Posted under Election 2008
McCain’s win in Florida undoutbedly will lead to a Super Tuesday sweep in my view. Romney was already polling poorly in states like California, New York, New Jersey and Georgia and they’re only going to get worse for him now. Ron Paul might take a caucus state or two Feb. 5 but most Republicans will now want to close ranks behind McCain and end this thing. Romney would have to launch an all out attack on McCain to try and stop him and I just don’t see him doing that. He doesn’t have the stomach for it and he would have to dip into his personal fortune to do so and he won’t do that either. Rich people don’t continue to spend money on lost cause (see Steve Forbes), otherwise they wouldn’t be rich. The race will be officially over Feb. 6.
So why did McCain, supposedly the dead campaigner last summer, suddenly make like Lazarus and win the GOP nomination?
1). He stopped being the front runner and started being the “maverick” again. Instead of pandering to Jerry Falwell and George Bush II, he basically hit the road in New Hampshire and does what he does best. He won there and it saved his campaign.
2). He wins across the board. He was even winning among anti-war voters in New Hampshire because they interpreted his opposition to the way the war was being fought as opposition to the war itself. He wins among moderate and liberal Republicans, still a good chunk of the GOP electorate (40% in Florida) because they like the fact he ticks off conservatives. And while he doesn’t win among conservative voters, he’s done well enough among them to win. I think you have to divide such voters between those who think and vote constantly along ideological lines, who think of the movement (or what’s left of it) and listen to talk show hosts and are interested in politics. Those persons are more than likely anti-McCain. The rest are just conservative and Republican by nature and culture and who don’t concern themselves politically. I know a lot people who are like this. So there’s not getting a five-day-a-week bash McCain message from some talk show host they don’t listen to. When it comes time to vote they vote whom they like and this year they like McCain.
3). McCain has tapped into the dissatisifaction the rank n’file have towards the party. Huckabee and to a lesser extent Ron Paul has as well, but McCain the “maverick” has been the most effective.  GOP voters don’t like pork barrel spending, he attacks it. GOP voters didn’t like the way the war was going in Iraq, he demands a different strategy and says we have to go all out to win it and they like that. And because he’s opposed to abortion rights, he’s not running against a major shibboleth within the party unlike Guliani. Do you think its any coincidence Guliani’s fall and McCain’s rise coincided with each other? Once McCain became a credible candidate again, Guliani took a major nose-dive.
4). So why has immigration and his support for amnesty not sunk McCain if most Republican voters hate it and say its a big issue? Even McCain himself has become concerned about border security, which wasn’t true a year ago. But we have to realize that voters’ views towards immigration are based entirely on where they live and what they do for a living. For every Hazelton, PA., you will have persons like the Florida fruit growers I saw on the news concerned about their crops rotting in the fields because there wasn’t enough slave labor to pick them. Who do you think they voted for yesterday? What about other small businessmen and contractors who depend on such labor too? And do you think Cuban voters in Florida are going to vote for an anti-immigration Republican? I think not. Immigration may very well be a big issue but it doesn’t cut the way people might think it does. That’s why Tom Tancredo dropped out of the race.
5). Perhaps the most important constituency in the GOP these days is not the Christian right, it’s the military-industrial complex. And when I say this, I don’t mean just defense company lobbyists. I include veterans (which there are a lot of in places like New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina) and their dependents, people who work on military bases, persons on active duty or are in the reserves plus their families. This is a huge pool of voters. McCain’s a military man so who do you think they’re going to vote for? Mitt the coporate exec? Huck the preacher? Ron Paul who wants to reduce the military?
6). The Surge. It froze GOP support for the war and the President and McCain took advantage of this. I was of the opinion GOP support for the war would collapse last fall and Paul would benefit..But that did not happen. Instead, the opposite happened and who better to benefit from it than the man who’s the surge’s biggest propornent? For better or worse this is a Republican war now and they will go down with it if necessary unlike the Democrats who rejected their Frankenstein monster in Vietnam.
7). In 2000 there was a powerful GOP establishment ready to block McCain. That no longer exists and if anything, it’s been discredited. Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay can throw all the brickbats they want at McCain. They no longer hold elective office. Rush can say McCain will destroy the GOP all he wants but no one is listening anymore. The Rush Limbaugh of 1995 or even 2000 might have been able to derail McCain, not the Limbaugh of 2008 who lives in a Palm Bech mansion, smokes fancy cigars and plays a lot golf at posh country clubs, who’s had drug problems, who’s been divorced three times and who, with other talk show hosts, were basically suck-ups and enablers to the GOP establishment in Washington (especially when they were hiding Jack Abramhoff and Mark Foley) which McCain has effectively attacked.
