George Will, a saint among conservatives, is urging the base to not vote for someone as dangerous as John McCain for an office as important as the presidency. You heard it here first. What Mr Will had to say was



"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."
-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.


Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."


Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.
In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)


By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."


The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?


On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.


Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.


It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

So let me get this straight, because Im going to want to quote you on this.

1) George Will, commentator for left-leaning Newsweek and ABC, a highly educated (elitist) from Chicago(Obamas home town), and outspoken critic of the Bush administration is a "saint" amongst conservatives?

2) McCain asks that the guy running the SEC, one of the principal regulating agencies of Wall Street, step down after Wall Street comes unhinged for lack of proper regulation. McCain makes the request despite the fact Chris Cox was/is a powerful and connected Republican (guy from his own party). And you are opposed to that?

So you are saying that the Republican head of the SEC should be left in office? Since you seem to blame everything from Katrina, to mortgages, to oil prices on Bush, should he be given a pass as well? Or maybe McCain calling for the resignation of a powerful Republican makes him to leftist for you? Or maybe you are saying you would rather elect a guy who never sticks his head out to call a spade a spade and just votes "present" on every issue? Certainly a lot safer politically speaking.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

important as the presidency.

To be honest, I don't think we have anything to fear about McBush becoming the next president. Even though I hate Obama with equal hate, Obama pretty much has the presidency tight in his grasp and it's not even the official election time yet.

Originally Posted by dWhite

Obama pretty much has the presidency tight in his grasp and it's not even the official election time yet.

Its certainly his to loose, and has been since the election cycle began. Then again, Hilary was a sure thing too not long ago. It will be interesting.

Originally Posted by cbwm

1) George Will, commentator for left-leaning Newsweek and ABC, a highly educated (elitist) from Chicago(Obamas home town), and outspoken critic of the Bush administration is a "saint" amongst conservatives?

I knew you were going to respond by confusing George Will and Michael Moore, because it's the most cartoonish response possible.

Do you have anything based in reality? I mean, guilt by geographic association (he's from the same city as a democrat!!) is hysterical of you, but surely you have something serious to say?

So you disagree with 1 of the 5 points and declare the entire thing invalid?? Typical..

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I knew you were going to respond by confusing George Will and Michael Moore, because it's the most cartoonish response possible.

Actually, I was just adressing your "Saint to the Conservatives" statement. When you use words like that, I thought you were talking about Newt Gingrich. This guy falls more into the indepdent/moderate group of Republicans(Like Me ) who would consider voting for Comrade Obama. Obviously hes already thrown the Bush Administration under the bus, which throws question on his conservative credentials.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Do you have anything based in reality? I mean, guilt by geographic association (he's from the same city as a democrat!!) is hysterical of you, but surely you have something serious to say?

Wow. I mean Wow. Try this phrase on. All politics is local. There is a reason why Presidential candidates normally carry their own states (24 of 28 in the last 28 elections). Its called hometown/hometurf advantage. So when I imply that George Will, is more likely to be an Obama idolizer(and therefore a McCain basher) because of his Chicago upgringing, the statistics back that up. Do you have something to say that doesn't fly in the face of 108 years of election history?

Originally Posted by cbwm

guilt by geographic association

Originally Posted by cbwm

Wow. I mean Wow.

I know. It's hard to believe that Obama living in Illinois doesn't make all 13 million people in the state liberals, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I know. Obama feeds his family off your tax dollars. At least if we help elect him, many others will have the chance to live off of tax dollars as well.

Far better than any neg TP I could give you for misquoting me.... again.

You said George Will is a liberal because he lives in Illinois - where Obama is from. Now you're flailing wildly with all kinds of smoke screens. Nice try, anyway. Basically, you embarrassed yourself, got called on it, and just threw in the towel.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Do you have something to say that doesn't fly in the face of 108 years of election history?

It was actually a rhetorical question, but your answer punctuates the sentence nicely.

I really hope you can get back on topic and stop flailing about with the smoke and mirrors. You said George Will is a liberal because he's "highly educated [and] from Chicago(Obamas home town)". We'll leave your assertion that Republicans can't be educated aside, and continue asking you to either defend what you said, or admit you were wrong. Watching you back peddle is a lot of fun, but in the interest of honesty, even if it's just being honest with yourself, you really need to come clean.

And, like I said, I hope you're able to. As much fun as it is to watch you embarrass yourself, it's a bit of a guilty pleasure. Like watching Palin interviewed by Katie Couric.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

You said George Will is a liberal

The problem is your reading comprehension. You need to re-read what I wrote about 20 times and then contemplate it. Then read it again. It might help you to light some incense, turn down the lights, and play some mozart in the background. The zen will reach you.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

it's a bit of a guilty pleasure. Like watching Palin interviewed by Katie Couric.

Now that I can relate to. It will be like getting your reaction when President Palin is sworn in.