Half Sigma endorses John McCain for President

Now that Romney has withdrawn from the race, McCain is the best candidate to be President of the United States.

Some McCain haters say they'd rather see a Democrat get elected than support him, but I think that would be a very bad idea.

Comments

[Zeek]

Obama would make a better President. This stupid war has to end.

[GMR]

Obama would make a better President. This stupid war has to end.

If we just pull out of Iraq, does anyone care what happens? What would happen?

[hugh go naught]

HS has supported McCain. This means in a couple days Huckabee should lead the polls.

[GMR]

HS has supported McCain. This means in a couple days Huckabee should lead the polls.

So in two weeks, the headline at this blog will say "Ron Paul for President"!

[SFG]

Naaah, it just means the Democrat will win.

[Peter]

If we just pull out of Iraq, does anyone care what happens? What would happen?

Chaos, of course, but that's likely what will end up happening in any event. Iraq makes sense as a coherent, secular, democratic nation only in Neocon wet dreams. And at least with a pullout no more American lives will be lost.

[Drew]

Ending this war would save far more money than any republic tax cuts. With fiscal conservatism dead in the water, where will the GOP go now?

[Half Sigma]

It's not a war, it's a policing action.

[Joe]

For the first time in my life, a few days ago I donated to a political campaign; Romney's. Now he does this. Pisses me off. I want a refund or assurances that the money will go do a good charity (and not to repay his own bank accounts.)

[Brandy]

I appologize if you've already provided this information in a previous post and I missed it ... but what issues are the most important to you in this election and why do you think the republican party is the better choice?

......besides the fact that you generally hate liberals

[Buckaroo]

If we just pull out of Iraq, does anyone care what happens? What would happen?

I think Greg Cochran has supplied the answer that rings truest to me. Quoting from memory: "Someone will win the civil war an then they'll sell oil."
He has also convincingly argued that a perfectly reasonable withdrawal could be conducted in a space of weeks rather than months.

[bbartlog]

You endorse McCain despite his record on illegal immigrants? My, how invested you are in the Iraq War.
Anyway, you've settled on yet another losing horse. McCain has too many flaws as a candidate (old, not very smart, unable to project even a shred of empathy) and will lose the general election.

[tommy]

Now that Romney has withdrawn from the race, McCain is the best candidate to be President of the United States.

Well, if you endorsed him, then I guess Guzzardi is right. ;-)

[SFG]

I honestly can't predict. McCain isn't that charismatic and the Republicans are looking pretty bad after Bush but Hillary isn't that charismatic either and she has kind of a bad rap.
?

Hillary isn't that charismatic either and she has kind of a bad rap.

Bad rap? Yeah, no shit?!

[David Alexander]

I'll reiterate my point that McCain will win with a five to ten point margin over Hillary and a fifteen point margin over Obama. Loyal Republicans will certainly overlook McCain's unpopular viewpoints in order to ensure that the Clintons will not return to the presidency, and race realists and Hispanics will vote en mass to prevent Obama from coming to power. Add the various 527s and related party fronts to bash either Democratic candidate, and I assure you that by this time next year, we will be blogging about "President McAmnesty".

You endorse McCain despite his record on illegal immigrants? My, how invested you are in the Iraq War.

Fun idea, have the undocumented workers join the Army or work for Blackwater...

[Zeek]

Interesting that David Alexander, of all people, doesn't give Obama much of a chance of winning.

I am not sure Obama will win (maybe David is right), but I will still be rooting for him.

[Zeek]

"For the first time in my life, a few days ago I donated to a political campaign; Romney's. Now he does this. Pisses me off. I want a refund or assurances that the money will go do a good charity (and not to repay his own bank accounts.)"

You are not getting a refund. The money will most likely go to repay the debt that the Romney for President, Inc (this is the real name) has incurred campaigning for Mitt Romney.

[SFG]

I'll reiterate my point that McCain will win with a five to ten point margin over Hillary and a fifteen point margin over Obama.
You're giving a point spread !? I respect your judgment but that's just going too far... :)

Loyal Republicans will certainly overlook McCain's unpopular viewpoints in order to ensure that the Clintons will not return to the presidency, and race realists and Hispanics will vote en mass to prevent Obama from coming to power. Add the various 527s and related party fronts to bash either Democratic candidate, and I assure you that by this time next year, we will be blogging about "President McAmnesty".
Yeah, I'm betting on McCain too. The amnesty thing annoys me because I really do see a possibility for serious problems with a large ethnic group that refuses to assimilate. I mean, we turned Irish, Italians, Poles, and Jews into Americans, but only after a period of frankly racist, nativist panic that closed the gates and gave the new arrivals time to be absorbed. Besides, they're not as well educated as the Chinese or Indians, so we have the very real possibility of swelling the underclass.

