Since I have asked for weeks and received no response, I am dedicating this entire thread for people to list why some of these nutters think that Mitt Romney, liberal governor of a liberal state, is somehow, suddenly, more conservative than John McCain. So here it is- your own very special thread to show why you think Romney is “conservative.” Some rules:
1.) You can not list McCain’s deviance from conservative issues. That does not support the case that Mitt Romney is conservative.
2.) you are not allowed to list things that Mitt now says he supports (or doesn’t) when he has a record of doing the opposite. For example, guns.
So have at it, wankers. Show me this mountain of evidence that Romney is the conservative darling. Because, quite frankly, other than empty rhetoric and election year conversions, I am not seeing it.
PS- I am beginning to feel bad for Rachel Lucas, a sane voice who is all alone in a desert of stupid.
les
Our Lady of the Concentration Camps, the Coulter thing and their buddies said so.
Punchy
Easy:
Romney = Mormon = BYU (Bang’em Young Uni) = Annually voted the most conservative campus in the nation = Romney hates abortion milkshakes.
Process complete.
Jen
I’m not at all sure I would call that a sane voice, but o.k.
I don’t get the Romney thing either, and I don’t get it times 10 when nominating Romney would put Mississippi into play, but since it would, I don’t worry about it too much.
I’m not a wanker, but I’ll play:
He’s richer than God?
He has no idea how black people talk?
He and his five sons have never been in the military?
That should do it, right?
Oh, are you distinguishing “conservative” from “Republican”? I got nothing, then.
LiberalTarian
Well, I went to see Rachel Lucas. I don’t see the sanity part, sorry.
Their “bad” appears to be that they would govern without the batshit crazy ideology of the Republicans, i.e., like liberal intellectuals.
I think you’ll be going back to being a Republican as soon as they stop sucking 150-proof ass. I assume it will happen.
And that’ll be alright by me, too. I will probably never vote Republican myself, but I do believe competent conservatism is good for government. Since good government is good for the governed, I can deal with it.
Zifnab
Mitt Romney wants to double Gitmo. He hasn’t said who he’s going to double it with – so that should put the fear of God in those stupid liberals and their liberal media.
Mitt Romney has giant sacks of money. That means he’s going to want to give himself tax cuts. If he gives himself tax cuts, I’ll get tax cuts too.
Mitt Romney doesn’t believe in Global Warming, and he once stuck his dog on the roof of his car for a road trip, then hosed it down when it pissed itself in fear. That shows how Mitt isn’t just a smart genius, he’s a smart genius with a strong sense of personal responsibility, who will cut my taxes.
Mitt Romney looks like Ronald Reagen. He’ll look more like Ronald Reagen after a few more trips through plastic surgery.
Mitt Romney never blinks, so the terrorists will know he’s always watching.
Mitt Romney’s sons support him for President so much, they stayed to help him campaign during the height of a war against scary brown people. Mitt Romney’s sons are good conservatives, so they must be supporting their father for good reason.
As a boy, during the Vietnam war, Mitt Romney brought Jesus to the French.
Rush Limbaugh clearly stated that Mitt Romney was the only true conservative candidate in the race. Rush Limbaugh is always right, ergo… QED.
Mitt Romney killed Chuck Norris. Twice.
John Cole
Look at her post. It is an actual argument, and uses logic and reason. You may disagree with her regarding what is good for the country, but there is no doubt she is sane.
Darkness
Wait, we’re still assuming there is some living ideal notion of conservative? Please define your definition first. Then we can point out that no one calling themselves a conservative currently agrees with you and then the discussion will be over without Romney being mentioned.
Fe E
I dunno John, she seems to imply that Saint Straight Talk is Liberal; so if one can be divorced from reality and not insane, well, then she has a shot at sanity. Otherwise, well….
jack fate
Well there is a “living ideal notion of a conservative.” The problem is that the Republicans have completely disowned it and/or have turned that notion on it’s head. There really is no such thing as a conservative Republican anymore, none in any position of power in the national party, at least. Hasn’t been since the mid-90’s.
Jen
I did read her whole post. It is 80% excerpts from other people. I understand her basic point, it primarily being that McCain is the lesser of two “evils” because the Democrats are “more bad”, but as far as I can tell the only example of what is “more bad” is HRC’s plan to garnish wages if necessary to pay for health care.
I will grant you that in the wingnut blogosphere, this is about as rational as it gets, but that is not reasonable.
It is not reasonable to say that universal health care, which every other industrialized nation in the world has and pays less for it, is socialism. It is a bogeyman that is tired, and trite, and needs to stay dead with McCarthy where it belongs.
canuckistani
Romney hates liberals more than McCain does. Therefore, he is more conservative.
peach flavored shampoo
Fixed.
Drooling,
K-Lo(bes)
Darkness
Ding. That was my point. But John is hanging in there like the Monks in Ireland, waiting for the Dark Ages to pass. I wanted to see him define conservative as he understands it.
Ed Drone
Well, she talks of ‘victory’ in Iraq, which isn’t logical or reasonable (for one thing, define ‘victory’ and show how our current course of the war can in any way come within the same continent, not to mention the same area code, as ‘victory’). Not what I’d call ‘logical,’ anyway.
Yes, she uses a kind of ‘reason,’ which is lots better than shouting
‘nigger’“brown people”terrorist,” but logic is only as good as your major premise, and hers fails that test with flying colors.Ed
Jen
I must say, I don’t think that’s going to happen. They are a stubborn bunch. I think they will become irrelevant before they will change.
Rick Massimo
I think Rachel hit on it: It’s the malleability factor. McCain has contradicted himself on several major issues, but just as a personality he’ll say whatever he wants. Romney has so totally whored himself out that he’ll do whatever the AEI/Heritage Institute/Bill Kristol axis says.
And unless I’ve missed something, McCain doesn’t want anything like the kind of theocracy Romney wants. He’d dent the coalition wherein the GOP plays religious conservatives for suckers.
Jason
I’m not a nutter, so perhaps this isn’t addressed to me, but if I were one, I would find Romney vastly preferable to McCain. For you to say this:
“you are not allowed to list things that Mitt now says he supports (or doesn’t) when he has a record of doing the opposite”
kind of rigs the game in your favor. Obviously any conservative who prefers Romney knows full well that the Romney of the past did not govern as a conservative. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t prefer the Romney of the present.