8). Voters want authenticity this election year who markets himself as being authentic better than anyone else?  It’s hard to attack McCain on immigration considering the other candidates, even Ron Paul, have shifted and flip-flopped on this issue over the years. Mitt panders and tries to sell himself to whomever is looking, McCain says what he thinks. You and I may not like what he thinks but there it is.
Filmer on 30 Jan 2008 at 3:50 pm #
Good analysis Patroon. I still think a McCain nomination helps (perhaps only marginally) the Constitution Party.
I am a veteran, and I am anti-intervention and anti-war partially because of that. I can’t understand why veterans, who know what sacrifices are required for war and occupation, aren’t uniformly anti-intervention. Maybe they have actually grown to believe that we need to spend 1 trillion a year on defense to keep us safe. Maybe they don’t want to believe they spent a significant portion of their lives sacrificing for a lie.
Ron Leweneberg on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:11 pm #
McCain is a compuslive liar and the media shills for him. Most voters are too stupid, ignorant and lazy to do research for themeselves and even when the do, alot of MSM information is false.
Jack on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:32 pm #
If McCain wins the nomination he will need the 30% hard conservative base to win the Whitehouse. What has he done that will turn out these voters to his cause? Not a damn thing.
So what happens? My guess is that 10% (3% of the total Republican base) will actualy work for him, 70-75% (21%-23% of the total Republican base) will not actively support is run, but in the end will vote for him out of fear of the Democrat’s candidate (That’s a great reason to vote for someone!) lastly 10% to 20% (3% to 6% of the total Republican base) will in the end go third-party or even set out the election. John will make no effort to ‘bridge’ these voters if anything he will more than likely rub their faces in the fact that he won, he is after all the Great John McCain the “maverick†he doesn’t need them.
So you have a fairly united Democrat party going against a factured Republican Party. If the nominee is Obama the independant vote will be very hard fought and I see no one running away with it. With 3% to 6% of the Republian bases sitting it out and the election more than likely being just as close as the last two who do you think wins?
Bede on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:34 pm #
In a Clinton vs. McCain race, I would prefer Clinton, although I’d vote third party. McCain could use Republican muscle to push for amnesty. Clinton, who only wants to be president, probably wouldn’t be very ambitious, maybe wouldn’t even introduce amnesty legislation and, if she did, Republicans would oppose it out of partisan habit.
csason on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:44 pm #
Why or How did he make a comeback..??
One of the downsides of neo-conservatism, in my estimation is the
inability to recognize that their is an end to fallacious reasoning..That
sort of erroneous logic is usually the territory of the liberals, after all the liberals always have the right to bail them out..and keep their behind’s powdered.
I am fairly well convinced that the voting block of RINOs that gave him the edge yesterday believe that either we will find an answer to the obvious
troubles in front of us later, or that an offering to Vall will keep the beast at bay long enough to beat a few more years out of the moldy, decomposing pony we have been riding.
csason on 30 Jan 2008 at 4:45 pm #
I hate it when I spell ‘there’ wrong..and don’t catch it.
Patroon on 30 Jan 2008 at 5:04 pm #
Thanks Filmer. I think because we are at war, such persons want a war fighter as President. Bush II, in their view, has failed in that role. Maybe they want someone who produce “victory” as McCain said he will even though he’s perfect comfortable having U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years. As a military man he also knows too that many in the military rather like having an empire. They like living in foreign locals and being involved where there’s action. You think they want to spend billions on an army that jrust trains like say, Sweden’s? Sit behind the desk all the time? No! If we are going to have this great military establishment, they want to use it by God. They’re just like Madeline Albright in that regard. If you support Paul, what you’re supporting is a radical, fundmental change within our foriegn policy and finance that threatens having such a large military and that’s why he did so poorly in South Carolina and Florida as compared to say, Michigan or New Hampshire or Iowa.
Filmer on 30 Jan 2008 at 5:09 pm #
So Ron, if McCain is the nominee will you vote third party?
Andrew T. on 30 Jan 2008 at 8:04 pm #
You write very, very well here as always, Patroon.
