Serious question. How on Earth did John McCain got the GOP nod for 2008 elections?

[Akus]

I honestly want to know how an unpopular RINO Republican got to the top? There is this Republican hangout I used to go to. It was full of die-hard Bush-does-no-wrong type of crowd all of them were old enough to probably remember Louisiana Purchase.

They were super-pissed when it was clear that McCain will represent them. I mean, in their eyes, he was still better then that Kenyan turrist, but they opposed him on just about every conservative issue.....

I don't think that my instance was some kind of a freak exception, but the fact is the fact. McCain, after his campaign got off the life support in 2007, suddenly picked up and started winning primaries after primaries.....

Why did he win the GOP nomination? I hope I hear actual facts, not conspiracy theories about Reptilians choosing him or some othet bunk like that.

[revolutionisnow]

A wide array of pseudo conservatives splitting the vote?

[Bman]

Familiarity. Americans love a brand. (Place holder for an Explicative), just look at how many children cruise into replace their parents. That in combination that nobody that was considered (MSM) a viable candidate was truly conservative.

[NYgs23]

It sure is peculiar how so many politicians that no one seems to support nonetheless win elections. Does anyone know anyone who support Joe Lieberman for example? It's like there are millions of people living in a secret network of underground caves, who only creep out in order to vote and then it's always for the most unpopular candidate of the lot.

[jack555]

I always think of my uncle when I think of a Mcain supporter.


My uncle is pretty much what I consider a standard american republican (AKA not very conservative).

Mcain has an R next to his name. is tough on the war on terror. He is a recognized politician. and most importantly LOOKS the part of status quo republican. I think these things together helped him win.


I feel that is why my uncle voted for him.

[DamianTV]

Easy way to put it: everyone in the GOP helped him STEAL it.

[Number19]

A deal was cut back in 2004 with the party elites, if he would drop out and support Bush, he would be the candidate in 2008. The same thing happened with Romney in 2008. He's going to be the candidate in 2012. But Ron Paul, if he runs and runs strong, could be an unanticipated bump in their plans.

[klamath]

NH was what gave him the boost. It was also a fear vote against Huckabee as the NH electorate is less bible thumping than Iowa. Once he won NH, voters fell behind him because ("He could win") the polls showed him running the stroungest against the democrats. Many conservatives held their noises and voted for him believing the party had to move left to get elected as they had been told.

[Elwar]

Nobody could attack him because he was in a prison camp. To do so was considered un-patriotic.

All of the other candidates could be attacked but not McCain.

Kinda like Obama had the race card. McCain had the torture camp card.

Plus he was considered a non-contender so early on that everyone started treating him well during the debates because they thought he wasn't a threat.

The early states gave him credibility. Republicans are sheep and want to know who they're supposed to support so that they could get behind them early so that they can show off how patriotic and Republican they are.

[Elwar]

Oh ya, and the media propped him up. Mainly because he's no different than the Democrats.

[Krugerrand]

Several factors.

The GOP could see the anti-Bush sentiment that dominated the plitical landscape. McCain had previously opposed Bush in a presidential primary. He opposed Bush on a handful of other issues. So, many people took McCain as the 'winnable' Republican from a anti-Bush perspective. (of course, we know that Bush/McCain/Obamma are virtually all identical)

Many of the early primaries allow independents to vote. (Personally, I disagree with this.) Most people assumed that Hillary would win which caused more independent voters to vote in the GOP primary and independents were drawn to the McCain faux-maverick image. I'd have to double check - but I think McCain only took early primaries that allowed independent voters. I don't think he won any early primaries that were closed to Republican voters only.

The RINO wing (I know that expression just doesn't sound right - but it rings some truth) of the GOP was split between McCain and Guliani. Guliani dropped out early leaving the RINO wing more unified than the more traditional GOP voters.

Other than Ron Paul - the other candidates lacked the courage to make a fight out of the nomination and simply conceded when they fell behind.

[Krugerrand]

Oh ya, and the media propped him up. Mainly because he's no different than the Democrats.

I forgot to include that one.

[catdd]

I think with the ongoing wars, the fact that he was a veteran and POW played a part.
Although he was as dumb as a sack of nails I think enough people believed that would carry him through.

[paulitics]

The establishment newspaper in NH endorsed him, and his numbers shot up overnight. It just goes to show that people WANT to be told what to do. They don't trust their own judgement.

