Replies

Curious about how long you and I have been exchanging posts here, I decided to look up thread. For the record, you and I have been discussing the matter of Palin endorsing Fiorina, McCain and one other known leftist back East, for at least five days now.

Although you continue to claim you don't support McCain, he is at the heart of our disagreement on Fiorina, the candidate back east, and Sarah Palin. And this subject matter was important enough for you to hang in here over five days trying to beat me down so I'd leave you alone to prevail on the topic.

The fact of the matter is, you like John McCain. You think he's the better choice between him and J. D. Hayworth, to serve for the next six years in the Senate of the United States. You have stated so a number of times. You also describe John in terms that displays an inability to see John for who he is, who he has linked up with, and what they have pushed for together. So while you profess not to support John, you still come to his defense regularly, claim J. W. Hayworth is the same sort of individual as John, and refuse to acknowedge that John McCain is a far leftist individual.

I was all set to drop this discussion, until as a part of my researching how long we have been communicating on this thread, I came across your post to the owner of this fourm. Comments you made in that post to Jim, were off base, nonfactual, and had gone unresponded to. It seemed to me those comments warranted a response on point. And so, I was compelled to present this to you.

I have no problem with the statement that McCain lost the election by his flaky support of TARP and the bailouts.

Okay, I could take this two ways. I could take it that you genuinely disagreed with John for voting for TARP and the flakey bailouts, and are perpared to be entirely honest about John, or I could see it as an attempt to make it look like you are prepared to be honest about John, when that couldn't be farther from the truth. I'll refrain from saying which I find more reasoned, and I'll let the rest of your post cause folks to make their own determination.

However McCain's actions did not happen in a vacuum. a majority of people voted FOR Obama not against McCain. Is this a neutral statement? Could it be seen as a defense of McCain?

I agree McCain by his actions could not close the deal with the voters. You say his failure is a betrayal. I choose to see it as simply a failure. Could this been seen as a defense of McCain?

As far as a RAT? McCain is more center left than center right... Is this a defense of John McCain?

In the early 1990s, John co-authored legislation to give MFN to Communist Vietnam with John Kerry. McCain and Kerry proposed that the MIA issue be laid to rest, so Communist Vietnam could get MFN. They did so over the objections of veterans groups and the very families of our men still MIA. In the early 2000s, John McCain co-authored Campaign Finance reform, with Russel Feingold. He did it over the objections of his own party members who termed it un-Constitutional. And the SCOTUS came along later, and struck much of it down. John co-authored the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill in 2007 with Edward Kennedy. He did so over the objections of his entire party. Three times John co-authored global warming legislation with Joseph Lieberman. John joined George Soros, John Kerry's wife Teressa, and the Tides Foundation to set up a political entity. He hired a former Mexican Presidential Cabinet member to help him develop our border policy, a man that was adamantly anti-U.S. and demonstrated this on a number of occassions.

So let's see, John sided with John Kerry and Communist Vietnam against our MIAs, our veterans groups, the MIAs family members, and most decent U. S. Citizens. Sound middle-Left to you?
John sided with Russel Feingold to pass un-Constitutional campaign finance reform that dried up Republican avenues of funding, while leaving Unions (a large source of Leftist funding) untouched. Sound middle-Left to you?
John sided with Joe Lieberman to introduce global warming legislation that would have been very detrimental to the United States. Does that sound middle-Left to you?
John sided with Edward Kennedy to introduce Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation, that would have legalized the illegals on our soil, made it legal for them to continue to sap our nation dry, and would have legalized the entry of millions of additional Mexicans to our nation each year. Sound middle-Left to you?

Kennedy, the Kerrys, Feingold, Lieberman, Soros, Juan Hernandez, Communist Vietnam, one anti-gun activist, one anti-abortion activist, other Leftist Republicans, the Democrat Party, the Democrat agenda, Barack Obama...

Your take on John supporting the agenda of each of these people and entitites causes you to think he's a middle-Left individual? The things he has done in his personal and professional life cause you to think he is a middle-Left individual?

I know you don't support John McCain, but don't you think your statements about McCain, despite what he has been documented to have done, could be seen as a defense of him?

