We have sometimes been pretty harsh on John McCain at this blog. It is only right, though, to remember the very fine qualities of this man. Coffee House does so. Well said.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
18 comments to A fine man |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
He was a great deal more gracious and dignified in defeat than were his supporters.
He was as gracious in defeat as he was during the campaign. In other words, he seemed more interested in appearing “nice” than in actually engaging the enemy. (For example, why on earth did he spend desperately short campaign funds on an ad during the Democratic Convention congratulating Obama on his nomination? Just who did he think he was scoring points with?) I don’t challenge his patriotism, his honest belief that he was “putting country first”, or his willingness to “take political risks”, but I do challenge his sense and his political principles (to the extent he actually has any).
McCain ran the worst, most inept presidential campaign I can remember (well, with the possible exception of Michael Dukakis’). Obama never said anything substantive, but at least he said whatever it was he said with eloquence and he exuded personal magnetism. McCain also said nothing substantive, but mumbled it pathetically and offered absolutely nothing to attract voters. He wouldn’t engage on issues, and refused to mount any serious attack on Obama’s character or socialist beliefs because he didn’t want to be seen as “taking the low road” (see the paragraph above). He got what he deserved, and as a country we are now going to get what we deserve. (“Good and hard”, as H.L. Mencken put it.)
Personally, I have no interest in remembering the “fine qualities” of a man who has performed so badly, and with whom I disagree on so many fundamental issues. No more than I will be remembering the “fine qualities” (I’m sure someone will find some) of Teddy Kennedy when he finally has the grace to leave us.
Let’s just move on and forget him.
Laird: Teddy Kennedy and McCain? Really?
Not equating the two; merely saying that I have no interest in any alleged “fine qualities” of either. Kennedy was the worst example that came quickly to mind.
Got your attention, didn’t it?
Laird is correct. McCain is in many ways a much better man than me (I’d have folded under Vietcong torture quicker than you can say John Kerry), but I wasn’t running for President and I wouldn’t run for President if I didn’t think I had what it takes.
The fact is that McCain wanted to lose honourably more than he wanted to defeat a hard-left, thiuggish pathological liar who is utterly unfit to be President of a great nation.I’m sure that he would have preferred on balance to win, but not at the cost of losing respect in the eyes of the political-media class, the very same people who have spent the last year pouring shit all over him.
Well great, he got to express how bloody gracious he is in defeat and we get Obama swanning around as king of the world for 4 years.
Sure did.
But see, it’s not whether he has any (they all do, as you say), but what are they, against what others. It’s as if you were to weigh them against each other on a pair of scales. That’s why they are called values.
…of himself?
No, Alisa, of the media and beltway elite.
McCain wanted to fight by Marquess of Queensberry rules. Obama knew he was in a knife fight (he had sharpened his blade against Hillary). As Gabriel said, McCain valued “honor” (with or without the “u”) over winning. That’s fine in a tennis match, but a very bad strategy in a knife fight.
Yes, I got that when Gabriel said it.
There is no point in discussing McCain. Let’s move on.
Discuss Obama.
Seeing as McCain will probably be dead before the time hits when we’re all spending 60% of our GDP paying off our various national debts whilst waiting in line for gruel at the local State Aid centre, maybe he can donate to me his warm sense of self worth so I can barter it later for cigarettes and stuff.
Jacob: just trying to learn from history, for that is what we are living right now.
Gabriel, I like your way with words. I’d suggest you start by quitting smoking, but it wouldn’t sound quite the same without a cigarette, would it:-)
Oh, and I see your point.
I make no apology for repeating a point made by myself (and many others) before:
John McCain’s political life was based on opposing wild spending for corrupt special interests.
He destroyed that by supporting the trillion Dollar bailout.
After Senator McCain made that misjudgement (to use a polite word) victory was impossible – as he had destroyed his own political foundation.
It was not the leftist media that defeated John McCain, and it was not being outspent five to one that defeated John McCain.
John McCain defeated John McCain – by accepting the advice of the “Mitt” Romney people and going against the foundation of his own role in politics.
The more I hear since the election, the more I suspect Romney’s people were behind everything that went wrong. They probably were/are setting things up for Romney in ’12 even if it cost McCain/Palin the election. I even wonder if they deliberately sabotaged the campaign just to keep Palin from the veep spot.
Romney and his staff should be blacklisted from the party.
Bah, good riddance. John McCain represents a disastrous statist ideology that has done much to facilitate the advance of the people he purportedly opposes. To hell with him.
Remember that, according to the academics and to the media they educate, what we have is not statism – it is “free market fundementalism” and so on.
“But that is false Paul” – yes it is false (a wild lie), but if 51% of the voters believe or partly believe that the “free market” or “capitalism” is to blame for their problems then we lose.
Something can be utterly false, but still politically effective.
Remember even most of the Republicans who supported the bailout honestly believed that it was vital.
As the Ludwig Von Mises Institute people are fond of pointing out, the education system has taught people that blowing up the world would be better than allowing liquidation of debt.
The debt bubble must never be allowed to go – “debt deflation” is the ultimate horror.
Only monsters could be in favour of it.
This is the position of the best educated people in society – so no wonder the voters are mislead.
By the way, I recently reread something I had forgotten.
Even Murry Rothbard was in favour (at times) of handing out a free gift of money to the banks – as long as they agreed to give up fractional reserve ism (i.e. give up fraud).
Also Milton Friedman back in the 1950’s (like so many of the Old Chicago School) wrote against fractional reserve banking.
I had forgotten that as well.
Senility is not fun.