Tagged: Meghan McCain Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 10:09 PM on 05/07/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: hypocrite, Meghan McCain, sanford,   

    @MeghanMcCain’s Hilarious Outrage over Sanford Win – UPDATES 

    Meghan is none too pleased that Mark Sanford won the special election for Tim Scott’s open in seat in congress.

    Any republican that voted for Mark Sanford in South Carolina but is against gay marriage is an unbelievable hypocrite

    Really republicans? We’re gonna get behind Mark Sanford and claim gay couples will ruin marriage. This is why young people don’t vote GOP!!!

    Mark Sanford is what is wrong with American politics.

    What exactly the relationship between Mark Sanford and gay marriage is I can’t explain.

    She then went a step further and said that people cheating and lying shouldn’t be sent to Washington.  Now I agree with that and have been saying for months that Sanford shouldn’t be supported.  But, I am not the daughter of man who has been in the senate forever and ran for president who cheated on his first wife with my mom.  I guess she has forgotten that.  Since she has since deleted that tweet but these usually live on:

    Like your Dad does? RT @MeghanMcCain: I just can’t right now. I am furious. You can lie and cheat and still get sent back to Washington!

    She then was reminded of an unfortunate little fact:

    Game over! RT @iowahawkblog: @MeghanMcCain if it wasn’t for politicians cheating on their wives, you wouldn’t exist

    @MeghanMcCain Um, your father ran for president and if I recall correctly he cheated on his first wife w/ your mom.

    Too Funny.

    Someone on twitter found this.  Forgive Sanford.  I guess she forgot she wrote this too.

     
  • just a conservative girl 8:43 AM on 11/18/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Meghan McCain   

    Open Letter to @McCainBlogette 

    Dearest Meghan:

    I read you advice to the GOP about moderating or “evolving” as you put it.  You talked about social issues being the death of the republican party:

    I know there are many out there, especially in the more conservative sphere, that regard me with disdain. I don’t fit into the traditional Republican box that the wingnuts who have hijacked my party think all Republicans should. For the last four years, I’ve been calling for Republicans to stop concentrating on social issues. I am a single woman in my 20s and that fact alone gave me the perspective that I don’t want to regulate a woman’s right to choice. I am pro-life, but because life is complicated, that choice is between a woman and her idea of a higher power. I believe if Roe vs. Wade were repealed, abortion would still go on. I care more about my economy, national security, and fiscal conservatism than I do about what other woman do with their bodies. It’s not my place, and I don’t believe it’s the government’s place, to make such decisions

    Yes, Meghan abortion would still go on if Roe is repealed because repealing Roe doesn’t make abortion illegal, it leaves it up to the states to decide.  As a person who is a republican you should be believing in states rights, as that is what is meant, in part, by limited government.  Limited government is part of the platform of the GOP.  You see I think that you agree on abortion when it comes to this, I too don’t believe that abortion should be a question of religion.  I believe that abortion is an issue of personhood and the constitutional rights that a person has.  Remember that line Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?  It is a little difficult to pursue happiness if you are dead.  To me abortion is about science, not about God.  That question has never been answered in a court of law and I think it should be.  Does a human being get afforded the same rights under the law that an egg of certain birds gets?  I would like a court to answer the question why a bird egg  has more value under the law than a human being does?  They are laws in place that you will be fined and/or jailed for damaging the bird fetus, but a human being in this country isn’t afforded the same rights.  I think there is something wrong with that picture.  Why don’t you?

    You go on to talk about immigration issues:

      I think America needs a better immigration policy and immigrants who were brought here illegally as children shouldn’t be deported.