[pcosmar]

Why did he win the GOP nomination? I hope I hear actual facts, not conspiracy theories about Reptilians choosing him or some othet bunk like that.

You don't really want to know.
You want an answer that you can easily live with, that will allow you to continue to think that the process matters.

Simple answer is, He was chosen to lose. Not "by the people" but by the real power brokers.
Obama was already the choice, long before primaries were over.
It was all a show.

[kahless]

It a combination of the posts above. To add to that you could also see it coming since the 1990s. The MSM (particularly NBC and MSNBC) had been actively campaigning for a John McCain Presidential run up until after he won the nomination. Having Democrats running on both sides is a win win situation for them. John McCain fits the ticket as a perfect moderate Democrat. When it comes down to it, hard core Democrats will always vote for a Democrat no matter who the Republicans put up, even if it is a John McCain.

Mitt Romney seems to be the next pre-ordained MSM candidate that the Republicans may fall inline with unless there is an utter revolt within the party.

[Working Poor]

because he was endorsed by the Bush family

[MsDoodahs]

You don't really want to know.
You want an answer that you can easily live with, that will allow you to continue to think that the process matters.

Simple answer is, He was chosen to lose. Not "by the people" but by the real power brokers.
Obama was already the choice, long before primaries were over.
It was all a show.

^^^ truth.

[Dianne]

Actually I have never met a republican who likes John McCain. That was perfect for the GOP, since McCain was sure to lose to Obama. I guess the agreement between both parties, was that it was the democrats turn in the white house.

[Bruno]

Oh ya, and the media propped him up. Mainly because he's no different than the Democrats.

This


You don't really want to know.
You want an answer that you can easily live with, that will allow you to continue to think that the process matters.

Simple answer is, He was chosen to lose. Not "by the people" but by the real power brokers.
Obama was already the choice, long before primaries were over.
It was all a show.

and this

[specsaregood]

In the primaries the Republicans wanted to make the entire debate about War, WAr, WAR!.
McCain won over on the war issue when he made the claim that he "would follow him (bin laden) to the gates of hell" *smile*
YouTube - McCain Gates of Hell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1PZD2sw6-Y)

[Bruno]

Didn't Biden say he knows right where Binladen is? Maybe he was referring to where he is buried?

[treyfu]

I remember thinking how strange it was that McCain seemed to come out of nowhere to take the nomination. For a long time, Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee were the front-runners and McCain was virtually nonexistant. Then all of a sudden, he jumped out to a huge lead. Weird IMO...

[Matt Collins]

A wide array of pseudo conservatives splitting the vote?
Exactly. He was the last man standing.

[Krugerrand]

I remember thinking how strange it was that McCain seemed to come out of nowhere to take the nomination. For a long time, Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee were the front-runners and McCain was virtually nonexistant. Then all of a sudden, he jumped out to a huge lead. Weird IMO...

He jumped out to a huge lead in states that allow people not registered as republicans to vote in the GOP primary.

[itshappening]

McCain won because he had the head start in NH (he won there before) and also he had a foothold in SC since he went close there in 2000, he had Romney Huck and Paul splitting a good percentage and he was on the media every freakin day, plus he had the GOP hack help and in Florida he had the "popular" Crist backing him

by the time those states have voted it's basically over, the others fall in line like lemmings

[kahless]

Amazing since he was just about broke in December 2008 and almost had to sell his bus. Ron Paul had something like 6 million on hand and had won practically every straw poll against him.

It was that New Hampshire primary that did it which you can attibute to NBC-MSNBC and Fox News actively campaigning for McCain. FNC was worse since they were not only campaigning for McCain they were openly bashing Ron Paul. Foxnews wanted any Neocon candidate to win that primary while MSNBC wanted a Democrat to win the Republican primary which RINO McCain certainly fit that bill.

The MSM as a whole was pretty much afraid of covering Ron Paul and were safely reporting in the direction of a more moderate candidate.

[Carole]

:mad:
I honestly want to know how an unpopular RINO Republican got to the top? There is this Republican hangout I used to go to. It was full of die-hard Bush-does-no-wrong type of crowd all of them were old enough to probably remember Louisiana Purchase.

