Here's another way of looking at the issue of how social conservatives ought to view McCain's 1970s marital misconduct in the year 2008. Last July, I argued that Louisiana's David Vitter ought to resign his office after he more or less admitted to having frequented prostitutes. I stand by that position. However, if David Vitter - having conspicuously failed to resign - were to face off in a Presidential race against Barack Obama, I would be inclined to hold my nose and vote for Vitter. I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction here, any more than I think there would be a contradiction for a culturally-conservative Democrat to simultaneously believe that Bill Clinton ought to have resigned over the Lewinsky affair while declining to regret having voted for Clinton over Bob Dole in '96. Regretting the passing of a particular moral standard does not require one to always vote as if that standard were still in place.
« The Character Issue (II) | Main | Today's '80s Flashback »
McCain and Vitter
09 Jun 2008 06:14 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://38.118.71.136/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/22039
Comments (74)
Go Team Red!
Thank you, yes, this is clear.
You are a Republican, and this sense of solidarity with being an Republican (and their policies) trumps your ethical sense of the candidates presented.
Hey, you get to choose your team - no problem with that. I'm a Giants fan, myself.
Go Republicans!
"Regretting the passing of a particular moral standard does not require one to always vote as if that standard were still in place."
Pretending that a piece of garbage like Vitter - who in addition to his other faults is a torture-loving fan of the Iraq War and oe of Dumbya's most reliable lackeys - is worthy of the presidency is revolting beyond belief.
But then if the ticket were magicly Bush/Cheney '08 Ross would vote for them, too. There is no degree of perfidy and incompetence that would lead him to vote for a non-GOP ticket.
If it doubt, double down on the hypocrisy.
You don't even consider the possibility of maybe just not voting.
At what point, short of child murder, would you not vote for the Republican? That should narrow it down a bit.
James wonders: "At what point, short of child murder, would you not vote for the Republican? That should narrow it down a bit."
I don't think child murder would do it, since the Iraq War doesn't even begin to faze him. If a GOP candidate were filmed performing an abortion on a church altar on Easter morning I think Ross would consider going 3rd party, though. Ya gotta have standards.
I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction here
Sure, just as Catholics who are concerned about torture and unjust war can vote for pro-choice candidates. You vote on what you care about.
Individual adultery is less important to you than continuing warrantless wiretapping or cutting taxes regardless of their context or impact (or whichever other issues you base your GOP affiliation on). No need to erect any intellectual scaffolding to justify that-- we all do it.
It's not even that - Ross hasn't tried to use the greater good argument - e.g. the sliminess of the individual person is outshone by the policies of the party. An obvious defense could have abortion.
No, It's flat outright, no matter how bad the person is, I will vote because they are Republican. I think this man is unfit to hold office, but I will vote for him because etc.
Pathetic. Just pathetic.
It's a shame Ross isn't an intellectual giant, because he has proved he's a moral pygmy.
No need to erect any intellectual scaffolding to justify that-- we all do it.
Except that he (and many other conservative intellecatuals) DO feel the need to erect said scaffolding.
That's a much better way of putting it.
But, but, but... Vitter went to Harvard!
Except of course, that prostitution is illegal. Again, Ross, like most of your conservative moralist brethren, you're full of shit and an intellectual fraud. Tell me again about the elasticity of liberal ethics.
This blog is starting to resemble Dinesh D'Souza's: the proprietor posts some naked partisan diatribe on current events, commenters of various ideological stripes explain his own vapidity to him, proprietor moves on to next partisan diatribe, rinse, repeat.
"At what point, short of child murder, would you not vote for the Republican? That should narrow it down a bit"
As a matter of fact, Child murder is the reason alot of people bother voting republican or at all.
I guess I'm the only person who thought Ross's argument made perfect sense. If all things are equal, vote for the guy with character; if not, vote on more important things like ideology. Character matters, but obviously not so much that you're going to vote for someone who's diametrically opposed to you on the issues.
Ross' argument here doesn't chap my hide too badly, though I can see the other side.
That said, I hope McCain names Vitter as his running mate, just for the hilarity of the inevitable anti-GOP "Warmonger/Whoremonger '08" bumper stickers.
