Excuse me, but McCain is not a "true" republican compared to the rest in the field, and neither is Mike Huckabee. Romney flipped on several issues, but is sticking to his guns and he is consistly republican in his speech's as of late. The REAL REPUBLICAN is Ron Paul. If you were to take his opposition to the war away, he would be the run away leader for the nomination. However, people will claim you are unamerican or dont support the troops if you are against the war, a claim that rings false because the military supports Paul more than all republican and democrats in the race combined. You are obviously Pro-McCain. I would bet you are too old to be drafted. I find it repulsive that over 70% of the people want out of Iraq, but McCain has the audacity to force us to stay there if he wins, possibly for 100 years. How is it he claims he can do something the people dont want him to do. Its not his country its everyones.

I will never vote for McCain. The neo-conservatives are destroying the Republican party. The media will love McCain's nomination...It insures a Democrat victory in 2008.

Well-written and fascinating article, Dave, thanks.

The Democratic candidates should be rubbing their hands with glee right now instead of trying to verbally throttle one another, because the rhetoric on the right has become truly bizarre.

Yesterday on this very site we were treated to the jaw-dropping spectacle of JustOneMan, of all people, claiming that he would vote for Barack Obama if it came down to a choice between him and McCain.

On the flip side, we see liberty Republicans like yourself and Clavos seriously considering voting for Obama or another Democrat if McCain is not the nominee.

Personally, speaking from the left, I would be comfortable with McCain as the GOP nominee. The mere possibility that one of the other maniacs could win the presidency makes me shudder.

My one concern would be McCain's choice of running mate. Bearing in mind his age, his VP would have more than a slight chance of sliding prematurely behind the Oval Office desk at some point.

I see that the auther has been a capitol hill staffer and now lives in Austin, which would explain why they are out of touch with mainstream America, and with reality.
Using demagoguery to fight demagoguery is a poor tactic. The immigration issue has very little to do with racism, and much more to do with common sense. The issue boils down, really, to one question - do we want to allow immigrants to flow into the US with no criminal screening, no health screening, no documentation, without finding out who they are, where they came from, and why they came?
The vast majority of Americans would, of course, answer no to this question. Most Americans realize cheap immigrant labor is the slavery of the 21st century, and like slavery, the benefits to corporate America are not worth the costs.
Local law enforcement agencies have begun taking up the slack, because they are overwhelmed by a citzenry who are not citizens, who are essentially ghosts living outside of the system.

Here's my easy, three step immigration plan:
1) Speed up the process of obtaining a visa.
2) Increase the number of immigrants allowed to come into the country legally.
3) Deport anyone in this country illegally.

I personally don't get my Fruit of the Looms in a twist over immigration issues. I wonder how many of those opposed to allowing (mainly hispanic) immigrants into the country would be willing to put studying their stock portfolios aside and run out to the southwest and start picking vegetables or join a roofing crew in blazing summer heat? What jobs are the hispanic immigrants taking? The fact is that most of the hispanic immigrants do the work that most U.S. citizens are unwilling to do. Yet we want salad with our dinner and a roof over our heads.

Also, many hispanics - legal or not -have melded into many communities and are now entrepreneurs, running their own businesses, often successfully.

Should immigration be controlled? Certainly, especially in the wake of 9/11. But at the grass roots, most anti-immigrationists are at heart, also racists.

As to McCain and his position within the Republican party: To me it seems more of a tempest in a teapot. Trying to identify who is or is not a "true Republican" or what defines a "true Democrat" for that matter is hardly less difficult than trying to define who is or is not a "true christian."

Given that we operate essentially under a two party system, it is necessary that each party must offer itself up to a wide spectrum of the country's citizens. The only way one could limit a political party to a narrow spectrum of people would be to have several parties. Such a situation generally only exists in countries which tend to be unstable, with opposing factions generally creating havoc, sometimes resorting to physical violence. Most of the more stable democracies have only two or at most a small handful of active political parties which wield any real power.

Both the Reps and Dems must allow for a wide spectrum of membership - some who might be in conflict with others - if they expect to maintain any influence at any and all levels of government.

The key to the success or failure in such efforts is compromise. Some look upon compromise as a scourge, whereas I consider it one of the higher achievements of humanity. Compromise implies cooperation, give and take.

The Reps are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot over the McCain controversy. As a liberal Dem, I don't mind a bit. While you "true Republicans" hack away at each other, a Dem - probably either Obama or (the hated) HRC will be preparing to warm the desk chair in the oval office with their left wing butts. Fine by me.

B-tone

"The key to the success or failure in such efforts is compromise. Some look upon compromise as a scourge, whereas I consider it one of the higher achievements of humanity. Compromise implies cooperation, give and take."

You say compromise I say capitulation.

I won't capitualte to Mccain or any of the Democrats by voting for him/them.

We had to suffer through Carter before we got to Regan (well I didn't but this nation did).

There will come a time again when we actually have someone worth voting for.

McCain is going to win the GOP nomination. Get over it!

