Battered Spouse Syndrome

Michelle Malkin links to Mary Kay Ham feeding back on a John McCain campaign conference call. MK uses the concept of a lover's quarrel to discuss McCain's relationship with bloggers. For the record, my battered spouse line isn't directed at MK personally.

Call me the tough love type. McCain is courting the blogosphere because he wants something. I don't care that he wasn't doing it before, what I care about are positions that he has taken over the last six years - and more. Frankly I can't even remember everything for which I see him as unacceptable for POTUS.

The Gang of 14, early open criticism of the war ... why bother. I had the good fortune to be listening to the Mark Levin Show on the way home as he played a Reagan Speech from 1964. I would advise anyone who fancies himself a conservative, or even a libertarian to listen to it. You will realize we are fighting many of the same battles now as conservatism was then.

Let me say it again, in context, it is that important. It's an amazing speech I never heard, being about 7 at the time. And I am not waiting for some reincarnation of Reagan - sadly, that isn't a standard I can afford to wait around and indulge.

In 1982, he was elected to Congress representing what was then the first congressional district of Arizona. In 1986, he was elected to the United States Senate

But while I honor him for his incredibly difficult military service, John McCain has been on the political scene for about 25 years. In that time, he has been as much a part of the problem as he ever was a solution.

With all due respect, pull up a cushion Senator - you're sleeping on the couch. Consider it a way station en route to the door. Politics may make for strange bedfellows. But President Bush has been far from a hallmark of conservatism. And I'll be damned if I'll take a risk on getting screwed by someone who hasn't been faithful all too many times before.

Comments

[Rodney A Stanton]

I was a Dem at the time (past president of my college YD as a matter of fact) But when I heard that speech I had to vote for Barry! I voted for Ronnie manny times the next 20 years and never once regretted it. My last Dem vote was for another "Read my Lips!..." bogus conservative named Jimmy. For your youngsters Jimmy was going to throw away the Tax Code because we would all pay 12% of our gross income in Federal taxes. He was cong to shrink the Federal Government - The name of his ultra conservative plan to shrink the government was "Zero Based Budgeting". Jimmy never came close to delivering on his promises in 1977-1981! Ronnie did!
Ronnie unlike any politican in the last 50 years said what he meant and meant what he said. Very unique.

[Kite]

Your absolutely right! God could have forced Adam to do as he wished but instead gave him free will, buuuut then again we should all be aware by now that, despite God's good intentions for us to create a holy and somewhat livable life on our own, we have done nothing but spit on all of the values that God had expressed.

I'm not an out-of-control religious zealout. I understand that your relationship with God is your own personal journey, HOWEVER, the rules aren't different depending on the person. You can't just rewrite faith to fit your own personal convictions....thats not the way it works, but people will still go on doing as they please so we deal with it.

Do I disagree with gay marriage and the total homosexual lifestyle in general? Yes maam I do and if I was asked publicly how I felt about it I would gladly tell whomever asked regardless if your gay or not. I'm not going out picking a fight and gay bashing so quit speaking to me like I am, but I don't have to be tolerate when it's being shoved in my face.

Oh, your right. All men are created equal but the "created equal" is just about as far as it goes. What a person does beyond that age of accountability determines their worth in this world.

I'm just curious though, what area of Law do you practice? Are you some state appointed lawyer? Prosecutor? Defense? Some trial lawyer that chases corporations to file a never ending barrage of class action lawsuits because you think they are evil? Workers comp representative? Some civil rights lawyer? Specialize in Art and copyrights? Trademarks? Do you represent someone in the entertainment field? Sports? Ambulance chaser?

You claim to have attended Law-school. I just want to know where your alleged expertise lies.

[TheSpartan]

"Marriage is a religious institution."

I'm an Athiest who was married in a secular ceremony, don't tell me marriage is a religious institution.

[Kite]

Spartan - Hooraaaay for you. Why did you even waste the time of those who showed up? Why not just run to the courthouse and pick up your legal papers and be united by the justice? You would have saved a ton of money by not having a "mock ceremony".

Sorry if I seem abrasive today. I'm just fed up with liberalist socialist crowd that's destroying my country right now.

