About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, January 28, 2008 - 11:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
McCain doesn't remind me at all of Bob Dole. Dole is a career politician and was as pragmatic as could be. Dole wouldn't notice a principle if it spit in his face.

John McCain, however, is a true believer. He is an extremely principled person. The problem is that the principles he espouses are developed in his gut instinct instead of logic or reason.

When I hear McCain speak I sense someone who has strong feelings about right and wrong. I've never sensed that from Bob Dole. So, in this sense, McCain is far worse than Bob Dole. He's a man with a strong sense of right and wrong - whatever he randomly feels is right and wrong.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Yeah.  Let’s elect this dude…We just have to overlook:

 

(1)   McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech)

(2)   McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights)

(3)   McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation)

(4)   ‘Gang of 14’ (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations)

(5)   Voting against the Bush tax cuts

(6)   Opposing the use of ‘water-boarding’ or any other form of torture for terrorists

(7)   Attacking Romney for his success as a businessman ("for patriotism, not for profit")

(8)   Supporting repeal of Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)

(9)   McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens—OK. Objectivists can debate that one.)

 

Aside from these minor issues and the fact that he’s too old and slow-witted to compete with either Democratic candidate in the Presidential debates…he’s terrific.  The left-leaning pollsters wouldn’t be intentionally warping the stats to make Republicans think this dinosaur will do well in November…Surely not.

 

It's enough to make you hold your nose and take Peikoff''s Democratic plunge...


Post 2

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
McCain is a left-leaning Democrat in a blue suit.

But, regrettably, Clinton is now pandering to religion big time.


[Warning: You'll need to do more than hold your nose for this one. You'll need a gas mask.]

Hillary's Remarks at Baptist Convention

Good afternoon. This is, as every day is, the day that the lord hath made so let us rejoice and be glad in it. It is a great honor for me to be here with all of you today. I want to thank Dr. Shaw for his leadership; I want to thank Reverend Thurston for his, as well. Dr. T. DeWitt Smith Jr. for his stewardship and leadership and Dr. P.T Robertson. These four leaders, bringing people together today, deserve our appreciation and our prayers. It is a challenging but necessary endeavor.

I should begin by acknowledging that my husband is a Baptist and I have learned during our marriage from sitting around the kitchen table that Baptists have quite the tradition of disagreement. Bill and I have been talking and debating since we first met over thirty-five years ago. Sometimes the decibel level can rise, depending on the passion of the moment, but as you know, that is how we learn - by exploring our differences. By coming to understand that what we share is so much bigger than what separates us. That is how we come to a place of unity and that is what you are doing here, this week. I understand that this is only the second time that the four conventions have come together as one. You are here guided in the spirit of hope by the one who is faithful to us in all things.

As we gather today I am reminded of the scripture from Hebrew, which tells us, "Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who comes is faithful and let us consider how we may serve one another on towards love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together - as some are in the habit of doing - but let us encourage one another and all the more as you see the day approaching."


Where is John Galt?

I.e. We're screwed this time around, no matter who wins.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been an ABC'er (anyone but Clinton) since the beginning of the campaign. But, if McCain is the GOP choice, I will most likely vote for Hillary (or Obama hopefully).

Post 4

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
McCain has the hide of an elephant. Underneath he's a jackass. :-)

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/02, 5:17pm)


Post 5

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 1:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
McCain sends Ann Coulter into a tizzy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc


Post 6

Sunday, February 3, 2008 - 2:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know what kind of torture was done to JM in Vietnam. He is definitely a Manchurian Candidate.

He spoke so eloquently on C-Span (at a Republican dinner) once, that I got on RoR and touted him as our best bet. Then I was made aware of his track record. How defeating that is! Embarrassing, too.

I came to realize that track record is everything, and that what one says in campaigns is nothing. There's even a 100-year old court case where the judge ruled that it's legally okay to lie to your constituents.

Trust folks' pens, not their mouths.

Ed


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 10:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John McCain is a conservative republican Senator from Arizona who sides with the statist left on virtually every issue of significance. These include imposing new taxes/regulations in response to the "crises" of global warming, taxing "the rich" and defending the death tax, curtailing the First Amendment through campaign-finance restrictions, and slandering successful business people as "greedy profiteers". Moreover, he is a "national pride" conservative--offended by individual liberty and dedicated to the proposition that individuals exist to serve the state. That's why he consistently favors US military adventuring abroad--regardless of cost or consequences. That's why he promises to keep American troops in Iraq "for the next 100 years" if his excellency deems it "necessary".

