Coulter & Co… Leading The Lemmings
Is John McCain beyond the age of reason? Some people barely beyond the age of consent seem to think so. And they are being influenced by people whose outlandish statements are beyond words and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that older is not necessarily wiser.
I mean, it's perfectly legitimate to press one's case against John McCain, but is it too much to ask that you be rational? Am I being too demanding to expect that? None of the candidates still standing on either side are without serious flaws, but only one is being scrutinized at the molecular level and vilified by his party, and it's not even the one who should be.
That one is Mitt Romney.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Romney to be the nominee, but first he has a lot of explaining to do, and he has to be able to show that he can not only answer charges but level them. So far he's an abject failure. I don't expect Super Tuesday to be a disaster for Mitt, and it could even have a good outcome, but it doesn't matter if the candidate himself is fatally flawed.
McCain isn't. That's why conservatives are abandoning reason and resorting to T & D – threats and decibels. And they should be blaming the very guy they want – Romney. He could have had the nomination in a cakewalk. Instead, he's doing what he's done to keep himself from getting it – Not much. Did you see his add in which he takes on Hillary. Did you ask yourself why? Can the guy do anything right?
I read a travesty of a column this morning in which the writer literally threw reason out the window, and that column appeared in a highly regarded conservative publication. I'm used to seeing such things come from the left, but when it comes from the right it's shocking.
I've already said many times that you can't criticize McCain if you overlook Bush's failings in the same areas. yet conservatives still shamelessly do it, and nothing McCain has done is as bad as what conservatives make it out to be – or more importantly, what Bush has done, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than because of the relative powers of the two offices.
But it gets worse when you bring Romney into the mix. For example, is Romney a better conservative than McCain? At best, anyone being honest can only say, "Probably." And Romney hasn't even spent many years in office where a record might be better determined.
Now I don't like to be defending McCain, and I would much prefer the Republicans had a good, strong, charismatic conservative. unfortunately, they don't. There's not even one on the horizon.
So you know the admonishment; when you're in a hole, stop digging? Well, conservatives are digging furiously – mindlessly. After nominating Reagan and Dole, some conservatives are actually advancing the idea that McCain is too old – and blaming it on his POW ordeal. Incredible.
Here's what makes that even more absurd, outrageous, astounding, shocking, preposterous – they don't even understand what things were like when the constitution was written. A President has to be at least 35 years of age. Would anyone elect a thirty-five-year-old today? God, I hope not!
But the problem is, while we might regard that as absurdly young and inexperienced, do you know what the average lifespan was in 1787 – 15. You hit puberty, they gave you a wife, you had a kid, then you both celebrated by dying… and the grandparents raised it… and they were already dead for years. Without indoor plumbing, you didn't want to live any longer anyway, and people used to sit on their front porches and wonder when the toilet would be invented.
At night, they could only dream of microwaves, and when comedians used to say, "You're goin' to the moon, Alice," no one would laugh because they needed a refrigerator before Tang. At least war finally brought us something useful – M & Ms.
OK, anyway, maybe it was like 26, but the fact is, 35 was an advanced age back then. I'm sure if the average person had lived to be 78, the founders would have set the minimum age for a President at 60 so they could get the midlife crises out of the way first.
I keep hearing about all the damage John McCain has done in the Senate. The fact is, he did very little, although maybe not for having tried? But doesn't that only make the case for getting him out of the Senate and into the Presidency where he won't be signing bills he introduced the way Bush did? And isn't it a worst case scenario if McCain is still in the Senate and Billary or Barama is President?
So if you want your teenager to be going on field trips to gay bathhouses, vote for Hillary. Although I can see where voting for Obama and having your children learn how to be slumlords might be OK, but all I ask is that conservatives demand meticulously reasoned argument – you know, like mine. And if you're not sure about what you're reading and believing, ask me. I'm always happy to help… unless you think I'm too old?!?