Your assumption is that conservatives shouldn’t prefer Romney unless he is “really,” deep down in his heart of hearts, more conservative than McCain. But if I’m a conservative who wants to see conservative policies enacted, why do I care about what Romney really believes? It’s totally irrelevant, as long as I think he will act the way I want him to.
Romney’s already proven that he’s willing to chuck whatever personal convictions he might have as though they were yesterday’s garbage. If he were elected president on the strength of his newly adopted conservative persona, do you really think once he gets in office, and has to appoint a S.C. Justice, he’s going to make that decision based on principle?
I supported John Edwards because he was running on the most progressive platform. Arguments about the discrepancy between his current rhetoric and his previous record struck me as almost entirely irrelevant. Unless you think there’s some reason to believe that a candidate would revert to his prior positions, I just cannot understand why you would give a rat’s ass what he “really” believes.
Darkness
I like this one. Intolerance, I would argue, is one of the oldest features of True Conservativism. Righteousness is a very old word all right.
t4toby
Whoa, dude. I clicked that link, then forgot about that tab. I came back later and was like, “How did this wingnut get on my Firefox?”
Sane voice, John? Really?
Arguing that McCain is less liberal than HRC and Obama is sort of like arguing that lunch is best served around midday.
siasl
Hi John,
New to posting here, with the usual ‘Long Time Listener, First Time Caller’ salutation.
I think Romney has the reputation of governing as a pro-lifer, in spite of his comments at the time suggesting he was be a pro-choicer. In this case, his flip-flopping was in support of a ‘conservative’ cause.
I think this is the only reason why any conservative might think he’s more of a con than McCain.
Otherwise, he is as full of rhetoric (more accurately, as full of bullshit) as you suggest.
Do I win a prize or something for answering correctly???
Dug Jay
“Show Me the Money,” a typical John Cole red meat special…a post designed expressly to appeal to this site’s collection of rabid moonbats. Are there really all that many other readers of BJ for whom such a topic would hold any interest? Clearly not based on the first dozen or so responses.
As with much of Cole’s postings, going back to the point in time that he suddenly and magically “saw the light,” this is merely another in a very long string of posts that he has constructed in order to appeal to his targeted audience…a group of individuals whose knowledge and interests, not to mention vocabularies, were all formed in junior high school.
Gus
I think you meant to post this to, I dunno RedState or something. Did anyone here say that Mittens is a true conservative?
John Cole
Silly me. Demanding that when people claim someone is actually more conservative than someone else, they provide proof rather than just rhetoric. I should have known better.
maxbaer (not the original)
Tom Tancredo said he’s cool with Romney. And he’s batshit insane. Therefore, Romney is more conservative than McCain. Sorry, that’s the best I can do.
John S.
I feel bad for Rachel Lucas, too.
Anyone who can write the above paragraph is clearly deserving of symnpathy.
UnkyT
He’s richer, whiter, and lies more.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
No, it uses reality and obvious statements, like “I’m being objective”. Nothing in that demonstrates explicit logic or well-founded conclusions.
So rarely these days do people in politics use logical proofs and empirical evidence.
I understand, though, why you’re sorry for her: Her head is screwed on correctly and her surroundings are doing everything they can to destroy said cranial-thoracic connection. I feel for you on that.
John Cole
Let’s just start with the basics;
strong national defense
fiscal responsibility
balanced budgets
respect for life (I don’t mean just the fetus) and the individual
desire for limited government
I would assert that, not only are those the “conservative” principles I signed up for, but many others in the past did as well. I would also assert that this administration has failed on every one of those.
LiberalTarian
Dude. I resent that. I have definitely had ALL my shots.
Pb
Regarding executive power:
That’s what passes for conservative these days, right?
Fritz
Romney is not utterly tied to a military solution to Iraq and Iran. Yeah, he says “stay the course” now, but he is saying all sorts of things these days.
When push comes to shove, however, I think McCain honestly and completely believes that military force is the proper answer to problems there and I think Romney would step back and decide to not bomb the crap out of Yet Another Country.
John S.
And of course, Rachel finds herself in a ‘desert of stupid’ because she walked out into that desert with a bunch of other idiots and built a fucking house there:
That’s our very own Stormy over there testifying. The bulk of the comments there are similar because that is the quality of ‘rational’ discourse one can expect to be sparked by Rachel’s ‘sanity’.
Dennis - SGMM
And if The Romney of the Present isn’t good enough then there’ll be The Romney of the Future who will, before the next round of primaries, begin campaigning in full camo with an M-16 slung over his shoulder, visit Iraq four times and declare that “We’ve got the terrorists on the run,” and become a Southern Baptist.
Jen
Didn’t they *only* respect fetuses, until someone even younger (that would be the stem cells, if you’re slow on the uptake on Mondays) came along? Did I miss something, where they came out against the death penalty?
Oh, yeah. Fetuses + Terri Schiavo.
Who am I leaving out?
peach flavored shampoo
Damn. So sad, because it’s oh-so sadly true. The presidency has become a simple policy whore for whomever pays the most and provides the most party support.
Yikes.
cbear
Fork you, acehole.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Oh, and the answer to your question, John:
Romney is more conservative, because he strays less liberally from my demands than McCain does.
I told Romney 5 days ago that I demand he arm my family and my neighbors with small nuclear weapons, and give my down a submarine (I see terrorists all the time on that damn lake, in rowboats. I’ll show them). Mr. Romney mailed me back right away and said (verbatim) “I believe that being kept alive is our most important civil liberty“. The letter even had his signature on it, perfectly!
I told McCain, too, that I demand he arm my family and such. McCain wrote back (but in blue pen! How bush league!) and told me that he couldn’t give me nuclear weapons, but he’d look into establishing town armories. THAT ASSHOLE! I TOLD HIM “nuclear” and he dares to be lieberal enough with my demands that he’s going to tell me what to do with MY TAXES???
So there, now you know why McCain doesn’t get it. I tell both of them “no more abortions for welfare queens”, and Romney says “OK”, and McCain says “I’ll overturn Roe vs. Wade”. That’s NOT WHAT I SAID. Old man’s hearing aid must be dying, heh.
Zifnab
Romney sounds like a conservative to me.
FabForty
John McCain doesn’t wanna strap jumper cables on enemy combatant’s testicles.
John McCain doesn’t wanna build a fence on the Rio Grande
and shoot all the illegals……
Therefore….he’s not a Conservative….