Just give it up already! Obviously, your readers have caught up to you, after 3 posts on this issue- you could tell from their various deconstructions, psychoanalysis, diatribes, etc. on your various treatise.
However, I have always enjoyed reading our columns and will continue to.
Look! A human pretzel!
Obama vs. Larry Craig -- who do you vote for?
Be careful how you answer!!
Ross,
As I just wrote in a post on the original character issue post below, the saying goes that no one can break up a happy marriage. Is it really preferable as an incentive for marriages to stay together even when they are transparently unhappy or politically motivated? Does that model intimacy or love, or instead social approbation at the cost of those very values? There’s an intuitive appeal, at one level, to the kind of public standards you espouse, but there are real complications to be addressed as to the impact it would have in practice.
Yes, Ross, you should probably vote on the basis of your policy preferences. And yes, in doing so, you forfeit the right to upbraid opposing candidates for shortcomings you are willing to overlook in your favorites; or more precisely, you forfeit the right to be taken seriously if your moral condemnations fall along ideological or partisan lines.
"However, if David Vitter - having conspicuously failed to resign - were to face off in a Presidential race against Barack Obama, I would be inclined to hold my nose and vote for Vitter."
TR: Well I wouldn't. Prostitution isn't merely unpleasant or disagreeable it's illegal and Vitter knew it. Plus I have no sympathy for Johns, especially rich or powerful or married ones. If you're in Congress and you can't get the kind of woman you want for free you're either a loser or some kind of freak.
True I vote Pro-Life, but I don't think that means you have to vote for any criminal or psychopath the Republicans select.
Vitter would never have been the nominee so this is purely theoretical. However if McCain were arrested for soliciting a prostitute, or dealing marijuana, I'm pretty sure I'd vote write-in or third-party. (Although if it was marijuana exclusively for cancer patients I might stay with voting for him)
So Ross, It's Ok As Long As You Are a Republican?
Hell, we on the other side have heard that for years. Standard excuse--expediency rules.
Just don't be too upset when we point out the hypocrisy, ok?
"However, if David Vitter - having conspicuously failed to resign - were to face off in a Presidential race against Barack Obama, I would be inclined to hold my nose and vote for Vitter."
This is why there will be nothing left of the Republican party but smoking crater in November.
More please.
Wouldn't this logic lead me to vote for someone, and then call for their resignation on their first day in office? Isn't that a bit of a strange cycle to get in to?
Fitz may finally be telling the truth: "Child murder is the reason alot of people bother voting republican or at all."
That's true - people who want to keep on murdering Iraqi children will continue to vote for Republicans.
Ross,
I really think you need to take a step back and realize how badly your statements about Vitter completely undermine any argument you might make about how politicians' moral qualities ought to factor into the election process at all. Reading your thoughts, it sounds like your conclusion is that, if you have a choice between two politicians who you agree with completely on policies, one of whom is a modern-day saint, and one of whom is an absolute moral disaster, then you should vote for the first. Which is a conclusion that I think everyone would agree with. But if you agree with the second more than the first on issues, then you just ought to 'hold your nose' and vote for the disaster. In which case, your morality doesn't count for very much at all.
If you care, I posted a longer version of this argument here.
David Samuels
damnlefties.wordpress.com
"At what point, short of child murder, would you not vote for the Republican? That should narrow it down a bit"
As a matter of fact, Child murder is the reason alot of people bother voting republican or at all.
Good one, Fitz. I'm pro-choice myself but that doesn't mean I can't spot a good retort. Touche!
As for the issue at hand, I can see the merits of Ross's argument, but I can also see why people might think that's somewhat hypocritical.
At the heart of it, I think the whole thing speaks to the stupidity of campaigning on character issues in the first place. They are not persuasive to idealogical supporters, and as we've seen with Obama and his church, they end up becoming witch hunts about fairly innocuous issues. Best to just stick with the issues and ignore the character stuff.
Ross! Put down the logic and back slowly out of the room. You're going to injure yourself.
Ross is just admitting (sort of) what we've all known for years. Republican values consist exclusively of:
(1) Endless war (which enriches Republicans)
(2) Tax cuts for the enriched
Everything else ("family values", small government, supposed fiscal responsibility) is mere window dressing.
