Cosmic Eruption

A quote from Larry Auster at his blog, 1 June 2008

Do not miss seeing the living, breathing, tough-New Yawk-talkin' embodiment of the pro-Hillary rage […]. And the amazing spectacle we're witnessing now is the resurgence of the white working man and woman (albeit in a changed, modern incarnation) in the Democratic party. Or rather their rebellion against the Democratic party.

Did any pundit a year ago predict anything remotely like what we're seeing now? And here's another truly strange thing. Just as many conservatives are determined not to vote for McCain and would prefer to have Hillary or even Obama as president, many Hillary supporters are determined not to vote for Obama and even declare their furious determination to vote for McCain for president. The conservatives want the Democrat, and the liberals want the Republican. […]

However, as I said before, it's not the specific thing (whatever it is) that set off their anger that matters and is remarkable, it's the anger itself, their sense of an injustice that has been done to them as whites, and their saying that they will not stand for it anymore. [...] Unbelievable. We're in the middle of some cosmic eruption.

Charles # 3

@ cephran

I must concur with Vincep again.  "You have no point", sir. Or, better, you have no relevant point.  What is on offer here is the comparison between (A) the argument of Charles Bogle - which is summarized by "short term pain for long term gain" - and (B) my response which argued that this argument is not applicable here.  I further tried to explain that the importance of US federal elections is really about the consequences for judicial appointments and for foreign and defense policies.

You did not address any of my points, and you did not elaborate on Bogle's argument either.  I must therefore conclude that your electoral 'calculations' are guided by emotion (i.e. anti-McCain feelings) and not by reason.  And that cannot be a recipe for 'progress' (from a conservative perspective at least).  

In response to your specific comments (which were besides the point of the central argument in the debate):

-- I know the Senate has to confirm senior judicial appointments.  So what's the point?  It cannot possibly be that Obama appointees (pre-approved by the ACLU) are going to be 'better' than 'moderate' judges that McCain might be able to get passed by the Senate. Could it?  Let's get 'real', instead of emotional like Charles.

--   I also know that McCain was part of the "Gang of 14".  That only proves that he is an independent-minded kind of person, i.e. that he can compromise with the other side.  The fact that he opposed Bush on a number of occasions, in and of itself, does not say much.  You can't have it both ways, at least not in a general way. On the one hand following Bogle who claimed that "Bushian policies" were not good for "the Party", and on the other hand blaming McCain for sometimes diverging from Bush.   If you want to be taken seriously, you must get very specific about issues.  It is not reasonable to blame him in such a general way as you (and Bogle)  do. 

--  McCain has NOT been wrong on EVERY defining conservative issue, and almost EVERYBODY (at least every normal person) has at SOME time been wrong on SOME defining conservative issue.  The implication of your position is that you believe it would be better if the Bush income-tax cuts get reversed (Obama's position) than if they get sustained (McCain's position today).  Another implication is that you think Obama's gitmo-plans are better than McCain's, etc...

Finally, I do not know if McCain will or can "advance the ball" in any significant fashion, but I certainly DO KNOW that your facile name-calling of him (Rino etc..), and sitting on the sidelines, will not advance it at all.  To quote Vincep again, it is time to "grow up", and I would say to be "less emotional and more rational".  

To MarcFrans Part 3


Is this your idea of “independent thinking” Marcfrans? So he abandons his party to make deals with Democrats and by compromising with the devil you reward him with the “independent thinker” moniker?

The point of my posts is to show how the two parties have become indistinguishable from each other on the vast majority of issues. The reason for this is NOT because Liberals are moving toward the Conservative positions, it’s because Liberal Republicans and RINO’s (if the shoe fits, wear it) are moving toward the Liberal position.

American Conservatives want principled leadership from their elected officials but instead we get representatives who run as conservatives and then bolt to Liberal positions once in power.

We want our ideas to prevail not be compromised away till they’re indistinguishable from the opposition party.

If all were going to do is compromise (i.e. adopt the Liberal position) instead of fighting for our beliefs, then what’s the point? Why not just adopt full blown Socialism and be done with it?

This may be something to admire at the Word Bank or in Western Europe but it only draws the anger and contempt of real freedom loving peoples.

