SubscribeCoulter Would Vote For Hillary Over McCain
From Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, via YouTube:
Coulter: I’ll campaign for Hillary if McCain is the nominee
I actually disagree with Ms. Coulter about Hillary being better on the war in Iraq.
But as to the rest, it’s hard not to see her points.
56 Responses to “Coulter Would Vote For Hillary Over McCain”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Short, sweet, says it all.
I don’t know whether Hillary would pull out, but I do believe Obama would.
Hillary’s flip-flopped on Iraq before and I think she knows that we can’t just run away screaming from Iraq or there will be consequences - like a radioactive crater where a U.S. city was with no fear of retaliation among the perpetrators.
I do not believe that Obama knows that, or that he even cares.
I love Ann, but could never go so far as to actually vote for Hillary.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
It’s a sad day when you realize Ann Coulter is absolutely right about this - Hillary is more conservative than McCain.
Heaven help us.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
Look at it this way. Swillary gets to be Prez for 4 years, get the conservative base mobilized, get the true conservative ready for the next election. Sometimes you have to lose a little to win alot. Let Swill muck things up for 4 years, get Mike Pence up and running, the man means business. I am tired of the “he’s kind of this/kind of that.” Repubs screwed up when they didn’t put the stamp on their majority the previous 4 years, libs were almost finished! Repubs would suggest something, libs would tell them they weren’t doing it right, repubs back down, the dems psyched them out. I am so tired of it. When are the repubs going to get a backbone?
February 1st, 2008 at 2:00 am
Dixie Mafia meets Muslim Mafia.
What a great day for America.
Personaly, I am buying ammo by the case lot.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:27 am
The NYT is now endorsing McCain, What more can you ask for WI?
He be da man…
February 1st, 2008 at 3:04 am
The Point is totally lost on Mainstream America. Hillary Clinton would be a catastrophic disaster of Meteoric preportions to the United States and the Free World. John McCain would actually be worse! The only difference is that with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party would be rightly held at fault. With John McCain there would be no hope or alternative party to the Democrats in which REAL AMERICANS could turn too. So it would make FAR MORE sense to hang the massive destruction of the American Experience to the rightful owners.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:45 am
Lets be honest here,
There is no real difference between dems and rep.
There is a huge differnence between conservatives and liberals.
Pick your side and lock and load.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:31 am
“What a noble mind is here o’erthrown” as that great American, William Shakespeare, once wrote.
Poor Ann; knock her out with a shot of ketamine and cart her away to the nut barn, she’s finally slipped over the edge. I started to have concerns when she kept writing those love letters to Joe McCarthy in her books and columns and now this…so, so sad. Well, if she gets her wish she’ll have plenty of column fodder for the next eight years.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:21 am
No, it isn’t hard to see her point. But the Clintons? Allow them back into our White House again to wreak havoc, both with the house and the country?
Oh, Ann. Say it ain’t so.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:18 am
It’s reminds me of Tiberius selecting Caligula to succeed as Roman Emperor because Caligula would make Tiberius look benign by comparison. We’re supposed to endure 4 years of the Clinton’s so that the conservative wing of the GOP looks good by comparison? The only thing that will accomplish is the Dems widening the welfare state to a wider swath of voters via healthcare entitlement expansion, thereby increasing their political invulnerability. I don’t buy into the concept that 4 years of Hillary will send voters into paroxysm of buyers’ remorse. It’s wishful thinking. Once 50% of the electorate is receiving more in government handouts then they pay in taxes, the game is over. The Dems are almost there.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:49 am
artboyusa, I hope your knowledge of politics is greater than your knowledge of literature; Shakespear was an Engishman (LOL).
What Coulter is saying is that with Clinton, you know you are getting eggrolls, with McCain, there is a surprise in the bag and it ain’t gonna be what you ordered.
Here is the big question: would the Republicans fight against the policies of a liberal Republican president as hard as they would against the policies of a liberal Democratic president? My guess is “no”.
Did anyone see the Governator’s “we are killing Mother Earth and we need to save her” speech yesterday? McCain was totally on board with that, nodding like a bobble head doll on a dashboard. But Billy Jeff said yesterday (and he has influence over his wife) that it is stupid for us to take on the climate change without agreements from China and India. In other words, we will destroy our own economies while China and India rock on.