The Conservative Movement just keeps setting the bar higher and higher these days…
It’s no longer the Conservative Movement….It’s the Limbo Rock.
The Other Steve
It’s really quite simple.
Mitt Romney will support further tax cuts.
John McCain may not.
I suspect Kristol and such support Romney because he’s a polls driven politician, and will be easily influenced. Whereas Mccain will tell ’em all to fuck off.
This is not intended to be an endorsement of McCain.
srv
Look, Mitt has been doing wonders with one of the most LiberalFascist states in the country. He couldn’t possibly turn it into Reagachusetts overnight.
McCain is a senator to a wingnut state whose primary native crop is crank. They’ve got nothing better to do than steal Californias water to grow bermuda grass in the desert and vote Republican.
One has to to flip-flop to affect change. Ugly but necessary. The other is a Manchurian Candidate for whatever stance will get him this weeks MSM fawning.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I passed this along to Dug Jay, and he replied:
(self-critique: I know, too much of psycheout in my Dug Jay impression. I just needed a straw man)
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
“town”, not “down”
/sigh
//always the (supposedly) funny shit I mess up
F. Frederson
That’s a nice laundry list (of mostly libertarian, not conservative issues), but is there any kind of underlying principle?
The Other Steve
Ok, I just went into the Wingnut underground, via ace of spades. Which led to a blog which apparently celebrates the attack on the two towers based on the picture in the corner. Anyway, he has a list of why McCain sucks.
1. McCain would allow drugs to be imported from Canada.
2. McCain-Feingold
3. McCain supports Amnesty for illegals
4. Patient Bill of Rights
5. Keating Five
6. McCain attacked Swift Boat Vets calling them dishonest.
7. McCain hates rich people
8. McCain didn’t support Nuclear option
9. McCain doesn’t support torture
10. McCain said the Republican party had gone astray in 2004.
Snark Based Reality
In an unrelated news I’d like to give a big “FUCK YOU” shoutout to the FBI:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/04/fbi.biometrics/index.html
NonyNony
Duh John, this is an easy one. Romney is a rich dude. It doesn’t matter that he ran as a liberal guy to get to be governor of a liberal state – politicians always say things that they don’t believe to get power, that’s why their politicians. But Romney is richer and therefore better than McCain.
McCain, on the other hand, is the son of an admiral and has lived his entire life on the public dole to one degree or another. Who cares that he has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate? He doesn’t have enough money to be a “true conservative”. Why, he probably barely understands the pain that all of the real conservatives feel when they pay taxes.
Romney feels their pain, John. He feels it at the visceral level that only another millionaire can feel it. McCain is just one of the “great unwashed” who can never understand the pain of April 15th to the top tax bracket.
And what about all of the “phoney conservatives” that the “real conservatives” rely on to, you know, vote their guy into office? Those “phoney conservatives” who don’t really have the money to be a “real conservative”? Well, some of them are backing McCain and it drives the “real conservatives” absolutely nuts. How dare they not listen to their betters! (You can hear this in Rush’s voice – the mobs aren’t listening anymore and they’re thinking on their own – how dare they.)
The Other Steve
Ok, this is conservative.
But what we really want here is Republican. Obviously the list should have terri schiavo, islamofascists and hatred for Hillary in it.
Tim (the other one)
“Mitt Romney never blinks, so the terrorists will know he’s always watching.”
Thread winner !
Dreggas
It’s easy John, as I have said before Romney is really, really good at fillating the right wing noise machine he “has a purty mouth” and sucks their collective dick like it’s going out of style (which thankfully it is).
Andrew
There is plenty of doubt. She declared that McCain is better than Hillary and Obama in EVERY single way. This is not sane. The end.
Jen
felating or filleting…?
Let’s hope the latter happens, anyway.
flounder
I think the only thing that makes Romney conservative is that he was brazen enough to accuse Harry Reid of making the ghosts of Churchill and Washington cry because Reid said the existential war was “lost”, while his 5 military eligible sons were taking in Sox games and burning through trust funds. That makes him almost as conservative as Tom “I would have fought in Vietnam but all the blacks and mexicans took the good jobs” Delay.
kwAwk
John Cole Says:
kind of rigs the game in your favor. Obviously any conservative who prefers Romney knows full well that the Romney of the past did not govern as a conservative. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t prefer the Romney of the present.
Silly me. Demanding that when people claim someone is actually more conservative than someone else, they provide proof rather than just rhetoric. I should have known better.
________________________
I really like John’s writing but he is really out to lunch on this one. The point isn’t whether Romney is more conservative than McCain, the point is that Romney better understands the ‘Great Compromise’ that has held the Reagan coalition together for 30 years.
Romney understands that in order to get elected to get his corporatist agenda passed, he needs to make the other elements of the coalition feel that he will respect the bargain of the coalition. The corporatist get their agenda passed as long as the social conservatives, the foreign policy conservatives and the tax cut junkies feel that they are getting what they want too.
That is the bargain that McCain has broken. He hasn’t been willing to do the back scratching of the religious nuts, the tax cut junkies and the foreign policy imperialists as a Senator and they don’t believe he will do their bidding in office. Romney on the other hand has shown a complete willingness to mold himself in their image for the sake of getting elected.
It has nothing to do with McCains true conservative credentials and everything to do with Romney’s willingness to say I am one of you, and I will govern as one of you.
In Massachusettes there wasn’t an expectation that Romney could govern as a conservative in a state so liberal, so they are willing to forgive his past because it hasn’t affected their political agenda in the past.
Hubris
Craig Romney’s teeth are very conservative.
demimondian
Jeebus, John, by that standard, *I’m* a freaking conservative…and I ain’t, by any American standards, a conservative.
Punchy
Cole spoofing his own blog! Too funny! Conservatives respect life? Is this why they’re so pro-chair? They respect individuals? Is this why they’re so anti-afirmative action? Anti-poor?
Perhaps you left off your bullet point “of rich people”…then it may ring true.
demimondian
kwAwk — I certainly think you’ve nailed why the Collective prefers Romney to McCain, although I’d say it with fewer words: “Romney will keep telling lies to the Republican dupes, and McCain might not.”
