Friday, July 21, 2017

That all these troubles weighing down on you may rise

The Derb cringes in response to Trump's ebullient praise for China's president:
Did you have to lay it on so thick, Mr. President? Couldn't we get the results we want — and perhaps a little more respect, by keeping Xi Jinping and his leg-breakers at a polite distance?

Xi Jinping "loves China"? He "wants to do what's right for China"? Liu Xiaobo loved China, too. He also wanted to do what's right for China; and his notion of what's right is a lot, a lot, closer to our own nation's ideals than is Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought.
China can be China as far as I'm concerned. There's no country more advantageous for the US to be in the relative good graces of, and if it takes an extra application of verbal lather to get there, so be it.

I certainly prefer effusive praise of the Chinese president over the same for a nation-wrecking, middle American-killing, war-mongering, bosom-buddy of the late Ted Kennedy, one John McCain.

Here's Trump's blase reaction to the news that McCain has glioblastoma:

Compare that to Obama's mellifluous response:

Obama's words are probably uncharacteristically sincere here. In 2008, McCain folded while holding a flush. He is the archetypal cuckservative Republican--always losing, but always losing with dignity!

Parenthetically, I characterize Trump's response as blase on account of that seeming to be the consensus. My first reaction was that it was one hell of a troll--the prognosis for McCain's aggressive brain cancer is poor. It's highly improbable he will "get well soon". He'll likely die soon, within the next couple of years.

I differ with some of our compatriots on the Alt Right in that I don't want McCain to suffer. As someone of proud English ancestry, I can genuinely assert that's "not who we are".

I do, however, want him to die, or at any rate become incapable of serving for another day in congress. For far too long he has acted as pressure relief valve on the right on account of the (R) next to his name. The ultimate quisling when it comes to the National Question, he partnered with the aforementioned Kennedy (who died of the same brain cancer) in the senate in attempt to push a bipartisan immigration amnesty on the country in 2005. He's sent thousands of American soldiers to early graves fighting ruinously expensive, pointless and stupid wars in tribalistic third-world hellholes.

Ask me to choose between decorum and my children's future and I'll pick, without hesitation, the latter every single time.


Sid said...

I see the point, but saying McCain folded with a flush is an overstatement. Frankly, after the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and especially after the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, I don't see how any Republican could've won in 2008. The only time McCain polled over Obama was when oil prices were high in August 2008, and McCain's pro-oil exploration and drilling stances were paying off.

Yes, McCain didn't run a very tight campaign, but I don't think Reagan in his prime could've won with the cards any Republican would've been dealt in 2008.

In contrast, Romney had an uphill battle, but his weak, cuckish campaigning style was unforgivable, especially when the Republican grassroots tore it up all by themselves with the Tea Party movement. Romney could've won but he let us all down.

Audacious Epigone said...


Obama in 2008 was probably holding a full house or better. You're right that it would've been exceedingly difficult for a Republican to win. For a variety of reasons, I'm glad Obama beat McCain. That doesn't negate the fact that McCain didn't even try to leverage the points of attack that he had available to him, specifically Jeremiah Wright. Everything about McCain is detestable.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The Bush administration was so incompetent that the public wanted nothing more to do with neoconservatism. McCain never really stood a chance. I think had he campaigned better he could have narrowed the margin of defeat, which would have allowed for a couple more Republicans to keep their Senate seats, which would have meant that Obamacare would have never been able to pass. So he does have some responsibility in that regard.

It was 2012 that was really unforgivable. Even Obama was expecting to lose. Leave it to Romney and the GOPe to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Regarding John McCain's situation now, I understand where the dissident right is coming from and I understand that in our current situation that niceties and formalities are worthless to the point of being counterproductive. Still, I'm not going to wish death on anyone.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> That doesn't negate the fact that McCain didn't even try to leverage the points of attack that he had available to him, specifically Jeremiah Wright. Everything about McCain is detestable.

McCain considers himself a maverick and a straight talker but in practice it means that he tries his best to be buddies with the left and the media. Him and Lindsey Graham are the biggest offenders of this.

Anonymous said...

He always collaborated with the winners.

Feryl said...