McCain seems to think you can force America to become “green” and the cost to the economy is worth the price. First clue he is clueless.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
First Rush, now Ann, maybe we are on to something. (Or on something?)
February 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Nice catch, retire. I am aware of Shakespeare’s nationality. It was meant as a joke. The funny part is supposed to be in the slight dislocation in the reader’s mind between the assertion that S was American and the reader’s awareness that he wasn’t - this device, contrasting what is shown or stated with what is obvious to anyone except a complete dunce, is often used by people trying to be funny. Its like in “Repo Man” when Emilio Estevez tells his shot friend “You’re gonna be alright, man” and the guy sprays blood all over his face or using the title “American Perfectionn” in a story about Hillary Clinton, the misspelled word implying that she is anything but perfect. Or Leslie Neilsen in “Naked Gun” telling the crowd to “Go home, show’s over, nothing to see here” as the fireworks factory explodes behind him.
Got it, now? Good. I’m glad we had this little talk. I’ll try to do better next time.
And for the record and to be absolutely clear; I don’t really think Coulter is crazy. I just think she’s wrong.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
Whole point: McCain would be as bad as Hitlery. One is a sell out, one is a dictator wannabe. Either way, the US takes it up the poop chute.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
And the clintons are now thinking, “If we just move a little to the right, we’ll actually be right of McCain, which is actually true, and very sad that the repubs would actually let this go this far. I’m not willing to let either of these imposters serve 4 years just so the American public can learn a lesson and go with a real conservative next time. Come on Romney, do your best here, the country won’t survive without you, and you’re the only one left.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
The Sunni/Shi’ite mentality? You’re soaking in it!
In truth, I see very little difference between Coulter’s ranting and that of the Kos Kids (absence of the F-word is about it, and I suspect that in private even that disappears). It’s a schoolyard tantrum because the world doesn’t want to do it her way. I think Coulter is bright, beautiful and funny, but in that video she comes off as just plain nuts. And please, Ann, do campaign for Hillary–it should finish her off for good! (Sorry. I don’t find hysterical hatred the best tool for reaching rational conclusions.)
February 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I’m not convinced she’d vote for, let alone campaign for, Hillary. Ann has done this in the past - over the top statements to make a point. As always, her point is a valid one. McCain would be a bad president.
Hannity’s points override hers, though, IMHO. I think the country would survive better under McCain than it would under Hillary, if only because McCain isn’t trumpeting the “need” or the “moral imperative” for nationalized health care. Honestly, choosing between Hillary and McCain is not unlike choosing between Stalin and Hitler. The best you can do is pick the one who’ll cause the least damage, then duck and cover for four years. I think both McCain and Hillary would leave the country standing at the end. I think McCain will damage the economy, but not beyond repair. I’m not so sure about Hillary in that regard. No, I’ll be voting against Hillary if it comes to that, even if I have to wear a gas mask to do it.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I agree with Coulter. I think the pressure McCain will be under by the liberals will be too great, hillary will have a difficult time getting any of her junk through because the conservatives in congress will be willing to fight her. I also think Hillary will keep the troops in Iraq, she said she would until it got out and then she backtracked. Hillary does not want to be known as a weak woman president. Don’t get me wrong, she is an evil, murderous, traitor, disgusting excuse for a human being and unless she makes serious changes in her life, she will rot in hell for eternity. McCain may be the lesser of evils, but I fear he will actually do more damage because republicans will want to work with him. As a candidate, he is detestable to me and I will not vote for him.
I do not think it is over, though. You never know, Zel Miller may run as an independent (not likely, but just an example). I think someone is going to come out of nowhere if McCain wins the nomination, not to stop him from winning, but to stop any of the dems from winning. Let’s all cross our fingers and say a prayer because we have no good choices yet. The democrats are not happy with their choices either.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
McCain may be the lesser of evils, but I fear he will actually do more damage because republicans will want to work with him.
You mean he’d enjoy the same solid support that Bush and Schwarzenegger have gotten? For some reason, Republicans seem to like feeding on their own, so McCain would probably do better with the Dems.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
McCain isn’t just the lesser of two evils…he’s the evil of two lessers.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
6th, I’d say that Bush has arguably had more support from Republicans than say Kerry would have.
The left wing of the party will go along with McCain or Clinton, it’s just those who might be tempted to side with McCain because he’s a Republican that are in play.