Folks,
I promise you that if McCain is the nominee, Hillary or Mr. Change to her left is our next president. John McCain is in many ways the absolute bottom denominator of what the party is capable of. I In a dark twist of irony, the GOP base has lowered themselves to backing an utterly mediocre neocon that, come general election time, they have no chance of unifying behind to the same extent that Democrats would be able to unite behind Hillary or Obama. I hope my party sinks to rock bottom, because there is practically no other way they will reapproach the legacy they have absolutely lost, that in Washington flickers only in a select few politicians like Jeff Flake, Jimmy Duncan, and of course Dr. Ron Paul.
Even the Benitoesque ERIC would agree with me (and dude, seriously, just call yourself a Nazi, move into a bunker, and get it over with).
Of all the candidates that the media has predetermined from the start to be “electable” (rofl) Hillary is the most favorable in effect, since we can still rely on the GOP to oppose all of her moves lockstep. We find ourselves when we wander in the wilderness.
One reason that McCain was able to surge so far ahead in such a short time was that many voters realized that after he had gotten considerably further in the earliest primaries than Rudy, they switched over to McCain en masse. If you’re of the neoconservative persuasion, why support a candidate that’s trailing behind in the polls when you could be supporting his much better established political twin? Giuliani was a dismal speaker, too.
ERIC on 30 Jan 2008 at 8:51 pm #
Andrew T.
I’m a Bible Believing White Nationalist.
Not a Nazi.
Jack on 30 Jan 2008 at 10:14 pm #
If our next president is either John McCain or one of the Dem’s and I was the President of Mexico as soon as the election is over in November I would actively help 10,000+ poor peasant families to stream across the border what would we do to stop them? They could play the media have women and kids fighting to get across ‘brutal’ US Immigration Agents apprehending them when all they want is a chance to work and live in America. I would refuse the US attempts to repatriate them. Thus forcing the US to build refuge camps so between the camps to house them and the ‘brutal’ efforts to apprehend them I would start using the media to blow-up the situation and ‘Guantanamo’ the US in the eyes of the world as well as at the UN and follow through with charges against the US Government of human rights violations. As I did this I would continue to assist large groups of a thousand or more to cross over thus continuing to over whelm the Border Agents and local law enforcement. By the time Troops or Nation Guard move toward the borders I would make sure I had a half million across the border including empting my prisons, something like Cuba did a few years back. Of course once the Guard and Troops are on the border they might slow things down but there will be mistakes someone will get hurt or killed so I would urgently approach the UN Security Council asking for action and sanctions against the US for human rights violations of these poor refugees, think of all the countries that would love to be able to do that just to get even.
Working with liberal left-wing groups would stage massive protest about the US’s treatment of these poor immigrants (of course no mention that they are illegal), during these protest they will charge the fence where even more illegals would be waiting to cross over and get lost in the protesting masses. As will happen some US citizens of Hispanic decent will be ask to ID themselves or held for identification and confirmation of citizenship at which time the ACLU will seek an injunction against the Border Patrol and other enforcement Agency claiming constitutional rights violation. Within six months most of the Southwestern United States would for all intent be under the control of Mexico. THE END
Weaver on 30 Jan 2008 at 10:37 pm #
Jack, if they move too quickly though they risk provoking a reaction.
10 years ought to be sufficient time to accomplish the same thing
roho on 30 Jan 2008 at 10:46 pm #
GOD! I love this site!…………………So many great perceptions of the events that unfold before us…….And Patroon……………Good article!
The problem is that we fanatics have more information than the typical voter……..and we tend to forget this.
The Powers of the GOP put a gameplan together that was simply 2-fold:
1. Islamofascist will eat your children if we don’t kill them!
2. Hillary doesn’t know how to kill them!
Nuttin Fancy, simple, clear, war talk………….McCain, being a simple minded meglomaniac understood it well, and stayed focused, as if he were the only guy that could save the world!……It fit the NEOCON’S agenda perfectly, and his challenge came from a cross-dressing mayor, and a cult-religion businessman…….(Huck was unforseen, but not a real threat because the Rockefeller controlled GOP hates Southern Republicans, unless they come from Texas.)….It goes back to the “Southern Manifesto” when Texas surrendered to Leviathan!…………Hillary will be your next President with the lowest voter turnout in U.S. History.(But the GOP Puppets will go back to their Globalist Masters and claim that they did what they were told to do!)……………….I just hope that Conservatives seek out a NEW Party, and leave the GOP to suffer under the whip of Hillary! This present GOP has proven that after 6 full years of controlling all branches of Government and getting virtually NOTHING done from a conservative perspective, that they are IDIOTS!………………..Too stupid for me to be a part of!……….IDIOTS!
