing that convinces me that McCain is dishonest within the boundaries of normal political it jobs in a campaign.

Normal campaigns stretch the truth, twist the words. McCain lies. You can't seriously defend the accusation that Obama is for "comprehensive sex education" for children. Many independent analyses claim Obama's tax plan will benefit the middle class more than McCain's. It's just not factual to claim otherwise.

In his activities as a Senator, I believe that the evidence is pretty clear from his ASSOCIATES that McCain is honest in his beliefs, even when those same ASSOCIATES think he is wrong.

I believe it's McCain's associates (as a candidate) that have pushed him where he didn't intend to go. But he went there, nonetheless. If he's elected, will he then reject them and become more honorable? Who knows. But he's demonstrated that he's capable of not.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy