Comments on: Is John McCain Conservative? Show Me.

By: McCain’s Talk Doesn’t Match His Action on Spending | The Sundries Shack

Wed, 28 May 2008 01:20:13 +0000

[...] a big fight, especially lately. But what, exactly, has he done? I brought this topic up before, and even invited one of conservativism’s more ardent McCain supporters to answer it but I never saw a response. I’ll ask the questions again. Perhaps Ed, or one of [...]

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:41:37 +0000

I'm chalking it up to gremlins.

My moderation is pretty simple. If someone posts here for the first time, it automatically goes into moderation. Often it takes my approving a couple or three comments for the software to recognize that I'm okay with the commenter's post going through without my approval.

Most comments (I'd say upwards of 95 percent or more) I approve. A few I deny outright. A few are spam that make it through the spam filter.

By: suek

suek — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:37:30 +0000

Ah. So you _do_ have moderation in some form. I'm not disapproving – I comment on at least one blog where trolls are a major disturbing factor, so can appreciate it even when it creates a moment of annoyance – I just wasn't aware that you had moderation in effect, and it surprised me. When I commented the second time, the first comment had posted, and the second went right through.

Gremlins, maybe. They're about as annoying as trolls!

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:01:07 +0000

I'm not sure why your comment stays in moderation, sue. It shouldn't, since I've approved you a whole bunch of times before. I'll see if I can fiddle around in the settings and figure out why it's not working like it should.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:00:09 +0000

Perhaps.

Or perhaps conservative Senators will defy them like Democrats defied the nominees put forth by this President who has had a smaller percentage of his judicial nominees confirmed than any other President in modern history.

The possibility of three Supreme Court Justices, maybe and maybe not, isn't enough to overcome all the bad that John McCain brings to the table. Hillary Clinton is, believe it nor not, potentially less bad. I'll take her over either of the other two guys.

By: suek

suek — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:56:47 +0000

Have you introduced moderation for all comments recently, or am I special???

By: suek

suek — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:54:44 +0000

I really disagree with you. I think Hillary is a socialist ideologue – maybe even communist. I also think she has the info on where the "dead bodies" are so that she could be much more effective in getting her agenda into place. She knows _how_ to ger her agenda into place. I don't think Obama does. I think he's just as much of a socialist/communist as she is, but he's still a newbie, imo, and will be "managed" by the party members. He won't get anything done unless they ok it. If he resists, then it will be stalemate until he does what they want – and then he can still veto them.

I think there are at least 3 activist SC justices who are simply waiting until a Dem is sworn in to resign. They are waiting in anticipation of a president who will replace them with equally activist judges. McCain _may_ not put justices in that I'd feel comfortable with, but I'm sure that either of the other two _would_ put justices into place who would bend the Constitution like a pretzel.

Hence, where I stand.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:54:37 +0000

sue, I really don't know what the best option is. For me, the most palatable option, for a couple reasons, is Hillary Clinton. That's more a tactical political decision than it is a purely principled one (though there are a couple principles at work, too).

I don't expect that most conservatives like that option, though.