Neo-cons all but ruined McCain's chances

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Anuba, Oct 14, 2008.

  1. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #1
    Neo-cons belong in the 20th century, the tide is turning and in order for America to complete the transition into the 21st century and get in sync with the modern world, it will have to rid itself of these clowns. Any amateur trend oracle has felt it in the air for a long time -- the Christian taliban in bow ties may not know it yet, but they're a dying breed.

    The first sure-fire sign was staring the Republicans in the face: McCain, the most liberal candidate, clinched the nomination after two previous failed attempts. That right there was something they should have taken to heart, and allowed McCain to be his left-flirting self. He could've won over millions of right-wing democrats, independents and others who were on the fence. He was already moderately successful at distancing himself from Bush.

    In other countries, this is what parties who are on the decline always do. They move closer to the middle. If republicans had done the same, this might have been a tight race. Sure, a few grumpy taliban on the far right might have protested by not voting at all, but the lion's share are so blindly loyal to the party that they'd vote anyway, for fear of losing the election to someone who's even further to the left.

    But nooooo, the neo-cons, up to their ears in a sense of entitlement, marched in and took over the campaign. They crammed McCain full of talking points that have him squirming uncomfortably, they traveled back to the stone age to fetch Palin, they suppressed his criticism of Bush and rolled out Ye Olde Fear Tactics and filled the airwaves with negative ads.

    What I'm saying is that this isn't McCain's fault. Yeah, he's old, and he's kind of a douche bag, but he's a whole lot better than his army of taliban and his evangelical dominatrix side-kick make him look. I hope the GOP learns their lessons from this, but judging by history, they'll probably go even further in the wrong direction.
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #2
    What a thoughtful and well reasoned diatribe.:rolleyes: I see the DailyKos sent out their talking points kinda early this morning.
     
  3. Anuba thread starter macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #3
    Aww, poor dinosaur... but don't worry, we'll find a special place in the museum for you.

    Now, what the hell is "DailyKos"?
     
  4. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #5
    I know it has been rough, but all of us (regardless of how "hardcore" we believe on our candidate) have been able to keep our discussions without insulting each other or name calling, lets keep it that way. :eek:
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #6
    I wouldn't put the neo-cons as late as the 20th century. Hell, weren't usurious interest rates and the "you're on your own" philosophy going out of style in Dickens' time?

    I'm really at a loss here to determine whether McCain has gone into this eyes wide open, or he's just following some really, really, really bad advice. The Republicans have been screwing things up for at least three decades, after all. They were overdue for a bottoming-out.

    If life were a comic book, the Republicans would be the Injustice League.

    I just can't figure out whether Bush would be Big Sir or Major Disaster.
     
  6. Anuba thread starter macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #7
    Eech, those guys are liberals. I was never a big fan of liberalism, I'm more of a conservative. By that I mean an actual conservative, not to be confused with the disturbed American weirdos who appropriated that title.
     
  7. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #8
    Nice to know that such a kind person as yourself will take care of me.

    By the way, you forgot additional talking points that McCain is just Bush's third term, John will also sell Whoopi back into slavery, and you didn't compare him to a facist or Hitler.:rolleyes:

    You are slipping.
     
  8. Anuba thread starter macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #9
    Well, either way, it's a case of too many cooks. Whoever runs his campaign deserves to be unemployed for a couple of decades.

    Hmm. Was there any character called Giant Boob?
     
  9. Anuba thread starter macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #10
    That's because neither of those things are true. Well, the first one sort of depends on whether McCain will be allowed to be himself or not. The last two are just silly. And I take it you mean a fascist. I don't know what a facist is, does that have something to do with that goiter on his face?
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    :p That's not a bad idea, but no.

    Big Sir (second from left) was an oversized guy (which doesn't resemble W) with the mind of a four year old (which does). Major Disaster's (far left) power was that he could cause...disasters. You be the judge.

    [​IMG]

    These guys remind me of the GOP because they were would-be rulers of the world, except for the fact that they were utterly incompetent...on a par with KAOS, Hedley Lamaar and Bill O'Reilly.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    I actually disagree with much of this analysis. First, the neo-cons are not "last century". True, their intellectual basis was formed during the latter portion of the 20th century, but it wasn't until the 21st century started that they actually rose to positions of power that allowed them to test their theories.

    Second, neo-cons and theo-cons are very different animals, although there can -- and is -- significant overlap in goals / ideals. And both are different from the third leg of the GOP tripod, the corporate-cons.

    Now, on to McCain's clinching of the GOP nomination. The GOP fielded a relatively weak field this time around. McCain was the strongest candidate acceptable to the establishment. Personally I think Obama would be having a much more difficult time taking on Mike Huckabee than McCain. But Huckabee scared the corporate-cons, who are the real power in the GOP, with his populist rhetoric and so he wasn't deemed suitable for nomination.

    It wasn't an issue of McCain stealing this nomination from under the noses of the party leaders, it was those leaders casting about desperately for someone (Romney?) who was better than McCain, but not finding anyone.

