Friday, May 8, 2009

Army officer admits: 'The mere idea of
sex with Meghan McCain repulses me'

In a strange development, Lt. Dan Choi was so horrified by the possibility of having sex with the pathetic loser that he decided to become gay, so that Obama was forced to kick him out of the Army:

BTW, you know how I knew the Republican Party was totally screwed in 2008? It apparently never occurred to any of the geniuses at GOP-HQ, "Hey, why don't we pay that guy not to blog about the McCain campaign?"

Now you know why they call it The Stupid Party.

That's something the Mitt Romney brain trust should bear in mind. It was your man who quit after Super Tuesday, thereby letting Captain Queeg get the nomination with a mere 47% of the Republican primary vote.

Having nominated John the Loser in 2008, now the GOP will nominate Mitt the Quitter in 2012. That makes sense. I can blog about that every day, y'know. Because I've got ethics!

* * * * *
Permit me to address a comment the anonymous "Phil" left on an earlier post:
Woo, tough guy! Takes a real man to knock around a 25-year-old girl! Who'd you warm up on, Dakota Fanning?. . . . Use your formidable powers on someone your own size. For real. Gray hair professional journo bashing a chick who couldn't get into a bar too long ago -- very unbecoming.
"Unbecoming"? Chastising a spoiled brat, it would seem to me, is exactly what I ought to be doing.

What Phil evidently means to say is that Meghan McCain, at age 25, should be permitted to (pretend to) speak for the Republican Party, and that Robert Stacy McCain, at age 49, should be silent. That is to say, according to Phil, that experience should defer to youth. By the same principle, knowledge should defer to ignorance.

This inversion of values, this notion that the young and ignorant should tutor the experienced and knowledegable, is a most striking aspect of our contemporary culture. It is the antithesis of conservatism. But, hey, what else are we to expect from someone who defends Meghan McCain?

Double Standards, Squared
Ah, but our friend Phil is quite the traditionalist in one aspect: "He's picking on a girl!" Well, after all, it is National Offend A Feminist Week -- Ann Coulter is among those commemorating the occasion -- and this is an excellent example of why I detest feminism.

On the one hand, feminists tell us, a woman is absolutely equal to a man. On the other hand, feminists declare, if a man dares criticize a woman, he is not only a patriarchal sexist oppressor (as all men are, according to feminist "logic") but he is furthermore accused of being unmanly.

Wait a minute! How on earth do feminists, who derogate traditional sex roles and stridently insist that men and women must be treated as if they were identical, get away with invoking the ancient code that requires men to treat women with deference and courtesy?

A woman must be treated exactly like a man, until that moment when the egalitarian harridan suddenly decides she wants to be treated like a woman, at which point I'm denounced for failing to embody the chivalrous virtues of a character from a Sir Walter Scott novel!

Feminists expect to get away with this ludicrous incoherence -- and I point out merely one of the inherent contradictions of feminism, which are legion -- because feminism is a virus bred in academia, a pathologically decadent subculture notoriously populated by neurasthenic wimps. At Harvard, even a liberal in good standing like Larry Summers could not be permitted the mildest skepticism toward the feminist dogma which interprets every inequality between men and women as the product of misogynistic discrimination.

If this is the case with the president of Harvard University, just imagine the terroristic fury that would be unleashed upon some untenured faculty member who questioned whether the existence of a Women's Studies department was justified by anything other than the fact that, after all, varsity women athletes must major in something.

Narcissus Transfixed
Cozened during her collegiate experience, where the faculty is too frightened -- and the undergraduates too ignorant -- to debunk the myriad fallacies of feminist cant, the young feminist emerges into society to discover that the real world doesn't operate by the rules she has been taught. Rather than causing her to rethink her premises, however, this experience merely reinforces the belief into which she has been rigorously indoctrinated: Woman is born free, yet is everywhere in chains!

And "the personal is political," as the feminists say, so that every anecdote about her encounters with the unfairness of the world is pluralized as data.

Hence, Megan McCain's complaint that because she was expected to refrain from any word or deed that might embarrass her Republican father, "The Republican Party Doesn't Understand Sex."

Like other manifestations of The Vision of the Anointed, Megan McCain's complaint about the conservative defense of moral tradition is essentially narcissistic: It's all about me!

Yeah? Well, it's about me, too, you ignorant slut.