...but then when it comes to spending and increasing government budgets so is JD. I have asked you several times to provide a list of things J. D. has done, that validates this charge on your part. In five days you have failed to do so once. You have made general blanket statements that slandered him, but no specifics. Does that look neutral on John McCain, when John is running against J. D.?

Like I said I do not support McCain Yes, you have certainly said that before. You've said it a number of times on this thread, several times to me alone. And that is easy for you to say, because John remains out front of J. D. Hayworth, and you can afford to deny supporting John while you continue to belittle J. D., which you have been doing regularly here. All the while, you have expressed support for the most highly visible Republican who has come out in support of John S. McCain.

I support Palin and by attacking Palin over her endorsement people do more to harm the Conservative cause than McCain could ever do. Okay, you support Palin. I believe that, although the case could certainly be made that you are harming her more than you know by your actions here. And that means, I may be a dupe to take you at your word on the topic. As for people who disagree with Sarah for backing McCain, it would be impossible for them to do more damage to our cause than John McCain has done.

1. If it comes to corruption, John has made it look like Republicans are as guilty of it as Democrats are
2. If it comes to supporting our troops, the MIA, our veterans, and MIA and veteran families, John has made it look like Republicans are as shakey on it as Democrats are.
3. If it comes to anti-Contitutional legislation, John has made it look like Republicans are as capable of introducing it as the Democrats are.
4. If it comes to supporting Communist (Vietnam) benefiting causes and legislation, John has proven the Republicans are as capable of introducing it as the Democrats are.
5. If it comes to defending our borders and sovereignty, John has proven the Republicans are as capable of getting it wrong as the Democrats are.
6. If it comes to military/defense matters, John has proven Republicans can get it wrong on Gitmo, the F-22, misssle defense systems, and other matters as the Democrats are.
7. If it comes to global warming, John has proven Republicans are as willing to introduce global warming legislation as the Democrats are.
8. If it comes to globalist efforts like NAFTA, LOST, the ICC and other causes, John has proven Republican are a willing to sign on as the Democrats are.
9. If it comes to reaching across the isle on a host of matters, John has proven that the Republicans are hardly ever unified in opposition to the worst legislation our nation has seen.
10. I don't have time to list it all. The list goes on and on and on and on and on... but of course you don't support John S. McCain's activity listed here.

Don't come here and claim anyone other than John S. McCain has caused more irreperable long lasting harm to Conservatism than John McCain has. Someone might think you were actually defending the man. And we all know, you don't support John S. McCain.

And they are in my book the useful idiots. Yes, of course, people objecting to McCain and the things he has done, are useful idiots. Thank heaven that couldn't be seen as defending John McCain. But then you do suppport the person who has endorsed him, has made a number of personal appearances with him and on television, and has run a months long campaign on Arizona's Conservative radio talk show stations, saying McCain is worthy of being returned to the U. S. Senate based on his long history of service to our nation. But that isn't really supporting John McCain. Nah.

How would Mitt, or Huck or Ron Paul advance the conservative agenda in the Whitehouse. Nothing like changing the subject main stream... one would almost think someone else ran out of steam. Did you run out of steam NOT defending John McCain? Not defending him is hard work isn't it. I can see how hard you are not defending him, and I think you deserve credit. You are one of the best when it comes to tirelessly not defending John S. McCain. Simply amazing. It's almost, not quite but almost, a super-human effort not to support him.

Like it or not the chances of a dark horse conservative coming out of the shadows at this time is less and less. ...as non-supporting McCain people continue not supporting him, but spending days at a time defending those who do in order to show how completely impartial they are. And Unseen1, you are as impartial as they come. I've never seen a more impartial person when it comes to crusty old Leftists and Reagan Conservatives. Very impressive. Can't tell you how glad I am that you have been so willing to be open and honest about McCain's record here.

We have few very few national conservatives fighting for our agenda. One could be forgiven for thinking, there are even fewer than you seem to think, since you are convinced McCain and J. D. Hayworth are just the same sort of individual, even though you don't actually support McCain.

Belittling one because of your hatred for McCain makes no sense. It's going to just floor you that I don't think it is an expression of hatred to present what John S. McCain has been up to for more than thirty years, nor is it an expression of hatred to think it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone who is a Conservative to endorse him. It is merely an expression of reality. Conservatives I know and have known for decades, are not able to endorse a man like McCain based on his own actions.