They were super-pissed when it was clear that McCain will represent them. I mean, in their eyes, he was still better then that Kenyan turrist, but they opposed him on just about every conservative issue.....

I don't think that my instance was some kind of a freak exception, but the fact is the fact. McCain, after his campaign got off the life support in 2007, suddenly picked up and started winning primaries after primaries.....

Why did he win the GOP nomination? I hope I hear actual facts, not conspiracy theories about Reptilians choosing him or some othet bunk like that.

There was that quick mysterious trip that took place to Florida-a meeting with Joe Lieberman and others. Suddenly he wins, I think it was, New Hampshire where one half the state is electronic voting and one-half is paper ballots. Lots of irregularities occurred, some are on film at black box voting.

I cannot say what exactly happened, but after the quick Florida trip, McCain was on his way.

Who really knows???:mad:

The strangest thing about it was the video of McCain at a town hall meeting telling the good people that many more would die in many more wars and the listeners mouths dropping open in shock!!!! And the "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran remarks". McCain was acting as though he was wiped out on something with the crazy remarks he was making. Yet -- he "won".

[Anti Federalist]

NH was what gave him the boost. It was also a fear vote against Huckabee as the NH electorate is less bible thumping than Iowa. Once he won NH, voters fell behind him because ("He could win") the polls showed him running the stroungest against the democrats. Many conservatives held their noises and voted for him believing the party had to move left to get elected as they had been told.

NH was rigged.

Saw it with my own eyes at the recount.

[Anti Federalist]

You don't really want to know.
You want an answer that you can easily live with, that will allow you to continue to think that the process matters.

Simple answer is, He was chosen to lose. Not "by the people" but by the real power brokers.
Obama was already the choice, long before primaries were over.
It was all a show.

That x 1776

[squarepusher]

I honestly want to know how an unpopular RINO Republican got to the top? There is this Republican hangout I used to go to. It was full of die-hard Bush-does-no-wrong type of crowd all of them were old enough to probably remember Louisiana Purchase.

They were super-pissed when it was clear that McCain will represent them. I mean, in their eyes, he was still better then that Kenyan turrist, but they opposed him on just about every conservative issue.....

I don't think that my instance was some kind of a freak exception, but the fact is the fact. McCain, after his campaign got off the life support in 2007, suddenly picked up and started winning primaries after primaries.....

Why did he win the GOP nomination? I hope I hear actual facts, not conspiracy theories about Reptilians choosing him or some othet bunk like that.

http://noorslist.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/mccain-lieberman.jpg

[TastyWheat]

It was because of vote splitting and the variations in awarding delegates from state to state. McCain won most of the contests that really counted (the winner-take-all states).

[klamath]

NH was rigged.

Saw it with my own eyes at the recount.

If you can show me real solid numbers on the recount that would have made RP win I'm with you however I have never seen anything to suggest RP could have won any recount. No matter how hard anyone cried RP was cheated they never gave me proof.

[Anti Federalist]

If you can show me real solid numbers on the recount that would have made RP win I'm with you however I have never seen anything to suggest RP could have won any recount. No matter how hard anyone cried RP was cheated they never gave me proof.

Can't do it, since I never claimed RP won NH, although his total should have been higher.

Romney won on the GOP side and Obama on the Dem side.

[BlackTerrel]

I honestly want to know how an unpopular RINO Republican got to the top? There is this Republican hangout I used to go to. It was full of die-hard Bush-does-no-wrong type of crowd all of them were old enough to probably remember Louisiana Purchase.

They were super-pissed when it was clear that McCain will represent them. I mean, in their eyes, he was still better then that Kenyan turrist, but they opposed him on just about every conservative issue.

The Bush supporters you hang out with probably represent something like 20% of Americans, and less than half of Republicans. McCain had much broader support, a lot of Americans agree with him on the issues, he has a great military record, and is an overall likable guy.

[malkusm]

I was discussing this with my roommate just last night, in fact.

If you recall, McCain only got about 10% in Iowa, the same number as Ron Paul. He had spent a significant amount of time and money campaigning in Iowa, and the 10% number was largely a disappointment.

All of the sudden, between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, McCain became a media darling. His campaign stops were all over CNN and Fox News (this was the time period when the "100 years is fine by me" comment was made). Both major Boston newspapers endorsed him in the NH primary, as well as the newspaper in Manchester, NH (largest city in the state).

