My Man McCain

I think of myself as conservative, but high authorities like Ann Coulter disagree. According to them, I am not a paid up member of the club since I support John McCain. Coulter prefers Hillary Clinton to John McCain. I guess Ann and I have come to a parting of ways, now that Coulter is a Hillary supporter.

I have supported McCain since 2000. He is right on most all the issues I care most about. I believe he may even come around on the carbon tax. He promised to end ALL earmarks, wants to balance the budget, and he supported the surge, which is now helping us win the victory in Iraq. He is clearly the most experienced person in the race and the most consistently honest.

McCain has always stood for freedom and he will be the agent of real positive change. I know Dems think they have a monopoly on this because their Ivy League lawyer candidates come in different colors and genders, but their solutions to today’s problems are to reintroduce the types of programs that failed us in the 1970s. How can they pass off this retrograde change as something positive? The only explanation I can think of re why this works for them is that most of today’s electorate doesn’t remember the 1970s and those old, failed, ideas seem somehow new.

In any case, now that Mitt Romney has dropped out, McCain will certainly be the Republican candidate. Who knows how long it will take for Obama and Clinton to tear at each other before the Hillary machine buries Barack? I do feel a little bad that the Dems will get beaten again. They are so full of passionate intensity and they will certainly think up all sorts of interesting conspiracy theories to explain their loss. They may now get a boost from their new friends on talk radio.

I regret that Ann Coulter et al don’t think McCain is a conservative. I have never been that fond of labels anyway, but I always thought that the key to conservatism in the U.S. was the belief in freedom and things like low taxes, small government, strong defense & free markets. John McCain supports these things, and I think he will go along on carbon taxes. I guess Ann Coulter wouldn’t like me anymore. Neither would Rush Limbaugh. How bad do I feel about that?

Posted by Jack at February 7, 2008 4:23 PM
Comment #244837

My biggest concern with Juan McCain is his position on our borders and illegals in the country. I heard part of his speech today at CPAC and liked what I did hear of it. I sure hope he and the party are wise in their choice of VP. And, I hope McCain doesn’t share the fate of Bob Dole. I am a conservative first and a republican second. Unlike some idiots I’ve heard ranting, I certainly will not stay home on primary day in Texas or in November. The RNC keeps calling me for more donations. My position this year is that they get none of my money. I will give only to the individual candidate that meets my conservative views. The RNC can screw themselves. The RINO’s have wasted our previous congressional victories and act too much like liberal democrats.

Posted by: Jim M at February 7, 2008 7:39 PM
Comment #244839


How, pray tell, is McCain the candidate for change? He already got his dream of passing McCain-Feingold, and it hardly changed a thing. I actually like his support of immigration reform, but I doubt many of your fellow right-wing bloggers will consider that a positive change.

I don’t know of any programs from the 70’s that the Democrats want to bring back.

As for your confidence that the Democrats will lose, I can only laugh.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 7, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #244842

If he is for smaller gov, and lower taxes, why did he vote against the tax cuts? Why is his stance amnesty? I will hold my nose and vote for him, but only because I am voting against the Ticket. And as much as I respect you on your writings and thoughts Jack, I am not in favor of said carbon tax. (unless all other or some other equal tax is negated.) I am not convinced that taxing any of my carbon footprint will lead to anything demonstable in change with the eco-system. I see only more wealth transfer. Take the water from the deep end and throw in the shallow.

Posted by: ScottP at February 7, 2008 9:13 PM
Comment #244850

I, too, have great respect for you, but the more insidious parts of McCain-Feingold - like clamping down on who may advertize and for what within six weeks of an election- that is unforgiveable. Thinking we would just lie down and be good while he put illegals at the front of the line is even worse. It was condecending and arrogant.

This party must know beyond a shadow af a doubt that conservatives will not be dragged as Republicans into territory Democrats vacated when they lurched leftward. Everybody running for office wants to use the “C” word, but that word means something and the backroom dealers of the Republican Party don’t give a damn what that is.

That is a GREAT image. The futility and expense of trying to pile water expresses the issue well.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 7, 2008 11:24 PM
Comment #244854
I guess Ann and I have come to a parting of ways, now that Coulter is a Hillary supporter.

Ya reckon this might turn the Democrats, who absolutely hate Ann Coulter, against Hillary?
One can only hope.

There aint any of the Republicans I’d vote for. They’re all Liberals trying to pass as Conservatives. And I believe that the true Conservatives will see right through their charade. Unfortunately that’s gonna mean that the even more liberal Democrats will get the White House. But no true Conservative could even think of voting for the likes of what’s running on either ticket.
Sometimes I think they oughta have a none of the above box on the ballot. And this year’s election is beginning to look like it’s needed.
I just hope a decent third party or independent candidate come’s along.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2008 11:59 PM
Comment #244857

No love for Huckabee?

The GOP is fracturing along its major fault line, between the social conservatives, who constitute the largest portion of votes, and the corporatist conservatives, who control the money and institutions. It ain’t pretty.

It’s kind of interesting that McCain and Hillary get mentioned so often in the same breath. One is supposedly liberal, the other supposedly conservative, and to be sure, there are real differences between them. But when push comes to shove, both are centrists; in other words, they will sell out their principles, triangulate, shift with the wind, and basically protect the special interests which back them at the expense of everyone else. Hey, just my take.

In the primaries to date, 15 million have voted D, and 11 million R.

McCain has won primaries in states where he has no chance of winning in the general election. He is a recipe for an electoral debacle. McCain is back, and going backwards, and he will just about destroy the GOP when this is done.