At least Ross is almost being honest about that. It's more than a lot of Republican hacks would ever do.
One point that no one has really touched on yet:
In months past, Ross has made several posts lamenting that Republican control of both Congress and the White House hasn't translated into more socially conservative government, and discussing how and why the Republican party largely just pays lip service to issues that social conservatives care about.
My bet is that he does not recognize the correlation between that series of posts and this series.
Completely preposterous, Ross.
Vitter's unfit to be in the Senate but would nonethless be your choice to lead the free world?
The whoopee either matters or it doesn't. Your ethical needle-threading is downright Clintonian.
And let's not even get into the hypocrisy factor, which I might argue demands that we hold right-wing moralists to a higher standard when they get caught with trousers at ankles.
Clinton's politics, unlike David Vitters's or Larry Craig's, did not involve active and unforgiving opprobium for the very behaviors they were engaged in.
If a woman want's a divorce, maybe because her gas-bag husband continually goes on about "character" issues as our friend Ross does, ain't nobody's business but theirs.
If she finds herself pregnant, and opts to terminate that pregnancy, it ought to be business between her, the father, their doctor, and their personal beliefs.
Much of what you call moral and character issues are, in fact, personal character and moral issues. Divorce, fidelity, pregnancy. Personal character issues are not public business, they're private business.
Starting a war based misinformation and lies, and the thousands and thousands of deaths and maimings that result, falls into the arena of public character and morals, and it's what we should be discussing. That is the major lesson conservatives taught us during the Clinton years.
McCain is a reprehensible person because of his support of illegal war. He may be a reprehensible person because he abandoned his first wife and cheats on his second; but that's their business. I'll stick to what I know -- he's supported the Iraq war effort, and should be held accountable for his actions. He does not have the character or morals I seek in a president.
Douthat may be a loyal and loving husband, or he may chase after young boys in his dreams or, for all I know, have a shoe fetish. I don't know, and I don't care to know. It has nothing to do with his ability -- or inability -- to build a logical argument or tell a compelling tale for The Atlantic. And suggesting that one provides insight into the other is silly.
If Douthat's gone through all this twisting and turning to suggest that he shouldn't hold McCain to the same standard to which conservatives held Clinton, I can only say one thing: even the right is slipping toward the center, even idealistic children can grow up and become adults, able to sift the difference between public morals and private morals.
Now if we could only see some small indication of accepting responsibility and making amends. . .
I don't think most of the commenters understand Ross' moral universe, and come at this issue with the moral dudgeon of an enraged National Enquirer reporter. Here's what the Vatican has to say:
It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4)
Appalled Moderate,
I think you have missed Ross's post utterly - it was not an issue of the 'greater good' at all, which is Andrew Sullivan's argument on Obama despite being pro-life;
Ross said he would back McCain, who he thinks should not hold office due to his actions, because he was Republican, and there is no point have morals if they actually cost you something.
Then he doubled down with saying he would vote for a man he called to resign (Vittner) if he was Republican Presidential nominee.
Try to be appalled at what everyone else was actually appalled with.
"don't understand Ross' moral universe"
It's more a moral trailer park.
"Regretting the passing of a particular moral standard..."
At least that's a better formulation than your previous carping about "masculine honor". If you aren't personally willing to don your Clan Burberry kilt and make war upon the English occupiers for the glory of Midlothian, I don't want to hear any more kvetching from you about the demise of masculine honor.
However, the reason this particular "moral standard" passed (and the scare quotes are there because the only thing that has changed is the likelihood that politicians who screw whores will be caught and publicly exposed) is because the people who claim to care about these standards don't care enough to actually punish their own kind. Not even in primary elections.
Hell, Wayne Gilcrest of Maryland got axed by his own Republican constituents this year just for committing the cardinal sin of being insufficiently supportive of a bad war. Will Vitter meet the same fate in the next election cycle for his behavior? Somehow I doubt it. Larry Craig is toast because his particular sin was totally gay, but Vitter merely whored around on his wife and therefore passes the time-honored "dead girl/live boy" moral test.