That’s not exactly what John has asked. He’s already well onto the fact that the argument is disingenuous and dishonest, he’s just trying to find a legitimate argument in favor of the thesis. Most of this thread is people responding: “Yeah, dude…about that thing you called ‘conservatisml? Yeah, listen, about that: the Republican party never really meant all that.”
demimondian
Nope, Punchy — they wanted to scorch OJ Simpson, too. The Republicans are pro-life of rich, white people, with the occasional beige exception outside the US.
John S.
Actually, one can be sane if they make a statement like that and follow up it up by citing examples backing up the claim. I do not see much evidence of that, nor do I see any inkling that she is open to the possibility that she is wrong.
Making a statement like that and then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “na, na — I can’t hear you” is defintiely a far cry making a reasonable argument. There are no facts or case that can be presented to Rachel — no matter how convincing — that will stop her from making her outrageous claim.
That is decidedly insane.
NonyNony
kwAwk –
I don’t think John is “out to lunch” on this at all. He’s calling the right-wing blogosphere on their bullshit. And that’s what it is – bullshit. The idea that John “Straight Talk” McCain isn’t one of the most conservative Senators in Congress today is a load of crap. Yet most of right-blogistan regurgitates this idea without a moment of critical thought.
Note that they aren’t claiming that McCain “doesn’t understand the compromise” – they’re saying that McCain “isn’t really conservative”. The former is a defensible claim based on empircal evidence that can be discussed rationally – the latter is bullshit that is easily disproven by looking at his voting record, his public statements and just about everything else about the man.
I suspect that John understands quite well that right-blogsylvania knows that they’re either being (a) disingenuous or (b) stupidly ignorant (depending on the blogger) when they tout claims about McCain’s conservative bona fides – and that is the entire point of his flogging this particular horse.
Paul L.
They both suck.
Adventures in Stupid
Obama & Romney Misfire on Guns
Of course Tapper is according to progressives a swiftboater.
Jen
She’s a wingnut. They’re graded on a curve.
Z
So clicked on the link the Other Steve provided, waded in to crazy land, and still found myself stunned by the hypocrisy. I know it shouldn’t still surprise me, but it does every time. One of the big ones he went on and on about was that McCain trashed the Constitution (1st amendment) by supporting campaign finance reform. This from a Bush supporter?? Bush, who has trashed the Constitution 7-ways ’till Sunday. Then he goes on and on several paragraphs later to laud torture, which is trashing the Bill of Rights (not to mention our laws and treaty obligations)! My head hurts!!!!
John S.
A Laffer curve?
So as quality of thought goes down, the tendency towards wingnut increases! That explains a lot, including the ramblings of Paul L.
Tapper is a shitty journalist according to anyone who is capable of critical thinking (which of course leaves you out).
NonyNony
Oh and John:
The day I figured out that the Republicans weren’t for any of those things is the day I stopped being a Republican. It was in the middle of the Clinton Impeachment Mess sometime in the late 90s.
Once I got away from partisanship and was able to look at that list objectively, it became pretty clear that none of those are really partisan issues – they’re mostly buzz words. I know what I think they should mean, but that list could just as easily be supported by the most liberal voter in the Democratic Party as it is by the most conservative voter in the Republican Party. What does “limited government” mean? Does it mean “no taxes” or does it mean “no listening in on my phone conservations without a warrant”? What does “respect for life” mean? “No abortions” or “no starving children in our cities” or maybe even “no death penalty”? Does a “strong national defense” mean committing ourselves to maintaining the most powerful military force in the world, or does it mean mostly being a good neighbor and building coalitions with other democratic nations so that we have lots of allies and little incentive for aggressors to come after us?
And “fiscal responsibility” and “balanced budgets” are completely non-partisan. They’re both about being responsible, not about ideology. We could have a complete socialist welfare state and still have balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility (Sweden comes to mind, actually). Likewise we could have a capitalist paradaise all and still have unrestrained budgets and profligate spending. These aren’t conservative positions – they’re just talking points that Republicans in the 80s and 90s used to beat the Dems in power over the head with until people voted them out of office.
This list is like patriotism and flag waving – things that the Democrats allowed the Republicans to “take over” as their own, even though the Republicans don’t “own” these items any more than any other party does.
The Truffle
***splutter***
Someone buy a calendar and remind this person what century she’s living in. Someone also reassure her that socialists won’t bite her.
Really, if this is the reality these “wrong-wing” morons live in, no wonder their movement is such a dismal failure.
libarbarian
I don’t know what Prof. Cole thinks but I don’t think its smart to assume that just because we see that they are full of crap means that they must know they are full of crap.
Yes, the “elites” like Limbaugh and some bloggers probably do, but I’m not sure that the rank-and-file of the base do at all.
I hate to be pedantic but this might be simply a reflection of a phenomena described in Altermeyers “The Authoritarians”:
In some ways I think it’s this simple.
EL
I know! It’s because Romney is more in favor of torture! We know how important that is to the current crop of conservatives.
Or maybe he watches “24” regularly? I came across this gem about the show’s rating problems and potential changes:
So, it’s a liberal conspiracy to take away the torture (which the military opposes, and the pros say doesn’t work) in order to disrespect the worldview of Conservatives? You can’t make this stuff up.
kwAwk
demimondian Says:
kwAwk—I certainly think you’ve nailed why the Collective prefers Romney to McCain, although I’d say it with fewer words: “Romney will keep telling lies to the Republican dupes, and McCain might not.”
That’s not exactly what John has asked. He’s already well onto the fact that the argument is disingenuous and dishonest, he’s just trying to find a legitimate argument in favor of the thesis. Most of this thread is people responding: “Yeah, dude…about that thing you called ‘conservatisml? Yeah, listen, about that: the Republican party never really meant all that.”
_________________
Pat Hynes over at Ankle Biting Pundits had a good posting a while ago talking about how Conservatism has become as much of an identity group as it is a political philosphy. The wingnuts view ‘Conservatives’ as a club that you support and identify with more than a political philosophy which is to be reasoned through. That is how Dubya can start the Iraq war on pre-emptive grounds that turn out in retrospect to be phoney and still sell it as a ‘conservative’ policy.
Dubya meets enough of the criteria to be a conservative, panders to the right people, thus Dubya is a conservative no matter what he does. John McCain has proven himself to be an outsider to the identity group ‘Conservative’ thus he isn’t welcome in the fold. Romney is considered to be the best alternative to the proven non-Identity Conservative McCain and has pandered to all of the right interest groups so he is considered to be a proper Conservative.