The spectacle of American conservative leaders, including tax cutters like Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes, endorsing him has been interesting. These conservatives don't like McCain's statist liberal voting record, and they understand that he'll expand the power of the federal government over our lives. However, to these conservatives, "national pride" and triumphant American war-making morally trump the value of individual liberty.

In fact, I suspect that nearly all conservative voters will grudgingly support McCain for this reason. If anyone imagines that the National Security State can be imposed without destroying individual liberty, this predictable spectacle of conservatives trudging along en masse behind John McCain ought to be instructive.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've not taken a back seat to anyone on the national security issue, and I've supported the War in Iraq from the beginning.

However, John McCain and I part company on almost everything else of any importance. He wants to transform from Bush's toxic "compassionate conservatism" to a deadly, statist "national-greatness conservatism," in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, a view in which "patriotism" stands ahead of "profit" -- i.e., the state is superior to the individual. On free speech, environmentalism, and taxation, he represents a complete rejection of the individualism that has always been a key part (albeit a struggling part) of the GOP ideological coalition.

Because of what he would do to demolish what good is left in the Republican Party, John McCain will NOT get my support or vote, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is the Democrat candidate.

At this point, I hope for Mitt Romney to squeak out the GOP nomination, as the least objectionable of the four plausible options for president. But if he doesn't, I don't plan to vote. Instead, I'll do whatever I can, as a private citizen, to bury the statist wings of the Republican Party -- the social and nationalist conservatives -- once and for all, and move it toward its individualist roots.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 12:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is curious, and will be examined for years to come, how this Frankenstein monster of an alleged conservative came to be the front runner. It's hard to resist the conclusion that one should never underestimate the stupidity, or at least the naivete, of the average Republican voter.



Post 10

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 9:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Romney - I believe in the end it's his Mormonism that did him in.  That just doesn't sit well with the mainstream Christian base of the Republican party.

Giuliani - Wasn't he supposed to be a shoe in?  Anyhow, it was abortion/gays/guns (in that order) that did him in.

Paul - Though I like Paul, he is too much on the fringe to get elected.

Thompson - He just wasn't able to create any momentum.  I also think he lacked the dynamism and charisma needed to be a Presidential politician.

That leaves us with McCain.  I really think people are wowed by his Vietnam POW story and that builds a perception of character for him.  They think his maverick stances are the stuff of a principled straight shooter who doesn't just tow the party line.  Republicans may disagree with him on many things, but in the end he favors an agressive military policy in comparison to the Dem candidates and that will be enough for a majority of Republicans to plug their nose and vote for him.  Expect a majority of the people on this website to follow suit. 


Post 11

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Will Super-Duper Tuesday annoint the new "progressives"?

What the nomination of John McCain portends for the future of the two-party system.

Post 12

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 10:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Regarding Mr. Romney, here are two quotes from Moral Health Care vs. Universal Health Care by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, in The Objective Standard:

“Politicians from across the political spectrum, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Mitt Romney, have argued that the government should guarantee “universal coverage” to all Americans, making health care a ‘right.’…”

 

“The Massachusetts plan…is already giving rise to the economic problems that follow logically from the government violating the rights of patients, doctors, employers, and insurance companies. The plan, which was signed into law by former governor (and current Republican presidential candidate) Mitt Romney, relies heavily on a combination of mandates requiring individuals to purchase health insurance and employers to offer it. In the name of “comprehensiveness,” the state has also imposed numerous mandates on insurance companies, requiring their policies to include specific coverage that would not be sustainable in a free market. The poorest residents are given government subsidies to offset the costs, but everyone else is required to pay for coverage regardless of whether they need or desire it…”

 

Have we come this far?  Romney—an advocate of universal health care—is going to save us from John McCain?

 

I voted for Romney in today’s California primary.  Unlike the ultra-altruist McCain, his business orientation might make him marginally preferable to Clinton or Obama.  But whether or not voting for him in November would justify sanctioning the entrenched religionism of the Republicans is still, for me, very much an open question.

 

 

 


Post 13

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The main differences -- both small -- I see between Romney and Hillary on health care and health insurance are two.
1. Romney wants state governments in control. Hillary wants the federal government in control.
2. Romney makes token sound bites about a freer market. Hillary doesn't.

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Vision_Health_Care_Vs_HillaryCare

http://www.cchconline.org/pdfs/Romney_Healthcare_Chart.pdf

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/05, 11:27am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Have we come this far? Romney—an advocate of universal health care—is going to save us from John McCain?" Dennis H.

Yes, politically speaking. The country took a big lurch to the left in the 2000 elections (similar to the lurch to the right in 1980), as evidenced by Gore nearly taking the White House, followed only six years later by the Democrats reclaiming both Houses. That many Republicans are no better, and in many ways worse, is freely admitted. Retaining their traditional "me too" status, they are reflecting what the majority of voters appear to want.