However it’s very likely the Democrats may have a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress anyway, regardless of who’s President, largely because Republican’s profligate support of spending over the past years have proven the point for those who don’t think there’s any difference between (D) and (R). :-(
February 1st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
No way I’d ever vote for Hillary. I’d rather get taxed out of house and home than taxed out of house and home and THEN blown up by terrorists.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Out of curiosity, and I’m not trying to be snarky, I would like to ask all of those who detest McCain a question.
What makes Romney more conservative than McCain?
I’ve heard all the arguments against McCain and I can see your points. Yes, he’s hardly ideal but neither is Romney. In all this hoohah around the liberal “travesties” committed by McCain, no one has said one word (at least I haven’t read anything) about what makes Romney so much better.
I’ve done research on both candidates on the majority of the issues, and can’t fathom how everyone is calling McCain a liberal, while not a peep is being said about Romney’s liberal tendencies on some issues (health insurance, illegal immigration, support of “No Child Left Behind”, etc..)
February 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Here’s a good article from the WSJ that brings some balance to the current divisions surrounding McCain as a possible GOP Presidential candidate
http://tinyurl.com/3c7lam
February 1st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
From the WSJ editorial that Libertarian linked:
“Yet few doubt that on other issues — national security, spending — Mr. McCain will stick to his principles no matter the opinion polls. If Mr. Romney loses to Senator McCain, the cause will be his failure to persuade voters that he has any convictions at all.”
I don’t think so.
Mr. McCain is so dedicated to national security he allowed Mr. Clinton to emasculate our military and intel agencies. He wants to give terrorists all the legal rights of US citizens. He wants to open our border to all and sundry. And he would rather see a US city get nuked than dribble some water up a terrorist’s nose.
If these are principles (and they aren’t), God save us from principles.
But the WSJ wants their cheap illegal alien labor, and the country be damned.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I watched the Coulter segment when it aired. I can only conclude that Ann got carried away in her attempt to get the point across.
There is no way she would vote for Mrs. Clinton unless the Republican candidate were, say, Satan or Osama. So that tells us how little she thinks of the idea of McCain as president.
No sane conservative would choose Hilary over McCain but, should it unfold in such a disappointing manner, there will be other options - none of them palatable, but conservatives are people of integrity and principle.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
i·ro·ny
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature.
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion. . .
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.
—Synonyms 1, 2. Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
libertarian,
Romney supports the Bush tax cuts.
Romney does not support amnesty.
Romney does not think pharmaceutical companies are “evil” as McCain reiterated he did in the NH debate.
Romney’s not a conservative - he certainly espouses his share of liberal views - but he’s much more conservative than McCain is.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I understand completely!
Sounds as if Romney is gaining some momentum. Rush questions McCain and Michael Reagan has a great article. http://www.townhall.com/column.....n_hates_me
I have also read that Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rick Santorum, Laura Ingraham etc. have also endorsed Mitt Romney.
Hey, just because the MSM tells us it’s McCain, doesn’t make it so! The last vote has not been counted yet! The “fat lady” still needs to sing!
February 1st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Take this test to see who you should vote for.
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
February 1st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Let’s look at records, which are hardly comparable because one is a federal Senator and the other was the governor of a very liberal state:
Romney took office when Taxachussets was deeply in the red. When he left office, the state had a $400 Million “rainy day” fund. You know, the funds that provide for times of emergencies, like having two buildings knocked down by radical Islamists?
The Olympics were in the red by millions when Romney, as a volunteer, went in, cleaned house, started giving directions and it became one of the most financially successful Olympics in our history.
A bill passed that would have allowed 16 year old girls to get abortions w/o parental notification down from 18. He vetoed it.
He vetoed state funds being used for embryonic stem cell research.
And yes, he did come out against the surge after McCain but only because he was a governor, not a federal congressman or senator and had no imput into the surge.
Has been married to the same woman his entire adult life. Does not drink. Does not curse. Never loses his temper. Has five sons who seem to worship the ground he walks on.
So Romney can manage money. Is there anyone on this blog that doesn’t agree that we desparately need someone who can run the biggest business in the world, the American federal government? Do you really think when it comes to terrorism, Romney would just roll over and let the terrorists have their way?
Now let’s look at McCain: voted to give Social Security for illegals and attacked John Cornyn because Cornyn wanted to prevent illegals convicted of a felony from getting an immediate Z-visa.