It has nothing to do with the policy positions and everything to do with how the word ‘Conservative’ has been bastardized over the past 15 years.
kwAwk
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=2496
Link for previous post.
LiberalTarian
Wish I had my pocket edition of the True Believer with me (Eric Hoffer, 1951). But, I’ll dig it out. I remember when I first picked it up–I was 19 and my journalism prof recommended it to me. Blew my mind. But, it was a good book on how to maintain the ability to think independently.
I think he would liken today’s conservative movement folks (aka the Freepi) as those who abdicate self-reflection and self-determination for association with “something bigger than themselves.” They are the Bible thumpers, the roaring patriots, yadda yadda. They want their opinions ground up into tiny pieces and fed to them like pablum, dammit! They are sheeple, and that’s how they like it.
Shade Tail
I say demimondian and NonyNony both nail it. That list of “conservatism” is so broad and general, it really describes *any* mature, responsible adult regardless of politics. Asking for “proof” that either GOP candidate is more or less conservative than the other is an exercise in futility.
In fact, at this point the whole idea of “conservative” (or “liberal” for that matter) has become like a Rorschach test; people see what they put into it in the first place. Personally, I agree that Romney is an untrustworthy sleaze-ball, but he’s still definitely a right-winger. I consider that enough to call him a conservative.
ThymeZone
When did John go spoof?
Are you fucking kidding me? 44 years since Goldwater ran for president and supposedly kicked off the “conservative movement.” 44 fucking years.
Unless we think invading Grenada and Panama were the proof of the defense thing, and that total spendthrift policies demonstrated by every Republican I’ve ever seen are somehow untypical … and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis who had nothing to do with 911 and trying to save Terri are “respect for life,” and tax cuts for the rich are “fiscal responsibility,” WTF in Jesus’ name are you talking about?
There has been no actual conservative movement, there has been a marketing strategy, followed by government by the Do Whatever The Fuck You Want principle.
The idea that Mittney or anyone else can be held to some list of standard is just ludicrous. They aren’t standards, they aren’t principles. They are slogans.
Dennis - SGMM
I don’t know about the fiscal responsibility thing. For every dollar that the last three Democratic Presidents added to the National Debt the Republican presidents added about $2.60.
Andrew
Just insert “The appearance of ” before each of those items and ” to appease low-information voters” afterwards and you’ll be correct.
t jasper parnell
Perception equals reality; McCain is perceived as more liberal than Romney therefore he is more liberal than Romney, QED
There is no money to be shown only the perception that there is money and that it has been shown.
Jeff
Why are you not voting for Ron Paul ;-)
Seriously, fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are now more democrat issues. Bush and fellow Republicans (not Conservatives) do not care about deficits. Respect for life except the fetus seems to be always democrat issues when you include healthcare, drug research (ie stem cells), torture, and the death penalty. Same goes for respect for the individual (or did those theocrats change their mind on drugs, sex and Rock and Roll along with video games, Janet Jackson on TV, etc).
So now you are left with strong national defense which is currently a joke since we are so busy defending Iraq, not the US and desire for limited government where government has grown more under Republican presidents than Democrat presidents.
I am convinced the Republicans are just better at being an opposition party and gridlock is a good thing.
t jasper parnell
I meant for most people p = r; not me for me r = r; as in I am tall, good looking, and reasonable; unlike you and your ilk.
John Cole
For chrissakes, I am not spoofing. I am well aware what the GOP believes in NOW, it is why I left the damned party.
Someone just asked me what conservatism used to mean, and I responded. Cripes.
The Other Steve
The best government is one which does the least. One of the ways the Republicans have fucked up this country and our economy is by continually talking about tax cuts.
What we need is a reasonable fixed tax rate, and then just leave it the fuck alone for 30 years. So that people can make some wise long term decisions. Instead people wait to see what might happen, before expanding business, or investing in new technologies, etc.
binzinerator
Jen:
I didn’t think so either.
John:
Even if she has the technique of the sane down, she certainly is using it in support of the ludicrous. Or, to riff on John S.’s metaphor, it’s like she logically and sanely constructed a house — but she built it in the middle of a fucking desert. That’s sane?
Anyone who argues voting for a Republican after all the crime, lies, abuses of power, corruption, hypocrisy, and frightening Orwellian efforts of these past 7 years — especially a Republican who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and bomb Iran — must have at least one brick shy of a full load.
If she can mimic logic and reason, that makes her all the more dangerous.
Zifnab
You’ll have to forgive some of us, John. At the tender age of under 30, I don’t think I’ve seen any of these beliefs enacted by Republicans in my lifetime.
I know what conservatives used to say they meant. I just haven’t ever seen them mean it.
As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party has always stood for:
Whining
Purse Snatching
Fear Mongering
Squaller
Hypocrisy
Racism
Corruption
and Incompetence
Show me a Republican in the last 30 years who has deviated from this rule. I can’t find him.
HyperIon
John McCain said:
and then nutters start freaking out about free speech.
another variant of the “don’t fuck with my money” rules that today’s conservatives live by. $$$s are the most important concept to those bitching about McCain.
actually quite a few conservatives support McCain now and undoubtedly will in November. it’s just the loud mouths Cole is focusing on now.
i don’t care what McCain’s conservative credentials are. he would not be a good choice for pres. he believes that the surge is working! i guess the silver lining for Romney MIGHT be: he changes so often, perhaps he’d end up resembling the Massachusetts Mitt.
Dreggas
I went to public school…what can I say…felating.
Johnny Pez
I have to agree with the others on the subject of Rachel Lucas’ sanity. The ability to make a logical argument and cite facts does not make one sane. If facts and logic are used to support an insane premise, that’s still a form of insanity.
Dennis - SGMM
I also remember when conservatives were leery of foreign entanglements and scoffed at the idea of nation building. Remember all of the shit that Clinton took from the Republicans for sending US troops to Bosnia?
The huge irony is that I don’t think that the conservatives even know what it means to be a conservative any more. Bush is about to propose $515.4 billion in spending on the military – and that’s not counting the endless supplementals for Iraq and Afghanistan. That equates, in inflation adjusted dollars, to the highest level of military spending since WWII. By spending more money on defense than the rest of the world put together we get a military that’s incapable of securing two third-tier countries. So much for a strong national defense.
Talk about your Golden Fleecing. We’re just lucky that Liechtenstein didn’t decide to jump bad.