[yd]

kite,

i don't claim anything. the degree and two bar admissions certificates on my wall speak for me. as for what type of law i practice, what does that have to do with the discussion? are you going to judge what kind of person i am by how i make a living? how typically small-minded of your type.

you are entitled to YOUR beliefs. and honestly, i don't disagree with you on a theological level about how we have not lived up to what god expects of us. but we are talking about how to run a country. a country full of people who DO NOT believe what you believe and never will. religious righties like you claim that "it's being shoved in [your] face" when in fact the group doing the shoving is you. i am admanantly pro-choice because i was raped once. i accept that it's murder but i also believe it is necessary because women should not be forced to bear children they don't want. i don't presume that i have a right to make that choice for anyone but me. you on the other hand i'm sure think it's your moral duty to "save the babies". who's imposing on who really?

all i am saying (and you keep proving) is that religious righties cannot get it through their heads that some people will never follow god, no matter what. that was true in the old testament, the new testament, during the crusades, the inquisition, right on up to today. we have NEVER lived in a world where everyone believed in the same, one god. and we never will. i'm not calling you a gay-basher, but i am calling you intolerant. and (to return to the point of the discussion) that is why you cannot get majority support in this country for your views despite that fact that most americans self-identify as christians and the majority attend church servies on a regular basis.

by the way, if you want to know what kind of law i practice, show how's it's relevant to the discussion and i will tell you.

[yd]

kite,

another reason why you are out-of-control, "your country"? i was born here and pay taxes here. this is not "your country".

[Kite]

Sorry to hear about your past. I understand that what you experienced is something that should never happen to anyone. I'm not heartless...thats just awful. However, and I understand this wont make me popular with the ladies (thank God im already wed), I just don't see how an abortion is a solution to the original problem.

If you don't want the child thats perfectly fine, but the child doesn't know that. There are plenty of people who can't have children due to genetics or infirtility. Thats why we have adoption. As for myself? I'm not completely anti-abortion but I always lean towards the side of life. Unless the life is found to be lacking in quality (Example: numerous genetic mutations, possibly life shortening diseases or syndromes, or if the pregnancy will kill the mother) then I could make the decision on whether or not we cross that bridge. Oh, if it's my child it DOES concern me...i'll be damned if i'm going to let my wife make that decision without me.

I won't condemn your choice. That was your own personal endeavor and no amount of argueing will change that and as I said before I am deeply sorry that you had to go through that. It's not my duty to save the babies and I don't pretend to think that it is. In fact, I don't think that life begins exactly at conception....more like when the blood enters the body. Leviticus states that "The life is in the blood".

Anyways, your right. Not everyone will follow God and thats a shame. I apologize if I have come across as abrasive, pushy, and if one could forgive me for saying so...like an asshole. I will concede, not because I have been beaten, but because I may have crossed a line. As for your practice in law? As i said...curiosity.

There are too many times in this country where we have lawyers/attorneys who, instead of representing their clients and making correct decisions on presenting a case.....we have representatives who are more concerned with their own agendas of destroying people with legal action or, despite some of the most OBVIOUS evidence, they set free some of the most despicable people on th planet. I understand they have jobs but sometimes theres gotta be a limit.

[Kite]

Sorry, "our country" You pay taxes and you were born here and that should make us allies. If so, then lets try and stop this country from heading towards socialism and try and keep the freedoms that we enjoy indeed "free"

[yd]

kite,

i get your frustration because i feel it too. but mostly now i am frustrated that even though i believe in god and the bible and am generally a good person, because i also believe that our constitution requires us to be tolerant i am demonized.

our founding fathers truly understood that allowing religious views into politics creates an unstable government because then what is right and wrong depends on someone's moral make-up which changes depending on the person in charge. by removing that variable from the mix, we have a more stable, secular government. if you read the federalist papers you can see that there was debate about how much god should be in our government and because they had just escaped a regime that used god to manipulate and control the people so that the monarch could do what he wanted (see any parallels?) they deliberately chose to limit the use of god as a justification for government actions. that to me is what separation of church and state is. we have to get back to a place where everyone is permitted to believe (not necessarily do, but believe) what they want and then we as christians can begin the dialogue about why they should choose a different path. but as long as evangelicals stridently screech about morality and are absolutists, nobody wins. not even god because then you cannot convert the souls who may be susceptible to conversion.

i am not a trial lawyer because i hate going to court. i would never be a defense lawyer because i have to be able to sleep at night. while you call it freeing some of the most despciable people on the planet, my friend who is a defense attorney would call it upholding your rights by defending someone else's. i can't be that morally relativistic (not a word, maybe). i practice corporate law and mostly do contract negotiations and drafting as well as real estate on the side. it's profession to me, not necessarily a calling although i do pro bono stuff for women in family court because it's how i give back to my community.