Helped totally destroy the Republican’s ability to raise money with McCain/Feingold, the most severe attack against the First Amendment to ever come out of Congress. Because of McCain/Feingold we now have George Soros, the 527’s, International ANSWER, MoveOn.org and the strength of the far left.
Said that he thought Hillary Clinton would make a good president.
When asked if he would run with John Kerry, as Kerry’s VP, he said that he was friends with Kerry and would, OF COURSE, consider it.
Considered becoming a Democrat, or a least an Independent, after he lost the election in 2000.
Gave America the worst immigration bill to ever come down the pike.
Has constantly voted for “green” legislation that is harmful to the American economy, knowing, KNOWING, that the U. S. meets Kyoto standards better than most nations who have signed Kyoto.
Instead of backing Donald Rumsfeld and trying to work with him, publicly slammed Rumsfeld and demanded his resignation at a time of war. A disgraceful act of slamming our President, his fellow Republican, through the Secretary of Defense.
His personal life is a example of how to turn your back on those who stood by you. His own children would not talk to him for years after he divorced their mother when she needed him the most. He has one of, if not the most, foul mouths in D.C. Has never shown any loyalty to his own party. HAS shown that he is an egotistical, ambitious political climber who doesn’t care who he steps on.
Take your pick.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Heads Up:
this just in from The Hill:
http://thehill.com/leading-the.....03-28.html
February 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
The depression of (anti)McCainia has driven our brightest lights to the outer limits…
And so was born the HillaRepublican. Years later…
“Daddy, what was a GOP?”
“Aw, that was a long time ago, sweetie, back when evil pharmaceutical companies caused the earth to get so hot people’s brains melted. Then all the bad people went crazy and destroyed each other, so people like your Grandma got to rescue the planet.”
“Golly that’s amazing!”
“You bet it is. Now hush and put on your burka so we can go stand in line for our protein ration.”
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 am
Retire - The Hill’s headline is inaccurate. McCain would actually have had to support the Republican Party at some point before he could consider abandoning it.
Why would we ever consider Romney a viable alternative to McCain? All he has done is achieve a rare level of success, while in the real world, where results are actually expected (unlike Washington).
In his speeches and in the debates Romney articulates conservative principles. Since he has not been an elected official at the federal level, I can not know with certainty he will side with conservatives on all the issues. However, I know there is at least a likelihood some of my conservative beliefs will be advanced with Romney - with McCain I’m certain I’ll be fed a steady diet of liberalism.
Some people say the country is at a crossroads in the 2008 elections. I believe the crossroads are 3 days away.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 am
Hey guys. I have been unabashadly Pro-MCain throughout this process. these past few weeks, I’ve seen a lot of vitriol. I am confident that many of you all, once you take a deep breath, will vote for McCain if he is the nominee. Even though I support him, I don’t think it’s a done deal. All I ask is take a deep breath and take seriously the possibility of a Hillary Presidency. There is a huge difference b/w McCain and whoever the dem nominee is. We are seeing tantrums thrown over Romney’s loss. Let them grieve, but in the end, this is a charade. They need a Conservative coalition to keep the tax cuts permanent, and more importantly to keep spending low. McCain is the only person who has consistently tried to keep spending low. I hate hearing the argument about a new face in Washington. GHWB, WJC, and GWB haven’t been able to transform Washington. Why should this outsider be any different especially when he panders to Washington and Detroit?
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 am
Well, you get style points for your “handle,” EWMTM. LOL.
And, no, I would not vote for Hillary over McCain. Though I understand the argument.
It’s moot, anyway, since she would beat him in a landslide.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 am
Actually, I’d like to go further with some of the far R-wings’s claims against McCain. Let’s look at them one by one:
McCain-Feingold. Bush signed it into law. Yep, that’s right. I’d be suprised if you all knew that, but he did. In the end it actually turned out to help him vis a vis the swift boat vets for truth.
McCain-Kennedy. The Bush admin was the brain child of this policy and the President didn;t only try to push this though once, but twice.
McCain-Leiberman. This is the cap-n-trade deal that Bush is catching onto.He has addressed the need for GHG reduction.
Confusingly, we still say Bush is a Conservative but McCain is not. If we’re going to inviscerate McCain as a conservative, shouldn’t we compare him fairly to our current President.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 am
Who’s saying (now, or in 2004, or 2000) that Bush is a conservative?
Bush has always been middle of the road, at best, perhaps somewhat more conservative than his father but certainly not Reaganesque.