Huckabee has been winning despite the lack of institutional backing, despite being ignored or dismissed by the media, and despite a lack of corporate backing. There are attempts to dismiss him as a regional candidate, but the fact is, Huckabee is winning primaries in states he can actually carry in November, because the GOP has become a fundamentally regional party. Unlike McCain, Huckabee is charismatic, vital, and not as old as the hills, and Huckabee promotes a powerful message that speaks to a large block of GOP voters.

You may dismiss him today, but Huckabee is the best bet for the GOP, and the future of the Republican party.

Assuming McCain wins, he might pick Huckabee as his VP. But it won’t help. Can anyone concisely state what McCain represents? What? That we should live in terror, and be full of fear? Will he stroll around an Iraqi marketplace, surrounded by American troops and sharpshooters on rooftops while helicopters hover overhead, and tell us everything is Iraq is going great? Good luck with that.

I’ll make a prediction: Democrats will take over 56% of the vote in November, and win supermajorities in the House and the Senate.

Posted by: phx8 at February 8, 2008 12:26 AM
Comment #244859

I find it Romney’s speech to be hilarious; his santimonius posturing about his withdrawl from the race being for the good of the party and the country (he got that right) and his assertion that the important goal should be not allowing the Democrats to be elected in November. His reasoning was that Clinton and Obama were going to quit and run out of Iraq in defeat.
Isn’t quitting and running exactly what Romney just did??

Re: McCain. I have previously said that this is such a strong candidate that he would have an edge over the Democratic nominee. After Tuesday, I am rethinking that a bit. McCain will certainly draw a strong independent vote, key, in past elections for victory BUT, I’m thinking that many on the far right will withhold their vote, and, that a Clinton/Obama ticket will bring a lot of new voters to the process, who have never voted!
Even, Fox News, in a rare moment of honesty and clarity, remarked on the huge difference in numbers of voters in both partys, I guessing a three to two dem advantage.
I would find it difficult to vote for a republican, but McCain is smart, ethical, and pragmatic. Considering the disaster of a president we have had, McCain would be a joy.
RE: the tax cuts. The tax cuts were designed to flush the economy full of money, lower taxes on capital gains, dividends, estates, top tax brackett. The cuts were designed, if for nothing else, to bring GROWTH. How could it be that we are in recession; how could it even be possible. I could understand inflation, massive deficits, but at the end of it all, no growth?
How could that be?
Maybe it’s that there are tax cuts and there are tax cuts and that the ones pushed by bush were badly designed and badly targeted.

Posted by: charles ross at February 8, 2008 12:37 AM
Comment #244860

Hey Jack Ivy League was good enough when it was Bush you were defending, whatsamatternow?

You know Jack if McCain flip flops on immigration a bit you may be right about the dems losing, especially if Hillary gets the nod and if the repubs dont get to crazy far right with the VP pick. Immigration is the achilles heel of the dems for quite a few independants and McCain is decent enough that he could pull it off. I know.. a lot of ifs, but then who would have thought McCain was going to the show just a few short months ago. I know I may reconsider should it come down to a McCain Clinton race.

BTW keep Coulter on your side of the fence please.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 8, 2008 12:40 AM
Comment #244862

Heh. Now that they no longer have to help Dad with his political campaign, I guess Romney’s sons will back their words with action, and volunteer for Iraq. Any bets on whether that will happen? Of course not. Romney and his sons are just crappy people, more than willing to volunteer other young people for PTSD and getting their brains scrambled by IED’s, but no worries- Romney’s sons are much too cowardly to put themselves in danger.

McCain, on the other hand, seems anxious to refight Vietnam in the Middle East. He can’t wait to bomb Iran. Give him an additional four years to go senile, and it should easily result in more wars for oil. Nice candidate.

At least McCain found a trophy wife after only two marriages. But I guess we’re not supposed to notice that.

Posted by: phx8 at February 8, 2008 2:26 AM
Comment #244865

Although she’s joking Coulter does bring up a good point. A lot of conservatives, myself kind of included, are feeling a little lost right now.
Vote McCain?…really? I just don’t see it happening.

Posted by: andy at February 8, 2008 5:55 AM
Comment #244875

All that McCain’s spat with the conservatives means is that the Senator from Israel is out as VP. He will have to settle for Man of War if McCain wins in November. So, who will be his VP, Newt, Delay or Keating?

Jack: How could you have supported McCain since 2000 when just a few months you were supporting Romney?

Posted by: jlw at February 8, 2008 9:58 AM
Comment #244882

“He promised to end ALL earmarks, wants to balance the budget”

Yeah, with a LINE ITEM VETO, which is NEVER going to happen. He’ll probably just pull a W. and forget what he sticks in his desk drawer… that will show those dems who’s boss.

and regarding the ‘he always takes the right stance’ b/s… yeah, its called a FLIP-FLOP. And I mean a real one, not like they smeared John Kerry with.

Posted by: angrymob at February 8, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #244883

Jack, How is McCain going to win, when many conservative voters don’t like him.
And he was booed on 5-Feb at a meeting with union leaders (predominantly Democrats).
In many ways, McCain is just another Bush, and in some ways, worse.
And why would we want to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Oil?

McCain voted for the shamnesty BILL.
McCain, despicably, chooses to despicably pit these American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor (or Misplaced Compassion; the title of one of your past articles).

John McCain wrote a rider into the Medicaid Bill for $1.4 billion of your tax dollars. It passed. That is why 77 hospitals in border states were going bankrupt in 2003.

Do you really think McCain will win?
After what happened on 7-Nov-2006?
Do you think enough voters are no longer mad at Republicans?

