January 31, 2008

Voter's Guide
— Ace

Pretty simple, really.

Thomas Sowell joins those intemperate, unhinged, wanna-lose-the-war traitors who have a slight problem with Maverick McAmnesty.

Thanks to Larwyn.

Posted by: Ace at 09:13 PM | Comments (201)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Pretty good guide.

Posted by: Snooper at February 01, 2008 01:26 AM (iiF+U)

2 That is begging to be made into a political ad!  Paging Mitt Romney's staff.

Posted by: CDR M at February 01, 2008 01:52 AM (TJoU6)

3 The worse thing about a McCain win is that it tells all those RINOs in Congress - act up and do whatever the hell you want 'cuz we're behind you 100%.

Posted by: amkun at February 01, 2008 02:35 AM (NddNm)

4 It's missing Ron Paul on the chart! j/k.

Still, my wife and I went in yesterday. Two early votes for the ReLOVEolution, or however the fuck you spell it, here in Tennessee purely for protest's sake. Fred and Tancredo's delegates were still on the fucking ballot. I wanted the GOP Machinery to know I was pissed off, not confused.

Posted by: SGT Dan at February 01, 2008 02:43 AM (oOQel)

5 McAmnesty is still in the Senate, right? So, if he really wants to prove that he "gets it," why doesn't he author a border security bill and put it up for a vote?

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 03:10 AM (PLvLS)

6 V the K,

How dare you ask such a thing! He's the senior senator of a border state fer cryin' out loud! If anyone knows how to control illegal immigration, it's John McCain. He said so himself. Plus, he just said he was a leader, too, what with his patriotism motivating his work and all. So, FYNQ.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 01, 2008 03:36 AM (Y0gTb)

7 Well, he sure as heck has been a Benedict Arnold to the Republican Party.

Posted by: ricpic at February 01, 2008 04:11 AM (+++MJ)

8 As it happens, there is a Border Security Bill in the Senate right now. Let's see what McAmnesty does.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 04:20 AM (PLvLS)

9 McC seems to be the Clinton machine's choice for us, does it not?
Perhaps their nefarious slight of hand is better than we thought.

Posted by: mbruce at February 01, 2008 04:37 AM (CxNJy)

10

Let's assume for a moment that McCain gets the nomination (and it is looking that way) I'm curious to what you will do Ace? Will the anti-McCain posts stop? Will the anti-Hillary post begin? Will you start to look at all the things McCain has done right? 


Peggy Noonan spells out why McCain is winning:


If you go by the Florida returns, maybe this year positions aren't everything. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who suffered 5½ years in the Hanoi Hilton. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who has endured a lifetime in the rounds in Washington and survived as antispending, antiabortion and pro-military. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the old fighter jock who'll keep the country safe in a rocky time ahead. And maybe Republicans on the ground are saying: He earned it.


Victor Davis Hanson tells us why bashing McCain is not such a good idea.


Sooner or later everyone here will have to accept McCain as the Republican nominee. 


You can refuse to vote at all, that is your right.


But I was willing to vote for a pro-abortion Rudy if he got the nomination, something  I never in a million years imagined I would do. It goes against just about everything I believe. But I understood one thing. Being stubborn in the face of such danger to our country with a Hillary presidency is just wrong. More wrong than voting for a pro-abortion candidate.


You weigh the right and wrong of it for yourself.  


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 01, 2008 04:57 AM (Hat8a)

11

CRAP!


I’m in TN also.  Temped to vote for Fred, but I’m worried he encourage his delegate to go Mc Cain.  Gota go Mitt, for all te good it will do.  I’m afraid it’s all pre-ordained.


Posted by: Paladin at February 01, 2008 04:59 AM (2X4q0)

12
Posted by:
Rightwingsparkle at February 01, 2008 09:57 AM (Hat8a)

Criminy, RWS.  Ace and many of the rest of us "McCain bashers" have repeatedly stated we'll vote for the guy if he's the nominee.  What more do you want?  I, for one, am not going to start saying nice things about a guy I genuinely dislike just because he's happened to lie his way to the party's nomination.

At present, it looks like he will be the nominee, but the contest isn't wrapped up yet.  Let's count the votes before making appeals to party unity and telling the rest of us to shut up and get on board, okay?

It would be a lot easier for some of us to accept McCain as the nominee if his online supporters weren't always telling us to accept McCain as the nominee.

Posted by: Slublog at February 01, 2008 05:05 AM (R8+nJ)

13 It's all a Count of Monte Cristo act. 

Once McCain takes office, he's going to the right of Genghis Khan!!!!111!!

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at February 01, 2008 05:08 AM (7nV1N)

14 Oh hey, that handsome fella, playin' hard to get on the end there seems pretty cool.  He knows it takes seven No's to get me to say Yes. 

Posted by: Joanie at February 01, 2008 05:16 AM (Z9tCp)

15 I'm a little insulted that people, like me, who won't vote for McCain under any circumstances, are being written off as "stubborn" rather than principled. I can't vote for a man who spits on the First Amendment. I can't vote for a man who insults and villainizes those who want the borders secured and the rule of law maintained as "racists" and "bigots." I can't vote for a man who would let Americans die rather than pour water up a terrorist's nose for 30 seconds. I can't vote for a man who'll give Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy veto power over judicial nominations. I can't vote for a man who demonizes capitalism. Those are principled stands.

Beyond that, there is a strategic dimension, and it is this: McCain is a Democrat in all but party affiliation, but he has the Republican label. A disastrous McCain presidency is more damaging to the Republican brand, and to the conservative movement, than a disastrous Hillabama presidency. And since the policies of Hillary Carter and Barack O'Carter are very much modeled after the worst president of the 20th century, I have no doubt their presidencies would be a disaster, creating an opening for Jeb Reagan or Mark Sanford Reagan or Bobby Jindal Reagan in 2012. We survived Carter at the height of the Cold War following twelve years of disastrous military policy. We can survive Hillabama after eight years of halfway-decent military policy.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 05:19 AM (PLvLS)

16 It's far from over. I keep reminding people that the Huckster is leading here in AL and GA, and I read yesterday in TX?

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 05:24 AM (I+jPP)

17 V the K don't be a fool.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 05:26 AM (I+jPP)

18

 V the K at February 01, 2008 10:19 AM (PLvLS)


 


What he said.  I would only add that the abortion issue, while important, is really gets misrepresented.  No president is going to overturn Roe, only the SC can do that.  Rudy had Ted Olsen leading his legal team so it's a pretty safe bet he would have appointed strict constitutionalists.  I have no such belief that the Maverick will.  Lieberman would be pissed if he did and we can't have that.


Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2008 05:31 AM (t+mja)

19 Funky, the RCP average has McVain by 1.4%. Setting aside Huckabee's brief pop early this month, it's been pretty consistently McCain but the trend shows erosion of his support.  Keep your fingers crossed.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at February 01, 2008 05:33 AM (Z3AmO)

20

In other words, a vote for any of the candidates who are current members of the worst Congress in the history of the United States will simply be a continuation of more Establishment misery.  More bashing of troops, more anti-American hatred, more accusations of torture-gulags/nazis, more caps and regulations, more snobbery about how Americans are lazy bigot and nativists, more 'Go Green' speak, more 'freebie' speak, more rebates for people who never paid into the system, more taxation, more hatred toward employers of both small and big business, more brie and pate for the queens of the hill. A vote for members of the worst Congress in the history of the United States(McCain, Obama, Clinton) is a vote for more of the same misery.


Though he was not my first choice and I now choose to support 100%  the next-in- line anti-Establishment candidate.   At least Romney calls the enemy by its name, appreciates the employer, believes in the American people, and whose faith is excellent with regard to disaster preparation and survival tactics; this alone indicates he will do well with the military since he recognizes they are the ones who insure our survival.


Posted by: syn at February 01, 2008 05:35 AM (6+0AT)

21 ;">V the K don't be a fool.

Gee, that's persuasive.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 05:37 AM (PLvLS)

22 Gee, that's persuasive.

Okay, how about this?

Don't be a stubborn fool.

Works much better, don't you think?

Posted by: Slublog at February 01, 2008 05:39 AM (R8+nJ)

23 JackStraw, you may be overstating a bit too.  The big question on abortion is certainly decided by what kind of judges we get but there is also the smaller picture of administrative policy (like military hospitals or funding issues at home and abroad) that comes straight out of the White House.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at February 01, 2008 05:39 AM (Z3AmO)

24 RWS, here's the problem: I'm not convinced that McCain would be acceptable on the war. He claimed that he would "chase bin Laden to the gates of hell" but it seems like pouring water on a terrorist's head is beyond the pale. I can't reconcile the two. Also, judging from his past performance, he seems to be reliable only on positions that he thinks make him look good in the press. Given that, how can I rely on him to stay the course when the media calls him a baby-killer? I haven't heard a psychological analsysis that gives me any confidence. When you add in a rash temper, I just can't see him sitting in a position that requires steady careful consideration.
In addition to that, I feel that McCain-Feingold betrays the most basic political right in the Western world. This is 1776 stuff, and he failed dismally. That just blows my mind.
I hope that some McCain supporter can convince me that I'm wrong about all of this. I really do. I'm open to it.

Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 05:43 AM (/94xL)

25 VRWC, is that the RCP average in TX? Or nationwide?

I'll go look at AL and GA, even though it will probably make me queasy.

Look, I like McCain more than Huckabee, and I have decided that I will even vote for Huckabee over Hillary or Obama.

I was on record saying I prefer Hillary to the Huckster, but I just couldn't do it. My husband will be deployed on election day, and a vote for Hillary or Obama would be a vote to return to the law enforcement philosophy vis a vis attacks on our troops in the field.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 05:44 AM (I+jPP)

26 The Band, hey, try to be optimistic. Maybe McCain's all for killing them instead of taking captives?

/yeah, joking

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 05:46 AM (I+jPP)

27

Rightwingsparkle is right.


Opposing McCain now is not only right.  It's decent and proper.  Be your man Romney or Huckabee, have at it.  That's what primaries are for.


But opoosing McCain - especially in this echo chamber - has reached hysterical levels, where some say they will never vote for the man lest they compromise their principles.  Others - with Ace leading the charge - go from opposition to rank and vicious smears that they would not heap upon a liberal opponent. 


And then there are the tepid supporters - "Oh, I'll vote for him, but I won't do anything beyond that."


In contrast, the Democrats have two articulate, very liberal, in many ways very attractive candidates who tack to the left now, and will tack to the center later, and if elected, will do decidedly un-conservative things with Iraq, taxes, spending and judges.  And last night, they did not shit all over each other.


Yet, many here will have been able to have salvage their principles, while liberal policies that they helped to enact savage the American military and the American taxpayer. 


 


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 05:50 AM (5HveT)

28 I'm a Fred/Rudy girl, so I won't vote in the primary. I think a primary vote is for someone you like and really support for a party's candidate in the general election.

Apparently general elections are now where you go vote for the person who would be the least disastrous for the country for 4 years.

They need to change the general election to May or something, so at least you don't have to stand in line in cold weather to vote for the person who disgusts you the least.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 05:50 AM (I+jPP)

29

Not long ago Peggy Noonan trashed Bush for not being Conservative enough yet now is trashing Conservatives for not supporting McCain? 


What an Establishment bore is she.


 


Plus what difference does the abortion issue make when there are plently of Church faithful who vote for pro-abortion candidates so they can recieve the government's Golden Entitlement Coins.  Roe vs Wade is a bad law however should Methodist ministers be endorsing Senators(Obama) who voted to continue patial-birth abortion?


 


The Church(be they Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Jewish Muslim, Epscoplian, Prespretarian or whatever religion) really should deal with the division within the Church before lecturing about how important it is that I should vote for their issues when  the faithful inside the Church do not even vote for their issues.


The Church needs to decide whether they about God's words or about Karl Marx's words; Huckabee sure shows me where religion is headed in America and it's some wicked place.


 


 


Posted by: syn at February 01, 2008 05:51 AM (6+0AT)

30 So, what you guys are saying is, it would have been better to elect Gerald Ford in 1976, even if it would have meant that in 1980 we got Ted Kennedy instead of Ronald Reagan? Because, by your own theory, Ford would have been marginally less of a disaster than Jimmy Carter was?

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 05:56 AM (PLvLS)

31 Ford was a great person, super bright, wonderful guy. And if Ford had won, how would that have kept Reagan from winning over Ted (Chappaquidick) Kennedy in 1980?

That's just illogical.

McCain ain't no Gerald Ford, but I'll still vote for him in the general election over Hillary or Obama.

Jeff Larkin, excellent post.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 05:59 AM (I+jPP)

32

V the Kat


So, you've go a long view carom planned.  We give up replacements for Stevens and Ginsberg and withdraw from Iraq and maybe, Reagan will emerge from the wreckage.