This state of affairs exists because despite your best efforts to turn the Republican Party into a sane, decent party that cares about people -- instead of a pack of disgraceful industry shills, crooks, and war nuts -- Rank and file Republicans don't want to change. And single-issue abortion voters like you have abandoned all other moral standards and become full-time apologists.
James:
If you read -- as oppose to react -- you might notice that the argument is that Ross believes that personal caddishness is a factor that a voter can and should take into account, but it should not be determinative.
That's not hypocracy. It's just a balancing of the moral interests (similar to one any Catholic or somewhat-lapsed Catholic) goes through in voting for any politician.
Here's a short list of other Republicans Ross would vote for over Obama:
Scooter Libby
Michael Brown
Donald Rumsfeld
Dick Cheney
Jack Abramoff
Tom DeLay
Karl Rove
I should have said "solely determinative".
I should have said "solely determinative".
No, that's not what he said.
At all.
19 Jul 2007 05:29 pm
..Vitter should not be sitting in the United States Senate while the "D.C. Madam" is facing up to 55 years in prison for selling what he was apparently interested in buying.
they shouldn't be backing Vitter's "it's a private matter" line. It isn't. It's a crime.
and now...
if David Vitter - having conspicuously failed to resign - were to face off in a Presidential race against Barack Obama, I would be inclined to hold my nose and vote for Vitter
Try reading the posts yourself. And perhaps reading in general.
James:
Vitter is anti-abortion. Obama isn't. Given the weight Ross assigns to the issue, THAT is what is determinative -- not the D or R following the name.
You may think it amounts to the same thing. It really isn't.
AM,
That might be true, but it is nowhere in the text of the posts, so it is inferred.
Appalled Moderate writes: "Vitter is anti-abortion. Obama isn't. Given the weight Ross assigns to the issue, THAT is what is determinative -- not the D or R following the name."
So as long as a candidate says he's against abortion, it doesn't matter how big a low-life scumbag he is, or that he's also a torture-loving warmonger.
So why bother discussing other issues at all? What anti-abortion candidates would trouble Ross? Osama bin Laden? Fred Phelps? There has to be a dividing line where he'd have qualms stronger than "holding his nose." How about Crazy Jim Inhofe?
The Gospel Accoding to Nyuk:
Not being Ross, it would be a touch presumptuous to speak for him. But a sophisticated moral conscience is going to weigh many factors to reach a conclusion on who to vote for. This includes, not only a candidates personal virtues or vices, but his stance on abortion, torture, immigration, social justice, and gay marriage. Different people weigh these things differently.
What I find, n a lot of Ross' comment threads, is that the commenters think Ross, by his profession of his faith, is a hypocrite if he is not a moral absolutist on the one issue the commenters are going on about. Conscience does not work that way. Faith does not work that way.
Appalled "Moderate" writes: "Conscience does not work that way. Faith does not work that way."
If Ross's faith works to perpetuate the scum that has rise to the top over the past 8 years (and it does) I'd suggest that it doesn't work very well at all. And he does his best to avoid talking about some of the issues you mentioned, so let's have him show his work sometime.
Appalled Neo-Con replies: "Gospel According to Nyuck:
Ross has discussed this very issue."
Which "very issue" is that, Chumley? James is right, you don't read. I was talking about the other issues mentioned in your 1:09 post as well. That's why I said "some of the issues you mentioned." It's neat how language works once you start paying attention to it.
By the way, if Ross is REALLY all that chuffed about abortion, why does his grand plan for the revival of the GOP by sucking up to "Sam's Club Republicans" place relatively little importance on the issue?
And you are falling into the category I describe in the second paragraph of my 1:09.
Ross linked post is a pretty good demonstration on how a conservative Catholic looks at abortion vs. other issues. There is a lot of support in Catholic doctrine for looking at things that way. The hundreds of thousands of abrtions performed in this country really is considered more serious than the ghastly intervention in Iraq, torture or the death penalty. Thing that Ross weighing of issues does not take into account is that there is precious little politicians can do about abortion -- Roe v. Wade being the law of the land, and the GOP not really acting in a manner designed to eliminate it.
You can disagree with Catholic dogma. (Judging by your handle, I don't think Christian faith is something you do.) But it is really a pretty serious misunderstanding of your host to rail about his hypocracy. He is acting in accordance with the Catholic Church's teachings on voting.