The responses are so delicious I hardly know where to start.

Excuse me, but McCain is not a "true" republican compared to the rest in the field,

Actually, he is the closest of all the candidates to the traditional beliefs of the Republican party. You may not know or understand those beliefs - and you obviously didn't read the article, but that's the truth.

and neither is Mike Huckabee.

Now there I agree with you. Huckabee is neither Republicn NOR conservative. He's the anti-republican in many ways.

Romney flipped on several issues, but is sticking to his guns and he is consistly republican in his speech's as of late.


No. Romney is currently pretending to be a conservative, but he's more of a neocon than a Republican (not that you understand what a neocon actually is).

The REAL REPUBLICAN is Ron Paul.

Good try, but Paul's a libertarian. And that's a fine political perspective and not-incompatible with the GOP, but it's not mainstream republicanism. Paul diverges from standard Republican ideology in his opposition to an engaged foreign policy and opposition to the use of the military to back it up which has always been a core element of Republican policy. His extreme conservative social agenda is very un-republican.

If you were to take his opposition to the war away, he would be the run away leader for the nomination.

Not sure about that. His lack of engaging personality and lecturing instead of giving appealing speeches would still bring him up short.

However, people will claim you are unamerican or dont support the troops if you are against the war, a claim that rings false because the military supports Paul more than all republican and democrats in the race combined.

Blah blah blah. Only an idiot would claim Paul's unamerican for opposing the war. No one says it about Democrats. This is a bogus issue made up by the PaulBots to try to tar their opponents. It's a classic strawman.

You are obviously Pro-McCain.

No, I'm voting for Paul. But I do think McCain is a viable candidate and will vote for him in the general election.

I would bet you are too old to be drafted.

We don't have a draft and hopefully will never have one. When I worked for the LP one of my jobs was to organize anti-draft registration protests. We have a volunteer army and shoould never have anything else, unless we can move towards a system of relying primarily on private contractors.

I find it repulsive that over 70% of the people want out of Iraq,

They don't. Your statistic is pure bullshit. And a bit of bullshit I'm tired of hearing. Go look up the poll it comes from which was sponsored by an anti-war group sometime. In fact it does not say that 70% of the people want to pull out of the war immediately. The poll actually found that about 20% wanted an immediate withdrawal and about 48% wanted an eventual withdrawal once the situation was stabilized. Then anti-war people added those two numbers together and came up with 70% want to pull out. You could flip the same poll the other way and say that 88% don't want to leave until Iraq is stable.

Dave

How strange to see self-identified conservatives declaiming wildly against McCain, of all people!

have they taken a look at the bloated budget GWB has submitted?

Bliff, these self-identified conservatives are like Mike Huckabee, they're conservative on social issues and don't care about spening at all. They're like the opposite of traditional republicans. The whole idea of fiscal conservatism is beyond their comprehension as demonstrated by their accusation that McCain is a tax and spender when he's one of the most successful anti-pork spending cutters we have.

Dave

Let's toss out all of the labels and just take a look at the man Mccain is.

He's angry. He's petty. He's spiteful. He's smug.

He behaves like a complete jackass in debates with his collegaes.

He has a long history of throwing temper tantrums and using profanity toward other government officials that do not kiss his ass and agree with everything he says.

He has no real understanding of any issue other than the war in Iraq.

He claims to be a straight talker and then lies about his opponents records.

I just plain don't like the guy on a personal level. He comes off as the type of guy you'd just love to push down a flight of steps.

Oh and last but not least he was way off the mark with his little amnesty bill.

A surefire litmus test for any reasonable American seeking to take a side on an issue is to see what side Ted Kennedy is on and than take the opposing side.

Tomorrow may be a new beginning for Mcrazy. he has spent the last eight years counting down the days until he gets his revenge on the party that passed on him. He's obviously been enjoying tweaking the conservative base of the GOP but come Novemeber I for one will not be giving him my support. I had planned on taking great joy in watching Hillary lose but now it that it appears it will be Mccain v. Clinton it has become a doubled edged sword. Being that I hate them both so much that the mere sight of either of them makes my blood pressure rise, I will obviously take great joy in watching the anguish the loser experiences in having come so close. I will savor it. the flip side is that we will have a president who will be nothing but bad for America.

I almost feel as sorry for Arch as I do for Ruvy. They both seem to predicate their existence on how much they hate anybody who doesn't fall in line with their world view. The only reason Ruvy beats out Arch, is that Ruvy seems to have murder in his veins. I'm not sure about Arch.

The problem with people like Arch is they feel that compromise is unacceptable. That they must have things their way or not at all.

There are a lot of people in this world. Refusing to negotiate, to consider other people's positions and beliefs is a quick road to isolation and failure. In most cases, unless you are an absolute dictator, give and take is the only viable way to maintain a working society. Nobody has all the right answers. No one perspective works for everybody.

I won't be voting for McCain or any Republican, but I don't hate him or Romney or anyone else. I don't even hate Bush. Despise, yes, but hate? No.