Gotcha. 


 


 


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 06:01 AM (5HveT)

33 For the record, I believe Ted Olsen has now endorsed McCain. It only makes me feel a tiny bit better.

Posted by: michaelt at February 01, 2008 06:04 AM (sMqat)

34 Because Ford was a moderate country-club Republican (like McCain) and his responses to the historical events of the 1970's would not have been very different from Carter's. No tax cuts. No aggressive response to the Soviets. No support for the Shah. Hence, when the oil-shock of 1979 and the accompanying recession hit, the Republican president would have taken the blame, and the voting public would have voted in the other party. Absent Jimmy Carter, the next Democrat in line in 1980 was the Chappaquiddick Land Whale.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:04 AM (PLvLS)

35

We give up replacements for Stevens and Ginsberg and withdraw from Iraq


1) If we elect McCain, we give those court pics up anyway


2) Hillary will not actually withdraw troops. Once she's in power it will be HER war, therefor a good and just war.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 06:05 AM (m6c4H)

36 >> So, what you guys are saying is, it would have been better to elect
Gerald Ford in 1976, even if it would have meant that in 1980 we got
Ted Kennedy instead of Ronald Reagan?


Mary Jo wouldn't have let that happen.  She is a true American hero.

Posted by: Herr Blücher at February 01, 2008 06:07 AM (xSAAv)

37

VRWC-


I don't disagree.  I think McCain would be marginally better than either Clinton or Obama on certain policy issues, the same on some and possibly worse on some.  And that's my problem with McCain.  Just because he has an R after his name, I don't believe he represents what I want all that much better than either of the two leading Dems.  Not because they do, McCain just sucks that much.  Forget his lifetime conservative rating, take a look at the rating he has gotten over the last couple years.  He may have started as a conservative but he has become a nasty, bitter, career centerist who spends more of his time co-sponsoring legislation with the most liberal elements of the senate than he does fighting for the issues I care about.


The next president will not take office for a year.  We will be pulling troops out of Iraq over the next year regardless of this election and if things continue apace, the requirement for keeping them there in large numbers will not be as big an issue.  The truth is, no matter who is in office, we will have some number of troops in Iraq for the forseeable future. I salute McCain for supporting the surge but I thank Bush for actually enacting it.  I have yet to see a Dem talk about removing troops from Afghanistan, hell, some of them seem to want more.  Iran will continue to be an issue and a case could be made that McCain will be stronger on this issue but I expect the Israelis are going to deal with this problem if it continues to fester.  They are a lot more motivated.


I'm not excited about 4 years of Hillary or Obama but I don't buy that the country will disolve either.  And if we are going down that road anyway, I would rather have a Dem put them in place rather than a Republican.


Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2008 06:07 AM (t+mja)

38

 Slublog,


I realize you and Ace have said you will hold your nose and vote for McCain, but you can't deny how many have said they will not under any circumstances (like V the K).


V the K,


I understand your principles argument. It is one I wrestled with myself with Rudy. Do you not think I felt just as much disgust at the thought of voting for Rudy as you do of voting for McCain? Trust me when I say it made me ill to think I would have to vote for him, but I was willing to do that, beyond all that I thought was truly wrong about it because I love this country more than I hate the things about  Rudy (which are MANY). I love this country enough to never put it in the hands of a socialist. I don't throw buzz words around. When I say socialist, I mean socialist. And in additon a maniuplating corrupt narcisstic evil woman who will make the divisions we have had in this country in the past look like tea party at the Kumbya campground. 


Nothing and no one is worth that.


The band,


We could disect McCain all day, but that isn't going to change the facts above. In a short  answer to you, I think 5 1/2 years of being tortured gives someone a bit leeway on their feelings against torture, don't you? He did fail miserably with McCain/Feingold, but you haven't seen the constitution shredded like it would be with Hillary and the Dems in power.


Finally...JackStraw,


You do know that Ted Olsen endorsed McCain today, right?


  


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 01, 2008 06:07 AM (Hat8a)

39

There is this egotistical streak to the McCain opposition.  It elevates his detractors to some kind of keepers of the faith, with a long view and a sharp nose for ferreting out dangers like McCain.  It also places their feelings and their sensibilities first and foremost - why should they compromise their principles for more conservative positions from a McCain, who is a heretic.


Better to get no conservative positions and remain true to thyself.     


I think McCain is stiff, often mean-spirited, and not very nimble.  I also disagree with him on some seminal issues.  However, I don't really need to label him Benedict Arnold, though, if in doing so, his detractor gets to play the role of hero, I can see the attraction.   


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 06:08 AM (5HveT)

40 For the record, I believe Ted Olsen has now endorsed McCain. It only makes me feel a tiny bit better.

That's good news.  I'd like to see him replace Stevens or Ginsburg.

Posted by: Slublog at February 01, 2008 06:08 AM (R8+nJ)

41 We give up replacements for Stevens and Ginsberg.

Two libs out. Two libs in. No change. Besides which, McCain apparently thinks Alito was too conservative, and will gladly compromise with Senate Democrats in the name of "reaching across the aisle." So, we get another Souter and another, maybe, O'Connor. Not much difference.

and withdraw from Iraq

Won't happen. Bill promised a middle-class tax cut, and when he got in said that the previous administration had botched things up so bad he couldn't do it. Hillary can do the same with the Iraq withdrawal. Besides which, if Bush finishes the job enough, the Iraqis can step in.

and maybe, Reagan will emerge from the wreckage.

There's certain a better chance of that happening without McAmnesty in office than with McAmnesty in office.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:09 AM (PLvLS)

42

One more thing. Just for what Hillary would do to our military-- de moralize them, bring them home without finishing the job so many sacrificed for, defunding it, reducing it like her husband did.


All that  ALONE is worth voting for McCain despite any reservations. 


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 01, 2008 06:10 AM (Hat8a)

43

Entropy


If we elect McCain, we give those court pics up anyway


This is fantasy.  McCain may not get you Janice Rogers Brown, but then again, neither did Bush.  You'll get a moderate to conservative, or as moderate to conservative a nominee as the Democratic Senate will allow.


Or, we can go your way, and get stalwart liberal replacements with a median age of 44.


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 06:10 AM (5HveT)

44 I think 5 1/2 years of being tortured gives someone a bit leeway on their feelings against torture, don't you?

No. I don't. A guy whose willing to sacrifice my children so he can preen morally about the human rights of terrorists? I don't give him a pass on that.

I just don't get why people are willing to forget the last eight years of McCain's back-stabbing and treachery just because he's *saying* that he is modifying his positions in an election year? Have you forgotten that he is, above everything else, a <b>politician</b>?

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:13 AM (PLvLS)

45 Frankly, I think I'm being the least hysterical person here. Everyone else is saying, "If Hillary gets in, America is doomed. Doomed! I say!" And I'm saying, "Meh, America has survived worse. We'll get through Hillary and we'll be better for it." For some reason, this makes me the loon.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:15 AM (PLvLS)

46

You do know that Ted Olsen endorsed McCain today, right?


 


Sure, after Rudy dropped out he and the majority of his team went to McCain.  Sort of a backhanded endorsement wouldn't you say?


Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2008 06:16 AM (t+mja)

47 The thing that I don't get -- reading Ace, the Corner, etc. -- is the assumption that a) Romney is really a conservative, and b) he has a snowball's chance of being elected in the event that he's nominated.

Because he's not a conservative -- look at his record in Massachusetts, which is what really counts (and not the various poses he's been striking over the past six months).

And even if he were, he couldn't possibly win a general election.The whole Mormon thing is a dealbreaker to far too many people in the Rebublican base. (You guys are in denial about that.)

There's a war on and only one of the remaining four D & R candidates will reliably prosecute that war. (Romney would get rolled by the Democratic Congress before he knew what happened to him.)

You boys wanna replay the Fall of Saigon, keep on going after John McCain. Because that's what you'll get.



Posted by: Geriatric at February 01, 2008 06:18 AM (PxIHV)

48 RWS

Once again ,Victor Davis Hanson is a DEMOCRAT.

You will forgive me if I more-or-less ignore what democrats have to say about which candidate is the best or smartest or inevitable republican nominee.

And if we're savaging McCain now for the liberal aspects of his record (whose name is legion), it is just a 'mooncast shadow' of what the dems will do to savage the conservative aspects of his record.

Posted by: WisdomLover at February 01, 2008 06:19 AM (YGMaD)

49

You know, I got to thinking about this last night, trying to come to terms with the idea of voting for John McCain despite the fact that he and I share few beliefs. And as hard as I could bargain with nyself--and I was almost there,too--I just couldn't get past Jeff Larkin calling me and others pussies for having principles.


So if I have to join the ranks of those who call other people pussies over the fucking Internet, those nutless fucks who wouldn't say shit to my face without pissing their pants, then I'll pass. Keep it up, Jeff Larkin, nutless fucking Moby.


Posted by: spongeworthy at February 01, 2008 06:22 AM (a00go)

50 So, geriatric is saying we need to nominate a war hero is more "electable," according to the media, than the alternative candidate. Apparently because that strategy worked so well for the Democrats in 2004.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:22 AM (PLvLS)

51
A number of commenters have stated that if McGeezer is the nominee, come November they will hold their noses and vote for him. However, every time Larkin or RWS posts, the likelihood that the aforementioned commenters will vote for McCain, becomes less. Take a hint, you two losers!

Posted by: dlm at February 01, 2008 06:26 AM (wxBdh)

52

Everyone else is saying, "If Hillary gets in, America is doomed. Doomed! I say!"


Remember 2006? Remember the threats to sit out? Remember "OHMYGOD Don't let anyone say "Speaker of the House Pelosi"!!!"


Remember how disasterous End-of-Days horrible this was suppose to be?


So how bad has this democrat congress actually been?


Lessee...they passed a minimum wage hike...and uh......umm ....yeah....uhh ...ok... that was fucking terrible.


Someone shoot me.


I don't think this country can SURVIVE another minimum wage hike!


You'll get a moderate to conservative, or as moderate to conservative a nominee as the Democratic Senate will allow.


Souter. Kennedy. That is what you get.


People like to talk about how Kennedy is somehow much more conservative then Ginsberg, but I'm really not seeing a big difference. I don't care. I honestly don't. No effective difference. 


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 06:27 AM (m6c4H)

53

And even if he were, he couldn't possibly win a general election.The whole Mormon thing is a dealbreaker to far too many people in the Rebublican base. (You guys are in denial about that.)


McCain is unelectable.


He cannot win without 1/2 to 1/3rd of the conservative party base, and that base WILL NOT vote for him. McCain is a dealbreaker to far too many people in the Republican base (you guys are in denial about that.)


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 06:30 AM (m6c4H)

54 However, every time Larkin or RWS posts, the likelihood that the
aforementioned commenters will vote for McCain, becomes less. Take a
hint, you two losers!


Well, not so much RWS who is charming and gracious even as she disagrees. But some of the other McCainiacs are starting to act like RuPaulians.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:31 AM (PLvLS)

55 v the k --

No, I'm saying that Romney is neither a conservative nor electable. Period.


Posted by: Geriatric at February 01, 2008 06:31 AM (PxIHV)

56 Funky, I cited Al since it's where you won't be participating.  The margin is close and you should really reconsider.

Jack,  I hope you didn't get the impression I was endorsing McCain by any stretch. It's just that the White House does have some direct impact on abortion policy and I wouldn't want to oversimplify the arguments.  On judges, my impression is that there is also a significant difference between the Dems and McCain.  The latter would probably give us something in the range of Kennedy to Souter and the former will deliver something between Souter and Ginsberg. 

After a few days of reflection, I don't think it really matters who you go with in the general.  McCain is a squish and the Dems are running with conviction.  Given a choice between a tepid knock-off and the real thing, people tend to go with the real thing.  McCain can't win.

RWS,  it doesn't matter if McCain's experiences explain his position on "torture" and even make it personally forgivable.  It's the position itself that matters.  No passes.

Posted by: VRWC Agent at February 01, 2008 06:33 AM (Z3AmO)

57

It all boils down to this.


Can you trust McRhino? 


If so, why? 


When has he ever done anything except look after his egotistical ass?


A man that would leave a wife dying of cancer is not someone I trust, that goes for you too Newt.


Posted by: Kempermanx at February 01, 2008 06:33 AM (qvT/A)

58

We could disect McCain all day, but that isn't going to change the facts above.


My problem is that the supporters aren't dissecting him and giving me a reason to believe he's better on the war, or on anything else. I'm willing to listen, but I've got to actually hear something when I do.


In a short answer to you, I think 5 1/2 years of being tortured gives someone a bit leeway on their feelings against torture, don't you?


