Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
My alma mater Rhode Island School of Design has, by far, the best mascot. Scrotie is sure to offend just about everyone!
Michael,
If you must always let be known your dislike of John McCain, a better way to express it would be, “Whether he means to or not, I think John McCain’s actions end up hurting the Republican Party.” By saying that he enjoys hurting the party, you said something not only stupid and unproveable, but questioning of the man’s character. Enjoying being provocative is one thing; you seem to enjoy being reckless as well.
I stand by my statement, and I point to McCain’s public statements and his behavior as my evidence. He’s the poster child for “I’m Not One Of THOSE Republicans” Republicanism. He doesn’t express his disdain for the GOP base with regret. He does so with glee.
This is the definition of character. Character is not what a man does, but what people say about him. Wanting to hurt Republicans is John McCain’s character.
Michael,
I think Churchill’s statement about Democracy applies to a lot of things. He said, it’s bad, but better than all the rest. The Republican Party is terrible, but they are better than all the rest. President Trump is terrible, but he’s better than most of the politicians I see who are crazy enough to want the job. This is the world we live in, and takes us to your Casey Stengel question.
In every field there might be some stand out in every generation, if they’re lucky. But most folks are lazy, incompetent, etc. And the incompetents hate the tall poppies and will cut them down. This is human nature. It is only strong selective pressures, such as market forces, that can bring the competent people to the top and preserve them for long enough to stand out. In politics, we have strong negative selective pressures. At this point, one has to be crazy to even want to try to run for a high-profile office, especially if you had a wild youth. And this is why we get a cranky old crazy man as President and why the candidate most likely to be seen as a champion against him, is even older, crazier, and crankier. Lord preserve us!
This is your definition of character. I define character very differently, as I suspect most people do. I believe that having the gall to think that you can infer what someone’s character is, based on what he does that displeases you is the very definition of chutzpah – and not the good king either.
Everyday, Michael, I begin to see how far apart we are on things. Good luck to you. You join with Victor Davis Hansen and David Prager in being so confident that you not only read other’s minds but their hearts as well.
Character has many meanings. We are not speaking of essence, but of reputation. McCain has one. It’s not generally a good one.
Once again: This is in your mind. I like strong minded people, but you really do phrase things in such a way as to presume to speak for everyone. Let me assure you: You do not. There are many people who think well of McCain. You don’t; you have that right. But saying that his reputation is not a good one takes presumption to new heights.
One more thing: Who is the base of our party? Why don’t you try to find out, instead of assuming that people like Bannan and Trump speak for it?
George, have you paid any attention to what Michael says? He’s about as anti-Trump as they come, and Bannon is even lower on his list.
I admire and respect John McCain. I campaigned and voted for him happily in 2008 and believe he would have made a much better President than Obama or Trump. For one thing he has a real understanding of this Republic and its history. Obama has a warped leftist fantasy of America and Trump doesn’t know anything at all outside of what he gleans from Fox and Friends and the National Enquirer. However, I hope that Senator McCain reconsiders his position of yearning for bipartisan votes on important issues like taxes and health care. While I share McCain’s abhorrence of Trumpism (whatever the heck that is), I do not agree with McCain’s recent votes. I hope he fights to keep the repeal of the mandate “tax” in the tax bill and votes for it.
“President Trump is terrible, but he’s better than most of the politicians I see who are crazy enough to want the job. This is the world we live in, and takes us to your Casey Stengel question.”
Trump is the worst of the politicians on the Republican side who were crazy enough to want the job.
That may be so. In fact, I know he doesn’t think much of either. But he sure comes across as if he does. He claims not to be a Populist but sure sounds like one. Every other day, he talks about Europe having populism as part of it’s governing coalitions, and seems to want us to try that too. If this doesn’t come out of the Bannon handbook, I don’t know what would.
He also spoke well of Alex Jones on today’s show. “Intellectual heft and Vigor”? Jones??? Michael is strange, to my way of thinking. Mickey Mouse has more Intellectual Heft and Vigor!
I think that was exactly his point. Olbermann makes Alex Jones look like a genius who sources every statement with a dozen citations. That isn’t to say that Jones is such, only that Olbermann makes him look good in comparison.
And, Michael, you must be doing something right. I think you’ll understand what I mean given the conversation.
Having a cynical view of Mankind can be helpful at points. I get that way myself at times (I won’t name those times), But President Reagan was a good man, who got good things done. Much of the Populist Right hate the Bushes, but they are good men, who wanted the best for their country. And GWB had some great ideas. If Obama hadn’t ruined Iraq, I think that foray may have changed the Middle East. So, before we start putting everyone down, why not give them a chance? We may learn something. There are some of us who do not think we know it all.
I am rolling over with laughter, Arahant. You must invite to your palace one day. I have never met royalty before!
I don’t think I do. I’m pretty upbeat about Mankind, but that doesn’t mean delusional. Going back to Churchill, Mankind is the worst species on Earth except for all the others. We are magnificent and creative. That does not mean that we always channel our creativity in the best ways. In my belief system, if we knew it all and had overcome our physical natures, we wouldn’t still be incarnating here. We have plenty of room for growth.
Agreed. I think GWB’s biggest problems were thinking that standard conservativism wasn’t compassionate enough and not communicating well enough. As far as I’m concerned, all he had to say about Iraq was:
Nothing needed about weapons of mass destruction. Nothing about democracy or nation building. Just, agreement has been violated and is off.
The Bushes all have communication problems, such as John’s “Acts of love” comment. But most people communicate poorly, and the Bushes are hardly alone. Again, it is the few, such as Reagan or Thomas Sowell who stand out. They are the unusual people, not the Bushes.
I think we may agree on more things on we disagree on. I can’t quite put my finger on the approaches that make us so different, but a meeting of the minds is always to be desired.
This is a good example of the my foregoing comment: It did bother me that GW used the word compassionate as though conservatism wasn’t. This was Karl Rove’s gimmick. I am excusing it but it did win for them. I like Karl anyway (we may disagree here).
John? Don’t you mean Jeb? Anyway, I share their communication problems. I am better in writing than I am on my feet!!
It is JEB, which stands for John Ellis Bush, Sr. (although the Señor came later).
And you aren’t so good in writing either. ;^D (Could not resist.)
More seriously, I share that characteristic. I’m a guy. I communicate in grunts in person. Grunts and pointing. I used to speak more, but decided since nobody else ever listened, maybe I should listen more.
Bragging is not very becoming, but, aside from dumb errors, I think I write pretty well.
Anyway…… While my grunting and pointing days are over, I do lament the fact that I find myself saying (to myself): “Now, why couldn’t I have said that when the time was here?”
Staircase wit, as the French call it.