John McCain:

  • Supports Amendment against flag-burning. (Apr 1999)

  • Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)

  • Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)

  • Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

  • Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)

  • Admitted about instances where he looked the other way too (on NPR in 2005)

  • Violence in media caused Littleton shootings. (Apr 1999)

  • Supports overthrowing “rogue” governments to keep Americans safe. (Feb 2000) {Iran perhaps?}

  • Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995) {Of course. Cha-Ching? Hurray for McCain-Fiengold campaign finance!}

  • Supports term limits on Congress. (Jul 1998), but two years later …

  • No term limits; they throw away the good with the bad. (Jan 2000) {is that a flip flop?}

  • Higher taxes on cigarettes. (Jan 2000)

  • Matching funds for seniors citizens’ prescription drugs. (Dec 1999)

  • We don’t have as much to fear as we had in the past. (Apr 2004)

  • Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)

  • Make possible for immigrants to do a job Americans won’t do. (Oct 2004) (a.k.a. corporations want cheap labor)

  • Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006) (a.k.a. amnesty; nothing like despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for cheap labor.)

  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

  • Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998) (yes, we need cheap labor to exploit rather than pay Americans a fair wage)

  • Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998) (more cheap labor; never mind that it is all a huge burden on Americans workers; where is John McCain’s compassion for his own fellow Americans?)

  • Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005) (well, it doesn’t really matter when cheap labor is flooding across the borders by the millions, does it?)

  • Trust Fund is a ticking time bomb, set to go of fin 2014. (Jan 2000) (So why do they continue to spend the Social Security surpluses?)

  • Disallow using Trust Fund for “emergency” spending. (Jun 1999) , {yet …}

  • Voted YES on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions (Jul 1999) {yet …}

  • Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)

  • Voted NO on across-the-board spending cuts. (Oct 1999)

  • Recommended we send in a heavy wave of troops to Iraq to establish order.(Nov 2006){and stay there 100 years, if necessary?}

  • We may be in Iraq for 100 years (Feb 2008)

  • The Iraqi war was necessary after years of failed diplomacy. (Aug 2004)

  • The Iraqi war was necessary, achievable and noble. (Aug 2004)

  • The cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004) {never mind one little detail … uhhmmm, like no WMD ?}

  • Important to win (in Iraq), important for US to be superpower. (Jun 1999)

  • Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)

  • Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

  • Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

  • CIA assessments on Iraqi WMDs were all wrong. (Mar 2005) {OOPppppss!}

At any rate, whoever the next president is, what good are they, if they are still saddled with the same corrupt, FOR-SALE, pork-happy incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in the do-nothing Congress that has enjoyed (on average) very cu$hy 96.5% re-election rates since year 1980?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 8, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #244886

Ann Coulter’s “support” of Hillary for President was nothing more than a lampoon of McCain’s “conservatism”…or should I say distinct lack thereof.

What Ann said was quite accurate. Hillary Clinton IS more conservative than John McCain.

It was VERY amusing to see the “anti hate speech and vitriol” liberals pour out hate speech and vitriol against Ann in rejecting her support. I guess they didn’t look in the mirror before they went on network TV, did they?

I was against McCain in 2000 and I am against him today. My position has not changed…and no amount of pandering to the true conservative base will change my mind, because it will be nothing more than “say anything and do anything” to get elected.

The only candidate that was close to true conservative values was Fred Thompson, who, as you know, showed a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the race.


No matter if we elect a Democrat or Republican, this country is screwed.

Posted by: Jim T at February 8, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #244894

I agree with many of the comments here concerning Juan and the laundry list of topics heis on the wrong (liberal) side of. I also want to second the comments concerning the RNC. They don’t want my input they just want my money. Guess what RNC, not a chance.

Now to get the normination McCain is trying to suck it up and say a few things to show conservatives that he really does like us but lets face it its just talk. Just like Bush now refusing to build the fence along the border. He never intended to build it and will do whatever he can to stop it from ever being built.

Will I vote for McCain? I hate being told by the McCainites that I don’t have a choice since I have to vote against Hillary. So we will see, I just might be busy rearranging my sock drawer on election day.

Posted by: Carnak at February 8, 2008 1:44 PM
Comment #244897


I agree McCain is a conservative. He is one of the biggest conservatives around.

He is also a war-monger. He wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He is just like Bush. He would continue Bush’s policy of alienating the world.

As far as Coulter is concerned, she has called all liberals traitors. And she wasn’t kidding; she put it in the title of one of her books. Now she makes the ridiculous statement that she would rather work for Clinton than McCain.

She’s nuts.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at February 8, 2008 2:16 PM
Comment #244900

I’m about as conservative as they come, and I’m glad McCain is going to be our nominee. There is quite a bit of disagreement between him and me, but when it comes down to it, he’s the only one who will defeat Billary or Barack Hussein Obama. What is all this fuss about Barack Hussein Obama, anyway? Barack Hussein Obama has one thing going for him—-rhetoric. Nothing else, nil. He’s got a lot of things against him though, like voting for live birth abortions and being the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, oh yeah, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. (Muslim terrorist? Probably not, but those e-mails were pretty effective because I still hear people say, “They won’t elect a Mormon but they will a Muslim?” And I’ll be sure to do absolutely nothing to disspell that notion.)

Posted by: Duane-o at February 8, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #244903

Duane-o, get real.
Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.
Would a Muslim have an intelligent, strong and outspoken wife like Michelle Obama? Not likely. If he believed that women can only be seen but never heard, we’d have seen and heard about as much from Michelle as we have from the good Rev. Huckabee’s wife. (I don’t even know what her name is.) Nor would Obama have powerful women like Oprah, and all those Kennedy Ladies backing him so strongly.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 8, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #244904

FYI Duane, Obama is a not a Muslim; he is a practicing Christian. He also holds dual citizenship with the U.S. and Kenya. I wouldn’t want him in the White House because he’s even further to the left than Feingold, Kennedy, and Boxer; but he certainly doesn’t carry the same kind of baggage that the Hill-Billy Team would bring.