Man, they hate that word, don't they? The precious darlings of liberalism -- and let's make no mistake, Tina Brown only publishes the precious darlings of liberalism -- are permitted to make transvestite jokes about Ann Coulter and make "ping pong" jokes about Michelle Malkin, but no conservative can ever turn the enemy's weapons against the enemy. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (speaking of precious darlings) can hide out in Pakistan plotting the deaths of thousands, yet liberals will sue if the CIA doesn't treat precious Khalid with kid gloves.

This is a very old tradition among liberals, who defended the arch-traitor Alger Hiss and defamed the patriot Joe McCarthy, who hated Ronald Reagan yet consider Che Guevara a hero deserving of celebration in adulatory biopics. (Remember, kids: You can't spell "liberal" without L-I-E.)

The Monopoly of Discourse
Wonkette complains that Meghan McCain deceitfully promoted her latest column as her "most revealing so far." Rule 5C: Sex sells. So the Republican heiress titilates her Tweeps with hints of sexual revelation, but no one who disagrees with her can engage her on the terrain of her own choosing.

What part of "fuck you" do liberals not understand?

I will not be repeatedly insulted in the most personal terms -- I "do not understand sex"? -- and acquiesce in cowardly silence. You will not deceitfully malign me, impugn my beliefs and dishonor my heroes, and then demand that I treat you as if you deserved my respect.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Perceptive readers (as opposed to the idiots among you) now begin to perceive what Jeff Goldstein has been trying to tell us about "the fool's game" of allowing one's antagonists to dictate the terms of rhetorical conflict.

Liberals are like the British redcoats complaining that the colonial riflemen at Concord Bridge dared hide behind trees and stone walls, rather than coming out into the open to be slaughtered by volleys of massed musketry.

From the mighty platform of The Daily Beast, wealthy celebrity Meghan McCain tells us that we "do not understand sex," yet heaven forbid some obscure blogger should reply that at least he understands Meghan McCain well enough to bet she's an easy mark after four margaritas. (And a fool like her never stops at three.)

Friedrich Hayek would understand what is going on here. Just as established businesses seek to protect their interests by getting government to erect barriers to entry that disadvantage potential competitors, so too does the liberal attempt to erect barriers to entry into the competition of ideas.

A neurosthenic wimp like David Brooks is acceptable as a columnist for the New York Times, but not Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, Mark Steyn or anyone else who might effectively challenge the worldview at 620 Eighth Avenue. And only certain McCains get published by Tina Brown.

This is how the game is played, and any conservative who dares to point it out is accused of whining. Like ad hominem insults, whining is another field of endeavor that liberals wish to monopolize, and if you consent to play by their rules, you will soon discover that you are playing a loser's game.

Just ask Meghan's dad about the loser's game. He spent a full decade sucking up to liberals, and what did it get him? Forty-seven percent of the Republican primary vote and 46% on November 5. And after the GOP nominated every liberal's favorite stereotype of a Republican -- short, grumpy, old and bald -- what did the David Brookses and the Kathleen Parkers shout from the rooftops: BLAME CONSERVATIVES!

And what did I tell you on Election Day? You Did Not Lose. Conservatives are presented with a choice: Continue listening to those who advised them to take the path that led down to destruction, or heed the call of the prophets who warned them against their folly.

Behold: The Philistine giant stands boasting in the plain, and your mighty men hide in terror. Will you join the cowards, or will you be An Army Of Davids?

Fortune favors the bold, and two years ago I'd never even heard of Kathy Shaidle. But look how she stands defiantly against the Canadian Goliath! To borrow a phrase from T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII, I like the cut of her jib.
"One of the basic principles of military strategy is to reinforce success. If you see a man who fights and wins, give him reinforcements, and bid others to emulate his success."

(And in case you're wondering, this is just my morning workout. I'm warming up for a few things I have to say to a certain liberal later today. Did you know that the annual tuition at the prestigious Dalton School is $33,100?)

UPDATE: Daley Gator:
Of course, Meghan brings this type of smackdown on herself by constantly bashing Conservatives. So, Meghan, before you whine about being called a "dirty Moderate" remember that if you dish it out, you best be ready to take it.
Bingo. When you talk about me behind my back, when you insult me, when you pretend to be my friend just so you can get close enough to sucker-punch me and then kick me when I'm down, don't complain when I come back on you like Sonny Corleone on Carlo.

And if you are going to offer yourself as the exemplar of young Republican womanhood, presuming to tell us that conservatives "don't understand sex," you have (a) invited me to point out that my Republican sources describe you as an alcoholic slut, and (b) forfeited any claim to the defense of chivalry by claiming to speak on behalf of women who, unlike yourself, are decent and honorable.