Appalled Neo-Con replies: "You can disagree with Catholic dogma. (Judging by your handle, I don't think Christian faith is something you do.) But it is really a pretty serious misunderstanding of your host to rail about his hypocracy. He is acting in accordance with the Catholic Church's teachings on voting."
In that case he should stop pretending to be a conservative pundit and should just bill himself as a Catholic pundit. If that one issue swamps everything else to that extent then he's the most predictable writer in America.
But here's the thing - I don't believe him. He would have supported Giuliani as well, and there was simply never a reason to think Rudy would really appoint a dogmatic lifer to the Court. He's never cared about the issue. It's party before country and party before fetus in the GOP.
AM,
It is not in his posts. It is not in the post on this actual page. It is in your mind. Like I said, it was possible that he is weighing up moral questions, and picking the least worst option. That is probably what you do, and so you give him the same ethical standpoint you have.
But based on what he has written in the three posts about this subject, it's pretty clear his position.
A partisan courtesan.
Er, given Ross' views on "Sam's Club" issues, McCain is clearly sub-optimal as president (Vitter would be too). But even ignoring abortion, where both would be obviously vastly better than Obama, Ross probably thinks their policies are _closer_ to good for the people of the country than Obama's. Most conservatives (and certainly not Ross and Reihan with their 'programme') don't sign on purely and only to be pro-war (which Ross isn't particularly, these days, that I can tell) or anti-abortion (which he is, but it's hardly his own issue). Some of the problem here seems to come down to people assuming:
1) McCain's foreign policy is so terrible that it dwarfs every possible other issue. I doubt Ross believes that; I'm at least dubious about it (I think in practice there will be less difference between Obama's actions and McCain's than I'd like, both ways) -- this is a reasonable POV, but Ross apparently doesn't buy it, and it's not something axiomatic.
2) There is no WAY you could prefer McCain's policies on anything else, other than abortion, enough to make him a winning choice. But while McCain is indeed sub-optimal, I think Ross would prefer his bad policies to Obama's. Furthermore, McCain's are less likely to lead to long-term directions that will be really problematic. There's nothing absurd about this being a weighty enough preference to overcome character issues.
This is mostly leaving immigration out of the picture, of course.
Look, if you axiomatically assume conservative policies, or pseudo-semi-at-least-more-conservative policies can't POSSIBLY be good, and everyone secretly knows this, Ross looks like a total hypocrite fool. If you assume he believes what he says about how the government should be run, it seems pretty reasonable. Character is important, but other things (the good of the United States?) may outweigh it, surely. And Vitter should have resigned.
Marquis,
That's all fine. But it also means he has to put a sock on it regarding the moralizing because when the rubber hits the road, it's not really that important to him. Revealed preferences as our U of C friends might say.
TMOC,
The point at which Ross lost any semblance of internal self-consistency with his moral stances is when he admitted that he would vote for David Vitter, who he considers unqualified to hold the seat of Senator from Louisiana, for President of the United States.
If it's policies uber alles that's fine. But lose the self-righteous moralizing. I believe that the reason Ross would vote for Vitter over Obama is that he agrees with Vitter on policies. But if that's the case, then his statement that politicians ought to be held accountable for their behavior is rendered entirely meaningless by his unwillingness to follow his own prescriptions.
David Samuels
damnlefties.wordpress.com
TMoC writes: "Look, if you axiomatically assume conservative policies, or pseudo-semi-at-least-more-conservative policies can't POSSIBLY be good, and everyone secretly knows this, Ross looks like a total hypocrite fool. If you assume he believes what he says about how the government should be run, it seems pretty reasonable."
Not at this point in history it doesn't. There's every reason to think McCain's 1st term would be an extension of Dumbya. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two in terms of policy. We need to shake things up in a serious fashion.
I like your use of "sub-optimal," though. What a slogan for the GOP! "Welcome To Sub-Optimal America!" A wiretap and every phone and a foreclosure notice on every block and an endless war just for fun!
Why does Ross hate America?
My grandmother taught me that if your behavior seems shameful to you, and can only be justified via tortuous explanation, you ought to consider again.
