Posted on 05/05/2008 10:17:37 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Neither did Glenn, neither did I. (I didnt vote.) Granted, shes a buffoon and a completely unreliable witness, but do we maybe want to force ourselves to believe this one?
"At a dinner party in Los Angeles not long after the 2000 election, I was talking to a man and his wife, both prominent Republicans. The conversation soon turned to the new president. I didnt vote for George Bush the man confessed. I didnt either, his wife added. Their names: John and Cindy McCain (Cindy told me she had cast a write-in vote for her husband).
"The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency."
That our nominee is, shall we say, less than a fully devout Republican is something already well known to the base. A new tale of party betrayal will hurt him but a tale of Bush betrayal, specifically? Dubyas approval rating is 28%; according to the new Gallup, hes a bigger liability for McCain than Wright is for Obama (although, surprisingly, only slightly). Conservatives who dont want to believe the story can simply discard it based on the source and independents who do want to believe it can accept it as proof that McCains not the Bush clone the left wants him to be. Thanks, Arianna! Exit question: What did she hope to accomplish by mentioning this? Anything coherent? Bear in mind, this is a woman who convinced herself last summer that the conservative outcry against McCain had to do with his support for the war, not that little immigration matter you might have heard about. It fell to Glenn Greenwald, of all people, to set her straight
Update (Ed): Im as mystified as Allahpundit about this story. McCain and Bush had hard feelings following the primary in 2000, so McCains reluctance to vote for Bush doesnt surprise me at all. Arizona wasnt exactly a battleground state in 2000, so McCains abstention hardly put the election at risk. The only takeaway from this anecdote is that McCain and Bush have two different approaches to politics, which undermines the McSame argument the DNC wants to sell this year.
And the how much he has fallen spin doesnt work, either. McCain and Bush worked together on some issues and in opposition on others. McCain isnt exactly running around the country on the Bush bandwagon. And doesnt their rapprochement also negate the McCain holds grudges forever meme that Democrats pushed along as part of their focus on anger management?
Allow me to thank Arianna, too.
Operation Chaos2!!
Ah. The actual bleedin' POINT, at long and headachey last. ;) Bless and keep you, Defiant.
Yes. Thank you for this. Your comments (above) are particularly insightful.
I just can't bring myself to voting for McCain. Lots of reasons why, many/most have been or will be enumerated here.
I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't "owe" the GOP or McCain anything, especially not a vote for someone with the massive issues McCain brings to the table.
If anything, they owe me a candidate I can feel good about voting for. Or, if not good, then at least not sick to my stomach.
And yeah. If I owe it to America, or to the troops, or to future citizens, why doesn't the GOP/McCain owe the same, and more?
I did (grudgingly) vote W in two generals but I'm definitely not sorry I voted for someone else in the primary season.
A big part of the anti-McCain argument is that the worst that can happen is, with Barack Obama, the US would have a slightly more liberal president. The reality, though, is that with a President Obama, radical Islamic extremists would have a neutral or even sympathetic president instead of one, like Sen. McCain, who has promised to take the fight to the terrorists and “never surrender.”
I attended a GOP county convention this year and was stunned by the number of appeasers (supporting Rep. Paul) who showed up, sounding a lot like Rev. Jeremiah Wright in their views on US foreign policy and on the men and women of the US military. I felt ripped off...if I wanted appeasement, I could have attended the Democrat caucus. But I understand this discussion much better, having talked with strongly anti-military conservatives (or appeasers) at that recent meeting.
There are real reasons to be frustrated with Sen. McCain. I found his interference on the Wright ads in NC last month difficult to comprehend. Many posters have pointed out legitimate problems with his record in the Senate since 2001. But it is beyond delusional to argue that the outcome of the presidential race doesn’t matter in 2008.
Thank you, mountainbunny. I was actually beginning to worry that we'd go an entire page's worth of comments before people actually began responding to the original points/queries in #1, rather than simply drumming their collective heels on the linoleum and shrilling "NoNoNoNoNoNoNOOOOOOOOO!!!" in their most piercing registers. ;) 'Preciate it!