You act as if conservatives gave Bush a pass, where we’ve been complaining about his inability to make his tax cuts permanent, his unwillingness to go ahead and let the Government shut down during budget disputes, his incredibly moronic support of amnesty, and we all know what happened when he nominated Harriet Miers.
In fact Bush wasn’t much different from Romney is today - not conservative but rather more or less middle of the road for the GOP.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
EWMTM - How does pointing out Bush’s liberal positions make McCain any less liberal? McCain’s record is what it is.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
SG,
I honestly, disagree. I think most Americans are thirsting for a direct politician like McCain, My only concern is what he did to Romney before FL. which was deceptive and really unlike him. Especially since I think he could have beaten Romney regardless of his claim of him pulling troops prematurely. I still think of him as a straight shooter and that’s why I like him. I know, not just from listening to my friends, but others that they feel really comfortable with McCain. I’m sticking with him until he is out of the nomination.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 am
BigOil,
I’m not sure if you listen to talk radio or not, but I do. The anti-McCain crowd says they are so principled that they would have difficulty voting for McCain. These people almost unanimously voted or endorsed Bush from 2000-2004. My question is that given Bush’s liberal positions, which I highlighted above, why is McCain considered such an abomination to the conservative movement? I really don’t get it.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 am
The bottom line………. John McCain is the biggest dupe in Washington. That IDIOT thinks the media loves him because he is worthy of love. The Democrats would LOVE that CRETIN to be in the White House as a back up position since he is in bed with every liberal program in the Beltway. So when these ASININE liberal programs fail and fail they will, the blame will be deflected to the IDIOT in residence Mr. John McCain! Even the LIBERALS know these programs will fail so that’s why they want this IDIOT to be the fall guy and drag the remnants of the GOP with him. The liberals want power not progress, they couldn’t give a damn about their constituents, the country and certainly NOT the free world. So keep supporting the DUPE you dupes and see what happens.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
“I am confident that many of you all, once you take a deep breath, will vote for McCain if he is the nominee.”
Sure, and what would I be inhaling to make me suddenly toss all of my convictions in the trash?
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Perhaps McCain supporters are the ones who should take a deep breath and realize that we are not electing someone to represent American POWs (which McCain certainly did not) but POTUS. Is McCain’s history as a POW 35 years ago qualification for POTUS, representing conservative values, applicable today? Or should we instead look at his history in the Senate? Nah, we can’t do that, because if we do, we will see this man is not a “maverick”, he is a loose cannon who doesn’t care who he attacks even if it is an old man (Strom Thurman) would could in no way, defend himself against an angry and hateful McCain.
McCain cannot beat the D nominee, whoever that turns out to be. But with a 36% vote in Florida, I am damn tired of it being declared a mandate by Republican voters when 20% of those votes came from independents and Democrats who had changed their registration by Dec. 30th, to vote in the Republican primary. Why would they do that? Would those voters vote, not for the man they think will win, but for the man who would be easiestly beat in November?
I point out, again, to the fact that the leftist media is supporting McCain. Perhaps it is time those like EWMTM thinks about that.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Retired05,
No where on this thread has anyone said you should support McCain because he was a POW.
“McCain cannot beat the D nominee, whoever that turns out to be.”
Really? Is that why every national poll shows him to be ahead in a general election match up?
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
EWMTM, if I remember correctly, all the polls put John Kerry clearly in the lead slot to take the presidency. And just recently, the polls on one primary were so wrong it was laughable. I take no stock in polls as having watched my business go to hell in a hand basket (due to NAFTA) because of a president who, for eight years, governed by polls.
And no, I did not say anyone should support McCain because of his POW status. Again, do not read into my words what is not there.
You are, on the other hand, wanting to deflect the results of McCain’s senate history on a president who signed the bills. And in part, I agree with you. We Texans knew, unlike the rest of the nation, that “compassionate” conservatism was just another name for left of center and government giveaways. Had the Democrats offered someone who was more conservative that a man who is in the pocket of Maurice Strong or a faux war hero, I probably would not have voted for Bush. Not that I am a Democrat, but I understood that voting for Bush was voting against the special interests who do not have this nation’s welfare at heart.
Even if McCain takes every state on Super Tuesday (which he won’t because the Huckster has Alabama tied up) he still won’t have enough delegates to take the nomination. So we will go to a brokered convention unless McCain manages to take many more states.
