Readers’ comments on the campaign, III

Matthew H. writes:

When Bush nominated Miers the Republican base rose up in protest and we got … Roberts. When a Democrat nominates the next Ginsberg, the Republican base will rise up and get … NOTHING.

Was Nixon better than Humphrey? Was Ford better than Carter? Bush 1 than Dukakis? Bush 2 than Gore or Kerry? None of these Republicans was the perfect conservative (nor was Ronald Reagan). But the administration of any one of them was preferable to that of his respective rival. We don’t just get the man, we get the team and the team of any given Republican will be much the same as that of any other Republican. There is a notable difference between the Democrat team and the Republican team.

We have two choices: Squishy Right and Hard Left. Take your pick.

Mark K. writes:

The god lost last night.

I watched the debate between Hillary and Obama last night. She won easily. She was so much more comfortable and feeling at home. She spoke naturally; he spoke in a rather halting manner. She detailed her policies in a smooth way; he described his policies in fits and starts. The look on on the face of his supporters—Rob Reiner for instance said it all—Reiner’s face was a map of pain throughout the debate. She drew the larger applause.

At the end, I think she knew she had it won because the smile on her face was so broad and unforced. It appears that the strategy to unhinge Obama is to talk one on one with him because when he is forced to discourse beyond sound-bites, there may not be much there.

Mark K. continues:

This is as accurate a description of the Obama phenomenon that I’ve come across. A 7 minute video with Shelby Steele. When Steele says, “I don’t know who this man is,” I realized the same thing last night in the debate with Hillary. Why would anybody vote for a candidate whose policies are indefinite, who describes them in a halting manner, whose opponent dances rings around him when using facts and figures? Steele very nicely encapsulates the issue. This is about something else …

Mark K. continues:

I have a confession to make … uh oh … how can I say it … ah me … how can I say it … well here goes … I would also vote for Hillary over McCain. She gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that neither Obama or McCain give me. If it isn’t Romney, then it’s Hillary. And with that hot dog (or is it dog in heat) roaming the White House puppy Bill, I feel the warm glow of family. Coulter is right. McCain is just an outright liar. I watched him at the debate two nights ago and I grew to detest him.

LA writes:

I’ve re-posted this article on McCain the anti-white multiculturalist many times, but a reader has requested it again, so here it is.

A reader writes:

Useful roundup of response to McC from conservatives and others. Grover Norquist pictured with a beard, has he gone far into Islam?

Mark K. writes:

I noticed at the debate how McCain used a tactic of propaganda—keep repeating something whether it is true or false. He kept using the word “timetable” with respect to Romney’s purported statement that there should be a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Even the CNN moderator pointed out to McCain that Romney was referring to a timetable for Iraq’s takeover of all policing and military actions. Yet McCain persisted in saying that Romney’s statement was about US troop withdrawal.

When confronted with the actual quote supporting Romney, McCain still persisted in asserting that Romney was using the word “timetable” as a buzzword or a code word for withdrawal. Even when the statement itself and its context said explicitly otherwise. Five or six subsequent times McCain used the “timetable” argument for withdrawal against Romney stating that Romney was using language as a coded subterfuge.

So why would someone keep asserting a lie when the actual statement and its context was read verbatim and confirmed Romney? Doesn’t it remind one of the tactic used against prisoners of war by their captors to drum into their ears a falsehood or a lie by continual repetition? Ironic that McCain would use that same tactic!

Howard Sutherland writes:

Re McCain: the anti-white, anti-American multiculturalist, I wrote the VDare letter discussed in that post, and it stands the test of (a short) time. McCain isn’t nuts because the Navy didn’t give him a flag; rather, I suspect that the Navy didn’t give him a flag because the selectors sensed he was seriously off-base

Howard Sutherland writes:

The British “conservative” broadsheet the Telegraph has drunk the McCain Kool-Aid, it seems. This is a very softball, sanitized account of the career of McQueeg/McInsane (take your pick).

Howard Sutherland writes:

This VDARE article is worth reading! Good evisceration by Marcus Epstein of a new book by a hispanette flack who used to work for Bush touting the need for Republicans to hispander—and cast into outer darkness the Tancredos. This worries me, though: “John McCain, Newt Gingrich and (significantly) Mitt Romney endorsed the book with enthusiastic blurbs about the merits of Hispandering.”

I know Romney is greatly preferable to McCain, and preferable to Huckabee. Still, we need to be very wary of him. Either he is not thinking clearly about immigration, or he simply doesn’t care enough about the National Question to pay attention to it. No-one who would blurb a book like this can conceivably be serious about the National Question. Also revealing about Gingrich, who is getting noisy again and pretending to be tough about security issues.

I had thought Tancredo was the most reliable Republican on the National Question, but he has endorsed Romney. If the endorsement is purely tactical to keep his supporters from being so foolish as to switch to McCain or Huckabee, that makes—tactical only—sense. If Tancredo thinks Romney is reliable on the National Question, either he’s easily fooled (I hope not) or he knows something about Romney we don’t (if so, I would love to know what it is).

Did you watch last evening’s Dem-debate? I could never vote for her for anything under any circumstances, but I must acknowledge: Senator Clinton looked and sounded convincingly presidential. She made Senator Obama, who was trying for gravitas, look like a callow youth. She can win—and I think she would demolish McCain. I don’t know what to hope for, because God knows I cannot abide the prospect of a President McCain, Clinton (II) or Obama, and I’m pretty negative about the prospect of a President Romney. But, as Pat Buchanan signs off his column today: “We are an unserious people in a serious time.”

LA replies:

I’ve already pointed out many times that Romney is not good on the national question, but also that he has not shown any ideological passion for open borders. I don’t want to add more to the attack on him now, at this crucial moment. Can’t we prioritize, and handle the transcendent problem of McCain now, which would give us the leasure of dealing with the lesser problem of Romney later? If McCain wins, we won’t have the option of dealing with the Romney problem.

American Cassandra writes:

Rush wants to be influential in politics more than he wants politics to be influenced in a certain way.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 01, 2008 11:35 AM | Send