I would take this argument a good deal more seriously, I suspect, from someone who actually knew the simple difference between "bear" and "bare."
More to the point, however: horse apples. ;) Even baseline, grammar school-level logic should serve to (re-)(re-)(re-)(RE-)illustrate the inherent silliness of said assertion. To wit: if (by your logic) any ballot not cast on behalf of Juan McCain is, de facto, one to the benefit of Cankles and/or The Obamessiah... then what, pray tell, is a ballot not cast on behalf of either Obama or Hillary?
Logic 101: if "A" equals "B," then "B" (likewise) must equal "A"... or else your theory is, quite simply... welllllllll...
Great Galloping Guacamoles! I actually said that? REALLY -- ?!?
Where?
LOL. That is good!
Will McCain be offering an apology for Salter's remarks?
Then I learned even more about Obama, and had the “pleasure” of listening to Hillary even more, and then came the possibility of a Ron Paul conversion to Obama (Ron wasn't my guy, but still had me curious for a while) so I've decided no matter what, voting for McCain is still better than voting for Hillary or Obama.
I live in Washington too. Sometimes the best vote is for the least left candidate ... not necessarily the most right ... just the least left. At this point I just want to make sure I can live to vote another day ... with Obama I can't even be sure of that. Just imagine what the world would be like with a Jimmy Carter presidency if Iran had nukes back then.
Oh, you’re wicked, you are. ;)
The difference between “plausible” and “credible”
I said I find the tale “plausible” because it fits with some things we know about John McCain and what we might believe his state of mind to be in the fall of 2000.
However, I could sit here right now and spin out 1,000 “plausible” fictions about any of the candidates, i.e., fictions that do not conflict with what we know about them and which seem to create some “plausible” story that in reality “we” know to be fiction because I just concocted them, here, tonight. A plausible story only becomes “credible” when there is some actual basis in evidence such as reliable witnesses, documentary or audio-visual substantiation, etc.
Arianna Puffington adds nothing at all to the credibility of any story — it’s just as though I made it up right here and told you it was a fabrication. She has zero credibility with any respectable person.
The fact that Hot Air chooses to repeat the story only says to me that they want to see if they can stir things up, obtain some new info or witnesses, etc. However, they have not yet added the slightest substantiation to the story.
If you want to pursue Arianna’s fantasies feel free of course, it’s your right as a free American...... but in the absence of any substantiating evidence I don’t think the story will merit any respect.
... and the fact that you could actually proffer such an outlandishly absurd-on-its-very-face accusation, re: Hot Air -- whose devotion to all things McCain actually qualifies as nakedly and unapologetically servile, for pity's sake! -- only tells me (and anyone else familiar with their work) that you simply haven't Clue One as to the genuine nature of just whom, precisely, you are accusing, or their stance on the candidates.
If and when you make yourself more familiar with said track record... then, naturally, your opinion will change.
If you want to pursue Ariannas fantasies
Ah. Now you're simply making things up, for (one presumes) the sheer, simple pleasure of banging your fingertips repeatedly against the keys. Good for you, then! ;)
I am "pursuing" no one's fantasy, thank you kindly all the same. I posted a news story from a right-wing site long recognized as being a thoroughly credible one; and posed a pair of theoretical questions based thereupon, beginning with the the blatantly obvious qualifier: "Assuming that the core accusation at the heart of this story is true." This, you have repeatedly (and inexplicably) opted to ignore, for reasons which are, thankfully, neither my care nor my concern.
Again: CALM. DOWN. ;)
It took me a couple minutes to stop laughing over the “Great Galloping Guacamoles!”.
LOL.
About the only thing the woman is known for is turning her ex husband gay.
"If a serial liar lies about another serial liar in the forest... does it actually make a sound?" ;)
I think McCain got us mad enough just telling us what he things and intends to do. I don’t think he ever had to bother to lie.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, evidently. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.