And, what do you know? McCain won New Hampshire, and his status as a "frontrunner" was sealed.

[anaconda]

I honestly want to know how an unpopular RINO Republican got to the top? There is this Republican hangout I used to go to. It was full of die-hard Bush-does-no-wrong type of crowd all of them were old enough to probably remember Louisiana Purchase.

They were super-pissed when it was clear that McCain will represent them. I mean, in their eyes, he was still better then that Kenyan turrist, but they opposed him on just about every conservative issue.....

I don't think that my instance was some kind of a freak exception, but the fact is the fact. McCain, after his campaign got off the life support in 2007, suddenly picked up and started winning primaries after primaries.....

Why did he win the GOP nomination? I hope I hear actual facts, not conspiracy theories about Reptilians choosing him or some othet bunk like that.

Election fraud in New Hampshire probably started the ball rolling...

YouTube - NH Voter/Election Fraud? Secure Ballots? Clean Elections? P1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJfj9ySYg0Q)

[Carson]

Seriously


1. circle jerk

3.) When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos as if they were extensions of their genitals (ergo, the mastubatory insinuation). Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle%20jerk

[Anti Federalist]

Election fraud in New Hampshire probably started the ball rolling...

YouTube - NH Voter/Election Fraud? Secure Ballots? Clean Elections? P1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJfj9ySYg0Q)

That's what I mean about seeing it with my own eyes.

Mrs AF. and I were there that day.

[cindy25]

the Republican primary electorate is old, pro-war, and pro-government

[Krugerrand]

the Republican primary electorate is old, pro-war, and pro-government

Except that McCain's wins were in open primaries. He was shot down in early closed primaries.

[moostraks]

Election fraud in New Hampshire probably started the ball rolling...

YouTube - NH Voter/Election Fraud? Secure Ballots? Clean Elections? P1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJfj9ySYg0Q)

I always felt this to be the case. I think there was a percentage of election fraud and msm propaganda along with some incentive for Romney to drop out. The rest they gambled on sheep mentality. I think tptb feel they can say the process is still fair because some of the votes are not tampered with even though the the deck is entirely stacked in their favor.

As for Georgia the delegate process was rigged. It was as corrupt as any staged process you could have imagined. I saw this with my own eyes. :mad: They rammed him through changing rules as necessary and dismissing anyone who tried to defeat their agenda.

[LibertyEagle]

I was discussing this with my roommate just last night, in fact.

If you recall, McCain only got about 10% in Iowa, the same number as Ron Paul. He had spent a significant amount of time and money campaigning in Iowa, and the 10% number was largely a disappointment.

All of the sudden, between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, McCain became a media darling. His campaign stops were all over CNN and Fox News (this was the time period when the "100 years is fine by me" comment was made). Both major Boston newspapers endorsed him in the NH primary, as well as the newspaper in Manchester, NH (largest city in the state).

And, what do you know? McCain won New Hampshire, and his status as a "frontrunner" was sealed.

Yeah and do you remember that before the NH primary, McCain's campaign was more than broke and in disarray and do you remember that news article that some monied individuals were heading down to NH to talk to McCain? Everything after that became pro-McCain. Coincidence, maybe, but I doubt it.

[rpfan2008]

Why you guys think the politicians shamelessly try to pass bills which sometimes 70% of people don't approve ?

Because they are controlled/manipulated....money, threat, sex + blackmail.
Their media only highlight those candidates which are totally under their control.

[catdd]

Why you guys think the politicians shamelessly try to pass bills which sometimes 70% of people don't approve ?

Because they are controlled/manipulated....money, threat, sex + blackmail.
Their media only highlight those candidates which are totally under their control.

+1

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why you guys think the politicians shamelessly try to pass bills which sometimes 70% of people don't approve ?

Because they are controlled/manipulated....money, threat, sex + blackmail.
Their media only highlight those candidates which are totally under their control.

Secondly, all these politicians are in it for power, otherwise they would be principled enough to stand up for liberty rather than their own egotistical usurptions. You can't blackmail anyone when they care about their principles more than themselves.

[rpfan2008]

Secondly, all these politicians are in it for power, otherwise...

I agree.

But I find it amazing that after reading my post your first reaction was like 'bloody politicians...' rather than who is blackmailing them.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree.