There comes a time when you must take your medicine to treat your sickness. The Republican Party is sick and corrupt in its current form. I am not against being out of power for 4 or 8 years if it means we can purge our ranks of posers and RINO’s and populate the party with people who actually will fight for the values of the party’s base.

Besides, if America and the world cannot survive 4 or 8 years of a Liberal presidency, then we are already lost as a nation and a world. We just don’t realize it.

I think I’ve been very specific and hardly emotional.

@ Cephran

Are you sure only your father is Sicilian? There must be at least 2 Sicilians in there.

To MarcFrans Part 2

****Illegal Immigration****

McCain is a full throated supporter of the Illegal Immigrants who have invaded America. He will reward those who have broken the law (and continue to break the law) with Amnesty.

You cannot comprehend the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars these ILLEGALS have fleeced the American taxpayer for. They are overcrowding out schools and hospitals and have caused many hospitals to close their doors. The drain on the governmental services and tax dollars is staggering and will only INCREASE under McCain.

A full 25% of all inmates in California and Arizona prisons are ILLEGAL immigrants. The costs to incarcerate them is enormous not to mention the cost in dollars and human capital their crimes have caused

By making the 12-20 million ILLEGALS in America legal, he will then open the door for their participation in the Social Security system which is already a failed Liberal experiment. Adding these ILLEGALS to the system will only exacerbate an already untenable program.

John McCain adamantly opposes a border fence even those most Americans support the concept. The national security implication of our porous border should cause anyone sleepless nights.

We know Islamic militants are working with MS-13 gangs to smuggle terrorists and weapons into America. This process will continue unabated with a McCain presidency.

How is any of this different than what Obama or Hillary would do? The answer is, there is no difference.

****Global Warming and Energy Independence****

McCain believes the faulty science of global warming is caused by man as opposed to the Sun and other factors. Forget the fact that the Earth has been heating and cooling since its creation and that every planet in the solar system is experiencing global warming.

By virtue of his support for this completely bogus science he will institute the Cap and Trade policy which will cost the US potentially trillions of dollars in regulations and wealth transfers.

Even if his position is half as extreme as Clinton/Obama, the mere fact that he supports this junk science should be enough to cause fear in any freedom loving person’s heart.

No matter how you cut it, American is lurching toward the failed global warming argument because our politicians and media want us there.

McCain’s support of this position will, by extension, costs Americans BILLIONS if not TRILLIONS in higher energy costs because he will not drill for oil in ANWAR or off the coasts, build nuclear plants and oil refineries, extract oil from our vast coal deposits or increase natural gas supplies (which is a by product of oil exploration).

He believes America can ‘conserve” its way to continued prosperity but he will only wreck our economy with this type of thinking and further erode our rights with greater government powers.

How is this any different from what we would get from Obama or Clinton?

I’m open to debate.

****National Security****

This is McCain’s supposed strong suit. Is he really a national security hawk?

How can one be serious about American national security when they refuse to secure our borders or allow us to use the resources in America to make us energy independent?

Sure McCain will bomb Iran, but beyond that, how will America be more secure under McCain?

Besides, if Bush had done his job properly as Commander-and-Chief, he would have bombed Iran long ago for their killing of American Soldiers and Marines in the Iraqi and Afghanistan theaters and their unabashed attempts to destroy any gains made by the Iraqi and Afghan governments.

I’m a former Army Infantry Officer so I think I know a little about this subject.

McCain wins this issue but only for his willingness to use the American military to confront aggressors

He is indistinguishable from Obama or Clinton on securing our borders or helping America achieve energy independence.

To Marcfrans Part 1


I can see that you’re not open to debate on issues. You’d rather tell people to “grow up” or “get real” or “be less emotional and more rational” if they happen to differ with your “enlightened” and “mature” positions.

You might want to revisit your emotion-laden, hyperventilating rant before you accuse others of such transgressions. Please take a breath and relax.

If you weren’t a friend of Traveller (who is a dear friend of mine) I might be inclined to unload on you. But rather than getting into the mud with you, I’ll attempt to debate you in a less emotional and less venomous manner.

Besides, I think we probably agree on more issues than disagree. The difference is how we address each other when we disagree.