B-tone

Dave, your revisionist histories of the Republican Party always overlook the important role played by religiously-motivated activists. From opposition to slavery, through prohibition and voting rights, to the modern pro-life movement, religious reformers have been at home in the GOP. I realize that isn't your tradition, but it's as much a part of the Party's tradition as the libertarian movement.

You can't simply declare that McCain is more of a Republican than his opponents are.

You made a series of arguments that McCain has taken reasonable Republican positions on the issues. But in most of the cases, he had to go outside his party to find allies. This isn't a theoretical matter. He alienated members of his own party and teamed with Democrats for McCain-Feingold, McCain-Leiberman, and McCain-Kennedy.

And these aren't peripheral issues to his candidacy. This is the record he's running on. If he were running on his budget-cutting efforts, we'd be talking about them. Instead, he's been sneering at the private sector a lot (probably as a tactic against Romney, but still...). He's been calling for increased regulation of business, in the name of preventing global warming. There are plenty of reasons for moderate Republicans to be nervous.

B-tone, that's a funny posting coming from you. You practically burst into flames at the mention of Reagan, religion, fascist right-winger Nazis, or just about anything else. It's easy to spot it when the other guy is an extremist, but you might want to double-check yourself on this subject.

Baronius,

I don't think ideology has much to do with it. Many people that Identify with the Republican Party just want to have some chance of winning. The polls are showing that even Republicans that consider themselves 'conservative' are moving to support McCain. This could be like a centrifuge sorting out the various strata of 'conservativeness', or it could be a separating of the pragmatists from the rigid. But there is no way the likes of Coulter would actually support Clinton. If they refuse to support McCain their only alternatives would be a new 'third' party, or to just sit it out.

There are a significant layer of moderate Republicans that are not ideologues at all and are the most likely not to have party loyalty. Many would vote for the Democratic ticket. This would be especially true with an Obama-Romney lineup.

Les

Dave, your revisionist histories of the Republican Party always overlook the important role played by religiously-motivated activists.

I'm not overlooking them, it's just that the fact that they were religiously motivated isn't relevant. Yes, religious people have always been in the GOP just like the Democratic party. But the GOP has never based its agenda on theocracy or introducing religion into politics - at least not until pretty recently. Nothing about the party is anti-religion, but religion is not and should not be the basis of party policy.

From opposition to slavery, through prohibition and voting rights, to the modern pro-life movement, religious reformers have been at home in the GOP. I realize that isn't your tradition, but it's as much a part of the Party's tradition as the libertarian movement.

Well sure, and they've always been religious people who understand that the separation of church and state exists as much to protect the churches and their independence as it does to prevent theocracy.

And remember, McCain is a good Baptist (converted by his wife) and he's pro-life.

You can't simply declare that McCain is more of a Republican than his opponents are.

Sure I can. McCain's positions are more in keeping with the traditions of the party than are those of the extremist nativists and theocrats and anti-corporatists. Those positions just aren't compatible with the values of the GOP over the years.

You made a series of arguments that McCain has taken reasonable Republican positions on the issues. But in most of the cases, he had to go outside his party to find allies. This isn't a theoretical matter. He alienated members of his own party and teamed with Democrats for McCain-Feingold, McCain-Leiberman, and McCain-Kennedy.

There were plenty of Republicans backing each of those acts. McCain just believes in bipartisanship. It's why he's been able to get so much major legislation passed. Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And these aren't peripheral issues to his candidacy. This is the record he's running on. If he were running on his budget-cutting efforts, we'd be talking about them. Instead, he's been sneering at the private sector a lot (probably as a tactic against Romney, but still...). He's been calling for increased regulation of business, in the name of preventing global warming. There are plenty of reasons for moderate Republicans to be nervous.

Moderate Republicans are flocking to him in droves. Only the most conservative and ideologically driven are holding out and they're sounding more and more crazy like Ann coulter in the clip embedded in the article.

Dave

Baronius,

Yes, I know I got under your skin when I attacked the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, etal, and yes, if there is anyone who I get close to really hating it is those buttheads who make hay at the expense of others with their endless spewing of cheap shots and skewed facts. And, yes, I characterized them as goose-stepping Nazis with no apology.

I have strong feelings as regards religion, and again, those I aim my sharpest barbs are the prancing evangelists who do their own share of spewing to their deluded parishoners while picking their pockets.

Reagan. I don't or didn't hate the man. I just think he is extremely overrated and find how so many deify him beyond understanding.

Otherwise, I am actually far from being an extremist. But I'm not shy about venting from time to time.

B-tone

Dave, I don't know if you're avoiding my point or you really don't follow it.

There's nothing new about people in the Republican Party being motivated by their religious beliefs, trying to change the country's laws in the direction of their social agenda. What is new is labelling them "theocrats".

It may not matter to you that abolitionists were motivated by religion, but it sure mattered to them. They remade the world around them, reshaping the Constitution to match what they believed to be God's law. There was no worry about the "tyranny of the majority". They won the election, and when the South tried to secede, they went to war and died by the hundreds of thousands.