UPDATE II: I've deleted a few very sharp remarks directed at commenter Phil, who e-mailed to inform me of his identity, and with whom I had previously had friendly communication. My e-mail reply to Phil:
Just approved your latest comment, but for obvious reasons did not approve the one in which you gave your phone number. I do not shout idiocies -- "Muslim!" "Terrorist!" -- at campaign rallies, and am not responsible for those who do.
Even if you are among those who blame Sarah Palin for such outbursts (and I do not), the fact is that Steve Schmidt counseled McCain to choose Palin for the simple reason that, without the kind of surge of pro-life conservative enthusiasm she generated, he never stood at chance. Had I been consulted as to how to handle Palin's media, and if McCain hadn't heeded the idiotic Holtz-Eakin's advice to support the bailout, perhaps it might even have been close on Nov. 5.
These are mere hypotheticals, however. If any Republican had ever listened to me, Mitt never would have dropped out in February, no conservative would ever have supported Mike Huckabee, and the Bush White House wouldn't have gone within a country mile of the McCain-Kennedy "shamnesty" bill. My advice has never been sought by any influential Republican, and when I volunteer advice, I am ignored.
All of which is to say, Phil, that if you are seeking some forum in which to discuss the tone and content of the GOP message, there's no point trying to argue it out in my comment fields, because no one of any significance will ever see it there. If I had realized it was you commenting as anonymous "Phil," I'd have told you this directly, rather than taking it to you on the blog. I already have more Republican enemies than even Obama might ever hope for, and I certainly don't want to make an enemy of you.
Am I "mean-spirited"? You might be mean-spirited, too, if you ever tried to walk a mile in my shoes. But please pay attention to my choice of targets, and remember what I've told others: Just because you don't know what I'm doing, don't assume that I don't know what I'm doing.
Your friend,
Robert Stacy McCain
My apologies for the previous error. I can be quick to anger, but am never slow to forgive, as Matthew Yglesias may have been surprised to learn.


  1. Phil wants you to stop picking on Meghan because
    1) Libs love what she's saying
    2) She's not very bright, so her arguments are easily torn apart.

    Honestly, when she decides that she has the authority to "tell it like it is" about conservative women, she just appears so idiotic. Like she's been sucking at the tit of the daily Kos.

  2. I have no problem with Robert engaging Miss McCain's ideas. They're fair game, of course.

    It's just disappointing to see such a sharp mind reduced to hurling playground insults at a young (and, for all her faults, really well meaning) woman.

    By all means, tear apart her arguments. I agree that, by and large, they're not so strong, and many of them are plain wrong.

    But why this talk about how ugly she is, etc.? It's cruel, indecent, and certainly not Christian like.

    And why keep calling me anonymous? I always sign my name. I've linked a number of times to my blog:, wherein can be found my e-mail and last name and broad range of my opinions.

    Phil the Not Anonymous

  3. "What Phil evidently means to say is that Meghan McCain, at age 25, should be permitted to (pretend to) speak for the Republican Party, and that Robert Stacy McCain, at age 49, should be silent. That is to say, according to Phil, that experience should defer to youth. By the same principle, knowledge should defer to ignorance."


    Miss McCain has just as much right to speak for the GOP as you do.

    I don't want you to be silent. I love your blog and happily read your articles in Taki Mag, Hot Air, and elsewhere.

    All I ask for is civility. All I ask for is honest debate that addresses issues. All I ask is that we stay classy: No ad hom attacks, no character assassination, no name calling, no vile insinuations.


  4. Jeez, Carin. Speaking of mental images I can never un-see...

  5. This is probably a good time to note that Miss McCain, to my mind, is not at all insightful. She hasn’t a worthy idea in her head. She’s pretty much useless.

    But. But, but, but. Robert, you are engaging in a very counterproductive tactic by viciously attacking her as a person. Her ideas must be met and routed on the field of debate, yet you lose critical credibility by stooping to the level of a playground bully.

    In this left-liberal age, we conservatives must be extra conscious of maintaining our credibility. The American people do not like mean spirits. They are a kind and compassionate and polite folk. If we are to reconnect with Middle America (and we must!), we have to avoid sneering, cursing, maligning. Those will gain us only enemies.


  6. Anonymous "Anonymous" says:  All I ask for is civility. All I ask for is honest debate that addresses issues. All I ask is that we stay classy: No ad hom attacks, no character assassination, no name calling, no vile insinuations.
    Yeah, because that 'civility' and 'classy' instead of getting down and dirty and addressing the lies and misdirection of the Dems in 2008 worked out so well for the other, other McCain (Sen. John McCain) in the presidential election, right?

    Yeah, that's the ticket!