But I find it amazing that after reading my post your first reaction was like 'bloody politicians...' rather than who is blackmailing them.

I all ready know who is, but the politicians if they stood on principles would rather leave a position of power other than use it to the detriment of everyone.

You can have 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars, but if there was nowhere to funnel those funds in to increase their influence (IE no politicians), then they become irrelevant.

[rpfan2008]

I all ready know who is, but the politicians if they stood on principles would rather leave a position of power other than use it to the detriment of everyone.

You can have 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars, but if there was nowhere to funnel those funds in to increase their influence (IE no politicians), then they become irrelevant.

Ridiculous post.

Leaving may not be an option they offer you, or maybe seen as a coup.

Google Kay Griggs

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ridiculous post.

Leaving may not be an option they offer you, or maybe seen as a coup.

Google Kay Griggs

Fantastical. Leaving or getting booted is always an option. Simply don't follow their orders. That's why I said if they had any principles.....

We need bankers/banking institutions, we don't need politicians.

[moostraks]

Fantastical. Leaving or getting booted is always an option. Simply don't follow their orders. That's why I said if they had any principles.....

We need bankers/banking institutions, we don't need politicians.

Your kidding right? Guess you have never been righteously screwed by the government on something you did not do. Everyone has a breaking point, and if they want something done and you're the choosen patsy you will do it or you will pay for it...

It isn't a matter of just yourself, but people with no scruples dangle family members over the barrel. I have seen just a small scale in low level government workers, I could only imagine how the big boys play. You don't have to be guilty to be found guilty....

[mconder]

I think there was a very clear shift in who the media was favoring at any given time. I rember when they dropped huckabee like a used turd and shifted all their attention and fawning to McCain almost over night. If you go back and watch the news you'll see it was almost over night. It only took another week or two for the polls to change.

[Bucjason]

..because the early republican primaries allow ANYONE to vote in them , including democrats and liberals. Once the momentum started it was a bandwagon effect.

Neocons also loved him because his claim that the troop "surge" worked and was all his idea ...

[heavenlyboy34]

I honestly want to know how an unpopular RINO Republican got to the top? There is this Republican hangout I used to go to. It was full of die-hard Bush-does-no-wrong type of crowd all of them were old enough to probably remember Louisiana Purchase.

They were super-pissed when it was clear that McCain will represent them. I mean, in their eyes, he was still better then that Kenyan turrist, but they opposed him on just about every conservative issue.....

I don't think that my instance was some kind of a freak exception, but the fact is the fact. McCain, after his campaign got off the life support in 2007, suddenly picked up and started winning primaries after primaries.....

Why did he win the GOP nomination? I hope I hear actual facts, not conspiracy theories about Reptilians choosing him or some othet bunk like that.