Don't treat the zealot as a newcomer to the GOP. They've been here as long as there's been a party. They're as much a thread of Republican history as high-tariff big business, or low-tariff small business. The party has seen big debates, for example on tariffs. But you can't claim that the progressives and libertarians are the only traditions in the GOP.

Baritone, every fanatic is perfectly balanced on every issue except the ones on which their opponents are prancing goose-stepping fascist buttheads.

Brother Nalle, you make a decent case that McCain is a true Republican. To me, however, that's an argument against both McCain and Republicans. NO. I'll stand out on the corner with Ann Coulter handing out Hillary tracts.

JOHN MCCAIN'S FREE SPEECH ZONE

Baronius,

You got me. I'm one crazy assed, baby killing, cocaine snorting, godless motherfucker. There are things and people I don't like, so that must make me a fanatic. I was just hoping you wouldn't notice. Damn!

B-tone

It is about time the traditional Republicans got to choose a candidate. The "conservative" right wing has had their way too long and made us all look bad like Tom Delay's corruption and their hypocrisy on the budget deficit. I could not agree more with this assessment of John McCain. He is a man that does what is right before what is popular, even with the far right wing. We need a president who knows how to get things done, not just hate the other side of the isle and stone wall everything while things get worse. We still do not have immigration reform. So now we are stuck with 12 million undocumented illegal aliens because the fare right would rather do nothing than make a "square deal." The result is amnesty. Thanks a lot far right conservatives.

Baronius, I think you actually missed MY point. I got yours.

That point being that there is a difference between religion motivating people in politics and politics being about religion.

There's also a huge difference between the positive religious agenda of the abolitionists and other 19th century liberals and the toxic form of christianity which drives our contemporary theocrats. It's the difference between wanting to help people because it's the Christian thing to do, and wanting to use the power of government to force Christianity on people because it glorifies you and your beliefs.

Dave

Dave,

Very perceptive writing about the important differences between 'Republican' and 'conservative' in this election.

To refer to Limbaugh, Coulter, Huckabee, etc., as conservatives, though, stains, distorts and demeans the ideals of conservatism.

Those fanatics believe themselves to be infallible arbiters of social, political, and economic orthodoxy, and know in their hearts that any contrary idea is completely wrong. They're sure they have sole insight into what's right and complete possession of the truth, and everything else is certainly false and evil.

That's not conservatism (or Republican.) That's a perverted, self-righteous, and harmful cult mentality, and Republicans should scorn and reject it.

Politics in a democracy is the art of the possible. It is--and should be--based on compromise, dialogue, and consensus. There just isn't any viablibilty in a "saved" or "unsaved" conservative gospel according to Limbaugh, et al.

Lee, your last paragraph would be the absolute definition of what John McCain seems to believe. I think that's not such a bad thing, even if I disagree with several of the compromises he's made.

As for Limbaugh and Co. They are conservatives, both as self-defined and by any analysis of their beliefs, but they are also obnoxious, self-righteous and dictatorial and very unappealing examples of the breed.

There's room for conservatives within the GOP. There always has been. But these folks place their conservatism above their republicanism or their membership in the GOP. To them it's like a religion. They need a party which accepts that, and if John McCain can show them the door maybe they can go find that party.

Dave

B-tone, I'm an absolute nut about dozens of things. I can open the dictionary to a random page and find something to get fanatical about. (My blood pressure is 340/310.) But I'm willing to admit it.

Baronius,

Being opinionated and being fanatical are two different things. I actually don't have a lot of things that make me go ape shit. There are a few.
Blatant dishonesty is one. Especially when it is couched with a veil of supposed wisdom or superior knowledge, such as what Limbaugh and many evangelists do for profit. It's people such as those who truly give capitalism a bad name.

I may get a bit carried away here in response to what I feel is either dishonesty and/or bullshit. But I don't froth at the mouth or have a vein across my reddened forehead ready to explode in such instances. I do have strong opinions about certain things, but I don't come from a base of fanaticism, at least not as I would define it.

B-tone

It really bothers me listening to Limbaugh to hear him say some ridiculous thing, basically made up from whole cloth about someone like McCain and then a few days later his callers will start calling in and repeating that canard as if it were some sort of established fact, and then they'll start calling other shows and repeating it as if it were fact, and then my wife or my kids will come up to me and say it as if it were fact, and it remains completely untrue.

I used to think he was amusing, but now I realize that he's just a vile propagandist.

Dave -

"It's the difference between wanting to help people because it's the Christian thing to do, and wanting to use the power of government to force Christianity on people because it glorifies you and your beliefs."

Hardly.

First of all, there is this question of the tyranny of the majority. In ending slavery and prohibiting alcohol, there was no sense that the majority lacked the right to enact laws. The "power of government" has always been an option. Indeed, the Founders understood that. They protected the states from the power of the federal government, and left most power to the states and citizens, including the right to create laws. So the first distinction you make (helping people vs. power of government) is not historic. And that little tidbit of "forcing Christianity on people" isn't really worth comment.