Jack on 30 Jan 2008 at 11:19 pm #
What could be done to stop them? What action could you take that someone couldn’t with the media helping not spin it to make the US look like the ‘bad’ guy no matter what we did?
Let me ask you if 10,000 poor pitiable Mexican women children and families were to start in a flood coming across the border what could you do that with say someone like Moveon.org spin it to make it look bad. Families sperated nightly news stories of how I only come so I can get a job and feed my children or there father is here and he has worked here many years he is a good man my children want to be able to see their father. If you worked the children angle you could run ramrod over any attempt to curb it. I can see the hollywood activist now Brad and Anglena visiting the detention camps decrying how can this happen in America! Why they are crowed in with no air conditioning or color tv! Look what the media did with Katrina and after it was over we found out that 80% of what they were reporting wasn’t true! Don’t you remember: “The children are being rape and killed here!” Nothing but an up side for Mexico, they get reid of the poor and clean out their prisons and it should leave them on the whole in good shape.
csason on 30 Jan 2008 at 11:50 pm #
Dang it Andrew.. “Even the Benitoesque ERIC would agree with me (and dude, seriously, just call yourself a Nazi, move into a bunker, and get it over with”
I also believe in an ability for persons of color to segment themselves
without fear or retribution of being called ‘racist’ or ‘nazi’..and the REASON I believe that is my lily white daughters have (all three/four , one passed on) been called all sorts of names simply because they rejected the advances of men and/or boys they didn’t like that happened to be taking advantage of the multicultural ‘dogma’ that is being peddled like pornography.
I too, am a Bible believing White ‘nationalist’ if you will…but I only feel led to make that statement under duress of the current attacks on ‘white’ America, and if you don’t believe there IS an attack on white America, it’s because you like the role of whistling in the dark to avoid the reality of what faces our culture..
It really is the strangest of situations in reality, because I am
a non-prejudiced person that celebrates ‘true’ diversity..and I refuse
to apologize for it.
I have raised my daughters ages 14, 16, (18,d.) a niece that is 18
and 24 through some downright insane times, my friend..the niece’s
mother was raped at knifepoint, and she was in the room asleep as an infant, and yes it was a black man. The entire time he was doing it, he
told her ” You white ‘expletive’, I’ll kill her if you wake her up”
I have listened to my son and daughters come home crying and bloodied
with stories that I did not have to face growing up, and we can attribute
most all of it to the current stream of anti-white, cries of racism, racism
that you currently employ here.
I probably have worn out my welcome, but it is sickening to be railed
using the techniques you employ towards people, when it simply isn’t
true.
Elizabeth Wright on 31 Jan 2008 at 2:52 am #
” . . .and the REASON I believe that is my lily white daughters have (all three/four , one passed on) been called all sorts of names simply because they rejected the advances of men and/or boys they didn’t like that happened to be taking advantage of the multicultural ‘dogma’ that is being peddled like pornography.”
—————
One of the saddest things that has happened in this society is to young white women who, out of the bounds of the protection of white men, must fend for themselves when it comes to the aggressive, and I do mean aggressive advances of black men and boys. It is a free-for-all out there, as these men finally get the opportunity to seduce what they consider Whitey’s precious property. The white woman is really in a precarious position.
Of course, thanks to the poison of feminism, the white woman is no longer viewed as quite so precious. Because of the changes in the social rules, she is often viewed more as an antagonist by white men, deserving of no particular regard. Young whites, of both sexes, are inundated and fervently brainwashed with multicultural B.S. designed to keep them on the defensive, never wishing to offend the coloreds or appear to be “racist.” I was really shocked when I learned directly from young black and white women how the “racism” tag is being used by black men to bully and subdue white females. (Another subject I’m writing about right now.)
That this fear of offending and being smeared with negative labels has entered into even the most intimate sphere of living, i.e., dating and sex, shows the degree of power that white men have lost in this culture. I guess they make themselves feel better by kowtowing to this “equality” stuff, and patting themselves on the back for their noble “anti-racism.”
Weaver on 31 Jan 2008 at 3:25 am #
I recall turning down East Asian and black girls, stating race as the reason, and offending the girls as a result… So I guess it exists there too, though likely to a far greater extent between nonwhite men and white women because of how the dating system works (women tend more to choose the men, men are dominant, and men are more logical and less affected by social pressures.)