All I am asking of any voter is to put their emotions aside (those warm fuzzy feelings for military service) and look at what McCain had done, and become, in his Senate record. A man can serve with honor, be a hero, but that doesn’t excuse his behavior, if it is not good, for the rest of his life.
I watched as men came back from Vietnam, having served as heroes, only to march against their fellow soldiers in protests paid for by the Communist Party of America. Those men contributed, in my mind, to the genocide that followed in Vietnam after our withdrawal; the thousands of Vietnamese who, as boat people, died on the open seas trying to avoid what they knew was coming. Did what those soldiers do AFTER they came home cancel out their bravery during battle? No. But did it make them less in my mind? Yes.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
EWMTM - “why is McCain considered such an abomination to the conservative movement? I really don’t get it.”
You are either not very conservative or have chosen to ignore McCain’s record.
Bush is irrelevant in a discussion of McCain’s record. I’m still fairly certain Bush is not running.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
After watching the debates, I saw that McCain is a lying, flipflopping LIBERAL little weasel. And after watching this video of Ann I will say she has some good points because I was seriously dreading deciding between McCain and Hillary.
My first choice will still be Romney. I don’t see why it is not the first choice of more Republicans and I hope he pulls ahead further. But maybe my second choice will be Hillary. At least she seems more mentally stable and smarter than McCain although I loathe her with ever fiber of my being.
And the left’s media campaign to have us nominate McCain is really grating on my nerves.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Retire05: “Perhaps McCain supporters are the ones who should take a deep breath and realize that we are not electing someone to represent American POWs (which McCain certainly did not) but POTUS.”
Big Oil: “Bush is irrelevant in a discussion of McCain’s record. I’m still fairly certain Bush is not running.”
What a fantastic observation, Big Oil!!!. So do us the pleasure of telling us why you wouldn’t vote for McCain in 2008, but voted for Bush.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
EWMTM, I don’t presume to speak for Big Oil, but I can tell you why I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004:
Al Gore:
a man who is in the pocket of Maurice Strong. He is a one world globalist who thinks that Mother Earth is too stupid to take care of herself and he is going to make sure that we evil mortals learn our lesson. Gore was a joke when he was VP and remains so today.
John Kerry:
as far as I am concerned he is a traitor to this nation. He should have been making little rocks out of big rocks for his subversion when he “negotiated” with the North Vietnamese in Paris, not to mention that his pet organization, VVATW, were funded by the Communist Party of America.
In my book, both of these men are so much worse that the “two for one” candidate that we have running now on the D ticket.
But feel free to vote for McCain, if you wish. Just remember, when you have to buy your own K-Y because he sticks it in the tail end of every conservative in this nation, that you were warned. Unless you really are not that conservative. In which case, you will feel right at home with the McCain System of Socialism.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
If we weren’t talking about who the next President is going to be, this might be entertaining. Instead it’s just sad. We’re actually calling McCain a socialist now? Retire05, Billary undermined the war effort in Vietnam. They could do a lot of damage now. You mention how terrible Gore and Kerry would have been to this nation. Why then would Hillary not be that bad as President? According to you, those liberals would have been disasters, but now you’re saying we would prefer Clinton over McCain? This is psycho babble.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
“We’re actually calling McCain a socialist now?”
Considering he wants to implement the two largest big government programs in history (global warming legislation, which includes high gas taxes and regulations on energy along the lines of the nonsense they have in CA - including their energy co. controlled home thermostats - and illegal immigration Amnesty), I would say yes, he is a socialist.
Add to that, that he does not respect free speech with his McCain-Feingold legislation, that also almost covered free speech on political blogs. I am sure Congress and a President McCain would gladly revisit that exemption and work to shut down the free speech of political blogs. And I am sure a President McCain would gladly sign a new Fairness Doctrine proposed by Congress to shut up his critics in talk radio as well. I bet he is salivating at the prospect of taking revenge on Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham.
Yes, our choices come November seem to be between a liberal socialist Republican and a liberal Socialist/Marxist Democrat.
And conservatives only have themselves to blame, since instead of rallying around conservatives like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson, they focused on “electability” and “fire in the belly” and “Anybody but Hillary/Obama!!!” and ended up destroying the Republican Party and any credibility they had for years to come.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
EWMTM; would you perfer “collectivist” if the word socialist insults your senses? What do you call McCain’s stand on global warming, a sure fire policy that would help kill our economy worse than it is already being killed by the “climate” alarmists? What do you call when you spread the wealth of America to give Social Security to illegals, and their dependants who may have never set foot in the U.S.? What do you call raising taxes?
