Christopher Buckley quits National Review over Obama endorsement Proof that William J. Buckley may have fooled around with the liberal ladies once too often... Rich Lowry gives us his thoughts on the traitor: "Chris is either misinformed or exercising poetic license" Seriously... anybody that can call themselves a conservative and attempt to support Obama really needs to get back on their meds... we need to weed out a few more of these faux conservatives that masquerade as th real thing... Good riddance Christopher.. I am sure WJB would not have supported a Chicago mobster politican that wants to turn our beloved democracy into a reckless socialism experiment...
With all due respect, I know of a LOT of conservatives who are disgusted w/ the borrow and spend, spend, spend reality of the Bush presidency. And in their eyes, McCain hasn't presented a convincing enough paradigm shift, palling around far too much w/ the "values voters" in a time of steep economic crisis.
Bush isn't on the ballot! Choosing between the sure tax increase of Obamination and the sure tax cut of a McCain Administration is very easy for conservatives.
Look, every president is flawed and will make mistakes. One thing about Bush though that folks now fail to appreciate but history will:he takes steps to fix things. the surge in Iraq, responses to natural disasters post Katrina, active intervention in the financial markets on the precipice of depression -- bold moves that have/will paid off. Here's the difference between the possible McCain presidency and the possible Obama presidency. McCain's presidency will be like McCain's career -- no nonsense, direct, fundamentally American. He will be a pragmatist with a streak of moral outrage. It will be one issue at a time. You may like or not like the side of the issue he takes, but it will be taken by a serious man with serious temperament. The Obama presidency -- well, it's a great f----g unknown. Who is this guy? What does he really think about....well, anything? Other than being a good speechmaker and accomplished author (about his favorite subject:himself), what are we going to get? Are we going to get the transformational post racial leader who wants to radically remake American society in the Euro mold? Or will we get the vacillating Harvard Law Review editor, kinda dull, who won't take a stand on anything, and will vote "present" throughout his administration? In other words, whose coming to Dinner? The Saul Alinsky community organizer? The orator in Denver who should have worn a toga to complete the scene? Or the mediocre do nothing state senator whose real..and only...talent, is reading from a teleprompter? A McCain presidency doesn't frighten me. A Hilary Clinton presidency wouldn't frighten me. An Obama presidency scares the s---t out of me. If he wins big, and gets a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress, the messianic mandate may be hard to stop. And God help us if it isn't.
Iscuse me. You conveniently ignored: Ladies. You're not convincing anybody here. My point was/is/forever will be that there is a major, major crisis in conservative America w/ extremely complex ramifications. Therefore, it's entirely conceivable that numerous conservatives reject the current brand of conservatism.
Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear, I don't disagree with you about the current state of the conservative movement. That being said, for a conservative, disgusted as he is with the current state of "conservatism" as practiced, to vote for Obama and all the risks an Obama presidency entails...well, I am sorry, that simply makes zero sense.
McCain wanted to pick Lieberman but cowered before his advisers and decided that Sarah Palin should share his ticket. If ever there was evidence that he's not a serious man, that's it right there. And if you think his failed shenanigans during this recent financial crisis--let's fire the head of the SEC! let's cancel the debates! let's sort-of, kind-of, not-really suspend the campaign!--demonstrate seriousness, then you're either high, lying to me, or lying to yourself. You know damn well that Reagan wouldn't have reacted in that manner. McCain has Palin on the ticket. He supported Harriet Miers. In fact, he has never opposed a single appointment to the Supreme Court--not one!--in his entire time in the Senate. Serious man with serious temperament?!?!?! Puh-leeze, Karl. There's a reason that Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, and others have jumped ship here, and the number one reason is that McCain is to serious as Bono is to modesty. Honestly, it's like I'm the only person here who remembers how badly everyone hated McCain a year ago. As much as I don't like Giuliani, he's serious. And I actually rather liked Romney and would have voted for him over Edwards or even (possibly) Hillary.
Some did, which I think went over the top, but if our choices are McCain (whol I liked a lot in 2000) or Barry, do really think we can all breath without our noses just to teach our face a lesson?