Andrew T. on 31 Jan 2008 at 3:42 am #
Weaver,
I’m just not on board on the whole race thing. I am a man of thought. The part of a person that has primacy is in the realm of ideas, what a man or woman has managed to accomplish and arrive at with the resources and opportunities they have been presented in life. Race is an important consideration in choosing your relationships, but amongst a multitude of other factors (whatever Joe or Jane back in the Dark Ages had to say about the matter).
Elizabeth Wright on 31 Jan 2008 at 3:55 am #
“I’m just not on board on the whole race thing. I am a man of thought.”
——-
What a wonderful escape mechanism.
Andrew T. on 31 Jan 2008 at 4:00 am #
Yeah, I know. It is a good escape mechanism. From idiocy.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2008 at 4:34 am #
Bah, rationalism sounds dandy until one tries to locate a foundation to base it upon. What one finds though is an empty void. Fuzzy thinking is all it is.
Irrevocable differences aside, do you ever get the feeling we’re dancing to a puppet master by focusing so on these elections? No matter what we do, we’re destined for an evil twin as President. Wouldn’t, then, it be wiser to expend resources on an activity that would actually yield a harvest?
Or to put it in military terms (to annoy the libertarians among us of course), the wise general chooses his battles. If Paul cannot win, why fight? Why not rather refocus efforts on a battle that can be won? A noble death is honorable, but a noble victory surely more so.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2008 at 5:08 am #
Regarding irrevocable differences,
Christianity seems ideally suited for balancing ethnic ties, though of course there will always be conflict, especially over limited resources, general misunderstandings, and sinful desires to exploit. However, ethnic ties provide positives within ethnic groups that would be otherwise lacking. Remove the ethnic ties, and you have crime, mistrust, and even chaos and fighting. Good borders make good neighbors and man is a social being who naturally exists in a community, not as an asocial individual; such is the best possible solution to an imperfect world that can never be perfected.
—
Regarding our system of mass democracy,
it seems aptly suited for controlling the masses. Any problems with the government and the citizens blame themselves and wait until the next election to do anything about it, the doing they plan on is but voting… Not to say barbaric might-makes-right is preferable, but I long for a more just and ennobling established tradition.
csason on 31 Jan 2008 at 6:44 am #
“Of course, thanks to the poison of feminism, the white woman is no longer viewed as quite so precious. Because of the changes in the social rules, she is often viewed more as an antagonist by white men, deserving of no particular regard.” – Elizabeth Wright
I’d say the ‘poison’ doesn’t really see color (big smile on Andrew) Elizabeth, but I am aware the effects are somewhat different from
race to race, nationality to nationality..
I guess some people just don’t believe it is possible to not be ‘hateful’
and have strong convictions about race, that go against multicultural
themes.
I am proud to say as much as I rejected much of my Father’s teaching as a youth, his example went far beyond what words could ever imply…
All that, and he was about as white and southern as they get.
“If Paul cannot win, why fight? Why not rather refocus efforts on a battle that can be won? A noble death is honorable, but a noble victory surely more so.”- Weaver
Tell the folks in Maine, Minnesota and N. Dakota..The ONLY POTUS candidate they have seen hide nor hair of is Ron Paul, and they seem quite happy about it..and while the train seems to be slowing down, the fact remains that there are almost one thousand delegates to be had, and Ron Paul will probably raise another five million this week.
He is the only candidate running TV and radio in the ignored states..(don’t you just LOVE being ignored ?) AND the only candidate that got the Ronald Reagan endorsement question correct tonight
Andrew T. on 31 Jan 2008 at 7:52 pm #
Weaver,
Wrong again. The basis for a reason-based approach is about as sound as could be imagined: the nature of what exists (which is fixed, not contradictory), and the need to interface with it and adapt to it in a method that is methodical and intrinsically transparent. Yet your opinion is quite a tortured one, that the attempt to understand things is to stare into an “empty void”, in other words an exercise in futility.
Where am I getting this from? No one place in particular; it all just sounds pretty logical if you ask me.
Seriously, Weaver, don’t just blurt things unless you’re certain I can’t dissect them from a thousand valid directions.
roho on 31 Jan 2008 at 10:17 pm #
csason/Elizabeth………………..I feel your pain, understand your perspectives, agree with your disgust, and have watched first hand “The Great Society” of LBJ destroy America……..It was a social engineering experiment that went as bad as the fiction of “Frankenstein!”……..And what was once a “Democracy” envied by the world has become a poster child for how to screw up a Nation!