As to the second distinction (doing the Christian thing vs. glorifying one and one's beliefs), well, that's a matter of motive. You're in no position to judge if the abolitionists or pro-lifers have egocentric motives. I understand the appeal of pointing your finger at those you disagree with. But it's not grounded in anything.

B-tone - Very well.

Baronius,

Indeed!

You're in no position to judge if the abolitionists or pro-lifers have egocentric motives.

Dead wrong on that one. I'm in the same position as any observer who can see what they do or did and judge them by their actions.

The abolitionists sought to protect the basic human freedoms of a group of people. Whether it was from a religious or ethical motivation makes little difference. It was a good thing purely on its own merits.

The current religious right seeks to limit the rights of others both as groups and as individuals. That is inherently a bad thing in exactly the same way that the efforts of the extreme left to limit free speech and religious freedom is bad.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone could disagree with the basic axiom that freedom is good and taking it away is bad - regardless of the motivation of the people involved.

Dave

"They need a party which accepts that, and if John McCain can show them the door maybe they can go find that party."

No!

We're going to show him the door in November if he wins the GOP nomination.....

A big fuck you thanks for nothing to senator mcrazy when we don't vote for his old ass. Maybe he will get so angry when he loses in November that his head will finally explode!

The polls show McCain as the only one with a chance of beating the democrats, but you reject him. You'd rather be self-righteous than win the white house.

Don't you see what's happening here? Mainstream and traditional republicans are in full-on rebellion against the religious right. They're tired of pandering to bigots and hatemongers to get votes and they want them to crawl back into the hole they crawled out of.

McCain's victory today, which looks to be even stronger than predicted is the writing on the wall that the GOP is STILL the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Goldwater and not the proper abode for neo-stalinists, christofascists and later-day dixiecrats.

Dave

Dave, I'm not opposed to freedom. Democratic freedom includes the right to govern one's society. That means the right to enact laws that a majority see as beneficial, even if the laws are really stupid.

Of course, it's more accurate to say that our system is a Constitutional republic. But the essence is the same. Within a reasonable range, we have the right to do whatever we want to, and to pass whatever laws we want to. It's illegal to keep an alligator in your bathtub in Arkansas. I don't know why, but it is. That law takes away the freedom to keep alligators in your bathtub. Eliminating that law would take away the freedom to legislate.

This is exactly where the Supreme Court has been overstepping its bounds. It has the authority to nullify an unconstitutional law. It can't nullify a crazy law, because they have no right to decide what laws are crazy. I don't know how the Court can overturn a state law against alcohol. I just don't see it.

But back to the subject (or at least the subject I feel like writing about). Whatever your interpretation of the Constitution, you can't deny that the Republican Party has a history of religious activism. It's not a creation of Jerry Falwell. The GOP's history is steeped in it. At no point, however, has a wing of the party attempted to impose the particular religion that underlay its activism. The contemporary religious right isn't doing so.

Baronius,

If you believe that there is no significant effort by the religious right to establish an American theocracy, you just haven't been paying attention. There are several well researched and well written books recounting those efforts. There are dozens of established groups whose stated goal is to establish a biblically based government replacing the constitution. Many have received "faith based" funding from the Bush administration. These people are not simply on the fringe. AND most of them are registered Republicans.

B-tone

Ultimately, those in charge of the Religious Right (not the footsoldiers, but the generals) are not about religion, Baritone. They're about war.

Observe the boudoir-ful of strange bedfellows who signed on to the Project for a New American Century's
"Statement of Principles."

There, Baronius and Baritone, I've found a way to unite you, if not with each other, at least together against me!

Seriously, though, click on the link above, and take a look at the gang at the bottom of PNAC's Statement of Principles ("We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.")

Gary Bauer (formerly president of pro-life activist James Dobson's Family Research Council), Donald Rumsfield, Elliott Abrams (a leading neoconservative with some Iran-Contra Affair skeletons in his closet), Norman Podhoretz ("grandfather of neoconservatism'), Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush.

If this a faith-based plot, Baritone, it's admirable (not) for the distinctive way it brought Jews and Christians together to work for the brotherhood of man.

Ron Paul, man, Ron Paul.

you can't deny that the Republican Party has a history of religious activism

Can you deny that there is a difference between activism inspired by faith and activism on BEHALF of faith? The GOP has a long history of the former and a very short and unfortunate recent history of the latter.

Dave

Yes, Dave Nalle, the neoconservatives have poisoned the politics of MANY diverse individuals. Exhibit A: politically involved Christians. Exhibit B: Senator John McCain.

Sept. '83: "The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place...What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay."

Aug. '90: "If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."

1999: On Kosovo: "We're in it, and we've gotta win it!" And beyond: "I think the United States should inaugurate a 21st-century policy interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine, call it rogue state rollback, in which we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values."

2008: "It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars. I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender, but there will be other wars."