Nah, I understand why people would prefer one over the other, even if I don't agree, but let's be serious here. McCain is a poorer candidate than even Kerry was, and Obama is not the second coming of Stalin. The same hysterical claims about socialism were made at Clinton, and they were wrong then, just as they're wrong now. I mean, look at Obama's economics team! I'd be delighted if one of Obama's critics could point out a single "socialist" among them!
Perhaps not socialists, but I imagine they all would like to see more government control of the economy, with an academics attitude towards the rich WASP males whom Obama has been heavily targeting. Plus, as seen in the "Joe the Plumber" exchange, Barry can throw out class warfare with the best of them.
This is inevitable no matter who is in charge. It's happening right now. Even some fairly libertarian economists (e.g., Gary Becker) are arguing in favor of increased regulation of the financial markets. Sensible limits on leveraging, for example, could have prevented or at least limited the recent meltdown. Not sure what you mean here. I didn't see the entire exchange, but didn't Obama make a comment about "spreading some of the wealth around"? That's a pretty far cry from government ownership of the means of production. He simply supports a progressive income tax. Obama's tax plan doesn't penalize high-income earners any more than Reagan did. Moreover, Obama has raked in donations from pretty wealthy people--investment bankers, hedge fund managers, etc. I recall reading that his donations from the finance sector beat McCain's at a 2:1 ratio. This is noteworthy, because the very people who McCain claims should fear Obama actually support him. The problem with Joe the Plumber is that his criticisms derived from a position of ignorance. Joe's biggest mistake was his confusion between revenues and income. Obama's plan wouldn't penalize Joe if his plumbing company earned $280,000 in revenues, because revenues aren't taxed. In other words, the people who would be affected by Obama's tax proposals are largely unconcerned about them, whereas persons like Joe, who wouldn't be affected, are concerned.
McCain has his flaws, and he can be impetuous but they are the flaws of a man with principles. What are Obama's principles? I don't know, and if you say you do, you're either high, lying to me, or lying to yourself. Obama has Biden on the ticket, the equivalent of your drunken garrulous uncle. If Obama wins, I hope they hide him in the closet with the sherry. You mean, McCain voted FOR Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while Obama OPPOSED John Roberts, arguably the most brilliant and competent conservative jurist Bush could have picked? Is that your litmus test for judgment?? Simple opposition? I think we should consider having your voter card revoked. Has Krauthammer jumped ship? Will is a crank. Noonan is perplexed, Powell was off the reservation years ago. McCain had flaws, still has them. Obama on the other hand is SCARY FRIGHTENING. Way more than Sarah Palin.
Spreading the wealth means he wants to tax the most productive citizens more heavily, including increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends. He want to INCREASE taxes. And he wants to take that money and fund his endless list of programs. He is an extreme liberal with a Saul Alinsky community organizer background. He is SCARY FRIGHTENING.
Pragmatism + the usual stuff that Democrats believe. I won't list them because we both know what they are and that we'll disagree about most of them. Biden at least has an understanding of foreign policy. Palin's foreign policy experience consists of living in a state that is kind of, sort of next to the frozen part of Russia, although she's never participated in a single diplomatic event with the Russians. Palin can't name a SCOTUS decision she disagrees with other than Roe, can't name a newspaper or magazine that she reads, can't articulate the Bush Doctrine, doesn't understand the role of the VP, and has to be kept away from the press out of fear that her ignorance will be exposed. She also now has an ethics violation under her belt. Every other candidate that the GOP ran this year--including nuts like Trancredo--knows more about foreign policy, domestic policy, etc., than Palin. Every. Single. One. Simple opposition? No. I would like, however, to know that the Senator has some criteria regarding the fitness of appointees. At the Saddleback forum, McCain explicitly stated that he didn't think Ginsburg and the rest of the liberals were good to have on the bench . . . yet he voted to approve all four of them! And he supported Bork, and Miers, and everyone else. Consent is requested, not required. Krauthammer hasn't endorsed Obama, but he appears to have more or less given up on McCain. My list also should include Chris Buckley, and that Kmiec fella, David Brooks, and Milton Friedman's son, etc.
Could it be, just maybe, that these guys are putting money down on the candidate who they think is going to win? Nah, that couldn't be, could it? Glad to see your learning the difference between revenue and income. Meanwhile, Joe's point was simple. If I buy a business, bust my a$$ and start making some serious money, your tax plan, Senator Obama, is going to take more money from me that McCain's plan? Right? That's his point. And he's right. Of course, the media then had to devote all their energies to discredit him, and Barry and Joe pounced all over him to in their sneering elitist fashion.