You know, no reason not to drop the '-e real-' from 'race realist'. I'm not sure if I'm qualified to call myself one or not but I have no problem voting for Obama. Whatever the case with genetic versus environmental origins of means in group differences, Obama himself ain't a dumb guy, and me being a (heretical) liberal, is a lot more likely to enact policies I like than McCain is.

Sorry, I'm not voting for McCain. As of this moment I'm flipping parties and going to the Libertarians.

Part of me hopes he loses so that the Republicans have to do some serious soul searching for two years. This is a disaster. McCain/Hillary/Obama differ in name only. Their administrations would differ in minor ways only. Whoever wins the Democrat nomination might as well get with McCain, have a coin toss, and the two could run together unopposed as President and Vice President.

For me, the November election is already lost.

[slwerner]

HS - ”Some McCain haters say they'd rather see a Democrat get elected than support him, but I think that would be a very bad idea.”

I’ve been struggling with this one a bit myself. I see some logic on both sides – but only as it pertains to a Hillary vs McCain race.

Now, in taking a second look at things, I’m beginning to think that there might be even more merit in an Obama presidency. It’s convoluted, I admit, but do consider:

First – One of the big complaints/criticisms of Obama seems to be that he offers only vague ideals of “hope” and “change”, and very, very little of any real substance on big “visionary” proposals he would aim at shoving down the collective throat of the American people. This is actually a big plus for me. The reason I had supported Romney was precisely that he didn’t promise “big change”. He was more a technocratic (albeit a smart one) who I saw as more a national CEO – good fiscal steward rather than a gung-ho cowboy (I like Steve Sailer’s “Yosemite Sam” nickname for McCain). My mistake in voting for Bush (2000) was that he appealed to my desire for reduced government. His one big “visionary” promise was reducing the rate at which my income would be confiscated for useless government shenanigans (obviously, I expected reduced government spending to accompany the tax cuts for the middle-to-upper middle classes/tax elimination for working poor).

My big gripe with either McCain or Hillary is what they do plan to do to us. With McCain, it his stupid screw-American’s Amnesty and his “War is Great, let’s have another” international policy plan. With Hillary it’s her version of “Mein Kampf”, filled with mandatory nationalized day-care/early propaganda education centers, government take over of the health-care industry (not to mention any other “industry” not performing up to her standards), and the spoils of war to her feminist/lesbian friends.

Obama’s non-plan is potentially a welcome relief from worrying about which of those other clowns will cause the most harm to the country. I could easily see Obama as a harmless “fluff” president.

Politically, he’s far-left, and while his aims “sound” good, the American public has never shown a willingness to swing so far (either way) simply to try and meet lofty goals. At some point, a significant proportion of people start to worry about the cost them personally. Obama’s Kenyan kinsmen are already on record as expecting that some of Obama’s spoils will come to them. But, if Obama actually tried to divert taxpayer money to relatives in Africa, even the media couldn’t cover for him.

Obama is not without fault. His book reveals him to be black-preferring racialist. But, even so, to his credit, he has not tried to interject racial aspects into his bid (the Clintons are the guilty parties on that account). He couldn’t rationally single out his chosen (half)race for special benefit and privilege the way Congressional Black Caucus members can. He’s pretty much be left to try and instill that “audacity of hope” into his single term in office. He’d give out lots of nice sounding platitudes, some laudable abstract goals, but few packaged proposals. Individual Congress persons would likely be left to submitting their own competing (against other members) proposals, which would hopefully slow down the chances of them being implemented. Obama would really be nothing more than an articulate (won’t that be a refreshing change, in and of itself?) nice guy filling a seat for 4 years.

Which segways into…

Second – The Republican Party in officially in need of an overhaul. It’s become a pseudo-representative party with a bunch of left-leaning beltway insiders pretending to care about their more conservative base. As right-wing figureheads are already declaring they will be doing, I would imagine much of the conservative base will not be going along with McCain as their party’s leader. A Democratic Congress and president might just be the thing that will get the rank and file to finally come right out and demand that their interests be represented by their party. Four years of a relatively (compared to the other options) harmless guy trying to figure out how to run a country would be a time to allow for the necessary re-tooling in order to have something genuine to offer to voters when the “mess” needs to be cleaned up in 2012.

