Friday, October 24, 2008

Charles Krauthammer Certainly Ain't No Cultist

Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
Charles Krauthammer - endorsing the McCaintosh - even on the Washington Post

Charles Krauthammer understands everything - even:


  1. Crack: I don't know why I bother anymore, because you never publish opposing points of view. For a self-described contrarian (a la Krauthammer), you take some pretty standard/tyrannical approaches to micromanaging orthdoxy, both on your blog and, apparently, inside your own head. But anyway, let me tell you what I have against John McCain.

    The man may not be a war hero in the first place--or if did do certain things during the war that are generally identified with heroism, he probably didn't do them for heroic reasons. If you read the Rolling Stone profile, you know that some of his comrades from 'Nam laugh (mordantly) at the heroic depictions, and it's to Obama's credit that he hasn't tried to swiftboat McCain on the subject. (Though realistically, such a tactic might have backfired anyway, especially for a man who must be oh-so-careful to run a Jackie Robinson presidential campaign; no sliding into second with spikes high.)

    When McCain got back from Vietnam he embarked on a period of libidinous excess that makes Bill Clinton look like a monk, and that's not easy to do. Now, what's important about this period of unfettered fuckmanship is not that McCain was guilty of adultery--which a lot of us are--but that he alternately (a) lied about it, thereby setting a pattern of duplicity that remains very much intact today, or (b) rubbed his wife's nose in it, thereby setting a pattern of mean-spiritedness that remains very much intact today.

    John McCain has shown a steadfast inclination to lie about absolutely everything, if he thinks it will help him. He was a foremost champion of deregulation, but now he wants to reform Big Business. He once boasted about backing Dubya 90% of the time, but now he wants to run from that record, and trash his own incumbent president in the process. Crack, if he thought he get could away with saying that his past voting record (i.e. pro-Bush) occurred as a result of some virulent STD he got from his sluttish wife, Cindy--I'm speaking in his voice, now, not mine--and that his head is just now clearing after massive dosing with some new vaccine (that he invented), he'd say it. He doesn't care who he steps on and who he hurts. He's a scumbag--and the worst variety of scumbag in that he tries to pass himself off as a good guy and even an icon. His conduct of his campaign proves that.

    I honestly don't think he cares if America goes up in one big mushroom cloud, as long as he gets to take the oath before it happens.

  2. Damn it, Steve, I can't tell if you've changed (as I suspect) or if you were always like this and I just missed it. You say I never publish opposing points of view. Then what do you call these:

    Admit it, Steve: you've become someone who believes the hype - in this case, the hype of Ron and Connie about how I run my blog. It's bullshit, but typical of what I've seen out there. There's a truth, Steve, and it's not going to be found amongst believers but those with facts on our side. Fact: write me an intelligent e-mail and I print it, regardless of whether I agree with you or not. Fact: try to get me caught up in some bullshit (like what happened on your site) and I'll take the option to refuse - which is what I did with Ron and Connie. You guys are tripping, and as the only member of SHAMblog who hasn't decided to drink the KoolAid, of beliefs or Obama, I'm going to keep pounding you until you admit it.

    You mention the Rolling Stone article on McCain. Have you read this:

    And even more importantly, why would you decide - during an election of all times - that a man we've known for 30 years has all of a sudden morphed into a monster? That's creepy, Steve. John McCain's a liar? That's not what the Keating Five Investigator - a Democrat - said. He said he was an "honest man":

    And why is his ex-wife supporting him?:

    Facts are terrible things, aren't they? Steve, your head has been screwed up. I don't think it's permanent, and think you can pull out of it, but you've got to want to.

    Regarding my divorce, Connie and Ron used to say there had to be *something* I did to make my wife leave the way she did. I said no, she was screwy in the head. Well now, after killing her mother, she's killed two more people:

    Do you see what I'm getting at, Steve? With their heads filled with liberal, feminist, bullshit, Connie and Ron chose to attack me (after all I've been through) rather than accept that a NewAge woman who thinks she could walk through walls is sick. Connie and Ron are sick. And, now, so are you. It's cujltism, Steve. You're believing a lie:

    When a supposedly smart man like you will allow a nobody with nothing but racists, criminals, etc., to take over our country when you don't have to, you're ill, man. You've got a problem, Steve. You know there's a Cult of Obama. He's backed by Oprah, Steve. You know what that means. It means Eckhart Tolle. And you know what that means.

    I'm glad you're at my blog. You really need to spend time on it. I needed you once, man, and you were there.

    Now it's time for you to rely on me.

    I hope you do.

  3. Crack, even leaving any of the background out of it--the Vietnam years, the 90% voting record, etc.--I would still detest John McCain at this point simply for the way he's run his campaign, or allowed it to be run. And I think it bodes very, very poorly for how he would run America.

    Come on, Crack; the man is not a simpleton. He sees what's going on. He has a mind, and (one presumes) a conscience. How could he have allowed what's happened to happen? How--if nothing else--could he pick Palin? That alone should disqualify him from ever making another major decision in his life, and should motivate people who care about him to remove all sharp instruments from his reach....

  4. Steve,

    Palin is a governor - that's executive experience - and we are ultimately talking about the Chief Executive. Barack Obama has No Experience. What we know of what he's done has ALWAYS ended in disaster for the people he's supposed to be helping.

    I notice you've ignored the Oprah endorsement. I notice you ignored Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers, and Louis Farrakhan. You've ignored Father Pfleger. You've ignored his Communist God Father. You've ignored Biden's delusional ramblings. You've ignored Tony Rezko. You've ignored NewAgers calling him the coming of the "Lightworker" (Satan - I didn't say it, they did.) You've ignored Saul Alinsky (A Satan reference again.) You've ignored ACORN.

    And all against Palin and a Rolling Stone hit piece?

    Steve, McCain's been on the public stage for 30 years. He's been a good guy that whole time, fighting pork, fighting corruption, fighting the excesses of the both parties. He stood up against the Democrats behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which has brought us to our financial knees - you gonna side with them? He's stood up against Republicans and Bush and Reagen.

    Barack has done NOTHING. He has NO accomplishments. His allies are DISGUSTING. He can talk for hours and say NOTHING, but you hear your song? Dude, it's a political CULT.

    Saturday, September 15, 2007
    It's So Easy

    "...Nobody joins a cult. You join a self-help group, a religious movement, a political organization.

    They change so gradually, by the time you realize you're entrapped - and almost everybody does - you can't figure a safe way back out...."

    - Deborah Layton, Survivor of Jim Jones' People's Temple.

    Wake up, Steve: they've got you. You're talking irrationally. You're backing a man with no resume' and evil allies and you're ignoring it. That's not sane. You know it. Obama's lied countless times in this election and you're still backing him anyway. That's not rational and you know it.

    And what are you going to say when (like my ex) it either gets exposed, or collapses, as all cults do? My ex has killed three people, now, Steve. Do you want to be like that? Because nothing else comes from this madness. Everything Barack has touched FAILED. That's why he keeps switching jobs. Are you telling me CHICAGO is now a paradise because he served there? Come on.

    Wake up, man, you're breaking my heart.