Maverick Huntin’ Season

Tonight, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin both take aim at John McCain.

From Ann:

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws. I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska. And I might lie if I had called the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “dishonest and dishonorable.”

From Michelle:

Not all of us have forgotten how the short-fused Arizona senator cursed good-faith opponents in his own party (“F**k you!” and “Chickensh*t” were the choice words he had for Texas GOP Senator John Cornyn during a spat over enforcement provisions). Not all of us have forgotten that he voted against barring felons from receiving amnesty benefits under his plan. Not all of us have forgotten the underhanded, debate-sabotaging manner in which McCain, Kennedy, Lindsey Graham, and Harry Reid conspired to ram their package down voters’ throats.

Read ‘em both.

3 thoughts on “Maverick Huntin’ Season

  1. I’m not really sure what to make of Coulter’s remarks (or any who nod along with what she says).I gather – and I may be misreading here – but I gather that Coulter is shaking her finger at McCain for supporting criminal trial rights for terrorists, supporting stem-cell research, supporting global warming legislation; opposing the practice of waterboard torture and opposing proposals to open the ANWAR area in Alaska to devastating oil digging.These are all good things! There is such a strange dynamic when someone criticizes another for lying, and in the same breath approves of denying people criminal trials, using inhumane torture methods, and actively trying to avoid policies that could (and almost certainly would) help billions – literally – of human beings. I speak of global warming and stem-cell research policies, of course.Of course, two rights don’t make a wrong… I won’t begin to make any comment on McCain, but talk about the kettle calling the pot black! Here we seem to have a slightly singed pot and a steaming hunk of blackened refuse cackling as it spouts its criticism.


  2. Welcome back, G-Man!Correct that that’s what she’s chastizing McCain for on all but one count: she’s not against stem-cell research (none of us are), merely the use of embryos to obtain stem cells.All these positions are quite reasonable – non-citizen jihadists are not entitled to the protections of US citizens, and access to our courts would give their lawyers access to confidential documents, a security risk if I ever saw one (offhand, I’d refer you to ex-prosecutor Andy McCarthy, who has written at lenght on the matter).Torture shouldn’t be deployed casually by any stretch of the imagination, but it should be on the table if it comes down to a choice between saving innocents and torturing jihadists. Indeed, we know lives have been saved by the practice: sees to me a desire utilitarian, of all people, ought to appreciate this point, since you’ve defended far harsher treatment of the unborn on the grounds that the other party in the matter (the woman) has a greater claim to her rights. In this case, certainly the American civilian has a greater claim than the butcherer.On global warming, it’s quite the stretch to say the Left’s solutions “almost certainly would” help anyone, inasmuch as the evidence is so specious. Whether it’s the constantly-moving goalposts (warmer AND colder weather are BOTH signs of global warming!), higher warm periods prior to the modern industrial status quo, new scientists challenging the status quo practically every day, or – one of my personal favorites – a recent report that the glaciers may have formed during a relatively warm period – there’s plenty of reason to say “not so fast.”Stem-cell research? I’m as excited about the potential as anyone, and the good news is that the use of human embryos seems to grow more irrelevant with each new adult stem-cell find.


  3. Glad to see you remember me 🙂There seems to be more to these issues than I gathered from the snippet. I’m glad there has been enough research into stem cells to allow scientists to obtain them from other sources than embryos, so now we can all be happy. It makes sense that non-citizens don’t get tried in U.S. courts. I thought Coulter was advocating denying any sort of trial for terrorists whatsoever. International law or criminal trial in their country of origin may be a better option for terrorists – as long as imprisonment without trial isn’t what Coulter is endorsing.As for torture – I actually believe the standing rule should be “don’t torture.” If the situation really calls for it (and I agree that it might), and torture is necessary, then breaking the law to torture a suspect would hardly be a moral obstacle by comparison.Having the default stance of “we don’t want to allow torture, but we will do it if we must” sounds more appropriate than “oh sure, torture is an option… I guess we’ll consider other options first, but it will be easy to convince Americans we ‘needed’ to torture this subject, so let’s go ahead when it’s more convenient.”“… since you’ve defended far harsher treatment of the unborn on the grounds that the other party in the matter (the woman) has a greater claim to her rights.”Let me stray from the topic for a moment: It’s not a matter of “greater claim.” Human rights are a moral issue, and as such (in desire utilitarianism terms) stem from human desires. This is because, of course, “harm” can only occur when desires exist. That’s why we can’t “harm” rocks; we can’t “harm” our planet (we can only harm those who use it).The unborn have no desires and cannot be harmed. However, even a jihadist “butcherer” has desires and has the same human rights as an American. It’s interesting that you’d bring this up, though. You’re willing to deliberately harm someone to protect others in the case of torture, but when it comes to not-harming something which cannot be harmed anyway – in order to protect another – you are in vehement opposition.I find that a striking contrast.Global warming is an issue where even the possibility of climate scientists being correct justifies great concern. Enough concern, in fact, that the Left’s policies to reduce global warming are essential. When you say “warmer AND colder weather are BOTH signs of global warming” you demonstrate your ignorance on the matter. Weather and climate are not one and the same. Feel free to check a dictionary and make your own conclusion. Glaciers can still form because the conditions for glacier formation still exist in parts of the world. Winter still happens; this is irrelevant to the issue of global warming.The issue is the overall rise in temperature. Consider that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, and the amount of atmospheric C02 has increased from 300 ppm to over 400 ppm since the industrial revolution. That means more heat is trapped. Human activity is almost exclusively the cause of the increase.That’s a big can o’ worms, I know. The issues I’d be interested in discussing more are torture and global warming.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s