"he partnered with the aforementioned Kennedy (who died of the same brain cancer) "

The lord works in mysterious ways....Kennedy got 86'd before he was that old, while McCain, at 80, has gotten up there but let's all shudder to wonder how in the absence of terminal medical problems how much further he could've hung onto ostensible good health and thus would've been able to stink up the joint for another 10-20 years. Age (and/or obvious signs of mental infirmity) hasn't stopped judge Ginsburg, or Mad Maxine, or face lift Pelosi. Or Soros....

Feryl said...

"It was 2012 that was really unforgivable. Even Obama was expecting to lose. Leave it to Romney and the GOPe to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

The public never really bought into political/fiscal conservatism, anyway. Before elites totally sold out in the 90's, we got movies and stories about decadent/greedy/arrogant rich villains being put in their place by more proleish heroes. But in the 90's, even the Dems got corrupted by the DLC. The 90's is really when the Dems became the party of boutique cultural liberal issues (to the exclusion of the populist economics that were their bread and butter in the 30's-80's, besides the increasingly wealthy class of elite cultural liberals wanted to hang onto more of their well-deserved money).

At the same time, the GOP was becoming the party of less chic cultural conservatives who turned a blind eye to how muh free market ideology and muh capital gains had destroyed much of the underlying structure of what made America great in the 40's-60's. First it was savaging unions, wages, pensions, anti-monopoly measures, etc. so that elites could realize better stock and share gains. Then, much of the GOP was disgracefully weak on immigration and affirmative action, which has absolutely hammered native born whites and is now demographically inflicting serious long-term damage on us.

Two parties pushing political conservatism. Unless the Dems let the Bernie Sanders types get more power and not change their original goals or unless the GOP latches onto Trump's mid-century style ideas about how to run the government and the marke.

One party pushing insane levels of cultural liberalism so that liberal strivers can feel better about themselves, while the conservative side has on the whole been nearly worthless at resisting the liberal's worst ideas. Indeed, publically favoring what was considered normal in the 70's and 80's can get you fired, blacklisted, and/or socially marginalized.

There's a reason the MSM, the legacy Western political parties, etc. are unpopular. The conservative side (in cahoots with "centrist" Dems) supports economic ideas that annoyed enough people in the 80's, and by this point only a handful of ideologues and asshole rich people buy into that stuff anymore

The liberals are trying to brainwash people into believing that we must pour vast sums of money, energy, and angst into stamping out what's left of racism, sexism, trannyphobia, whatever. They're trying to warp the feelings and priorities of most people away from their natural inclinations and towards greater empathy for vindictive perverts who mean to obliterate moral/social/sexual/racial mores

Feryl said...

It's a tricky subject, and doesn't neatly fit into our post-1970 understanding of political ideology, but I'll try and simplify what are cultural vs. political/economic issues.

Political conservatism:
- Let the chips fall where they may, people deserve what they get, everyone's on their own, the individual always comes before the team (doesn't really fit with the right's military worship, but whatever).

Cultural conservatism:
- Natalism, gun rights, religion over secularism, anti-sex and pro-violence motivated by honor and self-defense, taboos driven by disgust, criminals are to be punished not rehabilitated, mentally ill/weirdos are to be stigmatized and heavily incarcerated.

Political liberalism:
- it's the duty of the government/church/community/employers/unions to insure a level playing field for all, compassion rather than judgment for the lower classes, out-of-control rich elites should be reined in.

Cultural liberalism:
- historically "disadvantaged" groups (women, non-whites, gays, immigrants) deserve disproportionate emotional and financial support to make amends for an "unfair" past
- anti-violence (but pro-abortion, doesn't really make sense but whatever), libertine attitude towards sex, criminals are to be rehabilitated not punished, society needs to make amends for past ignorance of the mentally ill (which seems to include letting large numbers of dangerous psychos loose, I guess)
- hostility to religion and the supernatural