And, as an additional benefit, having a man who self-identifies himself as “black” will greatly help to deflect the inevitable arguments that institutional racism, such as is embodied in affirmative action, need to be continued for the foreseeable eternity. A black man from a broken home rising (largely) due to his own merit to become leader of the free world should more than obviate the need to unjustly tilt the playing field towards select minorities, and make it that much clear that the key to their success lies in them getting off their lazy whiny asses and making something of themselves rather than demand that taxpayers sacrifice to put them on easy street.

Just my $0.02 on why I hope Obama wins.

[Gamma Man]

Sigma, enough flip-flopping! McCain is worse than Bush and you know it. You should pull out of the race along with your favourite candidate, Romney.
McCain is the losing horse the neo-cons push to run against Hilary/Obama, their real candidates. Neocons have found a new home with the Democrats.

[David Alexander]

Interesting that David Alexander, of all people, doesn't give Obama much of a chance of winning.

When you're black, you learn to be realistic. Silly white people and their hope and optimism. :)

Seriously, Obama's support is in young voters, independents, blacks, and middle and upper class whites. I would consider them to be very flaky in terms of suporting him in the general election, and I think that even if he manages to win more delegates, I suspect that the superdelegates will stay loyal to their Queen and not create the political coup that would finally dethrone the Clintons and the DLC. If Obama were to manage to make it to the general election, his lack of support from Hispanics would weaken him considerably against a Republican who is "pro-amnesty", and the rumours of him being a "Muslim" will only reaffirm his non-white status.

Regardless of that, I'd still like for Obama to win. Hillary lost my vote when she blurted out the interest rate freeze, and any low IQ idiot who sat in a macro-economic class can tell you that's a retarded means of solving the foreclosure problem.

You're giving a point spread !? I respect your judgment but that's just going too far...

I'm serious. I'd wager my entire savings account because I have no faith in any democratic victory.

You know, no reason not to drop the '-e real-' from 'race realist'.

I consider race realists to be educated versions of racists. While racists tend to be trash who simply say "I hate niggers", race realists couch their hatred by using scientific facts.

[Bill]

An American President has limited control over the big issues of the next decade.

1. We will have the ‘long war’ mindset until things get bloody stateside or we run out of money.
2. No elected official will touch Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
3. The 60+% of Federal money currently spent on entitlement programs will be 70% in four years, and 80% shortly after that.
4. Moody’s has already put the government on notice that the credit rating is going away if the entitlement programs aren’t fixed, which they can’t be.
5. The EEOC, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc, etc, etc. will continue to chase industry and the associated taxes out of the Country.

Having a socialist at the helm, accelerating things, would look a lot cleaner in the history books. As painful as that is.

[GOP Lurker]

2. No elected official will touch Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Actually, the Dems are setting the electorate up to decouple Social Security from payroll taxes, making SS an explicit welfare program rather than the implicit one it is now. Witness the brouhaha when Warren Buffet complained that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does. Problem being that it's not the "income tax", it's FICA.

If a Dem is elected we will see some action on this in his/her first term.

As an aside: Obama understands the economy better than HRClinton, and he appears slightly more honest and grounded in reality. Obama v McCain could get interesting, particularly if Iraq is resolved one way or the other by November.

[keil]

In fact I'm more inclined to go for anybody but McCain. Only a Clinton nomination could make me vote for McCain.

[Rob]

I think the only chance the Republicans have is to get out of Iraq well before the elections. That removes Obama's big selling point, and Clinton's been so pro and anti war that she certainly doesn't gain anything.

But honestly, with McCain running, gimme either democrat.

[Dan Morgan]

David Alexander writes:
I consider race realists to be educated versions of racists. While racists tend to be trash who simply say "I hate niggers", race realists couch their hatred by using scientific facts.

So by that standard discussions about the IQ gaps among the races becomes undiscussable, unless one concludes some variation of (1) IQ is meaningless (2) the IQ gap is not real (3) IQ tests are racist and (4) race does not exist, so IQ gaps cannot exist. I am sure I am forgetting other allowed PC positions.

Calling someone a racist, when you have no examples of racist acts or quotes about hating another race, is a form of intolerance. It is saying that you know the nasty motives that drives others in their thinking. It is just too convenient to say that those you disagree with are all just rotten people.

[trumwill]

Witness the brouhaha when Warren Buffet complained that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does. Problem being that it's not the "income tax", it's FICA.