    I too think that we need better immigration policy.  It is next to impossible for a low wage earner to come here legally from Mexico, but it will take those same low wage earners from other countries.  That makes no sense.  Those things needs to change and adapt to the work force that we have and the work force that we need.  I am first generation, so I know all too well about the advantages of immigrants coming to this country.  This country was built by them and has flourished because of them.  But I must ask you a few questions about your stance on “The Dream Act”.  You say that children brought here shouldn’t be deported.  But the questions that people with your view-point never seem to answer are in part:

    1. Do we give those that came as children visa’s but deport the parents?  If so, do you think these children/young adults are going to come forward if they fear that it means that their parents are going to be deported?
    2. What about the ones that came here as children but are over the age restrictions that The Dream Act puts into place?  Do we deport the 32-year-old, but not the 29-year-old?  Or whatever arbitrary age that the law comes up with.
    3. Do they get to cut in line in front of the people who have been in other countries going through the proper and legal process?  (As a relative of mine is doing)
    4. What do we do with the people who paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to go through the legal process?  Do they get their money back? If not, doesn’t that mean we are not being “fair”?
    5. How long before they are allowed to become citizens?
    6. Will they be afforded the same rights as other immigrants and citizens of this country who can sponsor relatives to come here?  If so, doesn’t that potentially quadruple the number of people we are giving amnesty to?
    7. What do we do about border security?  If we don’t secure the borders and every 30 years or so we give amnesty to people who come here illegally, why bother to have any immigration laws at all?  It is essentially becomes an open border policy.

    You see Ms. McCain it really isn’t as black and white as your 20 something brain is led to believe that it is.  The issue is very complicated and people like you won’t answer the hard questions.  That is the reason “right winged nuts” take the stand that they do.  Do you believe that America should have no immigration policy?  If so, doesn’t that fly in the face of your desire to concentrate on national security?  A de facto open border policy is a national security issue, wouldn’t you agree?  There can be no moving forward on this issue until the borders are secured.  Is the federal government making any real attempt to do that?  I think by the levels of crime in your home state that the answer to that question is no.

    I would think that one of the things that you are saying is that we should compromise and get good law for all Americans.  Forgive me if I am wrong about that.  But I get this feeling that I am not.  I am not blind to the fact that governing is about compromise.  But another thing that my not in my 20′s perspective has taught me is that when you are entering negotiations you need to start in a place that is further than where you end up.

    Now, when you negotiate your contracts with MSNBC to bash talk about conservatives don’t you start at a higher rate?  If so, why do think it is unreasonable for the republicans to do basically the same thing?  Because what I am getting from your essay is that we should be starting with a position that isn’t much different from the democrats.  How exactly do you negotiate?  I hope you have an agent that is better suited to take care of your needs.  If not, you are doing yourself a big disservice.

    Another thing that you talk about is fiscal conservatism.  One of the things that leads to all the spending we do in this country is based on social issues.  That is another thing that your 20 something brain has yet to learn.  Fiscal conservatism requires discussion on social issues.

    You have brought “gay rights”.  I don’t care who someone loves.  But I do care what the gay right movement is trying to accomplish; a total dismissal of the biblical view of marriage.  That is bad and it must be punished.  My view-point is bigoted.    Many say that gay marriage will have no ill effects on society.  While it is too new in this country to gauge that, it has been around in Canada for more than 10 years.  A study has been recently released:

    The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

    A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.

    When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

    They go on:

    The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.

    Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.

    Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn andMaclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’saffair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”

    But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

    Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.

    Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

    You see Ms. McCain, the agenda as well as the outcome has much broader effects than simple “fairness”.  You see people who have strong religious views; which I would hope you feel that they are entitled to, are being forced to not only accept something, but being stifled.  The right of parents to pass down those biblical values to their children are being threatened.  Tolerance requires that both sides accept opposing points of views.  What is tolerant about private citizens being sued to accept something that goes against their deeply held belief system?  I, for one, view marriage as primarily a religious institution that for some reason that the government decided to get involved with.  Mostly so they can raise revenue with fees for licenses and the like.  You say you don’t want the government involved in issues between a person and their God higher power when it comes to abortion but have no problem with that same interference when it comes to marriage.

    So, I have a suggestion for you, take some of that hard-earned money that you have received bashing discussing people like me, go and buy yourself a new pair of Jimmy Choos for the occasion and march yourself to your local board of elections and change your registration.  Why wait?