You accuse me of having “no relevant point” to my post but I would beg to differ. The point I was trying to make is that John McCain and Obama/Hillary are not very far off in their political positions. That doesn’t mean I prefer Obama/Hillary over McCain because I don’t, but I’m not deluding myself about who McCain is and what will occur under his presidency.

It also doesn’t mean I’ll sit on the sidelines either because I have always voted in every local, state or federal election. I have NEVER sat out any chance to vote and I never will.

Let’s examine McCain’s positions on the most prominent issues facing America:


I will concede McCain will nominate judges who are more in line with my values than will Obama or Clinton. But nominating judges and getting them confirmed are two different things.

Bush could barely get his nominations passed when Democrats enjoyed a one seat majority in the Senate. Democrats are expected to pick up 6-10 Senate seats in this next election cycle. It is entirely possible that Democrats will have a supermajority (60 Senate seats) that will be able to override any presidential veto and they will certainly have the numbers to water down any McCain nominees.

What hope will McCain have in getting a Roberts or Alito to the bench with these types of Democrat numbers in the Senate?

Besides, we’re not certain there will be any Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years and even if there are, they are expected to be seats held by Liberal justices (Ginsberg and Souter). If they are replaced by Liberal justices, that will not upset the balance of this conservative leaning court.

I agree with you that the SCOTUS is one of the most important responsibilities of the presidency; I just disagree that the next four years will tip the balance of the court in either direction.

Is that specific enough for you? Hardly emotional!

We can debate this issue more if you’re open to actual debate.


McCain NEVER supported the Bush tax cuts when they were being debated. He was dead set against them and worked actively to squash them in the Senate.

The fact that he NOW supports those tax cuts is more for political expediency, in my opinion, than it is for actual core beliefs.

Recently McCain was asked if he still supported his position on opposing the Bush tax cuts and he gave a less than enthusiastic answer.

The fact is McCain is not a believer in cutting taxes and if he manages to keep his word and support making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he will undue their effectiveness with other polices.

Those other policies are his love of Illegal Immigration and his support of Global Warming. The wealth transfer alone from these positions will be STAGGERING and will far outweigh any benefits from the tax cuts. I will address both of these issues in greater detail

McCain also supports the idea of a Windfall Profits Tax to go after oil companies (and who knows what other companies) to take profits they make on the sale of their goods and services. Forget the fact that the government makes more on a gallon of gas then the oil companies do or that the reason we have this energy crisis is because it is an invention of our government.

McCain is hardly distinguishable from Obama or Clinton on the issue of taxes


I could go on and on but hopefully you're starting to get the point.

You have no point. I'm an American and I find it contemptable that you would assist in having Obama be elected. 


Moreover, American federal elections are truly about (1) foreign and defense policy and about (2) judicial appointments.  It is ludicrous to remain indifferent to the lasting damage a President Obama could do in these 2 areas

The fact that so many peolpe do not even consider this frightens me.  I wish I was old enough to know if this is a trend or not.

Ron Paul, the only true conservative?

Read something about "genuine conservatives", so I'll pop the obvious question:

What about Ron Paul?

Hasn't the American public had enough of the essentially false choice between republicrat candidates?

Charles # 3

@ Charles


You sound like Obama, the New York Times and NBC News.  They all say "McCain promises four more years of Bushian policies".  A rather meaningless and absurd claim.  You do know why they say that, don't you?  But, is it true because they say it?  Of course not.

And you know what is even more important?  Even if their  (obviously false) claim were true, that would still NOT be an argument for Obama. 

Your argument - short term pain for longterm gain - while superficially attractive (at least for a genuine 'conservative' person), is not applicable here.  The public is not clammering for a "true conservative".  The public is fickle, and will continue to want 'change' at regular intervals, even if you were to get a "true conservative" in for a while. 

I repeat, in a democratic polity, politics is the 'art of the possible'.  It is not about living a dream.  'Progress' can only be made incrementally in the cultural 'wars', and for that the judiciary (and judicial appointments) is of crucial importance.  It is selfdestructive to let a 'dream' (of getting a true conservative in 2002 and everything will then be fine) stand in the way of progress. 


Marcfrans wrote:

'Progress' can only be made incrementally in the cultural 'wars', and for that the judiciary (and judicial appointments) is of crucial importance. It is selfdestructive to let a 'dream' (of getting a true conservative in 2002 and everything will then be fine) stand in the way of progress.