I wouldn't call that McCain's ability to compromise. It looks more like a trend--a trend AWAY from traditional conservatism.

Irene, you make the common mistake of associating John McCain with the Neocons when he's not connected to them in any way. McCain is an old-style Republican hawk leftover from the cold war era. He believes in the military and an aggressive foreign policy, but he has not signed onto the imperialistic philosophy of the Neocons and that's an enormously important distinction.

Dave

The shift between 1990 and 1999 in McCain's philosophy on the proper use of the US military---what accounts for that? Had he, even he, POW that he was, suddenly learned something new about war?

I can't see any difference between the "new" McCain's foreign policy and that put forth by the Project of the New American century, whether his name is at the bottom of the list or not.

Neocon is as neocon does.

Irene,

The "war" that the evangelicals are so looking forward to is the one they believe will be waged at Armageddon. The slightly comical aspect of that notion is that until the fall of the Soviet Union, it was the evil commies who were the avowed enemy of Christ. But, when that threat wafted off into the wind, they then focused their attentions on the evil Islamists. I wonder, if they cease to be a threat in the coming years, who will the "true believers" take aim at? The Chinese? Ralph Nader? Hmmm.

B-tone

I wonder, if they cease to be a threat in the coming years, who will the "true believers" take aim at? The Chinese? Ralph Nader? Hmmm.

The Chinese, while an obvious target, possess far too many big ugly missiles and a big ugly army, and would be in a position to fight back rather handily. And that wouldn't be part of God's plan at all, oh goodness me no.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the new 'enemy' would be Europe - that whore-infested hotbed of hedonism.

So you might want to think twice about buying that one-way plane ticket to Frankfurt, B-Tone...

Baritone and Dr. Dreadful, There are Christians in Iraq, Iran (some of them former Islamic militants--how's THAT for a peace plan?), China (google "Chinese House Church") and even the glamorously post-modern Europe. Christians in the Middle East and China (and India, and Indonesia) are undergoing persecution far more severe than what you two could ever possibly hope to dish out in an internet forum.

Every day, more formerly insular American Christians are becoming aware that the Body of Christ spans the planet, and that they're at cross-purposes with the Lord if they're trying to obliterate peoples amongst whom his Spirit is moving powerfully. I'm hopeful that will mean fewer wars for the sake of "security." How about you two?

Nice attempt at trying me to go on the defensive for being a Christian, but I'm still on the offense, waiting for an answer to my questions about McCain in #43.

Can't speak for Baritone, Irene, but in my admittedly somewhat flippant remarks I was thinking not of the vast majority of American Christians and certainly not of yourself, but of the evangelical hard core which for a time (not for much longer, hopefully) has had a dangerously high level of influence on Pennsylvania Avenue and in the Capitol.

The attitude of that core may be analogous to Ruvy's attitude towards Jews who live in the diaspora: that if they don't come to their senses and 'come home', then they will have only themselves to blame for getting caught in the crossfire.

As for McCain, I can't really account for his shift in attitude. Maybe having a hot wife has boosted his testosterone levels, I don't know. I'd prefer him over anyone else to get the GOP nomination, but I'm not too concerned about it. Neither he nor any other Republican is going to the White House in January '09.

Thanks for the buns Doc, ate them with larva bread, there's lovely!

Actually, here in "glamorously post-modern Europe"! Really? Where? Not round yer. Errm, sorry, yes, there was an article in the (liberal) Guardian from a British bishop promoting American Evangelical Environmentalists as a factor in the elections, which, to me seems far more Christian than persecuting homosexuals. Should Jesus return to Earth - as I believe is prophesied - I don't think his first act is going to be the razing of gay bars.

Baritone - There are federal funds which go to organizations of every, or no, religious affiliation that are performing social services. They receive funds because of the work they do. They do not recieve funding based on their faith. They are faith-based organizations that receive funding based on their work.

If I were President, I probably wouldn't give money to anyone for social services. If I did give money to only Catholic groups, I'd be breaking the Establishment Clause. If I gave money to only the non-religious groups, I'd be treading on the Free Exercise and the No Religious Test Clauses. (Ask a Constitutional lawyer about it; they could answer it better than me.) If I were President and I gave a public cent toward the support of a religious group, I should be thrown out of office.

I don't see a problem with any of this. It's no different than St. John's Hospital receiving medicare reimbursements after treating patients.

Dave, I didn't follow your question #39. Maybe I explained some of it in my last comment, indirectly. I'm just not sure.

Baronius,

Much, if not all, the faith based funding these groups receive may in fact go toward social services, which I am not wild about owing to their religious base, but on the whole I have no great objections to, if they do provide helpful services to people in need.

That, however, does not obviate the fact that there remains for many of these groups the underlying goal of theocracy, a goal they have been actively, if at times quietly and behind the scenes, working toward for at least the last 40 years or so. They are nothing if not patient and dogged in their determination.

B-tone

Dr. D. What makes you think that either HRC or O would be any less interested in, say, a pre-emptive strike on Iran than would be any of the Christian evangelical hawks whom you decry? Thanks for recognizing that I'm not one of them, by the way.