No, I don't. This isn't torture, and his rhetoric on this is completely inconsistent with his position that he will "chase bin Laden to the gates of hell." The two positions cannot co-exist in the mind of a sane man, which is my problem on that point.


He did fail miserably with McCain/Feingold, but you haven't seen the constitution shredded like it would be with Hillary and the Dems in power.


Well, it already has been since FDR. But that misses the point. It's not that "he did something bad," it's that he did something that shows me he doesn't understand anything about liberty. This isn't a matter of compromising on gun control, or privacy rights. This is political speech, the sine qua non of Western thoughts on liberty for the last 300 years. And I haven't yet heard anything to comfort me that perhaps he understands the birthright of liberty at all.


Like I say, I'm willing to be convinced. But it's going to take a dissection and explanation on a massive scale to accomplish that. Proof by handwaving won't be enough.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 06:33 AM (/94xL)

59 Entropy, I think John McCain's calculus is that once he has the nomination sewn up, he can openly screw the conservative base because he'll attract so many "independents" and Hispanics, especially if Hillary is the nominee. Then, the conservatives who bought into his election year promises will really be shown to be suckers.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:34 AM (PLvLS)

60

No, I'm saying that Romney is neither a conservative nor electable. Period.

McCain is neither a conservative nor electable. Period.


So it's a wash.


I'm voting me a black man. Do we get cards? "I voted for a black man so I'm not racist" cards? Cuz I need one of those. It would be nice, is all I'm saying. Kinda like a bonus.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 06:35 AM (m6c4H)

61

spongeworthy


Your comment is an amazing admission.  Read it back.  Summarized, it says "I was near-convinced intellectually, but I just could not get over the rudeness, so I'll stay here and be petulant."


This is the egotism of which I wrote earlier.


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 06:38 AM (5HveT)

62

Does the ballot HAVE to be secret?


Will they let me videotape myself voting for Obama?


You know, so I can prove it?


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 06:39 AM (m6c4H)

63

No, I'm saying that Romney is neither a conservative nor electable. Period.


I'll grant you that some of Romney's policies while governor of the most liberal, not just Democratic but hard left liberal, state in the union don't appear as conservative as say a governor from a rock ribbed conservative state but when put in context, they are pretty damn impressive.  What exactly would McCain's excuse be?  You think he would have gotten punished as a senator from AZ for legislating as a conservative?


As to the electability piece, yea, I heard that about getting elected governor of MA, too.  If it wasn't for Huck siphoning off a good number of votes, this race would look a lot different.  Huck is tipping this election to McCain just as Perot did for Clinton and both he and McCain know it.  Romney has been winning an impressive number of evangelicals throughout this race, the very people who we were told would never vote for a Mormon.


Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2008 06:41 AM (t+mja)

64 What do you guys think is a better indicator of McAmnesty's performance as president, the last 3 months of his campaign or his previous 12+ years in the senate? How are you guys going to feel when he marches into the Rose Garden to sign the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act he co-authored with his "good friends" Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer? How are you guys going to feel as he stands, grinning, next to Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy, and announce their "compromise" pick for the next SCOTUS vacancy? What are you guys going to say when John McCain, Mel Martinez, and Ted Kennedy Roll Out "Ultimate Immigration Reform 2010: Amnesty for Everybody!"



Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:45 AM (PLvLS)

65 Jeff Larkin wins hands down in the category of  "Most Egregious Projection of Self and Candidate" with the following: There is this egotistical streak to the McCain opposition.

Seriously dude... you really need to get over yourself.

V the K, Entropy & JackStraw have said it all  in this thread. Nobody refutes what they said, or what I've been saying from the beginning of McCain's run.

Instead the Jeff Larkins, Funky Chickens & RWS argue that a (D) in the WH would be the worst of all things EVAH, and that I can't possibly know what McCain would do (re judges, amnesty), despite his many words and actions providing ample evidence.

Oh, but I can predict exactly what he'll do in the WOT based on 5 years of torture as a POW.

I appreciate that hope springs eternal in each of you, that McCain would somehow see the light if president and fulfill your political fantasies. I'm pretty certain you will be disappointed once again, and I feel sorry for you.

Just be dears, and don't blame me when your man goes down in flames once the MSM turns on him, and in debates with the (D) nominee, the questions aren't so nicely phrased to keep his temper in line.

In return, I promise no "I told you so's". I'll hold your hands and just maybe, next time, a little healthy cynicism will enter your conscience and allow you to actually vote on principle (yes, that awful word, JL) rather than expedience.

If, by some miracle, your man actually wins the Presidency? Well god help us all, for Conservatism will take another giant lurch to the Left.

Right back at you JL: I hope that your mindless adherence to party-line voting keeps you warm at night.

Posted by: krakatoa at February 01, 2008 06:46 AM (1nsAD)

66

Eh, I think in the end we are arguing over a moot point.  This fall, the Dems are going to trot out The First Female President or The First Black President and we are going to get steam rolled no matter who we nominate.  We don't have any firsts or messiahs in our stable.


Time to start planning the insurgency.


Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2008 06:49 AM (t+mja)

67 VRWC, I was disenfranchised by the man :-). Actually, once Fred! was out I didn't rush to register by the deadline for the primary (deadline was 1/26). Really, I'm not that excited by any of them who are left. I like Rudy, but it wasn't going to be worth my time to vote for him in AL with his pro-choice honesty.

But the proposal that Romney is a conservative in any historical sense amuses me.

Entropy I hope you'll reconsider voting for Obama. I heard a guy talking about his new book on Boortz yesterday, and it had some pretty alarming stuff about Obama that I hadn't heard before.

I'll go look for a link, but it will take a while because I am not sure I remember the title, and only caught the author's first name (unless Boortz has the book on his website). BRB

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 06:50 AM (I+jPP)

68 Oh, and I was listening to Limbaugh talk football yesterday, and heard a radio ad for Huckabee. I haven't heard a McCain or Romney radio spot here yet.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 06:51 AM (I+jPP)

69 Well god help us all, for Conservatism will take another giant lurch to the Left

No, conservatism will be just fine if McAmnesty is elected. The Republican party, on the other hand, will become the permanent-minority, 35-senators and 150 representatives, Ford-Rockefeller party of the mid-1970's.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 06:52 AM (PLvLS)

70 Oh, and I was listening to Limbaugh talk football yesterday, and heard
a radio ad for Huckabee. I haven't heard a McCain or Romney radio spot
here yet.


The only ads I've heard up here are for Ron Paul - radio and television. 

Posted by: Slublog at February 01, 2008 06:53 AM (R8+nJ)

71 krakatoa, did you miss the thing where I said I supported Fred?

I sent Fred more money than I've ever sent to a politician before.

My second choice was Rudy, and he was only my second choice because I knew a guy who admitted he was personally pro choice couldn't win the GOP nomination, which is a pity.

I'm only saying that if the choice comes down to McCain or Huckabee vs Hillary/Obama in the general election, it's a no brainer for me.

And I have to say, that RWS and I have been quite civil, and lots of the rest of you really bring the nasty. It really doesn't make one more likely to think highly of your candidate.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 06:55 AM (I+jPP)

72

 I heard a guy talking about his new book on Boortz yesterday, and it had some pretty alarming stuff about Obama that I hadn't heard before.


That just makes it that much more meaningfull that I would vote for him despite all that stuff, just because he's black.


So I'm that much more of a not-a-racist.


"I voted for a black man (even though he killed someone!)" cards! It's like voting for OJ! 


To put this in D&D terms, it's like having a belt that grants +15 Rainbow-Shakedown immunity. 


If a stripper ever accuses me of rape, I've got a tape. If he's got the tape, he didn't do the rape. Not-a-racist baby!


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 06:57 AM (m6c4H)

73 Geriatric-

As far as I can tell, Romney's record is to govern very conservatively in a highly liberal state. Far more conservatively than any Republican who preceded him.

RWS and Jeff Larkin -

As far as I can tell, we're still in the primaries and trying to decide who our nominee will be. McCain is 30 delegates up with nearly 2000 still to be chosen. Pardon me for not jumping on the inevitability bandwagon.

One of the big arguments for McCain is that he is more electable than Mitt Romney (an argument that was also made for both Ford and Bush against Reagan). It says something about the electability of a candidate that significant portions of his base will stay home and that even larger portions of his base have hold-your-nose tepid support for the candidate.

I'm sure that this electability canard is based on two facts. 1. McCain is more moderate than Romney 2. General Election Polls. (See I know all about the GE polls, so please don't bother repeating them). Point 1 just underscores the reason that his base won't support him, and the polls mean exactly nothing this far out.



McCain will get plastered by Obama. He would have gotten plastered by
Edwards. He probably would have gotten plastered by Bill Richardson. He
only has a chance against Hilary and then only if Obama is not on the
ticket (because after what she and Bill have done to the blacks, Hilary is going to have problems with her base).

McCain need yield to no man on personal courage. But there are plenty of men of equal courage who are his moral superiors in almost every other way. Bob Dole suffered as much for his country as McCain, but you didn't see him preening about it constantly and denigrating the service of others who didn't sacrifice the way he had. McCain is trying to emphasize Patriotism over Profit right now. Why doesn't the wretched little gnome come out and call Romney a chickenhawk and be done with it?

This fundamental meanness in the man will destroy him in the general with the middle third of the voters. And his base hates him. Other than that he's really electable.

Posted by: WisdomLover at February 01, 2008 07:01 AM (YGMaD)

74

dlm,


Totally unfair. I have never called anyone names who refuses to vote or support McCain. I have always said that is their right. I have always tried to make a reasoned argument for McCain, never insulting anyone (at least not meaning to).


I respect most of the people who comment here a great deal. When they give their opinons, I listen. It does bother me that V the K is so against McCain. I respect him enough to have let that make me pause in my consideration of McCain.


This isn't an echo chamber. We are here to argue and debate, are we not? This is politics.


So I would appreciate no more name calling on your part.  


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 01, 2008 07:02 AM (Hat8a)

75 Eh, he didn't have a link to the book or the author. He did have this though:

By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate

Hillary ranked 16th.

For the record, of course I will vote for Romney if he's the candidate in the general election. Hell, if I'd vote for Huckster, that goes without saying, even if the Romney supporters on this site are nasty.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:02 AM (I+jPP)

76 FC: So Fred was your man, on principle. He was mine, as well.

McCain is now your man... on what?

Do principles matter anymore? Or do one or two principles somehow make all others inconsequential?

This is my frustration with the GOP as a party. An abandonment of principles in exchange for temporary expedience.

I apologize for wrapping you and RWS up in my snide counter to JL. His incredible preening asshattery is wearing incredibly thin.

Posted by: krakatoa at February 01, 2008 07:05 AM (1nsAD)

77

I can find no evidence that McCain will reliably do anything, except that is, to occasionally take positions so far to the left as to invalidate his claims to be a Republican, much less a conservative.


 


Those who say Hillary is to be feared above all else do not remember the Nixon period: Wage and Price Controls, the EPA, OSHA, Detente’, Bretton Woods and the lying that so set the country against Republicans.  After Nixon, the country dove to the left at all levels of government.


 


McCain seems to possess the “lying sack of shit” gene, shared with Nixon.  They share too, corrupt S&L executives and a need to get elected so great that ethics and truth are abandoned.  If the truth has been an early victim, is it possible to compare McCain to any Republican President other than Nixon?


 


While professing to be a Reagan man, I find that McCain’s actions too more closely follow Nixon.  Is it not true that Global Warming caps and trades, and ANWR, remind one more of Nixon’s Wage and Price controls and the EPA, than Reagan’s policies that ended the first and moderated the second?


 


Can anyone deny that Wage and Price controls were an economic disaster of the first order?  Can anyone deny either, that Global Warming caps and trades, the 50-cent gas tax, and controls on energy have the potential to be even worse?


 


McCain and Nixon both have their strength in foreign affairs and war promises.  Nixon was an economic basket case, but can it be argued that McCain, with “patriotism over profit” and populist opposition to tax cuts because they “reward the rich”, is any different?


 


And I agree with those who say that it is sometimes harder to mount opposition to a Republican President – and impossible to deflect blame from its disasters.


 


Come with us, they say.  Get in line, even if that means to deny the obvious, abandon the truth, bury my head in the sand and ignore the cliff we now jump off, again.  


Posted by: Robert at February 01, 2008 07:06 AM (Rb4Qc)

78 Funny:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200801/01302008.html

And the title of the book was "Meet the Next President"

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:10 AM (I+jPP)

79 krakatoa, hello? He's not. I'm not sure you comprehend my posts.

McCain is my preference against the dems in the general election.

Could you really argue, in any kind of substantive manner that either dem would be a more conservative choice?

Please tell me how either dem would be better for the military than McCain.

Please tell me how either dem would be better on stopping out of control government growth and spending than McCain.