The solution I've more frequently heard is not decoupling SS from anything but rather to raise the cap. The system is already mildly progressive up to $100k and they would take that cap and move it up to some higher number. It moves for inflation, but arguably it could be moved more without fundamentally changing anything.

Kerry made some noise in 2004 about cutting SS payroll taxes for low-income (which would be a more significant change), but I haven't heard as much of that this year. Raising the cap seems to be what Obama has planned and I think Clinton is even against doing that. If you've seen anything more aggressive than that, point me the way (to something Obama or Clinton has said, not to a conservative site paraphrasing or speculating).

[trumwill]

End italics.

[Ned]

Here's what McCain said to the CPAC yesterday, courtesy of Neal Boortz:

* Continue to carry the fight to the Islamic radicals and goons wherever we can get to them.
* Close the borders .. tight .. before any consideration is given as to what to do with the illegals who are already here.
* Not sign a bill with earmarks in it. ANY earmarks in it.
* Reduce the size of government.
* Not allow the expansion of entitlement programs
* Make the Bush tax cuts permanent
* Cut corporate tax rates.
* End AMT
* Develop free market solutions for health care, and respect for the right of free individuals to make choices for themselves.

This is a long way from perfect, but it's also not bad. The worst part is his support for the neocon wars, which I despise, but I think it's naive to believe that the Democrats will be any better (remember that Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution and stood up to applaud the surge - if she becomes president and tries to get us out, the Republicans will call her "weak" and "soft on terror" because she's a Democrat and a woman). The tax proposals look excellent, and McCain has been a consistent foe of earmarks and entitlements. I take the "seal the borders" stuff with a grain of salt, but, again, the Democrats will be worse. It would have been nice to seem some repudiation of McCain-Feingold and a strong pledge on conservative judges, but, again, the Democrats will be worse on these issues. And free market solutions to health care look a lot better than what the Democrats will brew up.

So there you have it. I have a lot of sympathy with my conservative colleagues who cant' stand Big John and may stay home or even vote for a Democrat. I sure understand where they're coming from, and, in some ways, I agree with them. But, in the end, I'll agree with HS and support McCain, warts and all.

[SFG]

You know, speaking as a member of the Enemy Camp here, preferring Obama or Hillary is rank stupidity. You know what we want? We want gay marriage (destroying the moral foundation of America), national healthcare (increasing the size of government and removing an incentive for poor people to find better jobs), withdrawal from Iraq (exposing America to more terrorist attacks), repeal of the Bush tax cuts (taking money away from hard-working billionaires...er, entrepreneurs)... you know what a liberal is? We've got Congress now, bitches. ;)> And if you elect a Democrat, we will have free reign to drag this country ten feet to the left.

But naaah, it'll be fun to watch you guys destroy yourselves the way we did in 2000 with that Nader guy cause poor Gore wasn't pure enough. Geez, what a jerk.

Seriously, can you nominate someone with more brains than charisma next time? Oh yeah, we gotta have Mr. Personality even if he's dumba as a rock. Sure, guys. Elevate football worship and anti-intellectualism to fine art, spit on smart people, and then you wonder why you have to import all your scientists from China!

(I guess politics really is baseball for nerds, huh? That whole tribal thing... Though it is fun to watch those guys at Harvard and their precious patriots LOSE! ;) )

[Joe]

I'm still trying to figure out on what planet does Obama understand economics better than Clinton. Obama is a charismatic moron. Has anyone listened to his socialist clap-trap? This guy is so far left I can barely see him and I'm a right leaning moderate.

For all of McCain's ills, in those areas where a President can actually have an impact, he holds up pretty damn well. (And to be honest, he'll be better than Bush, whom I voted for holding my nose and cursing.) Besides, there's always the possibility that McCain will totally lose his cool with Putin or someone else. Now that would be entertainment.

PS. Michael Steele for VP!

[bbartlog]

Obama is a charismatic moron

Obama: JD magna cum laude from Harvard
McCain: fifth from the bottom of his class at West Point

You commit the classic blunder of assuming that people who disagree with you radically must necessarily be stupid.

[trumwill]

Obama also has Austan Goolsbee advising him.

[tommy]

PS. Michael Steele for VP!

Steele might not be a bad choice.

[pjgoober]

You know, no reason not to drop the '-e real-' from 'race realist'.

SFG, it doesn't matter what the dictionary says. What matters is what actual people actually think the word means. Racist means categorical hatred and loathing of the other platonic categories of races in people's minds. Race realists, on the other hand, consider races to be non-platonic, overlapping categories with overlapping (but not matching) distributions of traits. And we don't hate other races. Calling race realists racists is defacto trying to tar and feather them as haters, regardless of what the dictionary says.