Some other thoughts: by the 70's, it became the fashion to say that mentally ill people were just, different. Not threatening, just different. Well, funny, according to a movie director who shot part of an 80's movie in an asylum, one of the cell occupants was a cannibal! Not to mention that after asylums were attacked by the media and do-gooders in the 60's, it spurred society to empty them out. And seemingly overnight, the streets were teeming with bums and criminals in the late 60's. When society starts emphasizing the special/important nature of each person, rather than how well they integrate into society, disaster results. The West has for 50 years had much greater levels of homelessness, drug abuse, stds, and crime than it once did. We put a lot of effort into cleaning things up in the early to mid 20th century, then just pissed it all away in the name of feel good sentiment.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

John Phillips, a radio host on KABC 790 here in southern California commented not long ago that McCain doesn't seem to have much of an ideology, he's mainly just an angry guy who directs his anger most of the time at his fellow Republicans. He's always struck me as a Yosemite Sam-like character: short, belligerent and bad tempered, not very bright, and doesn't learn from his mistakes.

I'd agree that the 2008 election was not winnable for any Republican; the public wanted to fire Bush 43, but because he wasn't on the ballot they had to settle for the next best thing. McCain's remark to the effect that Obama was a good guy and the public needn't fear his election did not help, and in fact was probably a signal that McCain really didn't want the job anyway. Am sure some voters noticed this and while they may not have voted for Obama, this probably caused them to stay home on election day.

The Z Blog said...

Like a lot of people, I accepted at face value that McCain was the "maverick" his people and the media claimed. He seemed like the real thing. Then he ran for president in 2000. Two things stuck with me. One is just how nasty and unpleasant he and his people were to just about everyone at the state level. It was clear that McCain was suffering from believing his own press releases.

The thing that really tipped the scales for me was when he went down to Virginia and bad-mouthed Evangelicals. In fact, he made disparaging remarks about social conservatives in the backyard of Pat Robertson. These were not planned remarks written by an aid. McCain went off-script to yell at the base.

It was pretty clear to me that McCain was not playing with a full deck. Subsequently, it has become clear that he was never right in the head. Maybe it was the Hanoi Hilton or maybe he was always an ass, but the guy should have been retired 20 years ago.

The good news is McCain will not linger. He will be incapacitated or dead in six months. The Arizona governor is out of the Ted Cruz camp and will most likely pick Kelly Ward. She is the wrong sex, but will ta least be a reliably conservative vote for a while. This will also undercut Graham's influence.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

We'll need that reservoir of decency again. I'm not discarding it, either--just putting it in storage for the time being.


Touche. He's a putative perfect loser. More cynically, he's done quite well throwing every game to the faux opposition whose side he is actually on.


While Romney symbolically offered a start contrast to Obama, he was out of sync with the zeitgeist, even on the mainstream right. He didn't remind you of your dad, he reminded you of the guy who laid your dad off.

Sgt Joe Friday,

Besides agreeing with observable experience, it also makes sense in that being the "maverick" means that the opposition will come to you every time it needs your putative side (and its opposition) dragged through the mud. The weak, stupid, and vain are susceptible to becoming traitors. Judas, Ephialtes, McCain, heh.

Sid said...

"While Romney symbolically offered a start contrast to Obama, he was out of sync with the zeitgeist, even on the mainstream right. He didn't remind you of your dad, he reminded you of the guy who laid your dad off."

To make matters worse, you never really got a sense of what Romney believed in or what he would do in power. Just look at the stances he took on abortion and global warming. He got hit hard for his "self-deportation" comment on immigration, but when you see how strongly he recanted that and went on to blast Trump, I doubt he would've done much of anything to halt immigration.

Hell, Merkel of all people in 2010 condemned multiculturalism as a failure, and look where she went. I bet that at some point Romney would've had some sort of "spiritual moment" or "awakening of the heart," and realized the 47% of losers who make up America need to be replaced with God's children from Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.

Feryl said...

Among the many, many self inflicted wounds on the GOP, the one-two punch of McCain/Romney stands out as being even more egregious than normal. McCain is a war state swamp leech with no sense of noblesse oblige (killing any populist/reform appeal) and as suggested above, he didn't even possess many, if any, cultural conservative traits. One can only conclude that the GOP allowed the Pentagon, moreso than ever before, to install a war monger in chief.