Tell me how either dem is more conservative on abortion than McCain.

It's not an emotional response on my part, just kind of coming to terms with what the choice may be.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:12 AM (I+jPP)

80 Anyone need a break from this? Here's some other stuff to remind you, things ain't so bad:

Norway Shows How to Keep an Oil Boom from Destroying Your Economy

Huffposter tells readers "How you can be psychic like me!" (Your reality-based community, folks.)

A Fred Cartoon and a McAmnesty Cartoon.

U.S. Navy Robot Lab promises not to build SkyNet
.

Water is Amazing.

And when all else fails, you can always drop by the moronic caption blog.


Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 07:15 AM (PLvLS)

81 I mean really, when did "I prefer McCain to Hillary" become some kind of ringing endorsement?

Shit, I think I might actually prefer Ron Paul to Hillary.

I am grateful to the Huckabee supporters for replacing the Ron Paul signs with Huckabee ones.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:16 AM (I+jPP)

82 It's not a matter that the Dems will be better on any particular issue than McCain, it's just that the difference is so small, it's not worth selling out for.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 07:19 AM (PLvLS)

83 Maybe this will help:

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Posted by: profligatewaste at February 01, 2008 07:21 AM (SSTpc)

84

 So Fred was your man, on principle. He was mine, as well.

McCain is now your man... on what?


Do principles matter anymore? Or do one or two principles somehow make all others inconsequential?


I'm not sure you can write something more immature.  If your preference is one candidate, who does not make it, under this analysis, you must withdraw from the process.


This may be the way of the sequestered monk, but here in the real world, you make choices, often between not optimum or desired and less optimum and loathed.


I get the anti-McCain thing.  At heart, there is a fear of being made a fool of and there is a sense that he is so bitter and mean that when given the reins, he will shit all over conservatives because he is, in fact, the devil, a liar and a truly diabolical figure in American politics.


That just strikes me as a little silly, for a man to rack up a career 82% ACU rating only to mask his true plan - the great conservative double-cross.


Mwahahahahahahahaha 


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 07:21 AM (5HveT)

85

Could you really argue, in any kind of substantive manner that either dem would be a more conservative choice?

Can someone argue in any kind of substantive manner that that McCain would be a more conservative choice? That's what I'm doubting. I'm a big believer in choosing the lesser of two evils. I just haven't seen anything that demonstrates that McCain actually IS the lesser of two evils.


And I'll agree that RWS has been very polite. Actually, she's put up with an amazing load of crap and dealt with it very well.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 07:22 AM (/94xL)

86 Interestingly enough, both Limbaugh's football expert friend and Boortz think the Giants will win the Superbowl.

And the sidebar thing....Ryan Seacrest at the Superbowl pregame show? WTF?

Is even the NFL addicted to bubbleheaded hollyweird celebrity chat now?

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:23 AM (I+jPP)

87 Instapundit:

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Hillary Clinton and John McCain on earmarks:

In his State of the Union address Monday, reinvigorated public discussion of earmarks — lawmakers’ specific spending items inserted into appropriations bills. While fiscal conservatives in Washington are skeptical about Bush’s ability to do much on the issue, the president may be helping his party by bringing up this issue, which touched on fiscal conservatism, government transparency and political corruption.

Earmarks, and their use of tools of corruption, could play a large role in the 2008 presidential contest if the current front-runners succeed in grabbing their respective parties’ nominations. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a leading opponent of pork and one of the only lawmakers to forswear earmarks, while Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is Congress’ leading porker.

Clinton’s earmarking is not merely offensive to procedural purists who demand spending go through standard channels. It also is not merely a transgression against fiscal conservatism. Clinton’s earmarks often directly benefit specific corporations and businessmen, who, in turn, make large contributions to her campaign. This “pay-to-play” earmarking, as one left-leaning budget watchdog group put it, highlights the truly dirty side of earmarks.

Indeed.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:24 AM (I+jPP)

88

Giants won't win.  But they'll cover.


 


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 07:26 AM (5HveT)

89 Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul. I even hear ads for him on Sirius Satellite.

Posted by: SGT Dan at February 01, 2008 07:26 AM (jCQ+I)

90

That just strikes me as a little silly, for a man to rack up a career 82% ACU rating only to mask his true plan - the great conservative double-cross.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't think McCain has some evil plan. I don't think he has ANY plan other than boosting his own ego. It just so happens that positive media attention is his chosen path of self-gratification. I think he's a man so emotionally invested in himself that he'll be easily manipulated by the press and the Democrats. I say that because that's what he's done for many years. I still haven't been given a reason to trust the man.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 07:27 AM (/94xL)

91

V the K-


I was actually in Stavanger a couple weeks ago meeting with Statoil.  It is a really nice place but as socialistic and expensive (a gallon of gas costs $10+) as they come.  My host drove us by a huge Haliburton compound and asked if they should start planning for Cheney's invasion, Norwegian humor.


Interestingly enough, the biggest social problem they are facing right now is an influx of Muslims who absolutley refuse to integrate into the Norwegian poplualtion.  Go figure.


Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2008 07:27 AM (t+mja)

92 funky chicken- V the K, entropy & JackStraw have already responded to those questions, and I have written extensively in previous McCain threads... if you are late to the party, I'd suggest reading back over them where you'll see all this stuff addressed repeatedly, and either rebutted with a giant "Nu-uh!" or simply ignored.

Ultimately it's not about whether or not a (D) is more conservative. My argument has never been that the (D) would be more conservative, and has always been, for YEARS, what harm a McCain presidency does to Conservatism and the GOP in general.

It's about whether we continue the long slow slide to Socialism by voting not our principles, but our party. It is particularly galling that the man who in my opinion did more to ensure We, the People, would not have a voice in government than anyone else in the history of the nation, would reap the ultimate benefit of his incumbency protection scheme (McCain/Feingold).

When the party moves left, and the opposition party moves lefter, where exactly do you think that ultimately leaves us?

Better we suffer a (D) dominance now, and bear witness to the orgy of tax & spend excess that is almost inevitable, in order to better clarify the difference between the future the Liberals have been inexorably moving us towards, and the future Reagan envisioned for us.



Posted by: krakatoa at February 01, 2008 07:28 AM (1nsAD)

93

Is it fair to say that McCain would be more conservative that Obama and Clinton on:


*  judicial appoinmtments


*  taxes


*  spending growth/earmarks


*  the war


*  defense spending


*  abortion


*  tort reform 


with his major heresies being --


*  immigration (an approach from which he has distanced himself) 


*  McCain-Feingold (a gutted law)


*  voting against the Bush tax cuts (for which he has atoned by vote and statement)


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 07:29 AM (5HveT)

94 (I actually think his major heresy is that he's a dick who shoots his mouth off, doesn't take shit, and doesn't think about what he says, and when he's directed some of that bile at conservatives, they haven't forgotten)

Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 07:34 AM (5HveT)

95 voting against communists is not selling out.

hey, your vote is your vote, and please use it as you wish. but don't fool yourself into believing that 4 years of Hillary will be better for the country, or for conservatives (hello, Fairness Doctrine) than 4 years of McCain.

McCain is really good at pissing off the conservative base, so why do you think Hillary would even be better at that?

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:34 AM (I+jPP)

96

Trost me, I vill cleen up da guv'mint.


Vote McPutin.


Posted by: Jonny McPutin at February 01, 2008 07:39 AM (zdMgK)

97

I actually think his major heresy is that he's a dick who shoots his mouth off, doesn't take shit, and doesn't think about what he says


We agree.  I can't see where thats a winning candidate in November though..


Posted by: toby928 at February 01, 2008 07:40 AM (evdj2)

98 And Jeff Larkin, you can kiss my ass. Your go-to rejoinder of "you're so immature" is the mark of an intellectually bankrupt position.

Either you can't, or you refuse to, substantively debate this issue. Given your lack of comprehension, I'd guess the former. Your scoffing at the concept of principles is truly revealing.

 I'm done with you. Enjoy your ego. I'm sure it's very pretty.

Posted by: krakatoa at February 01, 2008 07:40 AM (1nsAD)

99

Again, sky falling gloom and absolute doom.


Beware, children! Speaker of the House Nacy Pelosi is under your bed!


Fairness doctrine would ROCK for us. It would be a total debacle to even attempt it. Go for it. I'd love to see them push harder for this. I wish they would. The whispers were just that - whispers. They won't actually try to do this again - unfortunately.


The reality of democrats, while not terribly good, is not nearly AS bad as it seems in the nightmares of Republicans.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 07:42 AM (m6c4H)

100 Sirius radio has ads? I thought one of the selling points was that you woudn't have to listen to those?

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:42 AM (I+jPP)

101 Entropy, hey, vote for HillObama, like I said, it's your right to do so.

I also said that my husband will be in the sandbox in November of 2008. I will vote GOP because of what either of them will do to the military. I lived through watching what the first (more conservative) Clinton did to the military, and it sucked. I don't wish to see what even more liberal types will do.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:44 AM (I+jPP)

102 I.Will.Not.Vote.For.McCain.

He has, IMO, no honor left. No honorable man would attempt to smear an opponent as he did with the Romney "time-table quote". Anyone here can review McCain's Senatorial record, view his chummy relationships with the far left of the Democrat party, his pursuit of the MSM and his, consistent, vilification of conservatives.

McCain is the kind of man that would cause me to cross the street rather than salute.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at February 01, 2008 07:48 AM (p0Yi7)

103

JL:


 "I was near-convinced intellectually, but I just could not get over the rudeness, so I'll stay here and be petulant."


Arrogant and obtuse is no way to go through life, Moby. The point is that I can see what sort of person sells out what they know is right. The same kind of person who calls other people pussies over the Tubes, where they cannot have their nose smacked back into their skull. I have no interest in starting down the path to where you are.


Posted by: spongeworthy at February 01, 2008 07:50 AM (a00go)

104

Rightwingsparkle at February 01, 2008 09:57


My tea-leaves are telling me, If McCain is the Republican nominee, the Hilldebeast wins by default.


These idiots, who tell us, "I won't carry McCain, just because he has an "R" behind his name" seem to forget, there's such a thing as "the Lesser of Two Evils"


There's a train-wreck coming...They don't even want to slow it down.


 


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 07:54 AM (ixk9j)

105

I will not support McCain ever. EVER. Let Hillary, Obama or the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin win.


I understand full well the ramifications of what I am sayinng.


I would rather vote my conscience and be able to sleep at night knowing that I stood for what is RIGHT and CORRECT. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voing for evil.


McCain is, has been and will continue to be a disgrace to his party and conservatism in general. No amount of propaganda can change his horrible record on a laundry list of important issues.


I respect the fact that some feel differently. You can and should vote your conscience as well. And if you honestly in your heart of hearts feel that McCain is a better choice than Clinton or Obama, then go for it.


For me, however, I am tired of being told to drop the soap "for the greater good of the party." No more. If we are going to be reamed by a president, let it least be by someone who is forthright about being our enemy (politically speaking at least.)


As much as I despise Clinton, I would rather have her in charge and be a part of the loyal opposition than have a turncoat like McCain as our "leader" while he enacts 85% of the same legislation that a Democrat would.


Think about it. Would your rather have an open enemy who you can face off with honestly or a backstabbing, treacherous "friend" who will try to undercut us so he can kiss up to Ted Kennedy and his ilk? Can you McCain supporters really swallow this?


It is true that a Clinton or Obama presidency could (and probably would) be an unmitigated disaster. Honestly, do any of want 4 (or more years of the Clinton soap opera? Barack Obama scares me with his ideas. However, I still believe that a motivated and united opposition galvanized by a defeat will be able to do more good than to have a RINO in office.


As has been noted before, if we allow this RINO to get in, it will only encourage and embolden the others. We cannot allow this.


Please, McCain supporters, think about the consequences of YOUR actions as well.


Posted by: Paradigm Shift at February 01, 2008 07:54 AM (/s5j6)

106 Count me in as another member of the I.Will.Not.Vote.For.McCain.Ever crowd.  Sorry folks, but he'll destroy the country with his amnesty antics and kissykissy foolishness with the senators from the Peoples Republic of Mass.  I'd rather sit back and watch Hillary steal sofas and dining room tables in the White House for another 4 yrs while the rest of us work to rebuild the Republican Party to reflect the values of Goldwater and Reagan, like it used to be. 