Psycho babble? Is that what you are calling the opinions of someone who has followed McCain’s career since the day he got off the plane from Vietnam? Anyone who doesn’t see the merit in having a “maverick” in office is now a psycho? Do you even know the true meaning of a “maverick”?
I didn’t say Kerry would have been a disaster (although I think he would have been). I called him a traitor to his nation. Do you also consider that psycho babble? Or do you support American citizens, without the approval of the State Department and the President, talking, on his own, to the enemies of this nation? I’ll bet you were soiling your Hanes when SanFranNan was rubbing noses with Baby Assad.
And how do you figure that Billary undermined the war effort in Vietnam? Did she sit on a gun, dressed in full Vietnamese attire, smiling at the cameras and pretending to shoot down American planes? Gee, I must have missed that photo op.
Michael In MI; don’t blame me. I was a Thompson supporter from the git-go. Still am. He was the only one in this whole damn process that provided real answers. But he’s not purdy and so the media dismissed him and American voters, being the sheeple we have become, followed their lead. BTW, the first Republican straw poll was held last year. Hunter came in first. You can thank me, and other like minded Texas Republicans, for that.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
EWMTM - I doubt anyone here cares but I’ll indulge your question. I voted for Bush to:
Continue prosecuting the war on Islamic extremists (including interrogations and keeping terrorists out of our court system) - done
Appoint judges that do not legislate from the bench - done
Keep taxes low - done
Secure the borders and deport illegals - failure like McCain
Cut federal spending - failed like every President in my lifetime; McCain would fail as well
Bush has his faults, but he is a solid Christian, has an even temperament, and dignifies the office of POTUS.
On my issue report card Bush would get 60%, I’d project McCain at 10-20%. I also do not believe McCain has the right temperament to be POTUS.
BTW, I would vote for McCain in the general election because even 10% is better than 0. In the primary, I wouldn’t vote for McCain on a bet.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
retire05 - I should not have blamed “conservatives”, but rather, McCainservatives. That’s my new description for the ideology of those who call themselves conservatives, yet support John McCain.
I was and am a Fred Thompson supporter as well. I tried to convince people to stop paying attention to the media and blogs who were ignoring Fred Thompson’s message and only focusing on stuff like “electability” and “fire in the belly” and “laziness”, etc. And then worked to have people follow nothing, but polls and say “see, see, you have to vote for X, because the polls say X”. Since 2004, the Republican Party’s focus has been not on policy and ideology, but “electability” and “Anybody But Hillary!” And now, here we are facing a landslide loss in November.
Republicans and conservatives who said “I like Fred Thompson, but I don’t think he’s electable, so I’m supporting X”, with “X” being some RINO candidate… they are to blame for the GOP putting forth a losing candidate this November.
Me, I will be working to further the Write-in Fred Thompson campaign. I am hoping for a repeat of 1992 (if Fred Thompson cannot somehow earn the nomination at a brokered convention). People say that 1992 was full of wasted votes for Perot. I see it differently. I see those votes sending a loud and clear message to the GOP to get back to fiscal conservatism. The GOP was then rewarded in 1994 with the House of Representatives for the 1st time in 40 years. Perot voters gave us Congress to fight Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s. I see the same thing happening this year, so long as conservatives don’t either stay home or vote for McCain, simply to try to beat Hillary. The mass media cannot declare the end of Conservatism if we all send a message with our votes this election and in 2010 for conservatives in Congress.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Michael in MI,
I have followed McClainiac’s career since he stepped off the plane in 1973. When all the other POWs just wanted to go home and be with their families, McCain wanted to use his status to catapult him to match his father and grandfather’s admiralty. It didn’t happen. Then he dumped his crippled wife in a very public, and scandalous divorce because he had met his current wife in Hawaii. It was headline news how this created a riff between him and his children.
McCain is not a conservative except for his stand on pork. On all other matters, he votes, and works, with the left side of the aisle.
Is Romney a Reagan conservative? No, not by his record. But I do think he will remain loyal to conservative values and agendas and I have no doubt that McCain will not.
Whenever conservatives compromise our values, we lose. And with McCain, we will lose big time.