ThymeZone
John, please. You teach this stuff. The party doesn’t “believe in” any of those things. It hasn’t governed according to those principles. Put in power, it spends like a sailor, cuts taxes and throws “balanced budgets” to the wind. It has fucked national defense, and shown no particular respect for “life.”
No matter how many times you or they say it, those aren’t the principles of the GOP. They are advertising slogans, with pretty much the same value as the copy on your toothpaste tube that promises if you use the goop, you will have a mouthful of photogenic teeth.
Let’s get real here, can we?
John Cole
Like talking to a damned wall.
srv
LT,
Thanks. I’ve been trying to remember that book for about a year now.
ThymeZone
Yeah, tell us about it.
RSA
Spelling-based jokes should be properly spelled.
ThymeZone
It think you meant schpelled.
LiberalTarian
srv,
The True Believer is a stunning work of clarity. Little book, big ideas. It actually takes a while to digest. He talks about the use of hatred to drive people. Thing is, I don’t think he meant it as an instruction manual!
Jen
Okay, okay,
fellating
Damn, that *did* take all the punch out of it.
Sorry.
It really was a typo, I do know how to spell.
ThymeZone
I think you meant “schpell.”
LiberalTarian
Don’t worry Jen. I hear you can never *really* screw up fellatio. ;)
RSA
That would be RSA plus two (or is it four?) talking, a few hours from now.
libarbarian
Actually, yes you can. Sounds like you’ve just been lucky enough to avoided experiencing it firsthand :).
ThymeZone
Off topic, but are any of you watching this pie fight on Lou Dobbs right now?
Whooooeeee dogies! This makes BJ flamewars sound like The Sound of Music.
LiberalTarian
Is Lou Dobbs getting bad fellatio or giving it?
Bwahahahaha.
ThymeZone
Uh, I think he is trying to shout down this woman, and failing badly.
And it’s pissing him off royally.
ThymeZone
Dobbs = meltdown.
Embarassing for CNN.
John S.
Exactly.
Because at the end of the day, poor Rachel just can’t see past all the scary ‘socialism’ and marxist tendencies the Democratic candidates have – not that her opinion has anything to do with party affiliation.
However, I supposed compared to your garden variety ‘conservative’ blogger, she is reasonable albeit ridiculous.
ThymeZone
Whooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Now THAT was some argumentin’!
Lou Dobbs came pretty close to blowing it.
Saved himself at the end, by inviting his tormentor back for another round.
Jen
Well, last week I made a very embarrassing 3/5 v. 2/3 mistake, which I attempted to justify with the fact that I frequently work with the fraction 2/3, at work. No one claimed the gold star for guessing what I do.
I will make no such claims regarding “fellate”.
ThymeZone
Just for reference, this is the segment I was referring to above.
rawshark
What’s the Great Compromise that has held the Reagan coalition together for 30 years.?
ThymeZone
Let’s see … that a political party will sell itself, for votes, to people who think the earth is 6000 years old, and then try to represent itself as having “principles?”
Or that the Grand Old Party will represent the people who are still pissed off about the Civil Rights Act and try to represent itself as having “principles?”
LiberalTarian
The agreed to all meet in one powerful block. So, let’s say the anti-tax people could give a crap about guns in every household. They would still support the NRA stuff, to the nth degree, if it meant that the gun lobby would support their decrees to cut taxes by all means.
So, you have the Radical Right Evangelists, the NRA, the WSJ crowd, the military industrial complex, etc. etc. all under the same tent. They might not like each other, but by gawd, if they stand united they can keep a master grip on all the power. That’s the gist of it. They may hate each other passionately, but you would never know it from their public stances.
LiberalTarian
They agreed. Sorry.
ThymeZone
As well they should. They are all detestable.
Tsulagi
You don’t see the big picture. 9/11 changed everything, including all perception of reality and reality itself. If you don’t accept that, then you must be a Nazi appeaser. Or something like that. Flipper Mitt now endorses this logic, therefore proof he is a desirable conservative for the new millennium GOP patriot warriors.
Vote Republican! Familiar short busses available to take you to the polls tomorrow. Additional drool cups supplied if needed.
Dennis - SGMM
Isn’t it odd that the terrorists who are supposed to be burning with the desire to off all of us have never even bothered to follow the template of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo? I mean, can’t al Qaeda afford a ’92 Chevy Caprice and a knock-off M-16? Malvo and Muhammed managed to kill fifteen people and throw much of Maryland and Virginia into a state of complete fear. Does this mean that the terrorist sleeper cells, thirsting with all their might for our blood have been waiting seven years for just the right time? Or dies it mean that the Republicans cynically used a one-shot attack as an excuse to trample on the Constitution?
I refuse to believe that the chronically incompetent Bush administration has managed in this one arena to be 100% effective. That leaves a lot of room for speculation.
Dennis - SGMM
or does it mean
Apologies
demimondian
Which of you guys is just catching on to that fact?
Jen
Aw, John, you got a shout-out at Sadly, No. So sweet.
Zifnab
Dude. I wish it were true. I wish these were, in fact, conservative principles. But principles have to be realized. You can’t just run around claiming, “Well, I’m for smaller government” and then vote for people who inflate the size of government. You can’t petition for a “culture of life” while bombing tens of thousands of innocent people to death. Or promote “personal responsibility” while enacting a nationwide cronyism scheme.
We recognize that these tenants exist, in theory, John. Much as we recognize that the basic tenants of “one for all and all for one” Communism exist. But much like with Communism, there’s not a verifiable instance of living Conservatism. Lots of talk, no walk. You’ve got a dead faith here that you are praying to, John. A religion that exists entirely in lip-service. Everyone wants to be a conservative, but no one wants to be a conservative.
So when you talk about how no one in the ’08 race is acting like a conservative, we are inclined to say, “No shit! What’s new?”
corwin
It’s because he’ll go along with the Wall Street orgy, including the war profiteering by the likes of Blackwater and Halliburton. That is the functional definition of conservatism these days.
Shade Tail
Zifnab pretty much has it.
Look, John. We want to believe that the mythical “conservative” believes in those things, because they are ideas *everybody* should believe in. But the fact is, the right-wing establishment hasn’t believed in those things since at least Reagan. Arguably longer, since wealthy right-wingers were also largely responsible for the 1929 stock market crash and were hell-bent to stop us from fighting WW2 against Hitler.