As for McCain, what I’ve been reading and hearing on the news is nothing more than a whole lot of Brouha, as far as I’m concerning. So McCain doesn’t walk the party line all the time — since when has it been a crime to think for yourself and practice what you might believe? I hadn’t realized that conservatives these days were becoming so dogmatic as to make the Stalinist seem flexible. Even Barry Goldwater, who was Reagan’s idol, by the way, thought the government had no business controling a woman’s body (i.e. abortion) and firmly believed in separation of church and state. Reagan himself was pragmatic enough to make concessions to the other side from time to time.

The whole point of our type of government is its reliance on compromise in order to work successfully. Political intransigence, whether on the right or the left, spells only one thing — failure to address the problems our country faces. Maybe McCain isn’t perfect, but you guys like Andy who are waiting form Reagan to rise from the grave and run again are in for a lifetime of disappointment. You need to quit thinking of Reagan as some kind of god anyway; just like Democrats need to quit worshipping JFK. Times and politics are NOT static; without flexibility, things will only get worse.

So, if you feel the need to hold your nose and vote for McCain, do so, by all means! Just remember that even though you may not agree with every one of his positions, I’d challenge you to tell me all of Hillary’s and Obama’s positions that you find more acceptable.

It’s time for conservatives to grow up, face reality, and understand that they have no perfect conservative candidate for president — every one of their so-called conservatives has goone down in flaming defeat (Huckabee still tottering). Otherwise the conservatives of today can follow in the footsteps of other intransigent political parties, such as the Know-Nothings, Anti-Masons, Dixicrats, American Freedom Party, and the Green Party.

Posted by: Goombah at February 8, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #244907

Paul Siegel:

He is also a war-monger. He wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He is just like Bush. He would continue Bush’s policy of alienating the world.

It’s true. He is a war-mongering alienator - and in more ways than only one. McCain just referred to Democrats as “the enemy” on Super Tuesday. With these people, we’re all either “with them or against them.”
Their view of leadership has been tearing this country apart.

As far as Coulter is concerned, she has called all liberals traitors.
She’s nuts.

Indeed, but think that McCain is, too.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 8, 2008 4:34 PM
Comment #244910

McCain seems a bit slow.
On illegal immigration, he says “I get it now”.
Does anyone believe that.
That goes for all in Congress.
The illegal immigration problem has been growing for decades, and few (if any) in Congress did anything about it, other than vote for a few hundred miles of fence, and then forget to allocate any funds to build it.
What doesn’t make sense, Hillary and Obama also voted for the shamnesty BILL.
So why don’t Hillary and Obama get booed?
Why do Democrat voters seem to give them a pass on their lousy voting records on illegal immigraion (and grades at, in which they all choose to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes? Where is their compassion for these Americans?

John McCain: “D”
Hillary Clinton: “D”
Barack Obama: “D-“

Barack Obama wants to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses.
Hillary isn’t quite sure, and flip-flopped.
Guess that is a maybe?
All of them want what is essentially amounts to amnesty, where by they would pay fines, learn English, etc., etc., etc. Yeah right … as if that will be enforced any better than the current immigration laws, eh?

The choices stink.

At any rate, the voters will have the government they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 8, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #244913

Jim T

“No matter if we elect a Democrat or Republican, this country is screwed.”

pretty damn scary isn’t it jim.

Posted by: dbs at February 8, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #244914

McCain on War and Peace (kind of scary?)
McCain on Immigration (pathetic)
John McCain says the tax system is fair system is fair and the wealthy pay bulk of taxes. (Oct 2007).
So is it fair that Warren Buffet pays 17.7% on $46 Million in 2006, and his secretary paid 30% on $60K ?
That seems regressive to me.
Who does he think he is kidding?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 8, 2008 6:10 PM
Comment #244923

I find the anger and hostility of people on this board towards McCain to be mystifying, (and toward McCain’s obviously tepid support for bush, both on foreign policy and domestic policy).
It is the second month of 2008. We have had seven years of w’s post-narcotic, post-alcoholic nightmare (found jesus, lost his mind). Thousands of people dead at home, 9-11, (Does anyone think that McCain would have reacted to the information that Al-Quaida was planning suicide attacks in the United States by going out and clearing some more brush?); thousands of more dead overseas. Those of you talking about what a great success the surge has been, what is the implication about the w’s prior policy in terms of this late-term success?
As I stated above. I understand that w’s push over the years was to have a high-growth economy, to hell with the trade deficit, the federal deficit and the dollar. Growth at any cost.
So why are we on the verge of a recession?

Why in the world would McCain (or anyone else) come to the electorate and promise them more w.? Talk about political suicide. I guarantee that once McCain gets the nomination he will totally forget the insane 10% that occupy the far right of the republican party.

Posted by: charles ross at February 8, 2008 8:13 PM
Comment #244927


Mitt decided he can’t buy the election and McCain thinks he’s earned the job. Huckabee is such a complete and utter phoney, that he seems likely to go postal.

The problem is they belong to that tarnished, smutty rag of a banner, dipped in filthy lucre, called the Repulican party. They can’t give that stuff away. Not a soul is buying the out-of-touch criminal corporatists. Ron Paul is the only Republican with actual principles, and he’s seen as a whacko.

Dream on.

Posted by: googlumpugus at February 8, 2008 8:50 PM
Comment #244945

Actually all McCain would have to do to stop earmarks is not do anything. Bush has signed an executive order which forces executive departments to ignore earmarks, which he can do because they have not been VOTED through the two chambers.

So, that took a lot of courage, didn’t it?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 9, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment #244952

Goombah…I also love when McCain tells me to grow up. Beautiful way to come across to people who just thought they were trying to better our country in a small way. Sorry John, I will never question your authority again…wait a second who’s working for who here?

Btw, I was in grade school during Reagan and politics was not my biggest thought at the time. My apologies for wanting a conservative candidate, and good luck with your new republican party without my support.