And right here, I want to take the time to thank you once again for being so honest and above board with respect to McCain, and for your impartiality conserning J. D. Hayworth's attempt to replace him. You're impatiality is perhaps the most impressive display of impartiality I have ever seen. I'm going to bookmark this thread so that over upcoming years, I can come back to it and watch how a Palin supporter can show such exemplary impartiality over a U. S. Senate primary.

And just fuels the left’s desires. Fuels the Left's desires? Forgive me, but I think John S. McCain's personal actions have fueled the Left's movement more than any other Republican I have come to know about in my life. And once again, I am going to say how much I appreciate your even handed and non-partisan stance on him. I'm sure others do too. None of what you have said to this point, has in any way been supportive of John McCain being re-elected. That much is crystal clear.

Like I have said now numerous times now I could care less about McCain or JD both are part of the problem. I really hate feeling compelled to say this over and over, flattering you inceasantly, but it is so impressive how hard you are trying to not support John S. McCain for re-election here. Making the case that J. D. Hayworth was poured out of the same mold as John S. McCain despite the long list of things John S. McCain chose to do in his life, absent any list whatsoever of anything negative J. D. Hayworth has done, makes it damed clear how dedicated you are to not supporting John. I've never seen anything like it in my forty years of political activity. Just brilliant. You're the man!

you can make a case that McCain is a bigger part of the problem and others can make the case that JD is a bigger part of the problem. Exactly, that's so true. Wow, yet again I am just dumbfounded by your insightful political analysis, not in support of John S. McCain.

Both men have votes and a history that tells anyone who is not blinded by hate for one or the other than neither is a shining knight for conservatives. Every new sentence, I am even further convinced of your absolute non-support for John S. McCain. This is a post for the ages. Poli Sci courses, journalism courses, and even propaganda courses will be studying this thread for hundreds of years, explaining to new kids coming up, just how to go about not supporting a candidate. Unseen1, you're an idol for all of us. If I could just grow up to be the slightest bit like you, not supporting folks with the finess of a person like you.

fighting over McCain vs JD is like fighting over death by hanging or gunshot. By itself, this is futher evidence of brilliance. I'm just speechless.

Your still screwed no matter which one wins out. Exactly! Oh..., it just doesn't get more non-supportive of McCain than this. My list of McCain activity here, and your list of J. D. Hayworth's activity... well..., you haven't provided one in the interest of not-supporting McCain (of course)..., but if you did, I'm sure it would be even more non-supportive of McCain than you have already been.

It really doesn't matter. Oh Unseen1, cut it out. I can take only so much incredible evidence of non-support. At some point it just overwhelms. I agree, it just doesn't matter who we support. One guy has a disgusting list of things he has done over six or seven decades and the other doesn't. You are so right. It really doesn't matter. Any voter would say the same thing. One guy has failed to represent my views for decades, and the other one has consistantly. I never saw it so clearly. It doesn't matter. And all it took was for one person to open my yes, by not supporting John S. McCain, and supporting the person who does when it really doesn't make any difference. Absolutely brilliant.

I just want you to know, that from now on out, I'm going to try to not support J. D. Hayworth as hard as your are not supporting John S. McCain. I can only hope to be 1/10th as effective at it as you have been not supporting John.

What matters is to keep the ultimate goal in sight and that is to elect the most conservative candidates to positions of power in the GOP and in the government. But then it doesn't really matter right Unseen1? We really must not support people based on what they have done. We really shouldn't think anything of people who actually do support folks stating it is because of their actions over the decades, even though it doesn't matter.

The mastery you have displayed on this thread has caused me to rethink everything.

And anyone still reading this response, I hope you don't let me go down that road alone. Not mattering, is a movement whose time has come.

So what do you think folks? I could take it that you genuinely disagreed with John for voting for TARP and the flakey bailouts, and are perpared to be entirely honest about him, or I could see it as an attempt to make it look like you are prepared to be honest about John, when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Is not mattering a movement whose time has come?

I know of a political figure who doesn't agree with this at all. And this character is shilling for her here.