Hayek explains it thusly:
Why the Worst Get on Top (http://jim.com/hayek.htm) NO DOUBT an American or English "fascist" system would greatly differ from the Italian or German models; no doubt, if the transition were effected without violence, we might expect to get a better type of leader. Yet this does not mean that our fascist system would in the end prove very different or much less intolerable than its prototypes. There are strong reasons for believing that the worst features of the totalitarian systems are phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.
Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian leader would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from the essentially individualist Western civilization.
The totalitarian leader must collect around him a group which is prepared voluntarily to submit to that discipline which they are to impose by force upon the rest of the people. That socialism can be put info practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove is, of course, a lesson learned by many social reformers in the past. The old socialist parties were inhibited by their democratic ideals; they did not possess the ruthlessness required for the performance of their chosen task. It is characteristic that both in Germany and in Italy the success of fascism was preceded by the refusal of the socialist parties to take over the responsibilities of government. They were unwilling wholeheartedly to employ the methods to which they had pointed the way. They still hoped for the miracle of a majority's agreeing on a particular plan for the organization of the whole of society. Others had already learned the lesson that in a planned society the question can no longer be on what do a majority of the people agree but what the largest single group is whose members agree sufficiently to make unified direction of all affairs possible.
There are three main reasons why such a numerous group, with fairly similar views, is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. First, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their tastes and views are differentiated. If we wish to find a high degree of uniformity in outlook, we have to descend to the regions of your moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards.
Second, since this group is not large enough to give sufficient weight to the leader's endeavors, he will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed. He must gain the support of the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are ready to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.
Third, to weld together a closely coherent body of supporters, the leader must appeal to a common human weakness. It seems to be easier for people to agree on a negative program — on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off - than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and the "they" is consequently always employed by those who seek the allegiance of huge masses. The enemy may be internal, like the "Jew" in Germany or the "kulak" in Russia, or he may be external. In any case, this technique has the great advantage of leaving the leader greater freedom of action than would almost any positive program.
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do immoral things. The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves "the good of the whole," because that is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarianism which horrify us follow of necessity. From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, deception and spying, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual are essential and unavoidable Acts which revolt all our feelings, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, are treated as mere matters of expediency; the compulsory uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousands becomes an instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims. To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state, therefore, a man must be prepared to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. In the totalitarian machine there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. Neither the Gestapo nor the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Russian counterparts) are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through such positions that the road to the highest positions in the totalitarian state leads. A distinguished American economist, Professor Frank H. Knight, correctly notes that the authorities of a collectivist state "would have to do these things whether they wanted to or not: and the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tenderhearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation."
A further point should be made here: Collectivism means the end of truth. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the ends selected by those in control; it is essential that the people should come to regard these ends as their own. This is brought about by propaganda and by complete control of all sources of information.
The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language.
The worst sufferer in this respect is the word "liberty." It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said that wherever liberty as we know it has been destroyed, this has been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people. Even among us we have planners who promise us a "collective freedom," which is as misleading as anything said by totalitarian politicians. "Collective freedom" is not the freedom of the members of society but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society that which he pleases. This is the confusion of freedom with power carried to the extreme. It is not difficult to deprive the seat majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced. Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken support of the regime. As Sidney and Beatrice Webb report of the position in every Russian enterprise: "Whilst the work is in progress, any public expression of doubt that the plan will be successful is an act of disloyalty and even of treachery because of its possible effect on the will and efforts of the rest of the staff."
Control extends even to subjects which seem to have no political significance. The theory of relativity, for instance, has been opposed as a "Semitic attack on the foundation of Christian and Nordic physics" and because it is "in conflict with dialectical materialism and Marxist dogma." Every activity must derive its justification from conscious social purpose. There must be no spontaneous, unguided activity, because it might produce results which cannot be foreseen and for which the plan does not provide.
The principle extends even to games and amusements. I leave it to the reader to guess where it was that chess players were officially exhorted that "we must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula 'chess for the sake of chess.' "
Perhaps the most alarming fact is that contempt for intellectual liberty is not a thing which arises only once the totalitarian system is established but can be found everywhere among those who have embraced a collectivist faith. The worst oppression is condoned if it is committed in the name of socialism. Intolerance of opposing ideas is openly extolled; The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason. There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which provides special food for thought. It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem in Britain and America are precisely those on which Anglo-Saxons justly prided themselves and in which they were generally recognized to excel. These virtues were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one's neighbor and tolerance of the different, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority. Almost all the traditions and institutions which have molded the national character and the whole moral climate of England and America are those which the progress of collectivism and its centralistic tendencies are progressively destroying.
Planning vs. the Rule of Law
NOTHING distinguishes more clearly a free country from a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand

[SevenEyedJeff]

This is what McCain is doing these days:

http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/thumb/0/08/Saul_Tigh.jpg/200px-Saul_Tigh.jpg

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Saul_Tigh

[andrewh817]

I honestly want to know how an unpopular RINO Republican got to the top? There is this Republican hangout I used to go to. It was full of die-hard Bush-does-no-wrong type of crowd all of them were old enough to probably remember Louisiana Purchase.

They were super-pissed when it was clear that McCain will represent them. I mean, in their eyes, he was still better then that Kenyan turrist, but they opposed him on just about every conservative issue.....

I don't think that my instance was some kind of a freak exception, but the fact is the fact. McCain, after his campaign got off the life support in 2007, suddenly picked up and started winning primaries after primaries.....

Why did he win the GOP nomination? I hope I hear actual facts, not conspiracy theories about Reptilians choosing him or some other bunk like that.

Just a theory........ they needed someone who was the complete opposite of Obama. No charisma, basically no change from Bush, and OLD.

Most of you already know how intertwined both parties' interests are....... why else do you think Democrats always come to save the day after the Republicans screw everything up and vice versa? It's a never ending cycle.