Posted by: andy at February 9, 2008 2:27 AM
Comment #244954

“FYI Duane, Obama is a not a Muslim; he is a practicing Christian”

I know Barack Hussein Obama isn’t a Muslim. However, there are a lot of people who believe Barack Hussein Obama is some kind of sleeper cell undercover suicide/homicide bomber waiting to slip into the White House in order to turn the U.S. over to Obama, er, I mean Osama Bin Laden and Co. While I know this view of Barack Hussein Obama is kind of whacked out, I’ll be sure to allow and even encourage these rumors if that’s what it takes to avoid a Barack Hussein Obama presidency.

Posted by: Duane-o at February 9, 2008 7:44 AM
Comment #244955

BTW, Ross Perot just found out Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t a Muslim about two or three weeks ago. I know, I know, but how many voters are about as in charge of their faculties as Ross? Scary, huh?

Posted by: Duane-o at February 9, 2008 7:48 AM
Comment #244958

Some folks seem to forget the fact that this Congress has one of the lowest approval rating ever and all three of the possible presidential candidates are part of that congress. Our Government is broken and Washington is bought and paid for by socio-ethnic special interest groups and big business. As soon as the elections are over it will be pretty much more of the same, more illegal aliens, more disasterous free trade deals, more outsourcing of American jobs and despite the fact that every poll taken shows that Americans do not want amnesty for illegals it will be pushed again. We’re Screwed.

Posted by: TBM at February 9, 2008 8:22 AM
Comment #244965

I thought you would be delighted. McCain is clearly the best candidate the Reps had on the bench. I had hoped your rascist/xenophobe contingent would prevail but apparently the corporate faction prevailed and decided not to allow party sepuku.BTW Please keep Coulter.
The Ca vote was telling. Because of his somewhat rational policy re. immigration McCain was rewarded with the Rep Latino vote as well base vote. It should be noted that the Rep primary here is NOT open to independants. His success was not due to any crossover vote. One reason for this is that Rep strongholds in the Golden State are almost all agricultural. Farmers here have been facing severe labor shortages that will only be solved by a sensible guest worker program. Also this state has had the opportunity to get to know Latino immigrants,documented and otherwise,and guess what? They are not generally the horrible devils they are made out to be by the the fear mongers. In this case the traditional Rep electoral approach of pitting one group of working people against another appears to be falling flat.

Posted by: BillS at February 9, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #244967


So Obama is all rhetoric, and your best way to fight him is to purposefully repeat and reinforce a rumor that you yourself admit is not true? Sounds like you know in your heart how bankrupt the Republican party is.

The only hope that McCain has is for Hillary to get the nod. Her running will galvanize the conservative base, increasing Republican turnout. If Obama wins, McCain will get smeared, because the Right will just not bother showing up. I agree that Barack would win with about 56% of the popular vote.


Posted by: leatherankh at February 9, 2008 11:48 AM
Comment #244970

leatherankh, unfounded rumors and outrright lies are just 1 of the “values” held dear by the talk radio conservatives. Thats why when they had their chance they screwed the pooch.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 9, 2008 1:31 PM
Comment #244976

McCain would have been better off, win or lose, remaining consistent. Instead, he’s chosen to pander to the various bases. That will lose him the election. Maybe going hardcore on all the issues will convince the doubters in the GOP, but with most Americans profoundly opposed to the GOP policies, the general election will require that he steer a centrist course to appeal to most Americans. Which means he won’t keep the support of your party. If he stays hard right, the Democratic nominee will beat the crap out of him in the election.

The Republican’s biggest problem is a self-inflicted narrowness. Either they moderate themselves, or they lose election after election.

Barack Hussein Obama. I think America is not so chickenshit at this point as to be scared of Arabic middle names. But I could be wrong.

It’s a yellow-bellied way to argue politics. It’s only useful to those who have serious problems coming up with substantive reasons for people not to vote for a man.

You can talk about him being all rhetoric, but then you’re using an approach that is nothing but rhetoric.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #244988

Hey Jack…you should listen to Stephen and the other democrats here and pass the memo to McCain. Heck, he should have ran as a dem, what a three way race that would have been. And at the same time we could have went down in November with some self respect.

Posted by: andy at February 10, 2008 12:08 AM
Comment #244989

Stephen…Obama would have had a very hard time winning if McCain wasn’t our nomination. If we could have come up with anything better than a turd his muslim heritage would have been a huge factor, and rightly so.

Posted by: andy at February 10, 2008 12:23 AM
Comment #244991

Sorry not to respond earlier. I have been traveling.

My general comment is that I am surprised at the opposition to John McCain from the right. I agree with McCain generally on most issues. Of course, we differ in details, but that is the way it works. We get a package in a politician.

Re McCain-Feingold - As far as I am concerned, McCain’s biggest mistake was McCain-Feingold. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it has resulted in money being MORE influential in politics and LESS accountable. I have reasonable confidence that the Supreme Court will eventually overturn some of its more onerous provisions. So I disagree with him, but I do not think of it as a current issue anymore.

Re Carbon Tax - I have written so much on this, I would just point you all toward my earlier postings. To summarize:

A carbon tax is the most elegant way to address problems of climate change as well as mitigate geopolitical problems caused by our dependence on oil, much of which lies under countries run by tyrants, despot and anti-American leaders.

The carbon tax can be revenue neutral and be used to replace other taxes, not add to the general tax burden.

The carbon tax will unleash the power of market forces and the intelligence of free people to solve the problem of carbon dependence. The market is the best generator of practical solutions. I am confident that within a short time, market forces will have tamed this problem.

