Friday, February 08, 2008

He's a McCainiac, McCainiac on the Floor. And he's dancin' like he's never danced before.

Why can't unca Johnny get no love?

Is he really worse than the alternatives?

Mungowitz, are you prepared for the 4 year all out assault on your wallet that an all Dem federal government would provide?

I just don't get it. Sure McCain-Feingold was bad legislation ex ante and even worse ex post. Stipulated. Asked and answered. Does that then imply he'd be a worse president than the Democratic alternative?

As for Judges, I don't get that either. Are you guys saying he'd appoint overly conservative Judges? I believe that must be Mungowitz's position. I guess my answer would be that I'd rely on the Democrat Congress to Bork them (thank you gridlock!!). In the comments though, some are saying he'd appoint not conservative enough judges. But would they be more liberal than the Democratic President's alternatives?

My bottom line opinon is this: of all the existing candidates, he gets immigration right, he gets trade right, he's seriously anti-earmarks, he claims to want to cut spending, and he has shown an amazing proclivity to tell people things they don't want to hear even when it does not appear to be expedient for him to do so.

He crushes everyone but Obama on character.

On Iraq. At this point in time, given that we invaded and then made a bollix of the "peace" / occupation, if you ask me to choose between immediate withdrawal and staying the course, God help me, I think I'd probably choose staying the course. Go easy on me people, the invasion was wrong, the occupation pathetically inept; but starting from where we are now, I don't see how immediate withdrawal is in our national interest.


Dirty Davey said...

"are you prepared for the 4 year all out assault on your wallet"

is rhetoric unrelated to any actually observed policies of recent Democratic presidents.

The last time a Democratic president and congress combined to significantly raise taxes, they were doing it to pay for the Vietnam War.

Do you really prefer a Republican putting thousands on your credit card to a Democrat possibly taking hundreds from your wallet?

Dirty Davey said...

"He crushes everyone but Obama on character"

Let's see. He caved to the Bush administration on the torture issue. He is unwilling to state today that he'd vote for the immigration bill he sponsored mere months back. He impugns the patriotism of those who disagree with the Republicans on the war. He divorced the wife who waited for him to come back from Vietnam in order to marry someone younger whose inherited money helped him launch his political career. He thinks it's funny to stand up in public and make jokes about Chelsea Clinton's parentage.

He has shown allegiance to no principle other than that John McCain should be the President.

If we don't know by now that we shouldn't elect an short-tempered narcissistic drunk to the White House, we'll never figure it out.

Don't confuse the Beltway pundits' opinion of John McCain with the real thing.

KLR said...

dd- You forget that there was a Republican Congress during most of the 90's. Voila! The virtues of gridlock.

Dirty Davey said...

"You forget that there was a Republican Congress"

The fact that there was a Republican Congress during the '90s does not change the fact that the combination of a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President has not produced significantly higher taxes since the Vietnam War.

The statement "Unified Democratic control of the government will result in significantly increased taxes" is not one which is supported by actual evidence.

Angus said...

Lordy Pie: someone has really been cheeking their meds, haven't they.

Anonymous said...

Broad disclaimer: None us are serious talking about our votes here right?

OK - Mungowitz's position seems to point to a couple of pretty big friggin problems with Senator Anger. Angus seems to say, best in a collection of really bad choices.

A geek at Heritage was on National Communist Radio yesterday talking about 2008 being a cleansing election, like 1964. Between 1964 and now how much bigger or smaller has the state become? Let's put it in tangible terms - would settling for McCain or rebelling and voting LP or for Barack be the better move for liberty?

Angus said...

Hi Fundman: Let me say upfront that I will continue my perfect record and not be voting at all this election. If McCain loses Oklahoma by one vote, well, that'll be on me.

If there was or was likely to be a Republican Congress, I'd be wanting the Democrat to win.

Given that the overwhelming likelihood is a Democratic majority in both houses, I want the Republican to win and I think McCain is the most electable of the Republicans.

These are my prime earning years and I'd like to keep as much as possible!!!

The best move for liberty is probably insurrection or emigration.

Anonymous said...

I will be seriously disappointed in any KPC addict or frequent Munger reader who votes for a mainstream candidate. The LP is correct in their assessment of the Republican party. Do any of you old timers remember when the last time there were no candidates promoting smaller government? Probably pre Roosevelt? That's scary.

I think the Republicans interpreted the Democratic takeover of congress as meaning people wanted more big government. McCain has all kinds of plans that shift 14% to the lowest 32% + 11% - upper 7 x 86 but only for the 4th quartile. Fertilizer for waste and rent seeking.

I'll vote for the worst candidate before I'll vote for the least bad. If it's inevitable that we keep descending into socialism, I'd rather hit rock bottom sooner rather than later (like Bernanke prolonging the recession). In 2038 I'd rather have lived through terrible economic and political times and be free, than be living in terrible economic and political times.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Hyperbole, anyone?

McCain wins, there's a Dem Congress, and little or nothing will change. That's the bad news (Iraq) and the good (Bush tax cuts die on the vine).

Clinton wins, she still won't have a working majority. To a man, the GOP would vote against National Protect Our Mothers From Terrorists Day if President HRC supported it; it would be political suicide in that party to do otherwise. Polarization + cloture rules = status quo.

(All of this is why, as a proud liberal Democrat, I'm voting for Obama...)

Anonymous said...

Obama? Character??!

The former "neighborhood activist," converted & baptized by a follower of "black liberation theology" with strong NOI & NAACP ties in his campaign apparatus is not exactly engaging in "strait talk" when he presents himself as the "post racial candidate."

And cults of personality scare me.

It seems unlikely that his plan to be "A uniter not a divider" will work any better for him than they did for Bush, but if god forbid he manages it, he'd get a lot of lefty stuff done. Hillary has the advantage of apparently being less well liked by her fellow Senators, as does McCain.

Worst of all is the shole business with crowds chanting "Yes we can! Yes we can!" I really don't want Lofty running the State Department, Dizzy running Homeland Security, and Spud as national security advisor.

Anonymous said...

Nice post on McCain. With regard to the old saw regarding spending, I'm not particularly convinced of the correlation between Republicans and cutting spending or Democrats and raising taxes.

That aside, I appreciate your points on the Iraq war and appointment of judges.

McCain strikes as a far better option than any Democrat out there.