Posted on 10/11/2009 8:06:41 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
This morning, in an interview with CNN's State of the Union, Sen. John McCain (RINO-Ariz.) apparently used some rather choice language to describe the fairly evident future political aspirations of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Ak.):
"Will Sarah and I - did we always agree on everything in the past? Will we in the future? No. But let's let a thousand flowers bloom. Let's come up with a winning combination next time."
—http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2360310/posts
With only a cursory glance, it appears from McCain's language that he is merely asking for a second chance -- in 2012? -- with Palin. [And, at first blush, it is easy to dismiss his words as the ravings of a senile old man.] However, as FReeper rae4palin pointed out, the phrase
“Let a thousand flowers bloom” was said by Mao to encourage dissidents to self-identify. Mao then killed them.
—http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2360310/posts?page=26#26
[Or, more precisely, as other FReepers noted, the phrase "let a thousand flowers of bloom" is a variant of a Maoist phrase "let a hundred flowers bloom." In all cases, however, the distinction between the two phrases--Maoist and McCainian--or in other words, the word "hundred" vs. the word "thousand," are irrelevant to the phrase's meaning.]
In fact, this observation was also picked up and expounded upon by other FReepers, including piytar and cripplecreek. The origin of the phrase "let a hundred flowers bloom" (i.e., the actual phrase upon which McCain's particular words were based) is...Chinese Communist Mao Zedong! As FReeper cripplecreek noted,
Let a thousand flowers bloom is a common misquotation of Chairman Mao Zedong’s “Let a hundred flowers blossom”. This slogan was used during the period of approximately six weeks in the summer of 1957 when the Chinese intelligentsia were invited to criticize the political system then obtaining in Communist China.
The full quotation, taken from a speech of Mao’s in Peking in February 1957, is:
“Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.”
It is sometimes suggested that the initiative was a deliberate attempt to flush out dissidents by encouraging them to show themselves as critical of the regime. Whether or not it was a deliberate trap isn’t clear but it is the case that many of those who put forward views that were unwelcome to Mao were executed.
The biggest question here is why McCain specifically elected to use a Maoist phrase in connection with Palin's fairly obvious future political aspirations. Certainly, it goes without saying that his choice of words is especially disturbing, given his time in captivity in North Vietnam. [Could it be that the late conservative activist Ted Sampley, who presciently labeled McCain as a "Manchurian candidate" nearly seventeen years ago, was right all along?] Furthermore, upon closer examination of McCain's language, especially in the context of his past actions as a noted RINO and member of the Beltway establishment, it becomes alarmingly obvious that his words constitute nothing less than a veiled threat against Palin, or i.e., the Republican establishment considers her a direct threat to the continuance of their power and will most certaintly attempt to derail her future aspirations, much as Mao encouraged Chinese intelligentsia to speak freely nearly fifty-seven years ago...before executing the ones he disagreed with.
"Screw McQueeg and his little groin leeches." —cripplecreek, 2009-01-22, on the infamous MDS thread
Some people don't seem to care about that at all. It doesn't matter how deeply he has betrayed family, friends, POWs or conservatives. It doesn't matter how many years or how many times he has done this. All that matters is that he once wore a uniform and most importantly (for them) he has an R by his name.
McCain could put America up for sale on E-bay and they would defend him.
It would actually be more honest of him to do that than what he has done.
Perhaps. but that's not the topic of this thread. The topic is about McCain refusing to endorse Palin, and then using the phrase "let a thousand flowers bloom."
You can criticize McCain all you want. In fact, I encourage ciritism of him. I'm not a big fan of his either. I was as dismayed by his nomination in 2008 as much as you.
My only point is that when you criticize him, do it for substantive reasons. Criticize him for cap and trade, for for the bank bailout, for pushing the illegal alien amnesty, and the like.
On the other hand, it strikes me as pretty stupid to call him a RINO for simply refusing to endorse Palin this early on, or using a benign metaphor that Mao once used.
Well then, why don't you join me in saying that rabscuttle385's vanity at the top of this thread is stupid? In case you hadn't noticed, it bashes McCain precisely for failing to endose Palin right now.
If you're going to bash McCain, bash him for a legitimate reason, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are plenty of such reasons to bash him.
Bashing him for saying it's too early to endorse anyone, and to "let a thousand flowers bloom," is just plain idiotic. I would venture to say the vast majority of conservatives would agree with him on this point.
Not everyone compartmentalizes things like McCain’s views on Cap & Trade, his views on Global Warming and his many other actions from his poor treatment of a clearly popular conservative and acts like they have no connection. When the dots are all connected with a wide tipped Sharpie there is no reason to pretend that they are all isolated incidents.
Well then, why don't you join me in saying that rabscuttle385's vanity at the top of this thread is stupid? In case you hadn't noticed, it bashes McCain precisely for failing to endose Palin right now.
No it doesn't. His post period criticizes McCain for using a veiled Maoist quote PERIOD in association with Palin. He then speculates that McCain did so consciously to cast doubt on her viability. That is simply his opinion. Nowhere in his post did he base his criticism on McCain's refusal to endorse Palin right now. The whole post was devoted to the question of whether McCain was trying to damage Palins future political viability by "associating" her with Maoist terminology. You are making my case from my earlier posts by making factually incorrect assertions and insinuations.
Now the larger issue has become WHY IN THE HELL IS MCCAIN COUCHING HIS POLITICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS (about anything) IN MAOIST TERMINOLOGY?
This opens up a whole 'nother can of worms... /g It may be that he simply stumbled on his own into a similar metaphor to Mao's (and Vannevar Bush's... /g). It may also be that he is parroting a talking point handed him by his speech writers (which possibility merits its own investigation). It may also be that he absorbed at an unconscious level some of this Maoist phraseology (a la Tom Tuttle from Tacoma) during his years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton and it's simply bubbling out at odd moments.