What “progess” are you speaking of? Prgress on what issues?

Just remember that if the Democrats pick up the number of seats everyone is predicting in the Senate, then you can forget about McCain being able to send up any conservative judges because they will be blocked by the Democrat majority. Remember, the Senate has the power to confirm judicial nominees.

Also, before you hang your hat on McCain to produce real Conservative judges, just remember that he was the leader of the "Gang of 14" who sought to water down Bush appointments so that they would be more palatable to his Democrat colleagues.

McCain has also been on the wrong side of every defining Conservative issue (tax cuts, illegal immigration, etc...) except the War in Iraq and War on Terror but even then he sought to close Gitmo and allow Terrorists to be tried in public courts instead of military tribunals. What a mess that would be.

McCain also buys into the nonsense and hysteria of the Global Warming crowd and has bought in the Cap and Trade solution. Can someone say massive new federal regulations and taxes?

I could go on and on but hopefully you're starting to get the point.

John McCain is nothing more than a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and he is certainly no Conservative.

I don’t think he will advance the ball on any issue and will only further demoralize the Republican Party.

Just curious Marcfrans, are you American?

vinnie & marc

You miss the strategy. Just like Bush's foul-ups gave us Obama (He will win this November, dispite the BBots fantasies) and Carter gave us Reagan, Obama's upcoming TEMPORARY disaster is likely to reinvigorate the Republican Party and give us a true conservative in 2012. McCain promises another four years of Bushian policies. That would not be good for the Party.

Short term pain for long-term gain.

"grow up", how childish.

@ Charles

Make no mistake, Reagan gave you Reagan.
Today I would not be able to chose.
Cephran has a point with a democratic senate. I still think that the fight Obambi/Clinton was too intense and will swing many democrats to McCain, at least I hope so.


I would be able though to tell you whom I wouldn't chose:
Definitely not Obama
Definitely not Clinton
Not McCain

So, I guess it would be McCain.

Charles #2

@ Vincep

I agree that Charles needs to grow up. He is like the kid who is mad because his mother did not cut a big enough piece of the pie for him, and walks away...with nothing. 

Whatever McCain's faults, and they are considerable, he is significantly better than the alternative on offer.  Politics is about 'the art of the possible', not about 'living our dream'. Especially in the US where power is always divided, i.e. with real powers for the individual states and, at the federal level, with the legislature and the executive branch not necessarily controlled by the same party (or ideology). In such an environment one better goes for what one can get, instead of demanding 'all or nothing' or throwing one's arms up in despair.  

Moreover, American federal elections are truly about (1) foreign and defense policy and about (2) judicial appointments.  It is ludicrous to remain indifferent to the lasting damage a President Obama could do in these 2 areas, particularly w.r.t. the judiciary which could take more than a generation to undo.  The argument to "have all the problems blamed on the Democrats" cannot match this. 

American federal elections are not about "the economy, stupid", whatever Bill Clinton might have said in that regard.  The election cycle is much too short to have much impact on the business cycle (conjuncture).  Politicians do not in the short term have much impact on how the economy performs in terms of actual GDP fluctuating around potential GDP.   Of course, all politicians will be continually  subject to pressures from all sorts of 'special interests'.  Wether the 'general interest' can and will remain foremost in their minds and their actions is essentally a matter of personal morality.  There is no a priori reason to think that Republicans are better in terms of personal morality than Democrats or anybody else. That should be a primary consideration when voting in local and congressional elections.


Simpletons like you are embarassing.  Carter II is worse than Bush III,. Grow up.


Obama v. McCain

I'm a conservative and I will under NO circumstances vote for McCain. No matter who wins this November, the country is hosed for the next four years. All three candidates are open-border, big government liberals. So I'd rather have all the problems blamed on the Democrats. We don't need another fake Republican. McCain is just Bush^2.

At least Obama and Hillary are openly left-wing.


If Obama is the nominee, I guarantee you conservatives will get over their bitterness and vote for McCain. 


I do not support McCain at all.. but as a conservative and an American , I cannot be passive and allow Obama , the anti-american marxist, to win.


This country is out of its mind nominating him.