Posted by: gartrip at February 01, 2008 07:57 AM (6c0zI)

107 Sorry about the long link, using a Mac:

http://www.amazon.com/Meet-Next-President-Bill-Sammon/dp/1416554890

Book Description
Barack Obama once came close to injecting heroin, but balked when a junkie pulled out the needle and rubber tubing. Obama and Mitt Romney are descended from polygamous great-grandfathers who had five wives apiece. Rudy Giuliani's first wife was his second cousin. Liberal Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was once a conservative Republican "Goldwater Girl."
Such are the plot twists in the remarkable saga of the 2008 presidential campaign, which is brimming with enough colorful characters to populate a Russian novel. On second thought, no novelist would dare invent such an audacious cast of characters in a single work of fiction. After all, who could be expected to believe in the existence of Fred Thompson, an actor who has grown tired of playing presidents on TV? Or John Edwards, a populist who pays $400 for a haircut? Or John McCain, an aging war hero who can't stop alienating his own party?

And yet one of these all-too-human mortals will soon become the most powerful person on the planet. The competition is fierce and the contest historic. For the first time in more than half a century, the field of White House hopefuls does not include an incumbent president or vice president. That means 2008 is a wide-open race on both sides of the political aisle.

Bestselling author Bill Sammon, senior White House correspondent for the Washington Examiner, has conducted hours of exclusive interviews with the candidates and their most trusted advisers. Sammon, a political analyst for Fox News Channel, goes behind the scenes to answer the crucial questions: Who are these candidates? What do they stand for? How are they running their campaigns?

Readers will come away with the knowledge to answer their own set of questions: Who can be trusted to prosecute the next phase of the war on terror? Who deserves the awesome power to appoint the next Supreme Court justices, whose momentous decisions will impact Americans for generations? Who can best guide the world's sole superpower into the second decade of the twenty-first century, when rogue regimes could alter the global balance of power with nuclear weapons?

In short, who will be the 44th president of the United States?

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 07:58 AM (I+jPP)

108

The answer is "yes"


Yes, I'm all impressed with your independent, high-minded, self-righteousness.


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 08:04 AM (ixk9j)

109 Here's another voter's guide, pretty simple really, Romney's a habitual flip flopper and he's not a conservative.

Posted by: forged rite at February 01, 2008 08:11 AM (w+nrD)

110

If being a  hero and Vietnam POW are the main qualification for POTUS, we should have drafted this guy.  To be truthful, his resume is far greater than John McCain's.


 http://www.samjohnson.house.gov/


Posted by: polynikes at February 01, 2008 08:13 AM (m2CN7)

111

Well, when Stalin is vaunted over McCain, and "he'll destroy the country" - as they say . . . there you have it.


(toby - I agree, McCain is not the best we could have come up with; that's why I supported Thompson)


(sponge - our mode of communication does not allow for duels; that siad, you worte what you wrote and it speaks for itself --


You know, I got to thinking about this last night, trying to come to terms with the idea of voting for John McCain despite the fact that he and I share few beliefs. And as hard as I could bargain with nyself--and I was almost there,too--I just couldn't get past Jeff Larkin calling me and others pussies for having principles.


So if I have to join the ranks of those who call other people pussies over the fucking Internet, those nutless fucks who wouldn't say shit to my face without pissing their pants, then I'll pass. Keep it up, Jeff Larkin, nutless fucking Moby.


I was almost there - and then that mean Jeff Larkin was, well, he was mean.


Intellect = 0


Ego and Emotion = 1


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 08:14 AM (5HveT)

112 Funky:  That's a stupid and vile book description.   You have lost what respect I had for you, by pushing it.

Posted by: Fred at February 01, 2008 08:14 AM (ywDRa)

113 Mitt Romney is tough, smart, he'll put the Boy scouts in their place -

The 2002 Olympics - run by Mitt Romney - was the only
Olympics that restricted the Boy Scouts from participating. According
to news reports, this was apparently because of pressure from
homosexual activists. (But also, according to reports, homosexual
groups participated fairly prominently.) Romney would not respond to
reporters' questions about that action.

The
largest Boy Scout council in the country responded to the call for
volunteers issued by the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, but
the welcome mat was rolled up and the door slammed in its face. Olympic
spokesmen for the 2002 winter games say the exclusion has nothing to do
with recent protests by gay activists. While the organizing committee
for the Olympic event is prominently displaying a call for local
volunteers, they have explicitly let it be known that the Boy Scouts
need not apply. "For us not to be involved is discouraging, considering
the Atlanta games. The Scouting council there was extremely involved,"
said Kay Godfrey, professional Scout executive for the Great Salt Lake
Council of Boy Scouts.

- NewsMax.com, Dec. 18, 2000



Posted by: forged rite at February 01, 2008 08:16 AM (w+nrD)

114

Romney is acceptable to certain conservatives because 1) he's not McCain and 2) they believe his conversion, whereas, they don't believe McCain's (on taxes) or his renunciation of his immigration approach or even his on-the-record Senate history of conservative votes. 


Posted by: Jeff Larkin at February 01, 2008 08:20 AM (5HveT)

115 Bush hates Black people. Romney hates Boy Scouts.

Posted by: polynikes at February 01, 2008 08:24 AM (m2CN7)

116

Here's a ringing endorsement, from the true conservatives (my emphasis):


Meanwhile, conservatives are growing increasingly “resigned” to the
idea of a McCain nomination, said David Keene, chairman of the American
Conservative Union
, adding that among Washington activists, many of
whom, like him, double as lobbyists, self-interest may also be a
factor.

“There are people who don’t like the idea of a being
off a campaign or being on the bad list if the guy gets into the White
House,” Mr. Keene said. “This is a town in which 90 percent of the
people balance their access and income on the one hand versus their
principles on the other.”


Posted by: Bob Munck at February 01, 2008 08:29 AM (n0BzT)

117 <i>V the K, entropy & JackStraw have already responded to those questions,</I>

Whereas the McCainiac's answer to every McCain criticism is "Would you rather see a Democrat get elected." I find that argument unpersuasive, but it's apparently the only defense the McCainiacs have got.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 08:33 AM (/0sRQ)

118 I don't see why it's better to have a Republican "Patriotism Not Profit" socialist in office than a Democrat "We're going to take things away from you for the common good" socialist in office. "Patriotism not profit" sounds like an FDR slogan.

But, to those of you who have been suckered by McAmnesty's feints to the right in the primary season, will you still support him in the general after he gets the nomination and reverts to his media-butt-kissing, Democract-hugging, pandering-to-the-moderates norm?

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 08:37 AM (/0sRQ)

119

A vote for Romney is a vote for Hillary. Don't underestimate the aversion that many have for Mormans, it's a wierd ass cult , McCain is not perfect as a model Conservative but he's right on the things that count most. What makes NcCain electable is that he has a have a measure of charisma (which Romney is devoid of) and  and a sense of humor, his bad temper is even part of his charm .Hillary is a cold, calculating, cynical, opportunistic, humorless shrew and the contrast beteween Hillary and McCain will only serve to highlight Hillarys' craptastic personality. McCain has broad base appeal and is simply a more likable figure. In many ways Romney is just as contrived and pre-packaged as Hillary.


My greatest concern is national security and the war on terror, I trust McCain on this issue more than any other candidate. We still have American troops in harms way, don't ever forget that.


Posted by: Joan Brown at February 01, 2008 08:40 AM (Yrr08)

120

Interesting,


Bush Derangement Syndrome, and McCain Derangement Syndrome are remarkably similar, if not identical.


We know, from experience, that there's no cure for the former...So, by extention, we can assume, the same is true for the latter.


Wouldn't wanna' be ya'.


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 08:40 AM (ixk9j)

121 Sheesh Fred. In an age when the NFL decides to put Ryan Seacrest on the Superbowl pregame show, you can't understand how/why a political columnist might tart up the blurb to try to sell more books?

Anyway, the discussion he had with Boortz yesterday was substantive and interesting, and didn't go into salacious personal details, at least that I heard.

But get those lace knickers in a knot if it pleases you.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 08:45 AM (I+jPP)

122 I.Will.Not.Vote.For.McCain.

I don't know about the rest of you McCain defenders, but I personally would find statements such as the above a lot more persuasive (and interesting!) with periods between the letters as well as between the words.  Might be enough to change my vote.  Then I could write a really beautiful post in which I proclaimed my extremely important plans for my 0.000000001% of the popular vote next November, and everyone who disagreed with me could read it and weep.

Since I don't posses V the K's god-like powers to discern the precise outlines of whole alternative universes and vast chains of causality yet to unfold, I guess I'll just have to accept that it was better for Carter to have defeated Ford and it will be better for Obama or Hillary to defeat McCain.  Now if only the rest of you could work in some more creative punctuation, you could get my precious anti-vote this November, and I might even think about saving conservatism forever by voting for Romney next week!



Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at February 01, 2008 08:48 AM (8aPVo)

123

Bush Derangement Syndrome, and McCain Derangement Syndrome are remarkably similar, if not identical.


They are nothing alike but I don't have to tell you that.  You know.


Posted by: polynikes at February 01, 2008 08:49 AM (m2CN7)

124

A vote for Romney is a vote for Hillary. Don't underestimate the aversion that many have for Mormans, it's a wierd ass cult , McCain is not perfect as a model Conservative but he's right on the things that count most.


A vote for McCain is a vote for Hillary. Don't underestimate the aversion that many have for this guy, he's a hotheaded pompous liberal,  Romney is not perfect as a model Conservative but he's right on the things that count most.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 08:50 AM (m6c4H)

125

That's what McCain supporters don't get.


You sit there and toot-toot electability all day long. I'll just flat out assert the 180 degree opposite. It works both ways.


You keep telling us that Romney can't win so we need to accept McCain.


Well, guess what guys? McCain can't win. So cut it out and accept Romney.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 08:53 AM (m6c4H)

126 I am among the group that.will.not.vote.for.mccain.

I fully recognize that McCain would be less liberal than Hillary or Obama.

But I don't have to go home with the least ugly girl at the bar.

My new slogan for this political season if McCain gets the nod will be one word.

Abstainance.

Hope I spelled it right.

If that is my eventual choice, at least I can fight with a good conscience every move of the next president. Instead of fighting with the guy I helped elect.

Posted by: Mephitis at February 01, 2008 08:53 AM (X5b4e)

127 The aversion that people have for McCain comes from the hard right and they are a small minority of the general population (Democrats outnumber Republicans). In order to gain election , the nominee will have to appeal to moderates and Democrats (many of whom really have no love for Hillary). McCain is truly electable, Romney would go down to a defeat of Goldwater proportions.

Posted by: Joan Brown at February 01, 2008 08:58 AM (Yrr08)

128 ;">Bush Derangement Syndrome, and McCain Derangement Syndrome are remarkably similar, if not identical.

Someone was comparing McCain to Hitler? Someone was claiming John McCain blew up the levees to drown black people in New Orleans? Someone was hoping John McCain would choke on a pretzel and die?

Must have missed that.

I guess McCain supporters have reached the, "I can't refute the other's sides criticism, so I'm going to write them off as deranged" strategy. You should make your checks payable to Andrew Sullivan for ideological trademark infringement.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 08:59 AM (/0sRQ)

129 Don't underestimate the aversion that many have for Mormans, it's a wierd ass cult

If you're going to insult my religion, at least learn to spell it correctly.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 09:01 AM (/0sRQ)

130

That's a total load of crap.


If you can't do any better then that, you're waisting both our time.


My time is worthless, I'm here all day.


But I sure hope you have nothing better to do.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 09:03 AM (m6c4H)

131

polynikes at February 01, 2008 01:49 PM


If you don't/can't recognize "unhinged" when you see it............?


We should have a contest, for an alternative to "Moonbat" for these people.


 


 


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 09:03 AM (ixk9j)

132 Not you, VK.

Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 09:03 AM (m6c4H)

133 Guess this is one of those things Mitt Romney's not perfect on, but i'm sure his conversion is sincere.

Posted by: forged rite at February 01, 2008 09:05 AM (w+nrD)

134

McCain is not perfect as a model Conservative but he's right on the things that count most.

Again, if I could be convinced of that, I would support him. But I'm not, and it seems like McCain supporters aren't interested in convincing me.

What makes McCain electable is that he has a have a measure of charisma

Not that I've seen.

(which Romney is devoid of) and and a sense of humor

I REALLY haven't seen any of that.


his bad temper is even part of his charm

You've got to be kidding me. If his bad temper was driven by a distaste for trite foolishness, I might agree. But his bad temper is driven by his feeling that everybody that disagrees with his opinion on ANYTHING is a pile of shit. That's not conducive to finding the best answers in an executive position. Executives must be the kind of people willing to listen to their advisors and carefully consider ideas, even if they don't agree with them. I haven't seen anything in his history or personal makeup that suggests an attitude like that.

My greatest concern is national security and the war on terror, I trust McCain on this issue more than any other candidate.

Can you make an argument for this? And I mean an argument, not "he was in Vietnam!"


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 09:05 AM (/94xL)

135 We should have a contest, for an alternative to "Moonbat" for these people.

Yes, because childish name-calling is such an effective tool of persuasion.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 09:05 AM (/0sRQ)

136

We should have a contest, for an alternative to "Moonbat" for these people.