Our Government never misses an opportunity to tell us that we won the “Cold War”………..Did we?……….Nikita Krucheve said, “I will cause the black man to rise up against the white majority, creating chaos!”……Most don’t remember how Reagan stopped the rioting when he was Governor?
He threatened to put in a curfew, place snipers on the roofs of buildings and tell them to kill every single looter they saw!(And went on to become President). I would never live in a State that does not have the “CASTLE LAW” which is now being passed in more and more states. Because America was a GODLY nation during the last great depression, things went pretty much non-violent……..We have empowered a culture of “Intitlement Mentality” minorities that will make sure that the next depression is a scene from a horific science fiction film!………….And the “Intelectuals Of Reason” will be shocked at the REALITY that reason will NOT work!
Weaver on 01 Feb 2008 at 4:26 am #
Andrew,
I don’t follow what your argument is, but didn’t you say you’re a monarchist at heart? A monarch would be wonderful if such a benevolent man could be found, but I tend to suspect power corrupts. Under a monarchy, we’d be akin to slaves, which, again, might be well and good under the right man.
However, in a more free society, say an aristocracy that is truly a rule by the best, the bonds of the state are ethnic. And the guiding force, religious. Without them, force is necessary.
What the libertarians seem to propose, and perhaps what you favor in America, is a proposition nation bound by libertarian ideals, a theocracy of sorts, albeit one that doesn’t necessarily recognise a God (thus an incomplete religion, also known as an ideology.)
Jan Rogozinski on 01 Feb 2008 at 1:33 pm #
It’s easy enough to say one will vote for a third party.
BUT I watched the Dem debate last nite, the 31st. Osama and Hill both are McCain on steroids when it comes to illegal immigration. The went out of their way to praise the illegal immigrants. (Because they want the Spick vote. But I think in this case they will rule the way they talk.)
And then there is abortion. Osama and Hill both agree that every woman has an absolute right to a free immediate abortion through the nine months of pregnancy and for a week after birth. they say She does not need a reason to demand an abortion; she has an absolute right to one for any reason or for no reason.
And neither of them is calling for an immediate end to America’s genocide in Iraq.
We just voted for Paul in the FL primary, but when it comes to the general election. . . .
_____________________________________________
Sign, why does no one know any history. Monarchy does not mean slavery. In an European country west of Russia, monarchs were much more limited by the laws than Bush is today. At least from the 10th century. through the 19th.
Everyone should at least remember that in the Magna Carta (1215) the king said that he would not imprison nor fine nor harm in any way “any man” without a trial by his peers. Not just any of his subjects but any person. Whereas Bush has exercised his absolute right to imprison any one, any time for life and then torture that person fiendishly.
Democracy means slavery for us all. Monarchy protected folk from slavery and the kind of police terrorism we have today in the USA.
As Bracton said in the 12trh century. “The king is inferior to no human person, but he is under the law. Because it is the law that made him king.” I.e., a king that did not obey the laws deserved to be overthrown.
Read about Franz Joseph in the Habsburg Empire. The laws were made by a Parliament elected by one man, one vote. (of course, women were not allowed to vote, as was also true in the USA.) FJ did not interfere in local elations except when the guy who taught Hitler to hate Jews was elected mayor of Vienna. In that one case, FJ annulled the election. Of course, Jews never are grateful and did not support Blessed Charles, FJs sainted son. when he tried to hold on to the empire.
The wages of sin is death. Hungarian jews were never better off than under FJ. thus by betraying him, the jews fully deserved to die at Auschwitz under Hitler.
Andrew T. on 01 Feb 2008 at 5:07 pm #
There are very few benevolent politicians whether monarch, democrat, or republican, but I think monarchy is a more liberal system in that it allows more individual freedom than democracy. A constitutional monarchy has severe limits to its power, and many pre-modern monarchies could not levy taxation over 5%. No, there is nothing just about being someone’s slave, and monarchy has nothing necessarily to do with that. A monarchy is a privately owned government whose leaders are appointed on heritage.
I’m not about propositional nations, just propositional political programs.
Andrew T. on 01 Feb 2008 at 11:12 pm #
Jan,
Does your ‘stache grow in a rectangular formation? You always say something amazingly ignorant and crude about Jews that you that you have absolutely no way of defending to anyone that knows anything.