Saturday, October 11, 2008

Why Does McCain Seem To Want To Lose?

I've always half-kiddingly contended that McCain would be far happier running against a Republican than a Democrat, but as he draws closer to Election Day, his behavior is that of someone who'd rather lose in the hopes that the Treason Media return to loving him than win, be reviled, but save the nation (and the world) from the era of darkness that Obama would usher in.

On the NBC Nightly News, I caught a report full of clips of him telling supporters at rallies who were trying to snap him out of his torpor because they were afraid of what a Fuhrer Obama (well, they said President) and the chump mumbled that he thought Obama was a good man and "we have nothing to fear from a President Obama."

Pardon my French, but ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME??!?!? HELLO?!?!? EARTH TO JOHN!!! ANYONE HOME?!?!?

Power Line also wonders WTF in "A Prophet Who'd Rather Not Mention It" concerning the letter McCain and 19 other Senators signed in May 2006 warning of the current calamity if Fannie and Freddy weren't brought to heel. Nothing happened and as the PL boys explain:

After May 2006, the Democrats continued to use Fannie and Freddy as their private slush funds until the inevitable collapse, which McCain had warned against so eloquently, occurred.

For some inexplicable reason, John McCain seems unable to claim the credit he deserves for being one of the few politicians in Washington who saw the present crisis coming and tried to do something about it. He is even more unable to vigorously and unambiguously put the blame where it belongs: on the Democratic Party. Which is one of the principal reasons why, as everyone expects, he will lose in November.
He won't be the only one losing. If he slips beneath the waves without attempting to warn America of the truly evil people they will be empowering, then he'd better plan on finding another country to live because the number of Americans coming after him with pitchforks and torches will be legion. I recommend France. They'll recognize a fellow surrender monkey when they see him.

ADD-ON: Mark Steyn on The Corner (in another context) opines:
As for the "old" vs the "new" McCain, I've had little use for either, as NR subscribers who read my cover story on him from eight-and-a-half years ago might dimly recall. I support him faute de mieux, and that's it. Clearly, he's found it difficult (to put it mildly) to make the transition from running against his party to running for it. There's a lesson there: "Maverick" is an attitude, not a coherent worldview, which is why McCain has been unable to make maverickiness (maverectomy?) into a viable electoral platform. Of course, "hope" and "change" are attitudes, too, but so fluffy as to float free of the constraints of reality.

But, if the combination of gazillions of dollars in illegal foreign donations, Acorn's Dig-Up-The-Vote operation, a doting media that would embarrass Kim Jong-Il and the Republican nominee's inability even to speak up on issues where he was right all along (like Fannie Mae), if all that is now unstoppable, I will be proud to have lost with Sarah Palin, who (unlike Brooks and Buckley) runs a state bigger than most European Union nations, has fought an honorable campaign, and has been responsible for such energy and enthusiasm as the ticket can muster.


NOW, WITH VIDEO! Here's Greg Gutfeld and Michelle Malkin on "Fox & Friends" discussing McCain's "Hello Kitty Mittens":


Anonymous said...

It's so nice of you to compare Obama to Hitler.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Fuhrer means "leader" in German. Kinda funny how after eight years of "Bushitler" rhetoric from liberals, it's inappropriate to use any German words anywhere near The One.

Besides, you're the one who immediately thought of Hitler. Why is that? Because you know that Obama would be a genocidal tyrant? Hmmm?

For the record, I don't think Obama is anything like a Hitler; he's clearly more in the Stalin wannabe.

Anonymous said...

I believe I thought of HItler since it's mainly used as a term for Hitler.

Stalin huh? So who is Obama going to deport? Where will the labor camps be set up? Who will purged? Who will be excecuted?

Please give concrete examples on how Obama fits in with Stalin. Enlighten us.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Well, he's already got the entire NY Times channeling Walter Duranty, so he's got that going for him. With the predicted veto-proof majorities in Congress, he'll be able to marginalize any remaining conservatives in the place and with his picks for the Supreme Court, it wouldn't matter what Congress did because anything his fascist heart desires will be granted by judicial fiat with no avenue of appeal.