Moby.


Squish.


Jello.


RINO.


Oh, shit, oops, sorry. I was coming up with names for you. Sorry. My bad. I screwed up...


Hey, if that's the road you want to go down, you wanna take it there, I call shotgun.


You anti-mormon religious bigot.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 09:06 AM (m6c4H)

137 What do you think we are a bunch of Mormons. Did I spell that right this time ?

Posted by: Joan Brown at February 01, 2008 09:07 AM (Yrr08)

138 #134 - Word.

Once again, I ask what no McCain supporter will answer: Which is more indicative of McCain's real character and agenda, the last 3 months of campaigning in a Republican primary, or the previous 12 years as a moderate "Maverick."

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 09:07 AM (/0sRQ)

139 The LDS church is centered on family life, and believes strongly in traditional values like faith, honesty, hard-work, charity, and service. These are the pillars of our faith.

The kind of person who considers these values "wierd-ass" is not a person whose values would inspire me.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 09:10 AM (/0sRQ)

140 What's indicative of McCain's true character is how it was tested under the most extreme conditions as a POW in Hanoi. He has been tested more than any other candidate and has shown to be a man of honor and courage. Romney may have broken a sweat once at the golf course.

Posted by: Joan Brown at February 01, 2008 09:11 AM (Yrr08)

141 Let the hatred flow, Joan. Let's see the real class and wit of the die-hard McCain supporter.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 09:13 AM (/0sRQ)

142 I know a lot of Mormons and every one I have ever met is a fine person. I don't want to denigrate Mormons as people , but the religion itself is so far fetched (maybe all religions are to some extent) that I equate it with Scientology (many of whom also are fine people).

Posted by: Joan Brown at February 01, 2008 09:18 AM (Yrr08)

143

I hope ya'll aren't misreading me...


I don't like McCain...There are multiple reasons to not like him.


But, at the end of the day, if he, sadly, becomes the candidate of the GOP, holding a gun to my head, wouldn't keep me from voting, or *gasp* vote for a Democrat.


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 09:18 AM (ixk9j)

144 I was just listening to the rerun of last night's Dim debate.

My God, what a bunch of retards! Honestly, it's all magic thinking. There isn't one basic economic principle that they don't plan to violate with their programs if elected.....I was flabbergasted by the level of ignorance among both the candidates and the audience.

So, I made a decision. I will support *WHOEVER* the Republicans nominate and vote a straight Republican ticket in the hope that we can keep congress and the senate from going further into Dim control. And I yield to no one in my active dislike for McCain.

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE DIM DEBATE RERUN (IT'S ON NOW) THEN UNDERSTAND WHAT NOT-VOTING/VOTING FOR A DIM WILL BRING TO THIS COUNTRY.

I'm sorry but after listening to the short-bus-thinking of the Dims, I just can't get behind the following plan:

Step 1: Lose the election.

Step 2: ??????????

Step 3: Victory!

Posted by: rinseandspit at February 01, 2008 09:18 AM (aBMz2)

145

What's indicative of McCain's true character is how it was tested under the most extreme conditions as a POW in Hanoi.

No, it isn't. The man had the sad misfortune to be captured and was treated badly against his will. The Presidency is a position that tests your will when you have power. They're two completely different things, and McCain's lack of conviction in the 30 years since his involuntary confinement doesn't bode well for his leadership potential.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 09:20 AM (/94xL)

146 I bet you know plenty of fine upstandin' colored folk, too, huh, Joan?

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 09:26 AM (/0sRQ)

147 The Band. I posted the thing on earmarks earlier. Here it is again:

n his State of the Union address Monday, reinvigorated public discussion of earmarks — lawmakers’ specific spending items inserted into appropriations bills. While fiscal conservatives in Washington are skeptical about Bush’s ability to do much on the issue, the president may be helping his party by bringing up this issue, which touched on fiscal conservatism, government transparency and political corruption.

Earmarks, and their use of tools of corruption, could play a large role in the 2008 presidential contest if the current front-runners succeed in grabbing their respective parties’ nominations. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a leading opponent of pork and one of the only lawmakers to forswear earmarks, while Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is Congress’ leading porker.

Clinton’s earmarking is not merely offensive to procedural purists who demand spending go through standard channels. It also is not merely a transgression against fiscal conservatism. Clinton’s earmarks often directly benefit specific corporations and businessmen, who, in turn, make large contributions to her campaign. This “pay-to-play” earmarking, as one left-leaning budget watchdog group put it, highlights the truly dirty side of earmarks.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 09:29 AM (I+jPP)

148

I don't understand your point Joan, please elaborate. Are you simply saying that Romney's character is untested, and therefore unkown? Are you saying that Romney is a lesser person because he wasn't put through torture? Are you saying Romney is a lesser person for not serving in the military. Be clear, please.


Speaking of McCain's character, he did survive the Hanoi Hilton, but came out very bitter toward his former captors. I can't imagine goung through what he did, and I personally don't begrudge him the sentiment. I do wonder though, how long the MSM will wait to remind the electorate that McCain calls his former captors "gooks".


Posted by: bonhomme at February 01, 2008 09:31 AM (pKBEW)

149 How the hell did it come to this?

Our choices are:

Mitt Romney - the Diet RC Cola of Conservatism

or

John McCain -

If you want to drink in the heady fizz of Conservatism....

And Ronald Reagan is Coca Cola and TEH Fred is Pepsi..

Then John McCain is Big Red.

Posted by: rinseandspit at February 01, 2008 09:33 AM (aBMz2)

150

Clinton’s earmarking is not merely offensive to procedural purists who demand spending go through standard channels. It also is not merely a transgression against fiscal conservatism. Clinton’s earmarks often directly benefit specific corporations and businessmen, who, in turn, make large contributions to her campaign. This “pay-to-play” earmarking


Um.....wtf? You make it sound special.


Porkbusters are not procedural purists. And the real issue isn't that they're wasting money or increasing spending - fiscal conservatives have bigger fish to fry.


All earmarking is 'pay-to-play' corruption handed out to favorite sons, donors, friends, and group voters. ALL pork is like that.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 09:35 AM (m6c4H)

151

Well, there's another way to look at this...


If Johnny Mac does get elected, and we don't like what he does, we could always call for impeachment.


heh,heh,heh


jes' sayin'...similarity


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 09:37 AM (ixk9j)

152 Someone was comparing McCain to Hitler? Someone was claiming John
McCain blew up the levees to drown black people in New Orleans? Someone
was hoping John McCain would choke on a pretzel and die?

All that and worse, all day long, at HotAir, on talk radio, and playing now at your local right wing theater - although you can substitute any number of scurrilous and disgusting statements for the specific New Orleans story.  I've repeatedly had to deal with, yes, UNHINGED, commenters calling McCain a "traitor," including ones who've characterized him as a "Hitler" (or other despot or maybe just Benedict Arnold) mainly because they've concluded that his immigration compromise would destroy the country (as they envision it), and yes I've seen many people wishing for his untimely demise - definitely at HotAir, very probably at AOSHQ, though I can't swear on the latter.  That much of this kind of thing comes along with a thinly or not so thinly veiled freight of anti-Latino bigotry shouldn't be surprising:  That's what you get, and what the image of the party gets, when you "ramp up the rhetoric" for contingent political purposes. 

You can get defensive about how you and all your best friends have been nothing but civil and thoughtful, but, to paraphrase a deep thinker, you also might want to check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at February 01, 2008 09:37 AM (8aPVo)

153

146 I bet you know plenty of fine upstandin' colored folk, too, huh, Joan?


 


I knew that was coming. Brown people scare me though I'm sure they are nice.


Posted by: Joan Brown at February 01, 2008 09:41 AM (Yrr08)

154 Limbaugh's been doing hateful parodies of McCain since at least 1999.

I've seen the McCain = traitor, or Manchurian candidate here on AOS, I'm pretty sure.

unhinged

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 09:47 AM (I+jPP)

155

I have a few questions.


If Hillary and/or Obama would not be that bad,  would not be noticibly worse than McCain, how do you figure the public will want to kick them out in only 4 years? Seems to me Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter was kind of a special case. It was the last time the MSM ridiculed a Democrat running for re-election.


Who is this paragon of conservatism that's going to not only win the Republican nomination in 4 years but also going to so easily beat Hillary and/or Obama? Names V the K, I need names.


What do you think the effect of the aging of the baby boom generation will have on American politics for the next 20 years? Do you think they will get more stand on their own feet, "get out of my way I'm master of my destiny" conservative or do you think they will vote for any mommy or daddy government that promises to take care of them in their declining years?


McCain (or Romney if he makes a come back) might be the most conservative President you see for the rest of your life.


Just trying to let you down easy, guys.


Posted by: klrtz1 at February 01, 2008 09:51 AM (9/MTp)

156

"Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater, because he's ONLY 80% conservative."


The answer is "yes"


Yes, we're dealing with the "unhinged"


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 09:52 AM (ixk9j)

157

Here's another question.


If the MSM does turn on McCain and try's to keep him from being elected, do you think he's still going to feel exactly the same way about them if he gets elected anyway? Given what you know about his temper, I mean.


Posted by: klrtz1 at February 01, 2008 09:55 AM (9/MTp)

158 http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/01/mccain_talking.html

January 30, 2008


"McCain talking points"
I'm sick of hearing the phrase, but I have a feeling it's only going to get louder and shriller in the next few weeks.

No I don't mean the talking points themselves (whatever they are). I'm not a McCain supporter, although I would certainly vote for him over Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Rather, I am hearing the "McCain Talking Points" charge (and other similar charges) being used as a cudgel to impugn the motivations people who are not all that enthusiastic about McCain, but are realists who've seen the various polls and have concluded that he's the best chance the GOP has to defeat the Democrats.

I'm seeing this ugliness emerging in the blogosphere, and I hear it on talk radio. Earlier I heard Bill Bennett (and if he's not a conservative who is?) being lambasted by an irate listener who considers his preference of McCain to Romney some form of treason, and who accused him of being a McCain shill, whose views are not his, but are instead "McCain Talking Points."

There's a lot of screaming going on, and this election is causing turmoil on talk radio:

conservative talk radio and blogger colleagues are beside themselves at the prospect that one of the Republican contenders they deemed to be "not conservative" might be nominated. As Mike Huckabee won Iowa, John McCain took South Carolina and Fred Thompson bestirred himself to draft a note withdrawing from the race, the fretting has intensified. How could the voters reject their advice?
I don't agree with all of the analysis, as I think a growing number of Republicans are realizing that if it is possible for McCain to actually beat Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama), then the Republican Party will have won in spite of itself, because the consensus for months has been that the party was in hopeless disarray and incapable of victory. If the GOP can pull off a victory after a two-term, unpopular president, an unpopular war, and scandal after scandal, it will seem a little bit like winning the lottery. So my theory is that a number of GOP voters are a bit more cynical than they're commonly given credit for being, and they're fully capable of thinking along the lines of, "Hell, even if I can't stand McCain, if he can win this one for the dysfunctional GOP, let him try!"
That comes pretty close to my thinking, and I hardly think it's fair to call it "McCain Talking Points."

I will say a few kind words about McCain though. He's not Satan. He's not Hitler. And while numerous netizens disagree, he's also not a "traitor."

I am still extremely sore over McCain-Feingold. I don't like his obvious sympathy for illegal alien amnesty, and I don't care what he calls it. But I do think that overall he's been more honest than Romney, and as I said before, I prefer McCain slightly. The main reason is that I am vehemently anti-Clinton, and I think the Clintons would clearly prefer to run against Romney.

It's not an endorsement, and these observations are hardly "McCain talking points." I can hold my nose in the same Machiavellian manner I've been holding it all these years, and vote for him.

I'm also a bit of a contrarian with a long memory, and the more McCain is subjected to paranoid attacks, the more I'm reminded of what was done to him in the 2000 campaign.

Here's what arch liberal Jonah Goldberg said at the time:

I have not been terribly supportive of the McCain campaign. National Review magazine has been positively brutal. But the sort of moronic, venal, cowardly, and immoral stuff being thrown at McCain from certain segments of the loony Right is sending me his way. At the risk of e-mail-box overflow, I think these people are revealing themselves as fools and they are hurting the conservative movement.
I remember it well -- the Manchurian candidate smear, the "Vietnamese agent" charge, cries of "traitor" and (my personal favorite) the "fag candidate." I didn't like it, and it was one of the reasons I had to hold my nose to vote for Bush -- the man who has done so much for the "conservative movement" that it's almost impossible to define what it is anymore. For now at least, McCain's opponents are more civil than they were in 2000, and of course there are many things wrong with McCain, so I can't fault them for speaking up.
I just wish they'd be more polite. Not everyone who thinks McCain might be able to beat the Clintons is a sellout or a shill.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 09:55 AM (I+jPP)

159 As far as Romeny not being a conserative either goes, I actually agree with it

Both Romney & Rudy were at the bottom of my "I'll vote for them" list, and the only real difference between the two?*
Romeny had a the scales fall from his eyes on the Road to Des Moines, while Rudy took the moral high road and said "This is what I believe, vote for me because of what we agree on"
Romney went conservative to get the vote, but he's more likely to remember the gal that brung him that way.
With Rudy, while I appreciated the candor, and if 2nd ammendment and immigration weren't in the mix, or if he pushed Fredalism as the solution more, he probably would have ranked higher in my estimation. Instead I worried that he would stick to those policies, knowing that we knew him when we elected him.