     
  • Mary Sue 2:10 PM on 09/13/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Meghan McCain   

    The literary disembowelment of Meghan McCain 

    Leon Wolf shreds Meghan McCain’s book Dirty Sexy Politics today in the New Ledger. Truthfully, I am not sure the word shreds paints a full enough picture of the literary disembowelment Wolf delivers to the petulant daughter of Senator John McCain.  Here is a sample:

    It is impossible to read Dirty, Sexy Politics and come away with the impression that you have read anything other than the completely unedited ramblings of an idiot.  This being a professional website for which I have a great deal of respect, I searched for a more eloquent or gentle way to accurately phrase the previous sentence – but could not find one.

    It is important to know that I was repeatedly tempted just to put the book down, eat the relatively small price I paid to download it to my Kindle, and silently curse Hyperion for publishing this book. After all, they are the ones taking advantage of this particular idiot’s fifteen minutes of fame by exposing her idiocy for the entire world to see. By all appearances, they didn’t even have the decency to hire someone to edit the book – more on that later.

    In the final analysis, however, I determined that most of Meghan’s flaws – such as her unbearable narcissism, delusions of persecution, anti-religious bigotry, and mendacity – couldn’t be chalked up to her manifestly below-average intelligence. These are blameworthy traits born of a malfunctioning moral compass, and they are laid bare in spades on every page of Dirty, Sexy Politics. Furthermore, it is important to address them because Meghan McCain’s book is an active attempt to split the Republican Party in two and thereby destroy its ability to win elections. And even though she is an idiot, she is a useful idiot in the hands of the media and other assorted Democrats, who also want to achieve this goal.

    Therefore, let us thoroughly evaluate this book on the merits, and see whether anything worthwhile is contained therein.

    Needless to say, Wolf finds nothing worthwhile contained therein.  Nothing.  The best Wolf is able to manage to say on behalf of the book is that Meghan McCain successfully painted a sympathetic portrait of her father in the days following his defeat to Barack Obama.  Wolf does this out of obligation, finding it incumbent upon the book reviewer to find at least one positive thing to say about the subject of his scathing review:

    I suppose that it is incumbent on me as a book reviewer to mention one positive thing about the book that I liked.  The section where McCain describes the days after her father’s crushing defeat on election day were just as poorly written and rambling as the rest of the book, but they were definitely touching and successfully painted her father in a very sympathetic light. As she described the way that Senator McCain achieved catharsis by grilling ribs day after day and healing his wounds surrounded by his family, you get the sense that whatever their flaws, the McCain family does love one another and stick together. So that is something.

    Yes that is something I suppose.  Wolf accurately describes Meghan McCain as a “useful idiot” in the hands of the media and Democrats intent on destroying Republican chances to win elections.  Those who have followed her inexplicable prominence in the days since her father lost the election have lamented this fact repeatedly.  Wolf wisely points to the reason McCain’s book was doomed to disaster: “The sad truth is that Meghan McCain is never going to write a book that imparts a basic level of understanding about any topic until she reaches a basic level of understanding about herself.”

    That Meghan McCain lacks sufficient insight to regret being the useful idiot once again seems a foregone conclusion.  Sadly for her, she was poorly served by those who gleefully put her back in the limelight by publishing a rambling book sorely in need of an editor.  It may takes years before she realizes, if she ever truly realizes, publishing her narcissistic ramblings on the faults and failures of conservatives was meant entirely for the entertainment of those who treat Republicans as part of the “ugly travelling circus” day in and day out.  Providing Ms. McCain with a strong editor serves no purpose from their point of view.  They would far prefer the portrait of a spoiled heiress with delusions of persecution to show that even the supposed “moderates” on the right are stupid.  Polishing her writing or challenging her to prove her thesis is entirely antithetical to that ultimate goal.

    As sure as the sun will rise, Meggie Mac will chastise Mr. Wolf and the conservative movement he represents for raining on her media moment with this scathing review.  She will surely blame anyone but herself and the liberals who use her as an idiot pawn in their game.  To do anything different would require the basic level of understanding required for her to write a thoughtful book to begin with.   Should Ms. McCain reach that level of maturity and insight, I will gladly buy a book that reflects such development.  In the mean time I am not holding my breath.

    Cross posted at Ruby Slippers

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,399 other followers