  7. What is unbecoming is some bar stool straddling floozy offering political punditry with no other authority than that she issued from the loins of another child of privilege who never made a living for himself except at public expense. Seriously, its like we have to suffer our own European style aristocracy complete with their empty-headed disco dancing children. What she needs is some techno-pop theme music to complete her image.

  8. Yes, the left likes to argue like vicious, street thugs, hitting below the waist. Yet, they will recoil with Victorian Matriarch style shock when attacked or when resistance is encountered.

    It's like arguing with your little sister.

  9. Meg Meg is in many ways like her father..

    "I'm John McCain. I'm running for President. That should be good enough for you to vote for me."

    for Meg it's:

    "I'm Meghan McCain. I'm John McCain's daughter. That should be good enough for you to value my opinion."

    The jokes at the expense of her looks are just icing on the cake.

  10. I wondered why the swine flu had to be renamed; after all, who is the administration afraid of offending? Porky Pig? Then I remembered Meghan McCain, the President's tubby useful idiot.

  11. The late Jean-Francois Revel wrote a couple of great books, "The Totalitarian Temptation" and "How Democracies Perish", about just this subject. I thought them to be outdated by the fall of Communism, but they are as relevant now as ever. Revel was talking about how communists and fellow travelers silence their critics but I think this goes back to the 30's.

    Liberals do this stuff because it works. In the flood of vilification reasoned argument is lost, and all that is remembered is someone is trashed and humiliated and someone struts about afterwards with their chest out. As Bin Laden says, people prefer a strong horse.

    Conservatives need to dish it out as well as take it. I won't say just ignoring it doesn't work, but it works for hardly anybody- Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani blew off the attacks, but in general the libs can destroy who they want- Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin being the most obvious examples.

    Meghan McCain is not the primary target but she is a good start.

  12. "Yeah, because that 'civility' and 'classy' instead of getting down and dirty and addressing the lies and misdirection of the Dems in 2008 worked out so well for the other, other McCain (Sen. John McCain) in the presidential election, right?"

    I contend that "getting down and dirty" is one of the reasons Obama won by ten million votes.

    BHO, rightly or wrongly, was perceived as steady, even tempered, good natured. Meanwhile, McCain's rallies were full of people foaming at the mouth and crying "Traitor!", "Terrorist!", "Muslim!", and worse. "Ordinary Americans" chafe against such violent expressions of vitriol.

    That's why Mitt Romney, for all his drawbacks, would fared better against BHO. He is very smooth and well mannered and polished, making up for a lack of passion with an excess of compassion.


  13. The thought of engaging in the deed with Meg McCain does not repulse me.

    Attempting to engage in a serious argument with the lass, on the other hand...hey, I'm a fraternity alum. I need what brain cells I have left. If I switch 'em off just to have a fair fight with her, I might never get them started up again.

  14. Except... those infamous cries of "Terrorist!" etc didn't actually happen. The Secret Service said so. They were lies perpetuated by the oh-so-civil Obama. McCain might have had a chance if he'd called the damn liar a "Damn Liar."

    When a murderer is accused of being a murderer, people detest the murderer a lot more than they detest the accuser for being "mean." Same thing goes with liars and frauds. The idea that certain classes of liars and frauds shouldn't be called liars and frauds because it might make people sympathize with liars and frauds is patently absurd. Same thing goes with hypocritical egomaniacal narcissists.

  15. "I'm warming up for a few things I have to say to a certain liberal later today"

    This had better be an indication of an over-due Fisking. Don't think for a minute that nobody noticed the omission on Tuesday! ;)

  16. Scott Hanshaw (complete, so you won't delete my comments. Slave driver!)Fri May 08, 02:08:00 PM

    Dang, bud! Not only did you go on a mighty rant, but turned it into a massive linkfest, you opportunistic pig, you!

  17. If there are any blog awards that give an award for the "Single Greatest Blog Post of the Year," I will nominate this one. In fact, I will nominate it on my blog anyway.

    Money shot: "Yeah? Well, it's about me, too, you ignorant slut."

  18. Captain Obvious said...

    Except... those infamous cries of "Terrorist!" etc didn't actually happen. The Secret Service said so. They were lies perpetuated by the oh-so-civil Obama. McCain might have had a chance if he'd called the damn liar a "Damn Liar."

    Fri May 08, 02:04:00 PM


    I thought I was going to have rebut that alleged "Terrorist" shouting by all those 'right-wing extremists' canard.   Thanks to you, Cap, now I don't.

  19. Woah, 49? Geez, you are an old fart!