Re Iraq - I am trying to stay away from that issue because I am too close to it and my passion on the subject overwhelms my objectivity. Suffice to say, the surge has created a huge opportunity for success. People who were in Iraq as recently as late 2006 are astonished by the progress. McCain had the courage to take the unpopular decision to support the surge and he did it very forcefully. The most important reason I would vote against Obama or Clinton is that I am convinced they their pusillanimous responses to terrorism in fealty to the nutty left wing of their party would snatch failure from the jaws of success and doom our country to years of shadowy war and renewed terrorist attacks.

I shutter when I hear Obama or Clinton talk about withdrawing troops within months of their taking office. There is no mistake they could make that would have greater negative consequences for the future of our country and our security, never mind that they would be condemning hundreds of thousands of our friends in the region to almost immediate torture, dismemberment and death.

It is truly ironic that Dems are so outraged at the possibility that three terrorists were waterboarded. They cry against torture and I assume they do so with clean motives, BUT they are willing to condemn hundreds of thousands of innocent people - people who have tried to be our friends - to much worse torture if we run out on them. It is despicable, and you see why I now stay away from this subject – sorry. Too close.

Re Republicans – I think many Dems are mistaking us for their own stereotypes of Republicans. My party will accept John McCain. We have moderates, conservatives and (relative) liberal members. Remember that more than half of all the people who voted in 2004 voted for George W Bush. The only person who won more than half the total vote before that was … George HW Bush in 1988. The Democrats have not won more than half the total vote for president since 1976. That is a long time. So be careful about who you consider extremist. It is not possible for more than half to people to be “extremists”. On the other hand, a party that has not managed to get more than 50% of the vote since 1976 might be a little more suspect. Republicans fit well into the mainstream. They were the mainstream in almost every election since 1980. It is likely that the 2006 election was the anomaly.

Re the election in general – I think we might get a better election this year than before. If the race is between Obama and McCain, I think it will be a less hateful contest. Make no mistake, I will vote against Obama and work against his election. I think he is wrong, but he seems an honest man of integrity. The same is true of John McCain.

I am sure the and other Soros supported “independent organizations” will work up a frenzy of hate, but I hope and believe that the mainstream will largely ignore them.

Posted by: Jack at February 10, 2008 2:14 AM
Comment #244994
They cry against torture and I assume they do so with clean motives, BUT they are willing to condemn hundreds of thousands of innocent people - people who have tried to be our friends - to much worse torture if we run out on them.

I’m confused. I thought the Iraqi people were yearning to breathe free air. That was the rhetoric, anyway. Now a foreign occupation is the only thing preventing an orgy of horrific violence. You see the problem here: you are trying to convince us (for the 57th time, by my count) that Iraq is turning a corner, John McCain is the only person who can prevent it from turning to Hell. The “vote Republican or else” message is getting old. We’ve already seen how much harm the neocons can do by pursuing their supposedly noble struggle.

Clinton and Obama are a lot more flexible (anti-war folks would say spineless) than you give them credit for. They have left open the possibility of staying in Iraq for a few years if that is what is needed. The difference is that
they don’t have grand plans to remake the Middle East.

I think that Republicans will largely embrace McCain. On the other hand, in regard to the “stereotype”, I don’t think I was hallucinating when I hard Bay Buchanan on the radio saying that he would have to make more concessions before conservatives accept him. And you can see the reaction to your post.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 10, 2008 8:53 AM
Comment #244996


I guess it might take 58 times. I am impressed by my own persistence. According to the book of the Tao, peristence is the test of will power.

Iraq is very much different than it was last year. Vitality is returning with relative peace and prosperity. Yet ruthless armed thugs stand ready to jump back in given the opportunity. Iraqi security forces are developing very quickly, but they still need time and they may need the over watch of our forces for some time to come (to deal with acute threats). It is easier to intimidate Iraqis than Marines because the Iraqis live here. Their families are at risk. AQI can cut off the hands of their kids or rape their wives and daughters. It is a credible threat. The bad guys know where they live. History shows that small numbers of ruthless and determined individuals can bring down societies.

The terrorists are like pathogens. When I was in college I had strep throat. I took anti-biotics for a while and got much better. But the doctor warned me to finish the anti-biotic treatment. If I quit too soon, the germs could return. This is where we are in Iraq today. We are much better, but we have not yet wiped out the germs. If we quit treatment too soon, they will not only come back, but come back in a more virulent variety.

I am afraid the pressure for Clinton or Obama to declare victory and get out will be too great. McCain on the other hand, has indicated that he has the strength of character to take the unpopular, but correct positions.

I have to qualify that I really do not know what Obama would do. He does not have a track record for us to consider on the hard decisions. Clinton, on the other hand, would follow whatever the latest polling data told her would make her most popular. That is not leadership. I am certain that McCain would not equivocate. He would maintain the troops in Iraq if that was necessary AND I believe he would also have the stature to pull them out (al la Charles de Gaulle) if that became necessary. Ironically, Clinton might have to “look tough” and make the wrong choices in that direction too. I believe she would make a weak leader. As I said, Obama we cannot judge at this time.

We often elect presidents based on things they cannot do much about. Presidents, for example, get lots of credit or blame for the economy, but their policies are actually not very important. If you look at long term economic performance, there is no indication that presidents do much to change things during their terms in office. It is in their role as commander in chief and in foreign policy where the president has a distinct power. That is the most important job for the president. Clinton is not up to the task. I do not know about Obama. I am certain McCain will be doing a good job from the first day.

Posted by: Jack at February 10, 2008 9:15 AM
Comment #244997


I don’t want to see people get raped or mutilated any more than you do, but I honestly wonder how much the US military can do to prevent that in the long run. We cannot afford to babysit the Iraqis indefinitely. They will have to decide what kind of country they want.