Or, he may genuinely be a programmed Manchurian candidate whose programming compels him to make these types of comments in addition to his efforts to undermine certain critical foundational pillars of our Republic from time to time (e.g. McCain/Feingold CFR).
Although speculation on McCain's motives is a perfectly acceptable topic for forum discussion, we of course have no way of knowing the truth about McCain's inner motivations - all we have to go by are his actions, and those are amply damning.
Palin/Hunter 2012!
Nice Alinsky tactic there. Cute.
Actually, no one has to believe in any of that crap to bash McCain. He has done enough on his own to defeat conservatism.
Maybe you'd like to fill us in, I know I didn't get the memo.
BTW, how much are they paying you to post this crap? You on the 'Blog Squad', or what?
I think she'll encounter significant resistance from the 'county club' set, but she has dealt with entrenched power structures before and triumphed.
I disagree with that in that I think Palin will have influence with the question remaining, how much?
The question is "How much" influence she will have, and I think the electorate can influence that. Republicans are tired of being told who their candidate will be, regardless of where they stand on the issues, and there is a vocal movement within the electorate which will naturally support Palin. The TEA Party set needs to remain vocal and exert influence on the Party in general. That job has just begun, and is far from finished.
I am not going to follow your so-called trail of logic to draw the dots from McCain to Maoism. McCain is a lot of things, but Maoist he is not, and anyone who thinks that some vital position they hold stands or falls on whether McCain is a Maoist, is a raving nutter in my book. See it how you may, but that is my view. You just cannot get to dry ground starting from that swamp.
You are talking to conservatives here. It pains me much to say it, but your own reactions to this post just show, that reasoned positions based upon well know facts and accepted principle are no longer conservative strengths or desired traits. It's sad. It really is.
First, Vanevar Bush is not an obscure name to anyone involved in the practice of modern US Science. He is the one who invented the entire government science grant bingo lottery.
Second, pointing out that the phrase "let a thousand flowers bloom" has been around long before Mao, kind of takes the Maoist sting out of it, and showing that feckless fools like you have no venom is important.
No, it is you who are off on a tangent, trying to keep up some sort of rant about McCain being a Maoist. I don't like many positions McCain has taken myself, but they are for the most part withing the left and right lanes of mainstream American politics. They may not all be compatible with sound conservative principles. But they are not subversive to the future of the State.
'Establishment Right' is the way I like describing GWB, Cheney, McCain, the bailout and stimulus and amnesty crowd. Fred Barnes and Britt Hume took these positions too even though they are great going after Obama and dem majority now, an easy target. (Neil Cavuto is more a conservative than any of the others against every single bailout and stimulus.)
I see RINOs as being more like Susan Colins and Snow. They really act like democrats.
To the general populace of the United States he is obscure, extremely so. You don't get to arbitrarily limit the demographic selection to fit your premise.
No, it is you who are off on a tangent, trying to keep up some sort of rant about McCain being a Maoist.
Now of course you and everyone else on this thread knows I have not said McCain is a Maoist, so why are you gibbering about it? It is merely an interesting point of discussion. For the record, I personally don't believe McCain is a Maoist, he's a McCainist - his own ego is so all-consuming there's no room in there for Mao (nor the Founding Fathers, unfortunately). It's all, and always, about John McCain. Read post #126 for an objective listing of some of the possibilities from whence his comment may have originated.
I don't like many positions McCain has taken myself, but they are for the most part withing the left and right lanes of mainstream American politics. They may not all be compatible with sound conservative principles. But they are not subversive to the future of the State.
If you don't understand that McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform, a direct assault on the First Amendment, was subversive to the future of the State (at least the constitutional Republic - it was a boon to the future of the nascent fascist State) then you and I don't really have much basis for rational discussion.
My family is from southern Pennsylvania. Fervent abolitionists, they were among the first in the Republican Party. We have been Republican since that time, good times and bad, all the way across the country.
This country has no shortage of screwballs. The Republican Party attracts its share. Goldwater slapped them back. Reagan ran from them. I find them mildly amusing. They have a tendency to run around screaming like their hair’s afire. The best thing to do is to let them run with their little conspiracy theories. It keeps them occupied while we do the work. If they want to vote with us, that’s fine. If they don’t, that’s fine, too. They will never set the agenda for the Republican Party. Never.
This little exercise is an excursion into dementia. Do as you will. Believe as you will. This is nuttery.
Thank you for such a fascinating response. It was extremely illuminating, albeit not quite in the manner you intended...
Um, “Rouge” is often used intentionally as a non-so-subtle misogynistic slam on Palin as a woman. Because, of course, all convervative women are idiots who should stay home and shut up. /SARCASM.
That’s why you see it so much lately. And I agree, it’s garbage and should stop.
No, you just attacked me when I pointed out that the so-called Maoist phrase that McCain was accused of using was not the least bit Maoist, having been in such currency in the US in official reports of high level commissions.
When you attack me for simply pointing out that McCain is not a Maoist, you leave the distinct impression that you side with that particular position.
you don't understand that McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform, a direct assault on the First Amendment, was subversive to the future of the State (at least the constitutional Republic - it was a boon to the future of the nascent fascist State)
Wow! All that. Campaign finance reform a boon to fascism? Who knew? Thanks for the warning. Now I won't be able to sleep at night. [This is sarcasm in case you cannot tell. Now I know you are a fevered idiot.]
You continue to hold this position even though you know know that McCain is not only a Maoist, but apparently a tool of neo-fascism? [/s]
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.