The evil of the Dems is matched only by the confusion of the Republicans. If you read, for example, the Captain's Quarters blog, particularly the comments of the readers, you will see example after example of idiotic proposals that go counter to their putative free-market orientation. Fiddling with tax rates and stimuli packages to right the economy, jostling Social Security plans to save rather than eliminate it, etc, etc, etc. It's all there in all its grotesque splendor.

The Republican Party probably isn't hopeless at this point, but it is fracturing. It might well be time to start a new party with the better portions of the GOP. Clearly the Evangelicals are worse than hopeless; they're as evil as the average Democrat and nearly as dangerous. The pragmatists continue to be ridiculous and nothing more than flotsam following in the wake of moving boats.

Empty suits like Romney are bad enough. Suits full of bile like McCain are intolerable. When even Ann Coulter is willing to campaign and vote for Clinton to stop McCain, you know things are seriously askew.

Where is John Galt?


(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/05, 1:06pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 4:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
At the risk of sounding smug, I remember saying months ago on this website that Rudy Giuliani wasn't going to win the Republican presidential nomination. Why? Essentially, because you can't completely buck the religious right on "litmus test issues" and expect to survive the primaries.

I also remember a number of Objectivists, desperate to believe the GOP is better than it actually is, weighed in to say I was wrong.

Of course, I'm not claiming that religiosity is the determinant of who wins the GOP nomination. I'm claiming that you need to be *nominally* onboard with the conservative social agenda to win it.

Also, regarding the GOP's "individualist roots" that Robert Bidinotto mentions above: The GOP doesn't have them. The party was actually born as a mercantilist vehicle, calling for high tariffs, a strong central bank, and government subsidies for privileged business interests. The primary reason for the party's opposition to slavery was that many Republicans thought it was unfair for free men to have to compete with slave labor, not primarily a concern with the natural rights of black people, which is a matter of historical record.

In fact, the Democratic Party, as the party of Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland (the last president to repeatedly veto unconstitutional legislation), is the party with the legitimate claim to individualist roots.

True, some modern "grassroots" Republicans are basically individualists. But I'm not sure they outnumber all of the Republicans who have voted/will vote in the primaries for Mike Huckabee, whose consistent advocacy of concentrating power in government at the expense of freedom both socially AND economically makes clear their total opposition to the capitalist system.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 4:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff comments:  “Empty suits like Romney are bad enough…”

Romney does come off like an empty suit, but he strikes me as the logical by-product of the bankruptcy of neo-conservatism.  In a way, George W. Bush was the perfect embodiment of that viewpoint—foisted upon the Republican Party by disillusioned leftists who gave up on the failed dream of Utopian socialism and looked to a mixed economy to instigate their collectivist moral ideals. An evangelical fellow-traveler like Bush bought into their quasi-religionist “vision,” hired like-thinking advisors and adopted the neocon agenda with all its Christian trappings as the theme for his administration.

I’m wondering if the horror story of Iraq has not shaken that ideological perspective to its core.  Now that people have seen that, at least in foreign policy, such institutionalized, ‘do-gooder’ altruism translates to mass death of Americans for no good purpose other than liberating savages who wouldn’t know freedom if it bit them in the ass.  Five years after the start of that brazen debacle—their pious denials notwithstanding--all that matters to the neocons is that the candidate gives lip-service to the shattered “ideals,” as if admitting that nobody genuinely believes any of it anymore.


Post 17

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Of course, I'm not claiming that religiosity is the determinant of who wins the GOP nomination. I'm claiming that you need to be *nominally* onboard with the conservative social agenda to win it." Jon T.

Interesting thesis. But then how do you explain John McCain, who is widely despised by social conservatives, the religious right, and many other factions within the Republican Party?

I don't think he's even viewed as 'nominally' on board by most. He's viewed as weak on judicial appointments, weak on immigration, flip-floppy on abortion, and other issues they regard as important. But I could be wrong. I haven't seen any good analyses of his popularity, yet.

Post 18

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In fact, the Democratic Party, as the party of Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland (the last president to repeatedly veto unconstitutional legislation), is the party with the legitimate claim to individualist roots.

The modern Democratic Party can trace its roots back to the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson (7th president); not the party of Thomas Jefferson.


Post 19

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The modern Democratic Party can trace its roots back to the 1828 election of Andrew Jackson (7th president); not the party of Thomas Jefferson.
The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party. The party favored states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. The Democratic-Republican Party ascended to power in the election of 1800. After the War of 1812, the party's chief rival, the Federalist Party, disbanded. The party faction that supported many of the old Jeffersonian principles, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, became the Democratic Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.