I do think the nightmare scenario you describe is unlikely to happen, at least on a vast scale. Consider this: Hussein was able to terrorize people because he had the power of the Iraq state at his disposal. He didn’t need people to like him, only to fear him.

The guys in AQI, on the other hand, can only operate with a certain level of popular support. That is true of any insurgency. If the mass of people think the insurgents are evil bastards they are going help the state root them out. If they think that the insurgents are sticking it to The Man, however, then the state doesn’t have a chance. The more we stick around, the more the Iraqi state looks like something that is illegitimate and deserves to be overthrown.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 10, 2008 10:30 AM
Comment #245009


I think most people underestimate how truly evil AQI is and how little support they really need to carry on their nefarious activities. Our guess is that there are only a few hundred foreign fighters. A few hundred in a population of around 25 million is not much and even with a greater number of sympathizers it still is a very small force. But they are fantastically ruthless and well supplied with money. Their goal is to destabilize the country. They do this by attacking anything that will lead to progress. This includes marketplaces, businesses and of course courthouses or government offices. In a stable country, they could be stopped and/or their efforts would not create massive destabilization. Think of the case in our own country. Terrorists have succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers, blowing up the government office in Oklahoma City, attacking women’s’ clinics etc. As a % of the population, their numbers are very small, but they create a lot of damage. Nevertheless, in our stable country these attacks are not crippling. Iraq is just starting out. Attacks like this cause more trouble.

We do have a dilemma concerning the Iraqi state. We (especially the Marines) are now very popular because we are seen as saving the people from the insurgents. People have less confidence in the government in Baghdad. The transition is the tricky part. Iraqis must come to trust their own forces as much as they trust the Marines.

I don’t think we can guarantee success even if we stay, although I am reasonably confident. I am morally certain that if we leave too soon, the bad guys will return and murder people who were trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. This will provoke a reaction which will drive the country back to chaos. Then there will be a TRUE insurgency in a kind of Hobbsean world with each man’s hand is raised against his neighbor. AQI is small in numbers, but they have the power to do that.

The other thing to remember about the insurgency is that there really isn’t one in the sense we think of it. We are not fighting an insurgency that seeks to control the country. What we are fighting is chaos. AQI wants to create a chaotic situation where it can thrive and recruit.

Let me point out one more important permutation. The people we are fighting in Iraq are by and large associated with the people who attacked us on 9/11. A lot of people make a false distinction by saying (correctly) that Saddam was not operationally linked to 9/11. This is true but no longer a piece of useful information. Al Qaeda came to Iraq to fight us and that is the enemy now. They are not fighting us in Iraq because they care much about Iraq. They are fighting us there because they want to fight us. If they win in Iraq, they will fight us someplace else, maybe America.

With the benefit of hindsight, I believe invading Iraq as we did in 2003 was an error. But once committed, we were and are confronted with the choices that follow from that action. Our best way out of this problem is to go forward. The fastest way to establish security and bring our troops SAFELY home is through success.

You know that old riddle – how far can a dog run in a straight line into the woods? The answer is half way. After that he is running out. We are more than half way through this. The best way out of the woods is to get to the other side.

Posted by: jack at February 10, 2008 1:11 PM
Comment #245033

Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what’s really at stake here. This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals.

How is handing the whole country over to far left liberals a suitable alternative to McCain? What principal is that?

There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure-bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values permanently.

Today’s liberal is not like the Bill Clinton’s Presidency. It’s moved radically left… Clinton is now considered a moderated, and loosing it’s power because it’s not radically liberal enough.

The Democratic candidate that is surging now, Obama, is bottom of the barrel liberal. He is about to take power, unless conservatives stop fighting and get serious.

This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left.

Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they will allow our country spiral out of control.

There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of radical liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues?

Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck…. But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government. Our kids deserve better out of us.

I’m not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here that requires that we do everything we can to minimize the damage this election can cause to our society.

I’d rather have 50% of McCains ear, than 0% of a liberals ear.

Give it some thought, friends.

Danny Vice

Posted by: Danny Vice at February 10, 2008 9:48 PM
Comment #245107

Jack said: “I think most people underestimate how truly evil AQI is and how little support they really need to carry on their nefarious activities.”

I don’t think you understand the AQI threat. It is minimal - less than the threat of the Aryan nation in the U.S., or Hezbollah in S. America, or the real Al-Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Perhaps this is because of your focus on Iraq. But, one thing is becoming ever clearer to Americans at home, and that is that the Iraqi people, Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite alike, would not allow AQI to flourish in Iraq should we up and disappear tomorrow. AQI is a far greater threat to the Iraqi working family or families wanting work and peace, than they ever could be to America or our homeland.

Could they cause problems for the U.S.? Yes, if they could interrupt oil flow. But, beyond that and their incredibly limited growth potential in Iraq should we leave, they hardly warrant the opportunity costs we are and will continue to pay in Pakistan, Afghanistan and in social domestic programs.

Staying in Iraq is now ALL ABOUT GOP VINDICATION, and not America’s future or security. AQI is not AQ, everyone knows this except Republican loyalists who keep feeding at the trough of their scare mongering and deceiving party rhetoricians. This is why McCain is absolutely a horrible candidate for President, because he still looks at Iraq and sees his Vietnamese captors. The man has no grasp of reality. And should not be given control of the world’s most powerful military. Be like giving a loaded .38 to Charlie Manson to fend off his demons.

Of course, all the other GOP candidates would have been even worse in their own ways. The conception that McCain has the capacity to reach out to Independents and conservative Democrats is going to disappoint with an historical sting. Mark my words. Yet, he really is the best of the GOP lot. What a monumentally sad statement that is about the Republican Party. They can’t even find a credible capable candidate in their ranks to run these days, and if they could, they wouldn’t recognize him/her as such.