As to your answer to my question in #43: That sort of level is supposed to be kept in check by that sort of wife. President Clinton the First expressed quite a bit of frustrated machismo in Kosovo in the late '90's, and I'm not sure HRC's appeal had anything to do with that. Neoconservativism isn't just a "Republican" thing.

"Neither he nor any other Republican is going to the White House in January '09."

#47 -- February 6, 2008 @ 13:40PM -- Dr Dreadful

I'm filing that one.

Just in case. :>)

I am supporting McCain for President and I am a Republican hater. The main reason I am supporting him is that all of Bush's mistakes are going to come home during the next administration and I do not want a good person like Obama suck cleaning up someone else's mess. McCain supported the war, supported Bush, and is responsible for this mess in many ways so let him clean it up. The 2009 winner is going to be a one termer no matter which sides wins so why not let it be McCain. Save Obama for 2012 and allow him to use all 8 years for progress instead of 4 cleaning up.

Heh.

File it under 'A' - as in 'Arch Conservative-style wild predictions'.

;-)

What makes you think that either HRC or O would be any less interested in, say, a pre-emptive strike on Iran than would be any of the Christian evangelical hawks whom you decry?

I don't, necessarily. Their own words demonstrate that. Hillary, especially, has been consistently hawkish towards Iran. Obama has actually softened his stance recently and has expressed interest in opening a dialog with Tehran.

The difference is that a Clinton- or Obama-triggered attack on Iran is unlikely to be motivated by a hatred of people who worship the wrong kind of God. A far-right evangelical in charge of the button might easily decide that since the military were in the area anyway, it would be expedient to take out, say, Pakistan and Syria while he (almost certainly it would be a he) was about it.

BTW, Irene, like Clavos and others I think that you should definitely write some stuff for BC. You'd bring a fresh angle to the Politics section, much of which seems to take either an implacably atheistic or dogmatically religious approach.

You don't necessarily have to have your own blog. I do, although I haven't added anything to it for months. Clavos and STM, who are infrequent but valuable writers (as opposed to commenters) don't have blogs - at least, not that they're telling us about...

And you've demonstrated amply that you have a more than thick enough skin to deal with anything we might hurl at you. Get typing, I say!

Irene,

This is off-topic, but since this is where you are hanging out (at the moment) and since I do not have your e-mail address, i cannot send this to you off-list.

So, I'm taking this opportunity to send it to you here.

Those others of you who are interested are of course welcome to investigate this as well.

This is the content of an e-mail that I sent out earlier this evening.

Received of the moderator of a Noahide list:

This Google video features Rabbi Zamir Cohen explaining the Jewish views on Gog u'Magog, the Arrival of the Messiah and the End of the World As We Know It. The video is over 90 minutes long and is in Hebrew, but there are English subtitles. You will want some quiet time so you can concentrate of following the English subtitles which can go quickly. This is a pretty thorough explication, covering a lot of things.

The English translation is pretty accurate, though at a couple of points, the multiples of zeros were off (probably due to the speed at which the transcription was done). At one point, the translation differed in that Rabbi Cohen never mentioned "Palestinians" in his presentation. He mentioned "Arabs".

While I disagree with a couple of the points Rabbi Cohen makes (like his apparent agreement with the Ramcha"l on the Temple descending from heaven), this is a minor issue in my eyes, compared to the major issue of getting the essential concepts underlying the Redemption and the Jewish view of history across to people who obviously do not understand them. It is far more important to focus on the events surrounding the likely development of the messianic world, the turmoil and conflict that will precede it, and what signs we should be looking for, than to argue over the American "presidential" race, or Christians trying to convert Jews in the American army (what the hell are they doing in an army that will come against Israel anyway?), or other Americo-centric issues, for example; or to argue and get all worked up over the criminal regime in Jerusalem.

Rabbi Cohen pointed out that the next major world conflict would be over Jerusalem, and to the degree that the United States speaks out against our control of this city, this would be a measure of how close the final War of Gog and Magog, and the subsequent Redemption is. His pointed observations of how our sages foresaw that 1) there would be a sovereign Jewish entity here, and 2) that it would be run in a way that was contrary to the Torah, are not only extremely revelatory but painfully on point.

This was posted to Google in May of last year. Could Rabbi Cohen have foreseen the coming of Russian ships to Latakia in November, or the German plans to send a fleet off Gaza, or the Americans weighing sending in an occupation force to Gaza and possibly Judea and Samaria? Could he have foreseen Annapolis? In the specifics, I doubt it. But in the general pattern of events, in terms of generalities, if you watch the video, you will realize that he did.

It is of interest to note that because the people of countries like India or China never persecuted Jews, they are not indicated as targets of Jewish prophecy. The Japanese did seek to persecute Jews during WWII but before that they hardly knew who or what we were.

The coming of the messiah is "the big one" as the late Redd Foxx used to say on Sanford and Sons. Everything else pales into significance compared to it....