[Kite]

You make a valid point yd. Sorry, if I made you feel demonized...like I said...frustration. My lash outs come from a constricting fear that is becoming a reality before me. Humor me if you will....

One party's views are chastized because they conflict with another and vice-versa. As one side pushes against the other the arguement becomes a fued, then a legal matter, and then an all out war against each other. Herein lies the nightmare I face...if neither party can agree (and in these cases they wont) then what do they do? They turn to the neutral government to solve the problem for them. After hearing both sides over and over and over again until the government gets tired of it what happens? The government will make a move to constrict the view of a side reducing their right to "free expression".

Example: Political correctness. It's a minor inconvenience now, but what if that changes in to "Religious Toleration"? Now, your no longer trying to seize a certain opinion on someone your trying to grab ahold of ones own personal beliefs and shape them to how you see fit. Does that work both ways? yes, but I would rather have a perpetual open debate between two views to see who can appeal to the other than both parties claiming stalemate and walking away with their beliefs constrained and altered.

Strange I know, but it's just how I feel. I fear that one day I will find myself in jail or worse because the government and the special interests (which you have to agree....side with the left) sees my "fundamentalist rhetoric" as criminal. I haven't advocated any type of criminal action against people who scream at religious monuments and demand to have them removed, and I haven't ever had legal monetary action brought against someone because a cross was sitting on the side of a highway (that actually happened near my home) but the constant "faith-haters" have continuously made it known that me and my "ilk" are no longer wanted and should be snuffed out and pushed away.

I have read the blogs and the seen the news reports. Christians are now hated more than anyone in this country. At every turn we are seen as oppressors, bigots, racists, homo-phobes, and slave masters. Heck, even Rosie O'Donnell said we were "As dangerous as muslim extremists." Really? We're THAT threatening? Are we THAT unwanted?

[yd]

what's threatening is asking people to look at their actions through a moral lens and judging it by an unrelenting standard (because as you said that does not change) which is why it should not be forced on people.

as for unwanted, i go back to terri schaivo because that's when i truly think people turned on christians. and you must admit, if there ever was a moment of hysteria in the religious right world that was it. people became fearful that the religious right was going to force them to live on tubes as vegetables until the end of time. that's hyperbole, but i think it really captures how people felt at the time. again i was in law school and our conversations revolved around how could people who know nothing about the family or the situation think that they should be entitled to have a say. this truly horrified people.

in order to regain the trust of americans, evangelicals need to back off a bit. also people like haggard and cheney's daughter (only because of her father's hard stance against gay rights) with their obvious hypocrisy (sp?) make it very hard to take evangelical christians seriously because they end up looking like opportunistic power grabbers.

[Devil's Advocate]

McCain is "courting" the blogosphere? Which blogs exactly is McCain "courting"? McCain has been pandering to anything and anyone. McCain is a pathetic, diseased, whore. During the 2000 campaign, the Rove smear machine spread ruumors about McCain having sired a child with a black (GASP!) woman (it was her adopted daughter from Bengladesh), and accused his wife of being a drug addict (on painkillers). McCain the Slut ignored the slurs on his family and proceeded to kiss Bush's ass (and his donors') in the 2004 campaign. He also proceeded to kiss the ass of all the people he had previously denounced: the religious crackpots such as Falwell and Jones, and the Texas real estate brothers (forgot their name) who used dirty tricks to fund Dubbya's campaign. His campaign has hired a guy indicted in a phone -jamming of Democratic lines in NH, and people whom he decried in 2000 for putting out sleazy ads...

McCain will bend over with great alacrity in order to obtain support, and he has proven himself to flip-flop along with the political winds. At this point, McCain has used up his POW status. He ranks high amongst the sleaziest politicians. He'll never become President. Nor will Romney -- another whore -- magic underwear or not.