Basically, this is just a long-winded exercise in hypocrisy. The premise is that a given behavior is terrible if liberals or centrists engage in it, merely distasteful if the conservative "family values" crowd engages in it.
Pfui.
"If you assume he believes what he says about how the government should be run, it seems pretty reasonable." Marquis of Carabas
TR: In a purely pragmatic way perhaps. Even then I'm not sure. Voting for someone you know is a criminal because you prefer his policies sounds risky to me. If he implodes, which seems likely, the policies you like can get discredited.
This is why the analogy to Vitter is largely nonsensical to me. McCain's marital problems are distasteful, but were legal and decades old. Vitter's were illegal and relatively recent. (Granted not recent enough to be within the statute of limitations for solicitation it seems) If McCain was shown to have solicited prostitutes from 1999 to 2002, about the period Vitter did, than I really don't see how I could vote for him. He would quite plausibly hurt and discredit conservative policies more than help them.
1-800-DOUTHAT
When you bang a slut
And you're a wingnut -
Who ya gonna call?
SLUTBUSTERS!
He aint afraid of no Dems!
He's got a bunch of amens!
SLUTBUSTERS!
Thomas R.,
As a point of information, adultery is in fact illegal in most states. I believe that the constitutionality of these statutes is in question now thanks to that absurd Supreme Court Decision, "Lawrence v. Texas". But they were certainly on the books till a couple years ago.
"As a point of information, adultery is in fact illegal in most states" Hector
TR: I didn't think that was right. I knew it was illegal in a few states that dated from colonial times, like Maryland, but not in most of them. However 26 states apparently do have such laws on the books. I'm not sure 26 counts as "most", but it is a majority. Few states have prosecuted such laws since World War II, although Alabama did so until the 1990s. They're apparently unchallenged because they're essentially "dead laws" that only exist in books but are never used. (There are probably statutes on chamberpots or witchcraft, which are also dead)
I'm certainly not libertarian, but I think I favor a bit more freedom in private matters than you. So I'm guessing you mean they should be enforced. However at least some of these states also have laws on the book banning fornication, which I know you would not want to see those enforced, so I'm not sure.
Thomas,
Well, adultery is the violation of a contract that is witnessed by the state as well as by the relevant religious authority. (As the proponents of gay marriage are so fond of telling us.) Whereas fornication is really a matter that concerns the people involved and their God. (Unless they're under 18, or are cheating on their boyfriend/girlfriend, or so forth). So I see a relevant distinction between them both in the moral gravity of the act and also in the degree to which the state has the right to get involved.
I of course don't want to see people get _jail time_ for adultery, but I don't see what harm is done by having some laws on the books to make a moral statement. In the late 1990s there was an effort in MA by some good-government types to publish a list of public officials who had committed adultery. The legal justification for this was that adultery was a crime (although the actual motivation was of course popular annoyance at public sex scandals).
Regretting the passing of a particular moral standard does not require one to always vote as if that standard were still in place.
This is a very strange statement, it essentially amounts to "I believe something is wrong. Other people disagree. Therefore I will act as if I believed it is not wrong."
So Ross, by extension, some of those very anti-abortion folks should now reason that it's okay if they have abortions because every else does?
A rather curious personal moral philosophy.
I have a few questions for all of the outraged lefties on this thread:
Do you presume that the people of Massachusetts, who have repeatedly sent Ted Kennedy back to the Senate, think that cheating on a Spanish exam in college is wrong? What about driving a car (drunk?), committing vehicular manslaughter, failing to report an accident to the police, etc...
Are Massachusetts voters hypocrites if they do in fact think the above is wrong and yet went ahead and voted for Kennedy anyways?
Do you presume that the people of West Virginia, who have repeatedly sent Robert Byrd back to the Senate, look down upon the Ku Klux Klan, segregation, and the racism that inspired both?
Are these voters hypocrites if they think the above is wrong and yet voted for Byrd, who was an Exalted Cyclops and a kleagle in the Klan and personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The Democratic party bills itself as the party that's opposed to the powerful and privileged getting special preferences, and loves to assert its moral superiority on the race issue, and yet Senator Kennedy did not spend a single day in jail after causing the death of a young woman, while Senator Byrd was a disaster on civil rights when it mattered most. These two have had long careers in the Senate are generally considered giants in the Democratic Party.