And Johhny Fucknuts? He throws a temper tantrum when asked to actually do what the electorate favors, insults us and ultimately ignores us. Considering the fact that he outright lies to different groups on different days just to pander (same as Hillary), and WITH his record, I expect him to keep to HIS core principles- which are not conservatism or anything I agree with.

*(broad strokes here, but both are the Blue-Blood country club school of republicanism. Howerver I do stand by Hillary>McCain on conservative issues, or even general good of the country)

Posted by: HowardDevore at February 01, 2008 09:57 AM (RcaiV)

160

2¢...


The McCainiacs, are constantly beating the "but Mitt is not a conservative" drum, not once realizing that conservatives already understand this argument.  The issue is that John McCain, the politician, is an undeniably reprehensible scumbag. 


It's no longer about convincing conservatives "who is the most conservative," it's about who is better equipped to lead the country in earnest.


If you like stodgy,  establishment bureaucrats, and want to see them take their tired tactics from the legislative branch to the executive, then by all means, McCain is your man.  Pppppfft. 


 


Persuasion, coercion, brow beatings, guilt trips, blackmail, - these are some of the tools a legislator must master to be affective, particularly when dealing with other scumbag special interest-seeking legislators. (Fat Fucking’ Teddy, anyone?)


 


Do I want to see these methods directed toward and used against the American people, as opposed to fellow legislators? Hell no.


 


McCain would be a disaster, because he hasn't yet come to the realization that Americans hate a two-faced bully.  Pull your head out of your ass, Jonny McRotten, and stop being such a conniving bitch.


 


Oh, and Rock on, McCainiacs.


Posted by: Vote McCodger '08 at February 01, 2008 10:00 AM (zdMgK)

161 Wait, Bill Bennett is supporting McCain now?

I can't get his show here in AL, but loved listening to him in GA.

Anybody know?

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:03 AM (I+jPP)

162 Jonah Goldberg, 2000

That's how I feel about many of the conservatives rallying against John McCain right now. I have not been terribly supportive of the McCain campaign. National Review magazine has been positively brutal. But the sort of moronic, venal, cowardly, and immoral stuff being thrown at McCain from certain segments of the loony Right is sending me his way. At the risk of e-mail-box overflow, I think these people are revealing themselves as fools and they are hurting the conservative movement.

Exhibit A is Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation. Weyrich, who was a vital leader in the conservative movement 20 years ago, is embarrassing himself and the rest of us. Last year he wrote a profoundly goofy letter to the movement calling on conservatives to take their marbles and go home because politics was no longer conservative business. Then — surprise — he endorsed Steve Forbes, whose campaign was renowned for buying support in certain conservative ghettos.

Apparently Weyrich was re-energized by his Forbes experience, or perhaps he was embarrassed to discover that he was a general without troops when his call for surrender was ignored in all quarters. Either way, he is in the politics business again and we are all the poorer for it. He has now taken to suggesting that John McCain is a Communist spy working at the bidding of some geriatric cabal of Vietnamese Communists. "The Cambodian Khmer Rouge has claimed that 'McCain is a Vietnamese agent,' for what it's worth," writes Weyrich.

Weyrich quotes various conspiratorial websites (which I will not link to) and then says, there's got to be some reason so many people think McCain is a "traitor."

These are the tactics of Communists, Klansmen, and the worst sorts of John Birchers; cite a volume of lies and disinformation and then say, "well, there's so much of it some of it must be true." Weyrich should have stuck with his original plan and quit politics.

And so should a lot of other people. A church flier in South Carolina calls him the "fag candidate." Literature from a pro-Bush, pro-Life group shows a picture of a baby and reads "this little guy wants you to vote for George W. Bush." McCain supporters get cold calls from unnamed Bush supporters calling him a "baby killer" who "wants to increase abortion on demand." There are flyers "showing" McCain with Saddam Hussein, saying he voted to keep Hussein in office.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:04 AM (I+jPP)

163 "Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater, because he's ONLY 80% conservative."

If only McCain were 80% conservative.

Co-Authoring an Amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy. Conservative, or not conservative?

Cooking up said Amnesty Bill in the dead of night and trying to railroad it through the senate before anyone had a chance to read it. Conservative, or not conservative?

Co-Authoring a bill with Joe Lieberman to crippled the American economy at the altar of Al Gore. Conservative, or not conservative?

Opposing Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, conservative, or not conservative?

Grandstanding that pouring water up a terrorist's nose for thirty seconds is worse than letting thousands of Americans die. Conservative, or not conservative?

Calling those who want the borders secured bigots and nativists, Conservative, or not conservative?

Conspiring with Democrats to torpedo qualified conservative judicial nominees. Conservative, or not conservative?

Co-authoring legislation with Russ Feingold to prevent Americans from exercising free-speech rights within 60 days of an election, while including incumbent protection in the same bill. Conservative, or not conservative?

Using left-wing class warfare rhetoric. ("Patriotism not profit" "tax cuts for the rich"). Conservative, or not conservative?

Oh, but since has said in his campaign than he's willing to work with conservatives now, we're supposed to forget all of that.



Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 10:10 AM (/0sRQ)

164

Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at February 01, 2008 02:37 PM (8aPVo)


Sir, I find your bigoted hatred of the LDS church disgusting.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 10:11 AM (m6c4H)

165

None of the anti-McCainiacs have been able to answer my questions. Therefore I.W.i.n!


 


Woo.hoo. That.means.I.can.quit.this.stupid.thread!


Posted by: klrtz1 at February 01, 2008 10:13 AM (9/MTp)

166 Huh, color me surprised

http://www.bennettmornings.com/

Entropy, was that a joke? I went and read that comment and didn't see anything about Mormonism?

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:20 AM (I+jPP)

167 McCain is the MSM's choice of Republican candidates.

The MSM demonstrably does NOT want a Republican in office.

A LOT of people can't do the math.

Barring a miracle, McCain CANNOT defeat Clinton or Obama, the press corps has his number tattooed on the inside of their eyelids.

When y'all select McCain and he gets demolished, and the Republican party dissolves into a screaming match over whose fault it was, I'll try not to look back with too much disdain.

But sure, I'll give you one thing. If you manage to pull off the nomination for McCain, I'll be there with you voting for the screaming, ranting, Soros-licking free-speech bashing spiteful shamnesty lying son-of-a-bitch. I'll be kind of aghast, but sure, the asshole's a few percentage points better than Clinton or Obama.

Go ahead, call me names, belittle me. Won't make any difference. And neither will McCain. He'd get my vote as the lesser of two evils, but don't ask me to start cheering.

My only question to McCain supporters: If Romney is nominated, would you vote for him?

Okay, one follow-up: If the answer is yes, doesn't that automatically make him more electable than McCain, who faces such opposition who won't vote for him?

Posted by: Merovign at February 01, 2008 10:23 AM (IaYDo)

168

V the K at February 01, 2008 03:10 PM


uh-huh,


Now that you've listed all McCain's negatives, I'm sure you'll enlighten this blog with all the Donk's positives?


If you can't balance out your list, you lose.


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 10:25 AM (3EtKU)

169

Entropy, was that a joke?


No, I'm dead serious.


I went and read that comment and didn't see anything about Mormonism?


Well since McCain and his supporters have decided that anyone who promotes immigration enforcement is anti-latino, I have decided that anyone who supports McCain is just anti-mormon and hates Mitt Romney.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 10:25 AM (m6c4H)

170 Merovign, read the thread. First of all, only one person on the whole thing has McCain as a first choice, or anything other than at least better than the dems.

And yes, RWS will vote for whoever the GOP nominee is.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:29 AM (I+jPP)

171 Keep it up, McCain supporters. You've already got me voting for Hillary. Keep up the snide remarks and I'll write her a check.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 10:31 AM (/0sRQ)

172 As I have repeatedly said, I don't doubt the Sorocrats are worse than McAmnesty.

They're just not worse enough.

On the political scale, if neutral is O, Reagan is +8, and Carter is -10, Hillary and Obama are about -8. McCain is -5. (Romney is 0). Since they're both in negative territory, I don't see the point in compromising principle.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 10:34 AM (/0sRQ)

173 Entropy, hey, can I play then? If anybody who prefers McCain to Hillary is just an anti-Mormon bigot, then

anybody who prefers Hillary to McCain hates veterans and thinks they deserve to be terrorized in their homes:

BEDFORD, Texas — It's déjà vu all over again for a retired Air Force brigadier general who has had his American flag stolen nine different times, according to MyFOXDFW.com.

Last Friday night was the latest incident in which thieves swiped 87-year-old Archie Mayes' flag, along with the pole it was hoisted on.

But they didn't stop there: They broke a window in Mayes' workshop. Nothing was taken.

"I do not know if somebody does not like my flag, or they know I'm military and resent that, or if they are just plain mean," said the three-war veteran.

Mayes captured images of the cold-hearted bandits on video camera, which he set up in October, and has turned the tapes over to police in Bedford.

from foxnews.com

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:37 AM (I+jPP)

174 Hillary and McCain are likely to pursue similar policy agendas. But with Hillary, there's a chance Republicans in Congress will stand up and stop her.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 10:37 AM (/0sRQ)

175 I also remind you that two years of Bill Clinton brought us a Republican Congress. Do you really think Hillary is so gifted, so politically astute, so competent, so in tune with the desires of the American people that she will be able to enact her full agenda and win huge gains for her party in the off-year elections, and then go on to be re-elected?

If she can do all that, she deserves to win. Apparently, McCain supporters think more highly of Hillary than they let on.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 10:39 AM (/0sRQ)

176

If Hillary and/or Obama would not be that bad, would not be noticibly worse than McCain, how do you figure the public will want to kick them out in only 4 years?

I don't, necessarily. The only way something like that will happen is if the economy goes in the tank very badly and/or our foreign policy blows up something fearsome. I don't think Hillary will do that. Obama might. But the question is: will McCain be a reliable President. And so...


If the MSM does turn on McCain and try's to keep him from being elected, do you think he's still going to feel exactly the same way about them if he gets elected anyway?

No. But it doesn't matter because the media's support is the ONLY thing that has propped up the man's public image up over the years. Conservatives don't like him because he betrays them when it serves his purpose. Independents and moderate liberals only like him because they've been sold his supposed independence as an image by the media. That leaves only moderate Republicans, and even some of them might be disgusted by his emotional display once the meltdown happens.


Who is this paragon of conservatism that's going to not only win the Republican nomination in 4 years but also going to so easily beat Hillary and/or Obama? Names V the K, I need names.

Well, you didn't ask me, and I wasn't asserting that there will be anyway, but Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford both have great potential. And there are probably others, as well. Too early to tell now.

McCain (or Romney if he makes a come back) might be the most conservative President you see for the rest of your life.

Maybe, maybe not. Demographics is a bitch, and it might lay the smackdown on us. Hard to say.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 10:39 AM (/94xL)

177 The Band, this time around, who's going to beat Hillary or Obama?

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:41 AM (I+jPP)

178

V the K at February 01, 2008 03:34 PM


uh-huh,


Johnny Mac stands on "priciple" too...As "unprincipled" as they may be.


In that regard, I don't see him, any different than you.


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 10:43 AM (3EtKU)

179 For any lurkers, POTUS has power to do nasty things to the military without much congressional oversight. It's the Commander in Chief thing.....

So yes, Hillary is a much worse choice than McCain on the dirty government spending issues, and for the military.

It's enough for me. Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:48 AM (I+jPP)

180 Well, you didn't ask me, and I wasn't asserting that there will be
anyway, but Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford both have great potential.
And there are probably others, as well. Too early to tell now.


I would add to that list Sarah Palin and even Jeb Bush. The Bush name may be mud now, but might look pretty good after four years of Hilldog. There's also Haley Barbour, who competently handled the post-Katrina recovery.


Johnny Mac stands on "priciple" too...As "unprincipled" as they may be
In that regard, I don't see him, any different than you.

Yes, McAmnesty's principles are to pander to the media and suck-up to Democrats while telling conservatives to "F--- off!" and congratulating himself on what a righteous maverick he is because, "I led for patriotism not (sneer) profit."




Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 10:49 AM (/0sRQ)

181

The Band, this time around, who's going to beat Hillary or Obama?

Nobody. Of the candidates we have left, I think Romney has the best chance against Hillary. He has a great deal of executive experience, a good demeanor for a leadership role, and a squeaky-clean image. Against someone like Hillary, I like his chances. But even then, this is not a traditional election season, so I wouldn't stake claim on it. But I don't think anybody on our side has a chance against Obama. It's just too odd a sitution, electorally. I'm also starting to doubt Hillary's chances of making it through the primary. She's a powerful woman within the party, but her support is becoming less stable all the time. There's a real question in my mind as to whether she can keep it together long enough to secure the nomination.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 10:51 AM (/94xL)

182

"Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater, because he's ONLY 80% conservative."


This is a very misleading statistic.  McCain has fluctuated between the low 60's and the mid 90's throughout his career in the Senate.  In other words, some years he has done well, years when he voted for the war in Iraq, for the surge and fought against some wasteful spending and some years he has done very poorly when issues like McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy or McCain/Lieberman are at play.


Besides, a lifetime rating of app. 80% is not that special.  He ranks 37th among his current colleagues putting him in the bottom percentage of Republicans much as he finished at the bottom of his class at the Academy.  Hell, even Fred managed an 86% and Bill Frist an 87%.  Yea, I'm not so sure I would be bragging on a Senator who lives in a safe, conservative state only getting a 80% lifetime rating.


Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2008 10:56 AM (t+mja)

183 The Band, this time around, who's going to beat Hillary or Obama?

The underlying assumption to this question is that a real Republican can't win, so they have to run a RINO. The McCainiacs don't care that the policies enacted by a RINO will vary only in degree from those of a democrat, they just want an R after the name of the guy in the White House.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 11:00 AM (/0sRQ)

184

Could it be?...That we're too wrapped up, looking for the "perfect" conservative?..The "Ronald Reagan" conservative?


I'd wager a bet, that Ronald Reagan would admit, that even he, himself, wasn't the perfect conservative...And, that he, himself, wouldn't fit the mold we've created. 


I wonder, if Ronald would think of "not voting"?...Or, worse yet, voting for Cankles?


Please, don't lecture me, about "principles"


Posted by: franksalterego at February 01, 2008 11:03 AM (3EtKU)

185 The Band. I really, really hope Hillary holds it together long enough to secure the nomination. That will give Romney or McCain a fighting chance at winning. I would support either one against her, even though neither one is a doctrinaire conservative.

I don't have any comprehension of how people who say they care passionately about, say, the military could say they would cast a vote for Hillary, or think she's the same as McCain.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 11:03 AM (I+jPP)

186

Sir, I find your bigoted hatred of the LDS church disgusting.



Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 03:11 PM (m6c4H)

I've now read your explanation of this idiotic remark.  I never for a moment identified all opponents of McCain's immigration policy as anti-Latino.  If you haven't noticed, however, how an uncompromising illegal immigration policy attracts anti-Latino bigotry, to the detriment of conservatives and not just on this issue, then you're living in a dream world. 

As I pointed out on another thread, being identified with anti-Latino politics, even in the form of a popular state initiative passed while a supposed RINO Republican governor was in office, has helped consign California conservatives, once a bulwark of the party and the movement, to the political-demographic wilderness, with no return in sight.  Given the state of play nationally, equivalent positioning could do the same to the Republican Party.  Maybe you want to deport illegal immigrants.  You've got a much better chance of deporting yourselves, politically.

That doesn't mean that you and your allies - believe it or not I'm one of them - have to give up your opposition to open borders policies, but being identified as the party of hatred and xenophobia isn't usually a winner in America (thank God).  Republicans do still have a chance of avoiding generational political disaster for the conservative moment, and of taking advantage of wide discomfort with illegal immigration rather than handing a whole political arsenal over to the other side.  Yes, it will require compromise - which is kind of the basis of democratic government and society.  In the meantime, turning a blind eye to the emotions you're stirring up and going to the barricades over particular political disagreements - including disagreements over citizenship, immigration, and sovereignty of the sort the country has been going through for its entire history - is something for extremists, fantasists, and losers. 

Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at February 01, 2008 11:12 AM (8aPVo)

187

The Band. I really, really hope Hillary holds it together long enough to secure the nomination.

I think that's our best chance, yes.


I don't have any comprehension of how people who say they care passionately about, say, the military could say they would cast a vote for Hillary, or think she's the same as McCain.

I wouldn't vote for her, but I'm not sure she'd be as bad for the military as you think. She's a liberal, but she's also moving to the right on this issue. In this respect, she's kind of the mirror image of McCain. She's angering her base by refusing to repudiate her pro-war vote and they perceive her as a sell-out. I don't think she's going to do anything too terribly bad here. In fact, as de facto leader of the party, she may be able to bring more Democrat support along with her.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 11:16 AM (/94xL)

188 The Band, she's not as bad as Obama, but is much worse than McCain. She hates the military a lot more than her husband ever did, at least in the way she treats members of the military on a personal level. As such, the military people I know are quite unhappy at the possibility of having her become CIC.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 11:26 AM (I+jPP)

189

I've now read your explanation of this idiotic remark.  I never for a moment identified all opponents of McCain's immigration policy as anti-Latino.  If you haven't noticed, however, how an uncompromising illegal immigration policy attracts anti-Latino bigotry, to the detriment of conservatives and not just on this issue, then you're living in a dream world. 


The fact you can't even manage to discuss the issue without bringing up 'anti-latino bigotry' tells me what I need to know.


I'm no longer inclined to listen to anyone mentioning any such thing. We could have discussed the policy on policy, but the moment you begin baiting the discussion with race, there's nothing left but 'idiotic remarks' to go around.


Frankly, I find your bullshit insulting.


Because we do not want massive waves of illegal immigration from Mexico, we have 'anti-latino policies'? And this will hurt us with latinos?


Many Americans who happen to hispanic or other sorts of descents also oppose continued illegal immigration. Thanks for treating people like individuals and not starting off with the assumption all latinos determine their beliefs as a block based on racial priorities. How enlightened of you.


I've reached my limit with identity politics and race baiting.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 11:35 AM (m6c4H)

190

That's George W Bush's Hispandering for you:


Advocating we win elections by treating minorities like democrats do.


Posted by: Entropy at February 01, 2008 11:36 AM (m6c4H)

191

The Band, she's not as bad as Obama, but is much worse than McCain. She hates the military a lot more than her husband ever did, at least in the way she treats members of the military on a personal level.

I can buy that. But this isn't the 90s. The silly "peace dividend" idea is no longer current. The American people want more death and destruction rained down on our enemies. I think Hillary is just as interested in her image as McCain, but she is more likely to get high off popular sentiment than media sentiment. And the media will give her a pass anyway.


Well, let's hope for a Romney vs. Hillary race and a LOT of luck in November.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 11:45 AM (/94xL)

192 The Band, yeah, she'd leave them over there, but would she give them what they need to succeed in the mission, or even to stay alive?

Blackhawk Down was a great book, but the incident never would have happened if Clinton hadn't expanded the mission while refusing to send heavy armor to our guys.

Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 11:53 AM (I+jPP)

193 80% conservative?  Assuming this is true, shouldn't the R candidate NOT go with the liberals a wopping 20% of the time?  

Posted by: Fred at February 01, 2008 11:53 AM (ywDRa)

194

The Band, yeah, she'd leave them over there, but would she give them what they need to succeed in the mission, or even to stay alive?

I think so. That's what I meant by referring to the peace dividend. Military spending wasn't popular in the 90s because a lot of people (naively) assumed that there were no more threats. The country's not in the mood for that crap now, in my opinion. I think people have been dissatisfied with the war only on grounds that they don't think it's been aggressive enough. And even the Dems in Congress don't seem willing or able to pull the trigger on funding reductions.

Do you see anything that leads to a different conclusion?


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 12:05 PM (/94xL)

195 I'm no longer inclined to listen to anyone mentioning any such thing.
We could have discussed the policy on policy, but the moment you begin
baiting the discussion with race, there's nothing left but 'idiotic
remarks' to go around.

The politics of plugging up your ears and shouting nonsense. 

Like I said, living in a dream world.  Immune to argument and evidence, and apparently content to reside there forever. 

If you happened to watch the Democrat debate last night, you got a concise preview of how Hillary or Obama will play the immigration issue.  Hillary has perfect political pitch on it:  She can pander to low wage workers, especially blacks, promising to defend the borders and enforce the law, even while posing as the valiant defender of the oppressed - legal and illegal alike - against vicious racist Republican immigration death squads breaking down the doors of businesses, hospitals, and homes nationwide, etc., etc., etc.  Obama has a little more work to do, but he's a fast learner.  As usual, he starts with a rosy version of socialism, but he'll work his way to the Democratic mainstream if and when he needs to.

An immigration platform written by Tancredo has about as good a chance against all that as Tancredo himself did of winning the nomination.  What's even worse, though, is that if the Republicans nationally somehow won on that basis, and passed Tancredo-ist legislation, they'd still very likely end up like the Republicans in California over the long term.  You could retire the ancient term "Pyrrhic Victory" and instead replace it with "Republican Immigration Politics" (RIP).

Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at February 01, 2008 12:06 PM (8aPVo)

196

Well, thanks for answering my questions, TheBand. I suppose I should say what I think is going to happen.


It will be Hillary v. McCain. Hillary will win, either big or little. Hillary will tax and then spend the wealth America has created since Reagan's tax cuts. She will keep enough Americans relatively comfortable enough to get re-elected. Socialism works as long as there's lots of money to distribute. After 8 years of President Hillary, America will be much poorer. Then the social security crisis will finally hit with a really big bang. Hillary and a Democratic congress can keep their shell game going for quite a while.


Using the same politics of personal destruction as before, all those young conservative names you're counting on (and a lot more) will have been hounded out of politics by 2016. Hillary Clinton is going to appoint the next head of the FBI. Don't tell me you never thought of that?


Whoever Hillary picks for VP, probably Obama, will win in 2016. After that my crystal ball gets cloudy.


I am sure glad V the K never told any conservatives to fuck off. He's not at all like John McCain that way.


Posted by: klrtz1 at February 01, 2008 01:22 PM (9/MTp)

197 OK, klrtz1, how about this alternative: McCain/Huckabee gets elected in '08. His first act is to demand a massive tax increase, and decries those who oppose it as "putting profits ahead of patriotism." Next up, he asks Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy who would be acceptable SCOTUS justices, and two David Souter clones are promptly put on the bench. Republican senators who oppose these actions are told to "F--k off!" Next up, McAmnesty 3.0 provides automatic legal citizenship to 30 million illegal aliens and invites another 60 million to come in and make themselves at home. Meanwhile, to get back at Talk Radio for opposing him, McCain signs the New Improved Fairness Doctrine of 2010. Conservatism, in any form, ceases to exist as of 2011.

Posted by: V the K at February 01, 2008 01:34 PM (/0sRQ)

198

Using the same politics of personal destruction as before, all those young conservative names you're counting on (and a lot more) will have been hounded out of politics by 2016. Hillary Clinton is going to appoint the next head of the FBI. Don't tell me you never thought of that?

Yes, I'm aware of the power of Presidential appointments. I'm not advocating for Hillary here, just saying that it's probably going to happen and that the country will survive. A year ago, I thought we were home free. That was before our field was revealed to be so weak. Even now, Romney and (heaven help us) even Huckabee and McCain have much more experience than Hillary. But that may not matter too much. The electorate is in a cranky mood for some reason. Probably Bush fatigue, even though I still think the guy has done a fantastic job. There's a guy who doesn't get flustered when he's attacked by the media.


Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 07:48 PM (hr3Wi)

199 McCain/Huckabee gets elected in '08. His first act is to demand a massive tax increase

And then Mr. Pork Buster spends that massive tax increase how? He gives some of it to illegal aliens and pays down the national debt with the rest. This causes the public to hate him as much as the Dems do. McCain is defeated for re-election in 2012 and Hillary's 8 years start a little later than planned.

Yes, a McCain presidency would be bad for conservatives. But a Hillary presidency will be worse for America.

Posted by: klrtz1 at February 02, 2008 12:47 AM (P0X4D)

200 Wait a minute. I won this thread at #165. Why am I still here?

Posted by: klrtz1 at February 02, 2008 12:54 AM (P0X4D)

201

Links of London silver is releasing new products which are of elegant shape and fashionable pattern.

Posted by: Michael at December 29, 2009 08:09 PM (1SZBI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
232kb generated in CPU 0.67, elapsed 2.8294 seconds.
62 queries taking 2.2746 seconds, 437 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.