    Traditionally in this country, candidates campaign more to the far right or left (depending on party) during the primaries, then both move to the political center during the general election. McCain did not have this option available to him because the far-right in this country does not trust him. Thus he was forced to remain pandering to the far-right this entire time -- including the Sarah Palin pick -- to try to establish some semblance of credibility among the party faithful. Even now, McCain's hold on that group is tenuous at best. If he makes any move towards the middle, he loses the far right. But without moving to the middle he has no hope of winning the independent and moderate votes that he needs.

    Finally, McCain may have advisors whispering in his ear telling him what to say, but he is the one who establishes the tone and tempo of the campaign. McCain has a reputation as a loose cannon with a short fuse. He's undoubtedly instructing his surrogates to behave in this fashion -- if not directly than by tacit acceptance of their behavior. He's told us all he's a gambler who's willing to live with the consequences of his mistakes. The question is, are the rest of us ready to live with McCain's mistakes?

    The conservative movement is going to throw McCain under the proverbial bus if he loses. If Obama wins on Nov. 4th, we'll be told that it was because McCain "wasn't a real conservative", just as we're hearing about Bush now. Bush political views have been the same at the height of his popularity as they are now, yet you hear conservatives who used to praise his conservative-ness who today cannot disown Bush fast enough as "not a real conservative". Expect that kind of dishonesty to ramp up if Obama wins.
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    The scariest part is that about 40-45% of America is made up of NeoCons who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Scary stuff indeed that we have people who want to believe in make believe and all the man made religions that go with it.
     
  13. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    It was my understanding that Neo-Cons were defined by their active, idealistic, pre-emptive foreign policy views, espoused by Wolfowitz and others in the early 90's.

    To borrow from mactastics "tripod" - I believe you are describing theo-cons - which might be described as social conservatives (to the extreme).

    Again, as Mac mentioned, there is some overlap and dovetailing of views and principles between groups, but as crazy as neo-con ideology can be - it is not to my mind explicitly grounded in religion.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    You know, Whoopi's interrogation was a honest question phrased poorly. One of the things not often acknowledged by the strict Constitutionist crowd is that the original Constitution contained the 3/5 compromise in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:

    Now, this was superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments, but nonetheless, this should remind us that the Constitution is an imperfect document.

    I'm not trying to defend Whoopi because I think her question was intended to be polemical, but there is something to the point, as ridiculous as it was.

    I agree with this. I've heard neocons refer to themselves as "liberals mugged by reality." In response to the failures of liberalism, so the story goes, neoconservatives moved to the right on economics and foreign policy, but there's a distinct secularism that often separates the neocons from the social conservatives, even if they find themselves in bed together.
     
  15. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    That is such a load of crap its pathetic. Whoopi's question was nothing more than the most outrageous attempt at fear mongering. No doubt the Constitution is not perfect, but by asking that question, she suggests that McCain can appoint Supreme Court Justices that will over turn the 13th and 14th Amendments. And the ignorant watchers of The View may just believe it.
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    Whoa. Slow down there chief...

    I'm obviously giving Whoopi more credit than you are. Whoopi's question wasn't fear mongering, IMHO, but rather it was a question about the strict reading of the Constitution based on what the Founding Fathers "envisioned."

    Not only is this an impossible ideal, but furthermore a dangerous one considering that as great as these guys were, they also thought that calling someone 3/5ths of another was a compromise worth making. It took nearly a century for this mistake to be rectified and there's a good lesson in this.


    Whoopi's question was poorly phrased, and I'm sure some ignoramus will claim that McCain wants to enslave people, but there's some merit to this question when someone talks about "strict" Constitutionalism based on the Founding Fathers without serious acknowledgement that we are in a different time and place and more than 200 years of jurisprudence.

    Notice, I never called your statement crap or pathetic. I just had the audacity to disagree with you.
     
  17. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #18
    My apologies.

    I agree that you are giving Whoopi way too much credit. Do you really think she is such a deep thinker? Doubtful to say the least. In my opinion, it was simple fear mongering. She basically said that John McCain would appoint judges that would bring back slavery.
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    Thank you.

    Essentially, I think you're focused on the first part of her statement, when I'm focused on the second part. McCain seemed to understand what she was getting at, although he may have been just trying to placate her and the suddenly cheering crowd, who were already tittering when McCain mentioned overturning Roe v. Wade.

    I may be misreading Goldberg and framing her argument within my own (I'll admit to that bias), but the point remains, a strict Constitutional reading based on just the Founding Fathers is inherently problematic when compared with just 140 years of antebellum history.
     
  19. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #20
    I agreed with the point she was trying to make, but she want WAY too far imho.
     
  20. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #21
    Of course it was fear mongering. Otherwise why wouldn't she ask "Hey John, how will you interpret the constitution when you're president of the USA?" She hates the guy. duh!

    What's scary is that you just made that statistic up.
    :p
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    Well, now that you've said 'duh' I've changed my opinion. ;)

    Everyone knows 90% of statistics are made up. ;)
     

Share This Page