Basically, you’re asking the wing-nuts you’ve repudiated to prove that, by your largely-artificial criteria, Romney is a conservative. I’ll grant you that Romney doesn’t seem to believe in any of those ideas you’ve listed, but then, that doesn’t prove anything. You’re basically playing the same “conservativelier than thou” game as the wing-nuts are, just from the other side.
It would be like me, a self-described liberal, pointing to the left-wing democrat of my choice and declaring him or her to not be a real liberal because they hold different ideals than I do. “Liberal” and “conservative” can’t be as narrowly defined as we might like.
BTW: Zifnab. Is that a Weis & Hickman reference?
ThymeZone
Zifnab:
Word.
John Cole
No. I am simply asking for some (any) evidence that Romney is the conservative they claim he is.
Ted
Re: Rachel Lucas – she apparently thinks that Obama and Clinton are Marxists, so how sane can she be? Also, she links to a piece from Thomas Sowell that shows a level of Clinton Derangment Syndrome I had no idea he had.
myiq2xu
The punctuation Nazi said to tell you the period goes inside the quote marks.
BTW- is a “fellacious” argument one that sucks?
ThymeZone
But … tenets, not tenants. Details, details.
Bob In Pacifica
Would Romney’s universal healthcare include dental?
ThymeZone
Let’s give this one more crackeroo. There is no real conservatism in his party. There is only lip service.
So, if he mouths the words….. isn’t that good enough?
It has been for all the other liars who came before him. Why should he be any different? Why hold him to a different standard?
myiq2xu
John, due to the goldberging of the English language by your former compatriots, words mean whatever we want them to mean.
On that basis, McCain is a liberal, Romney is a conservative, and liberals are . . . well, you know.
myiq2xu
Oops, I caidenced.
That should be “fellatious.”
Jen
…voting for Hillary tomorrow?
myiq2xu
Yes, like all good fascists.
Jen
I think that you’re actually on the Pony and won’t admit it. The more steadfast your denials, the more I will believe it.
kwAwk
rawshark Says:
the point is that Romney better understands the ‘Great Compromise’ that has held the Reagan coalition together for 30 years.
What’s the Great Compromise that has held the Reagan coalition together for 30 years.?
___________________________
The great compromise stems from the notion that fiscal conservatism (libertarianism), social conservatism (religious nuts) and foreign policy conservatism (hawks & isolationists) are not necessarily the same positions.
These three philosophies have bound together to achieve power. From this social conservatives get their moral agenda tended to, fiscal conservatives get their tax cuts and the foreign policy hawks get their big military spending.
Each group gives up certain things also. Social Conservatives give up the charity of Christ’s messege, fiscal conservatives who tend to be libertarians have to accept big government telling us how to live in social issues and foreign policy conservatives, natural isolationists have to tolerate the open borders in the name of free trade.
Over time each group keeps demanding more and more from the others in the form of more and more extreme positions to stay part of the compromise.
John McCain has upset the balance of the compromise by decrying the influence of the religious right as mean spirited, upset the fiscal conservatives by voting against their tax cuts, and the foreign policy conservatives by trying to implement ‘amnesty’.
SCBrain
The meaning of the term “conservative” is beside the point; a red herring. John McCain is being thrown under the bus because the chattering class knows they can’t tell him what to do. Romney, conversely, has shown every inclination to following directions from above.
McCain is too unpredictable to get the approval of the conservative commentariat. Romney: quite the opposite.
myiq2xu
Denial is a river in Egypt.
LiberalTarian
See, that’s why I call my LiberalTarian. I grew up around real honest-to-goodness libertarians, but my own family was very concerned with good government. I happen to think liberal politicians are more responsive to criticism, but it does seem like lately you need a 4×4 to get threw to anyone working as an elected official.
In my hometown if you threw a rock you would hit a John Bircher, but I didn’t hear all my childhood life about the whole anti-abortion racket and how liberals were all evil. I heard A LOT about the government keeping its nose out of people’s business, and how you should certainly never trust government. Of course, the area was still very raw from Viet Nam, and in a small community of several thousand we lost a lot of young men and had many others come home broken. And, in a perpetually depressed economy, folks had a tendency to need government. All those factors made for a very flexible political population.
But, this conservative government cabal is anything but what traditional conservatives have purported to be. You and your fellows have been had, John. I don’t think it will always be that way though–I have every reason to believe we’ll see Republican liberals in power again, even running the GOP. But, it’s up to the “base” to run the crooks out of power, and for whatever reason, the Republican base seems mighty confused about what is actually in their (and our) best interest.
LiberalTarian
threw=through. dammit.
ThymeZone
Bobby Knight resigns.
Why?
Shade Tail
“No. I am simply asking for some (any) evidence that Romney is the conservative they claim he is.”
Yes, that’s what I wrote. The problem, once again, is that you are defining “conservative” from your particular point of view and then insisting that any evidence conform to that definition.
TenguPhule
The only requirement to be a good conservative is the ability to bend over and deepthroat a man-banana while humming the star spangled banner to the tune of ‘We are the Champions’ and preach against liberals.
rawshark
Aside from people clubbing you over your head about your definition of conservative, I hear crickets chirping. Who made the claim? Maybe they don’t read your blog and that’s why they haven’t responded.
global yokel
Part of the problem is that the definition of ‘conservative’ has been so twisted and perverted in recent decades that nobody knows what the fuck it means anymore, including the dimwits who call themselves conservatives.
The media has been calling GW Bush a conservative for the past 8 years, when in fact he has run the national debt up to $9 trillion dollars, assaulted the Constitution, infringed on our personal liberties and intruded into our personal lives, consolidated authority in the Executive branch of government, and conducted an ambitious and reckless foreign policy.
Does any of that sound ‘conservative?’ I don’t think so, either. But the schmucks who run our mainstream media continue to do the Bushniks a favor by legitimizing them as conservatives.
Oy….
Kynn
So what do they each think about the FAIR TAX? That’s what I wanna know.
Jim
I’ve had an incredibly shitty day, but I have to say this just made me laugh. I wonder often John just stares at his monitor and thinks “why the hell am I blogging.”
LiberalTarian
I blog, therefore I am.
;)
Andrew
Because Romney isn’t a real conservative?
Psycheout
Caidence is an idiot. Even by leftard standards. Bad parody, bad mind, just bad. You suck dude. Go die in a hole somewhere.