All the best to you

Given that you were talking about pre-emptive strikes on Iran by wannabe presidents, what I say here is very much on topic. Given that there does not appear to be sufficient repentance in the world, either by Jews or non-Jews of sins committed, the prophecies of Daniel regarding the "king of the south" pushing at the "king of the north" and being crushed by him will come true. And Jewish sages have determined (a long time ago) that the "Persia" would head a coalition of Ishmaelites and the "king of the south" was this coalition. The "king of the north" will either be the American president or some big-wig in the European Union.

Wow. Brad. Dude. Truly monstrous. How do u live with yourself?

Dr Dread & Ruvy -- if I spend one more NANOsecond on this computer...Ruvy, I cut/pasted your comment into an email to myself...it looks interesting, with plenty of points for me to agree and disagree with.

Dr.Dread, there is something, I suggested it be run under "Satire" but it really isn't funny unless the reader likes Wallace Stevens AND Ron Paul, and maybe not even then. If 1) it actually gets posted and 2) anyone at all even bothers leaving a comment, negative or otherwise, I leave it to YOU to defend the honor of this Christian Paulite, because you set me up to it. I'll be in hiding. :)

As I've said before, I'll be able to relax a little if McCain is the GOP nominee. I wouldn't be horrified if he won, which is not the case with Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and others.

The fact that I and other liberals feel this way is part of what motivates the Limbaughites' allergic reaction to McCain. If liberals kinda like him, he must be the devil.

I'm not rooting for him to win, certainly. But he generally seems like one of the more honorable politicians of our era.

And if Obama is the Dem nominee, it will be a very different sort of campaign in the fall from the tawdry, ugly ones we've become accustomed to in recent years. [I voted for HRC in the NY primary, and I'd be happy to see her become president, but the general election campaign would make me queasy and unhappy, I'm sure.]

Irene,

I wholeheartedly concur with Doc D's #57.

You would be a valuable addition to the roster of writers here on BC IMO, and this from an individual who doesn't always agree with your viewpoints.

As I've said before, you have my respect; for the way you present your ideas and for the obvious thought and consideration you've given your positions presented here.

I hope you take the plunge soon!

Irene, with any luck someone is going to email you account info shortly. When they do get your account set up and then take the piece you have ready to go and try entering it into the system. I'll try to help you from there if you have problems.

Dave

Lent is starting, Clavos. Even though I'm not a Catholic--and I wonder, as Ruvy might wonder, about the connection between that season and the "weeping for Tammuz" spoken of in Ezekiel 8--I still think it's a good idea to take 40 days (as Jesus did in the desert) to think things over and wrestle with them in private with God. I surely do love to write, and I thank you again for your kind compliments and encouragement--I'm glad you think I might be good enough to write articles for BC. Maybe come Easter, or Pentecost, or, at the very latest Halloween! I'll know whether God thinks it's a good idea, too, especially if I would be presuming, most of the time except when I want to have fun as in the Wallace parody, to encourage people to have private "Lents" of their own.

Dave Nalle, thanks. The server has been slow today, so still no email. I want to go to church (but not to grovel!) now anyway, but after I get back and after I get the email, I will give it a try.

The way the world moves today I'm not sure we have time to pause for 40 days no matter what the reason. But I do like pancakes.

dave

If someone else already mentioned this, apologies.

But one of the stranger recent comments I've heard was that Ann Coulter said that between McCain and Clinton, she would vote for Clinton, because she's more conservative than he is.

Intended as humor, no doubt, although AC takes even her "jokes" very seriously.

Now I see this was actually in Dave's article, oops.

I never realized before today that John McCain had actually taken the senate seat vacated by Bary Goldwater. How poetic!

I'm not pausing entirely Dave Nalle, I'm cutting a few things out (you know, pretty much, except for, like NOW) for 40 days so I can replace those formally occupied hours with "focused pausing." (I never did get the email, but maybe it's for the best, 'til later.)

And by the way, it was NOT easy for me to write the unflattering things I did about McCain in #43, especially having read about his horrific years as a POW during the VietNam wa--I mean Conflict. But I still wonder, and thanks for trying to answer my questions, but I am yet wondering.

See what happens when you toss Colin pancakes when he asks for buns.

*pausing mode resumes*

Intended as humor, no doubt, although AC takes even her "jokes" very seriously.

I guess her jokes must be serious, because I find very little about her to actually be funny.

Dave

I remember a Republican party which was a lot less mean and a lot more open-minded than the party of Rush Limbaugh, and that was the party of Ronald Reagan. These neocon and religiofascist blowhards keep telling us that McCain is a move to the left for the party, but that's all in their fantasy version of reality. They praise Ronald Reagan to the skies, but the truth is that Reagan was more liberal than McCain and a hell of a lot more liberal than any of them are. If Reagan were alive he'd be supporting McCain just as Arnold Schwarzenneger and Rudy Giuliani and just about every Republican who's not an ideological fanatic is. They should split off, form a new party and run James Dobson for president and see how they do.

J6