Here's what I think. I think the voters of Massachusetts are disgusted by Senator Kennedy's many failings, yet they generally approve of his stances on issues they care about, which is why they vote for him. This does not make them terrible people or even hypocrites, and the same goes for the voters of West Virginia regarding Senator Byrd.
If this makes sense, then maybe you can understand why a social conservative could still vote for Senator McCain despite his obvious moral failings. If this is too much nuance on the other hand, then I better start seeing some serious lashings of the Democratic voters of Massachusetts and West Virginia.
torourke concludes: "If this makes sense, then maybe you can understand why a social conservative could still vote for Senator McCain despite his obvious moral failings. If this is too much nuance on the other hand, then I better start seeing some serious lashings of the Democratic voters of Massachusetts and West Virginia."
It makes no sense whatsoever, actually. But thanks for playing the part of Cartoon Conservative Jerkoff Who Brings Up Ted Kennedy And Robert Byrd By Reflex so perfectly! It's like you were born for the role!
torourke,
Since you didn't bother to read the post, or work out what the main bone of contention was, let me restate it.
Ross is NOT stating the vote is for the 'greater good' in these posts. He says (right at the top, if you can use your scroll wheel) that he would vote as President a man he thinks unfit for the senate. Because he has the (R).
That's why he has been slated. But fair enough that you didn't catch that. 65 comments is a lot to read, I'm sure.
MoeLarryAndJesus: Here's a short list of other Republicans Ross would vote for over Obama:
Scooter Libby
Michael Brown
Donald Rumsfeld
Dick Cheney
Jack Abramoff
Tom DeLay
Karl Rove
You left out Ted Bundy. If the candidate offers the all-important tax cut for millionaires, that's obviously all that matters.
And of course, since killed his victims having first raped them, then it reduces abortions.
He's got my vote
Vitter - Bundy 2012!
One Pays, One Slays
Why does most people's view of the Catholic take on politics begin and end with abortion? FYI, the Vatican is also opposed to capital punishment and the Iraq War. Yet I don't see good Catholics like Douhat who are "voting their morals" too concerned about THOSE issues. More proof that their moral position is merely one of expediency.
Ah, now I see how Republicans manage to stomach themselves.
"I better start seeing some serious lashings of the Democratic voters of Massachusetts and West Virginia."
TR: This analogy fails because Ross was talking about if Vitter was the GOP nominee.
Ted Kennedy never became the Democrats nominee and Byrd wouldn't either. Now if a Democrat said that Byrd should resign because of his problematic elements, but that if he was the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee they'd vote for him, I'd think that person was also being pretty foolish.
Although as I'm not a lefty this wasn't addressed at me.
Thomas R,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't think the analogy fails because Ross's hypothetical, to a certain extent, was the political reality facing many Democrats in 1980 when Senator Kennedy launched his insurgent campaing to unseat President Carter. I would like to think that there were many Democrats who felt that Kennedy should have resigned his Senate seat following the Chappaquiddick fiasco. Yet as the years went by and it became clear that Kennedy wasn't going anywhere, I could imagine some of those same Democrats who felt Kennedy should have resigned "holding their nose" and voting for Kennedy in a primary (he won ten of them) because of his policies. Does this make them fools or hypocrites? I can respect the person who argues yes, as you do, but I can also see the other side.
That being said, I hope to God Vitter does not run for President.
Cheers.
"me again about the elasticity of liberal ethics."
"Ah, now I see how Republicans manage to stomach themselves.
Excellent points. The cries of moral relativism from the right reflect a degree of super human cognitive dissonance and compartmentalism that we mere mortals can only hope to aspire to...
To torourke -
I think the voters of Massachusetts can recognize hypocrisy whether theirs or others. For me, the hypocrite of concern is Ross, not Vitter...
"That being said, I hope to God Vitter does not run for President."
TR: Despite his faults I doubt he's that foolish. In addition to that Ted Kennedy had name recognition of a kind that Vitter doesn't.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Ross ends abruptly: "Regretting th"
Did the pressure of his own hypocrisy cause him to vaporize mid-post?
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 6:24 PM