Republicans are about to become the very least of America’s worries. Their legacy has already become become the greatest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2008 6:17 AM
Comment #245325
Yet, he really is the best of the GOP lot. What a monumentally sad statement that is about the Republican Party. They can’t even find a credible capable candidate in their ranks to run these days, and if they could, they wouldn’t recognize him/her as such.
Sad indeed.

But that really applies for most (if not all) incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in the Do-Nothing Congress.

Whoever becomes president, they won’t be able to solve any of the nation’s pressing problems if the voters repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election (e.g. seat-retention rates of 96.5% on average since year 1980).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 14, 2008 1:56 PM
Comment #245430

Danny Vice, such partisan rantings without merit, evidence, or rational critical deliberation.

I find it typical that some Republican talking heads say we don’t know what Obama stands for because he doesn’t provide details, while the others claim to know the details of his policy so well as to declare them “bottom of the barrel liberal”.

You can pedal it if you want, but, it’s all uphill with this kind of tripe fueling the wheels.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 15, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #245745

No way McCain:

1. He has a consistent pattern of shocking verbal abuse, including screaming profanities, against Senate Republican colleagues who oppose his bills in any way.
2. He has exercised scandalously poor judgement by intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr. in the savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980’s
3. He has worked against the principals of the Republican Party, promoting greatly expanding federal regulatory authority in order to combat global warming in ways that would greatly burden the American economy, contrary to free market forces.
4. He has fought the Republican Party to create the Patient’s Bill of Rights, which allowed the government to impose a set of burdensome mandates on insurance coverage.
5. He has underminded the principals of a free market economy by voting for an amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement price controls on prescription drugs under Medicare.
6. He has worked against the Republican Party to make a mockery of the rule of law, promoting amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.
7. He has voted to subvert American Sovereignty by granting consulting rights to Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.
8. He has undermined the Constitution and opposed the Constitutional duties of the Vice President to break a tie in judicial nominations.
9. He has worked against conservative principals, undermining the First Amendment by abridging the free speech of citizens partaking in the political process.
10. He has consistently led efforts undermining Second Amendment rights by promoting bills which regulate all sales at gun shows; regulations which force gun-owners to purchase trigger locks, making their firearms useless for self-defense; regulations which restrict the legitimate transfer of firearms over the internet; and regulations which extent the restrictions of the Brady Bill to pawn shops and gun repair shops.
11. He has voted to use taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos.
12. He has refused to take immediate and direct action to protect the life of the unborn; He opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade; and he opposes a constitutional amendment to protect all life.
13. He sponsored and voted for a 282% tax increase on cigarettes that would have unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment and increased the size of the federal bureaucracy exponentially by giving the FDA unrestricted control over nicotine.
14. He supports raising Social Security taxes.
15. he has broken with the Republican Party in strongly opposing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He also joined leading liberal senators in offering and voting for amendments designed to undermine the tax cuts.

Just thought you’d might like to know, this is from a “Individual Resolution Against McCain,” circulating around the internet. I guess they forgot the entire I.R.I. thing too. That should drum up some good old “south of the border support.”

Posted by: dobropet at February 19, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #356085

adies, if you want the top in the ladies handbag entire world, generally there nothing at all additional excellent over a Chanel ladies handbag. Should you be actually thinking about buying Chanel ladies handbag, anyone gained consider the amount variety there exists on-line? youl always be drooling in the wide selection of variations along with hues involving Chanel totes. Type, cheap louis vuitton handbags fashion along with convenience are generally about three words and phrases that will illustrate your Chanel distinctive line of fashion accessories. Coco Chanel ended up being a new founder throughout girls apparel along with equipment. If you game a new elegant Chanel ladies handbag on the supply, anyone electronic holding with a prolonged convention involving girls whom enjoy basic fashion that will exciting along with cozy. One of several exclusive things about your Chanel handbag can be their quilted natural leather design and style. Even though chanel tote bags youl see that Chanel creates a number of methods of totes, that they even now provide you with the basic quilted Chanel handbag. These kind of luggage are generally figures inside manner entire world. Commonly, anyone louis vuitton leather bags get to venture to a new Chanel flagship keep, as well as high-end office keep to discover Chanel developer totes along with hand bags, so you shell out an attractive any amount of money for each and every one particular The good news is, the web supplies a great deal of chances to the manner informed female to discover top-of-the-line developer totes in deal price ranges.
study course, many of us electronic chatting Chanel below, cheap bags online therefore you electronic even now gonna shell out proper price tag, but rather of a single handbag, youl be capable of obtain 2-3. Women, you already know generally there not like your fashion, good quality along with convenience associated with an legitimate Chanel ladies handbag. Whatever your current feelings, generally there a new Chanel ladies handbag to check. The idea a brilliant notion to travel on-line to acquire Chanel ladies handbag, considering that youl be capable of come across a number of amazing offers. Add find way too captivated, however. Youl desire to make certain anyone electronic receiving merely legitimate Chanel armani watches but not that will affordable bogus goods. When you obtain, I propose surfing around a great deal of luggage to learn precisely what a realistic Chanel handbag appears to be. Add invest in just about any retailer which gives which you unny experiencing. What sorts of Chanel totes could you obtain on-line? Your atmosphere your restriction. Natural leather, coat, wicker, produce, brand-new, old-fashioned, dark-colored, bright, brown, crimson, natural, orange, green, clutch i465, cheap armani watches drawstring, ladies handbag, carry, messenger handbag, particular versions, and many others. You definitely gained expand bored with the alternatives involving variations along with hues. Finally, there zero have to have that you can are living all-around a new Chanel specialist as well as high-end office keep that will has these kind of distinctive luggage. A new Chanel handbag can be delightfully close to hand.

Posted by: chanel tote bags at November 1, 2012 5:42 AM
Post a comment