You sure you want to play dumb about what Obama will do? Really? The way he has deftly wielded the race card to deflect any and all criticisms isn't going to stop when he assume the throne. The meme that only a racist could be opposed to The One has McCain cowed. He has the goose-stepping fellow travelers of the fascist left - like Frank Rick and Paul Krugman - declaring those concerned about Him as "insane". Where did we see political dissidents last packed off to mental hospitals, hmmmmmm? The Soviet Union, perhaps?

You're only smug because you believe your liberal sympathies will inoculate you from being swept up in Obama's purges, but as Stalin showed, when power is on the line, there are always more suspects to line up and shoot. After you have all the non-liberals silenced, who do you expect to speak up for your sorry ass?

First they came for the conservatives...

Anonymous said...

As ever, you live in a self-imposed world of intense paranoia and timorous delusion. It'll be OK, really. They won't cart you off, Dirky-wirky. Though watching your current head-explosion at the thought of an Obama win is quite entertaining...

The problem for you is that since your own political discourse is premised on smackdowns, fear, anger, belittlement, insult and puerile invective, it's hard to find anyone to sympathize with you when it all looks like it's about to go tits up.

Obama will win precisely BECAUSE he doesn't rant, scream and rage like a borderline psychotic. We're SO TIRED of all that stuff. When will you learn, you poor boob. As Curtis Mayfield once said, a whisper can be much more powerful than a scream. Not that you'd understand, but honestly, I think a complete self-reinvention would serve you pretty well about now. You're beginning to look very dated.

Cue sanctimonious (and disingenuous) rant on your own integrity, smackdown ability, the insanity of all other living beings on the planet, misapplications of the word "fascist", and perhaps the advent of the green bug-eyed gents from Mars...

There again, if you had an argument anyone thought was worth listening to, why would you spend so much frustrated energy on yelling?

Dirk Belligerent said...

"Obama will win precisely BECAUSE he doesn't rant, scream and rage like a borderline psychotic."

Translation: He's a phony who has everyone fooled. Ha-ha, suckers.

Obama has absolutely no close associates in what could be called the center-left part of the spectrum, but he has plenty of screaming racists (Wright), actual (not rhetorical) bomb-planters (Ayers et al) and shady felons who have enriched him (Rezko).

Thanks to the Treason Media's willingness to cover-up or not show the slightest curiosity about these allies, an ill-informed public is about to elect someone whom they'd recoil in disgust and horror if they really knew what he and his fellow travelers were about.

People like you don't care about anything other than revenge for power denied you. The country means nothing to you; only that your fascists get to rule it as you see fit. It's amusing that you don't see the contradictions of your own rhetorical burblings. If no one is listening to the warning cries because they're too loud, then why would you counsel a different, more effective approach?

If a bridge over a ravine is out and a schoolbus full of children is heading for it, who is doing more to prevent a tragedy: one who yells and screams or one who whispers? Exactly.

BTW, it is YOUR SIDE who are fascists, your desperate attempts to spin notwithstanding. When you want the government to control everything, that's fascism, Bub. REAL fascism, not the bogus liberal definition which is little more than "anything a liberal doesn't like." (h/t Jonah Goldberg)

Anonymous said...

Still waiting to see some concrete examples of Obama/Stalin.

Don't have any, do you?

Dirk Belligerent said...

Already posted in many prior entries. Sorry that you're too illiterate and/or dishonest to notice them.

If you're looking for 100 million bodies, give me a fraking break. He won't be able to really get down to the serious tyranny until he gets hold of the government killing apparatuses. For now, his "spread the wealth around" rhetoric and willingness to send his Brownshirts and law-enforcement allies to silence foes is plenty enough for my tastes. Maybe not for you, but then again, you fascist won't be happy until everyone who refuses to be silent for your terror is eliminated.

What's in it for you, fascist? Hmmm? You got money riding on this or just like to see dissent squelched because you're so tolerant and love diversity?