Romney, politically/economically, offered absolutely no change of pace from post-1970 GOP trickle-down tom-foolery. If McCain was chosen for war-mongering credentials, why was Romney chosen? I don't remember off the top of my head how the 2012 primaries went, but looking at Wiki reveals that Santorum (reactionary from Pennsylvania), Gingrich (who is looking better these days, what with his early Trump support), and folksy gubmint hater Ron Paul were the losers. I'm guessing that tone-deaf GOP primary voters and the media conspired to bury the losers who all had better credentials than Romney (who cucked as the governer of frickin' Taxachusettes), and furthermore, had more guts to take on Obama.

Remember too that Herman Cain made a late push, and presumably the media and many elites were terrified that Obama did not stand a chance against the GOP's first black nominee. Sure enough, the sex. harassment thing came up (sound familiar?) and took Cain down. Whatever it is fags get in trouble for, I doubt any gay man has ever been hit with harassment allegations from another gay man. Harassment allegations and pay-offs mostly come about due to adventuress women wanting to make a buck off of a rich dude(do you really think that these women ever did much to resist a horn dog alpha male?) And go figure that corporate and political opportunist Romney got sold as personable, wholesome, and pragmatic by cuck partisans including Limbaugh at that time; guys like Trump and Cain made money actually building stuff and hiring lots of people,so the system doesn't trust them and markets them as sleazeballs. Bush (either one), McCain, and Romney rode a gravy train of nepotism and kissing up to the establishment to get themselves as far as they did. As usual, those who can't be trusted to stay on the reservation end up being cast as villains. A big reason political families develop, besides the obvious connections/nepotism, is because the system likes to intertwine family and political loyalty. A Kennedy will be loath to ever truly oppose the establishment, since the family is the establishment. Why would Bush Jr. oppose the CIA, something his father helped invent?

Fox of course has been hit with a flurry of sex harassment BS. It's not that these are necessarily false (Ailes and O'reilly definitely had an unseemly vibe to them, nothing would shock me); it's more that outlets firmly on the Left have not been hit with them, or at least it's not been played up with them.

Feryl said...

Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul would've all destroyed Obama in the debates. A lasting sting about the Obama era is that he was so protected from active engagement, including by the cuck GOP itself (who didn't want to be accused of setting back the party's progress with non-whites and hipsters). Especially in 2012, when the blank slate thing used to promote Obama was not gonna work anymore, he could've and should've been backed into a rhetorical corner and pounded on. But how was that gonna happen when, as was customary from 1992-2012, the GOP during election years was more busy apologizing for itself and trying to shed it's white party image than it was in attacking the Dems where they were most vulnerable (cultural Marxism).

It might be a while, if ever, before we get a scrapper like Trump again. We can only dream what he would've done to mediocrities like Obama.

Audacious Epigone said...

Ann Coulter bit pretty hard on Romney. In fairness to her, it was on the belief that he was the best option on immigration. She was technically probably correct. Of the four mentioned here, who were the last four standing in the 2012 primary cycle, Paul and Gingrich were terrible. Santorum had been an open borders proponent in the mold of McCain/Graham in 2008 but did a 180 during the 2012 presidential campaign and definitely delivered the most strident anti-illegal immigration rhetoric of the latter contest. Santorum's senatorial career left plenty of reasons not to trust him, though. Romney at least talked a good game on the illegal side of things.

That said, I expect he would've, as noted, cucked hard on the National Question. His conduct over the last couple of years entirely dispelled any notion I may have had to the contrary.

Jamie said...

Liu Xiaobo? Here's article on the fellow that rigs true to me:

Apparently, quite an odious character...

I agree with your attitude towards McCain.

Feryl said...

I didn't give a damn about the GOP before Trump, so the details you mention don't really surprise me even though I wasn't paying that much attention at the time.

And dear Ann, of all people, was as clueless as anyone else back then. Muh supply-side had destroyed the GOP brand in the NE quadrant of America. She's being really naïve if she thinks that halting immigration has any place on a platform that consecrates the Free Market. What did just 30 years of neo-liberalism do to the rust-belt by the mid 2000's? And neighboring areas (Appalachia, the Lutheran Triangle) aren't quite in the Rust-belt but they sure as hell aren't in Sunbeltopia or the yuppie friendly Rockies either.