Jesus, this is laughable. Biden had so many gaffes in the debate, but NOOOOOOOOOOO, Uncle Joe gets a pass. How was that France USA thing that kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Any word on that?? Biden is a joke, And not a Saturday Night Live one.
Bojendyk, you tread on Superdave/ITN level of stupidity. Most of the people here don't like you so I have no idea why you continue to post here. Please let Chris M and Nicephoras post instead of you so we can have real conversations. By the way, 70% of the Profs at your school probably think you're an idiot.
. . . yes, an increase to levels last seen under that horrible communist, Ronald Reagan! Right, if he earns more than $250,000 per year, he'll pay slightly more under Obama than he would under McCain. But if he earns a realistic salary? He'll pay more under McCain than he would under Obama. Take your pick. The overwhelming majority of people will pay less under Obama than they would under McCain, and the persons who would pay more are hardly going to be put into the poor house.
This is crap on both ends. I used to agree that Mccain was flawed but with principles. Now, I just think he is flawed. He flip flopped on the bush tax cuts multiple times. He hired the same slime balls that torpedoed his campaign in 2000 to slime Obama. He plucked a woman who has no business being vice-president simply to get a quick jolt in the polls. Exhibit A: JOHN MCCAIN this week had a choice between his principles and propping up a failed president. He chose the latter. more stories like thisThe Senate joined the House in passing an intelligence bill that would ban the CIA from using waterboarding as an interrogation tactic. The CIA would have to abide by the Army Field Manual, which also prohibits beatings, electric or temperature shocks, forced nudity, mock executions, and the use of dogs. Some of those abusive techniques were on global display in the torture photos from Abu Ghraib. McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war, has long condemned waterboarding as torture, making him more sensitive than President Bush on an issue that stained America's image. But the Arizona senator and virtual Republican nominee to replace Bush voted against the bill. Bush says he will veto the measure. McCain said that while he remains opposed to waterboarding, "We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures." Extra measures? Then what are rules for? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/16/mccain_drops_the_torture_ball/ As to Obama's principles, you are either not being honest or as an Illinoisan you just haven't been paying attention. My (R) State Senator, Kirk Dillard, worked closely with Obama on many things and has praised him as a principled man and has said that there is nothing to fear in an Obama presidency. In 12 years as a legislator, you have had ample opportunity to see the man in action and form your judgments. Much as you describe McCain, he has been a pragmatic legislator and effective. You may not agree with him on many things, which is fine but arguing that he is SCARY because you don't know what you are getting is a bit silly at this point. My guess is that this next statement will be subject to ridicule, but what the hell. You can tell a lot about a guy from his family. One marriage that appears to be very strong after 16 years. Kids who obviously adore their father. A guy who worked his way up from an unspectacular start in life. I still refuse to believe that deep down, McCain is not a principled man. I have always liked the guy. But, at the very least, when the going got tough, he was way to quick to trample on the things that once were important to him. I hope it is just a nod towards desperation and that win or lose, he gets back to the old McCain. The one we saw at the Al Smith dinner the other night.
Your asinine candidate outright lied about public campaign financing, then flip-flopped on his promise, and now he refuses to publish detail on his substantial financial donors; likely many American enemies donating to his campaign. The current president has defended this nation against terrorism since 09/11/01 and Sen. McCain is not going to condemn that homeland defense record. Your own Democrat VP candidate is now saying that Obama/Biden will fail in that homeland defense; you and your closet leftists get the Bozo The Clown award for hypocrisy... Also deep down - with that belief - is your understanding that Sen. Obama/Sen. Biden will be harmful for this nation; you just obviously are too slow to realize that fact.
the thing about joe the plumber is that he doesn't even have a plumber's license. he's a bit of a whack job ( whose life got invaded, unfortunately) but I guess that, these days, that's the base of the republican party.
Bottom line is that it doesn’t matter if Joe is his middle name or first name, it doesn’t matter if he has a plumber’s license or he works for one; its Hussein’s answer that expresses the socialist agenda of his administration. THAT’S the news here! You followers try to spin everything.