Cain
Ran out of chairs to throw.
cain
Psycheout
Why do you libbies always see the glass as half empty?
KG
I just had an email exchange with a friend of mine who is going to vote for Romney tomorrow. it started with a GOTV email that she sent me. Here’s the entire argument based on Romney’s record:
Really, that’s all they got, and then a bunch of endorsements. Plus some stuff about how McCain is out of money and Romney can self-finance. Oh, and the typical list of McCain heresies – ANWAR, voting against the Bush tax cuts, amnesty, McCain-Fiengold, and the Kerry running mate thing.
It’s strange, in 2000 I voted for McCain, and I kind of want to support him again this year, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. And Romney is simply a non-starter for me. I’d move to Fiji before voting for Huckabee. Which leaves me voting for Ron Paul and hoping that the Magical Unity Pony can some how pull off the upset.
Xenos
And it appears they want Romney to do the same thing for the country as a whole – to sell himself to the public and then rule as a corporatist, with extra piety and militarist flavors. What he does as President it irrelevant – what he will do is to keep the Bushie types employed throughout the government, further locking in GOP institutional power.
Remember the ‘preppie’ riot in Florida, who all turned out to be GOP staffers and such? Those kids, and their dads, are the true Republican constituency.
This is why McCain is such a threat – he hates the phonies, and lets them know it. McCain won’t just ruin the country for them, he will ruin the RNC sandbox they have been playing in for decades.
As for Romney, he was imposed on the Massachusetts Republican Party by party headquarters. He got what he needed out of the state, and left the party in shambles – there is no surviving Republican party left here, one of the founding states for Republicanism, Mugwumpism, the land of John Adams (& grandson) and Henry Cabot Lodge (& grandson). While the conservatives have been outnumbered for the last century, they were always a vital party here with deep roots.
After Romney, the party is dead – utterly discredited and ruined at a grassroots level. A third-rater like Deval Patrick (I like the guy, but he is no Obama, he is not even a Dukakis, yet) just walked away with the governorship.
My point is that if the party authorities manage to put Romney in the White House, it will likewise kill off the GOP. As with many Bain Capital clients, the ‘shareholders’ will make a mint, but the party will be ransacked and left for dead.
bago
Sane? Are you fucking kidding me?
Addendum, Reagan was wise enough to pull out of an intractable civil war after 200 + marines were killed there. 600k dead locals, 4000 dead homeboys, and countless injured on both sides and we still aren’t as smart as an Alzheimer’s addled actor.
Lies, deception, death, these things matter little to an additional 2% on you hedge fund. Welcome to the republicans.
Grumpy Code Monkey
If I can summarize for my own benefit…
John asks why Romney can be considered more “conservative” than McCain, and John gives his criteria for what can be called “conservative”, not what the GOP is currently calling “conservative.” Where this thread has gone off the rails is in people thinking that John believes his list applies to the post-modern GOP, which, AFAICT, he does not.
First of all, conservatism isn’t about tax cuts, outlawing abortion, or any of those other talking points. As I understood Goldwater, the guiding principle behind the conservative movement was to protect individual liberty by minimizing the role of government in an individual’s life to the degree possible. This translated to a small and relatively weak federal government that didn’t spend a lot of money (and didn’t routinely spy on its own citizens), low taxes, minimal regulation, etc. It also translated into a somewhat hawkish foreign policy, thanks to the geopolitical situation of the time.
I doubt Goldwater would have supported the War on Drugs, for example, or have been all that much in favor of preemptive war, or be all that sanguine about Gitmo, suspension of habeas corpus, Medicare drug plans, amending the Constitution to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, etc. He’d have been horrified by the whole Schiavo affair and the profligate spending Republicans have engaged in with just as much fervor as their Democratic counterparts.
So, by that standard, is Romney more “conservative” than McCain? I don’t think so, based on what I’ve read so far.
Lurching a little off-topic, my wife and I finally streamed the last set of debates (HRC/MUP in L.A. and the Gang of Four at the Reagan library). I don’t think I’ve ever been happier to be a Democrat.
I also understand why Huckabee had so much appeal. Of the four, he came across as the least objectionable. Yeah, I understand what he stands for and what he wants to do, but honestly, I don’t see how he’d be any worse than the rest of ’em. Also, there’s an appellation that was routinely applied to Bubba that works just as well for the Mittster — slick.
jn
Loyalty.
Republicans see McCain as someone who will speak out or vote against their cherished principles (immigration, campaign finance, torture). Romney is in no way loyal to himself and his previous views, but I think it’s safe to say he will be loyal to the party.
Jason
No. I am simply asking for some (any) evidence that Romney is the conservative they claim he is.
But what counts as ‘evidence’? What do you mean by asking whether Romney “is” conservative?
If you mean, does he believe in conservative principles, then no, there’s no evidence of that. (No evidence he has any principles at all.)
But there’s no inherent reason why conservatives should care. Are you making the claim that Romney won’t govern as a conservative? That’s the only relevant question. If you accept that his past behavior is indicative of how he will govern in the future, then you’re right. But clearly many conservatives don’t believe that, and I don’t think they’re totally crazy not to. He’s basically saying that he’s a convert to the right-wing, and while that probably isn’t genuine, it doesn’t really matter, as long as his pandering to that constituency continues while he’s in office. Voters shouldn’t really care about who a candidate is except insofar as it reflects on what they will do.
There’s no certainty here, obviously; it’s possible that a President Romney could revert to his old ways once in office. Voters have to decide how likely they think that is. But it’s not irrational to support someone running on a platform that conforms ideologically to one’s own views even when that candidate had a different approach in the past.
regular_joe
First, the nutters don’t think. They do as they are told.
Second, Romney is the Republican establishment’s candidate of choice. He has been chosen by the establishment to carry the “conservative” standard. Therefore Romney is more “conservative” than McCain — by definition — because the Republican establishment says so.
Third, because the Republican Party alone determines what is and is not “conservative,” when they say that Willard is more conservative than St. John, then you damn well better believe them or you risk excommunication.
Ron
Maybe so John, but if you are the only mental patient in a mental institution who doesn’t stick their pills up their nose, you are still in a mental institution. Logical does not equal sane. One needs to be rational as well, and several people have already pointed out why she isn’t.
No one deserves a cookie simply for not listening to Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the ideologically challenged right on who their candidates really are.