[pjgoober]

David Alexander, It's kind-of funny how you think that the true haters are race-realists, the only people whose line of inquiry has the possibility of one day leading to true equality of mean IQ between the races through genetic engineering. By rhetorically tarring and feathering race-realists, you help foreclose that future.

But I realize you probably think that instead of leading to us starting on a genetic engineering or drug-based project to uplift people and their descendants, widespread knowledge of the truths that race-realists know would instead lead to the return of state-sponsored segregation or deportation or mass-sterilization or concentration camps. It is just kind of sad that you have such a low opinion of white americans.

[SFG]

SFG, it doesn't matter what the dictionary says. What matters is what actual people actually think the word means.
While that's a matter of debate in linguistic circles, I actually agree with you on this one; words' meaning evolves a lot faster than any reference can. (Except, perhaps, Wikipedia?) In context, I was kinda wondering why DA, since we know he doesn't approve of race-realism (and I can understand why), doesn't just go and say 'racist'. But it coulda been a rhetorical strategy; as you say, no point pissing people off.

Besides, I think very few people actually consider themselves 'race realists'; it's a certain sort of brighter-than-average paleocon who enjoys being naughty. Most of the Stormfront crowd would be happy to call themselves 'racists' or, perhaps, 'racialists', whereas that describes some but definitely not all of Sailer's commenters, for example.

[SFG]

But I realize you probably think that instead of leading to us starting on a genetic engineering or drug-based project to uplift people and their descendants, widespread knowledge of the truths that race-realists know would instead lead to the return of state-sponsored segregation or deportation or mass-sterilization or concentration camps.
Naah. There's too much baggage associated with the concepts. Besides, people are used to competing against and opposing other ethnic groups; it's most of human history. Trust me, the more people who realize the truth, the nastier things are going to get. Remember, the WASPs instituted interviews and sports teams as criteria for entrance to the Ivies after too many Jews started getting in on academics (and the WASPs and Jews now do it to the Asians).

It is just kind of sad that you have such a low opinion of white americans.
Oh, I don't know, the history of the South between 1770 and 1970 might have something to do with that. The Jews might be wrong when they/we see Hitler under every bush, but are you really surprised?

[GOP Lurker]

Obama demonstrated his superior economic understanding relative to Clinton when he pointed out that freezing interest rates creates a negative incentive for future loans. As far as I know Hillary is sticking to her guns because she hasn't thought up a better talking point.

As far as the FICA decoupling I mentioned earlier, it is largely my own conjecture, though i think it is a reasonable assumption. Given what you say Kerry has proposed I think that's pretty square on target.

[pjgoober]

SFG and DA, Maybe Zogby or Rasmussen could do a poll of americans and divide up the results by race: "If it was scientifically proven that black americans had a genetically lower average IQ, what implications for public policy would that have for you?" There could be 10 public policy choices that could be rated from most desirable to least desirable including: "Cover up the knowledge at all cost", "Scale back affirmative action", "Increase Affirmative Action", "Institute a massive research program for IQ boosting drugs and genetic engineering to figure out how to mend the disparities", and everything in-between. If enough people could actually comprehend what all the big words in the poll would mean (a gigantic if), the results would be interesting.

Trust me, the more people who realize the truth, the nastier things are going to get

Your personal fears are not a compelling reason to keep anyone from the truth.

[pjgoober]

anon above, I think that if there is widespread "nastyness" directed towards minorities as a result of race-realism being widely accepted I believe it will be probably be directed towards hispanics and open borders proponents. I mean, for blacks, we *did* bring them here as involuntary slaves, and most people do realize that. They aren't growing extremely rapidly. And a lot of even a politically liberal people probably already secretly suspect something about them without even studying the issue scientifically.

But for hispanics, we have been propagandized that their mass immigration is great and that they will turn out exactly like the irish and italians. It is hispanics, not blacks that are rapidly transforming the country as we speak. People are going to be extremely pissed at open-borders advocates once they realize how badly they have been screwed, that the exponentially growing hispanic population has a genetically lower mean IQ potential of about 90 and will thus be a permanent, *gigantic*, ever expanding underclass barring radical new technologies.

[pjgoober]

I think most americans already have low hopes for blacks. I don't think race realism will change that much. But a ton of americans, liberal or conservative, that already have low hopes for blacks still have outrageously high hopes for hispanics. Having low hopes confirmed doesn't hurt as much as having high hopes being cut way down.