Shark Jumping 101
Ed Morrisey asks if Ann Coulter has jumped the shark with her promise to campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain wins the Republican nomination.
So let's walk through the logic here. John McCain gets castigated by Coulter because he aligns himself too often with the Democrats. Her solution to that is — to campaign for the Democrats? Maybe someone can explain the thought process to me, but it sounds like a hysterical demand for extortion rather than a considered and thoughtful political position.
I'm supporting Mitt Romney because I think he is the better option. If Mitt doesn't win the nomination, I plan to support John McCain. He will have won the support of more of the party, and that would make him the man to carry the banner. I will still oppose some of his policy stands and acknowledge his apparent animus at times to the party base, but he will still be a much better choice for the nation than Hillary Clinton.
I don't read Ann Coulter and almost never mention her here at the Crabitat. But the shortest answer to Ed's question is a simple yes in this case. An all or nothing mindset is political suicide, frankly. And a rejection of your basic principles in a fit of pique because you did not get your way brings your principles into question in the first place. Maybe that's a harsh way to put it, but maybe it is time for some harsh words. I regularly castigate the same behavior coming from the left. I do not wish to see the right go down that same road.
I've said before that I did not vote for Ronald Reagan because he represented everything I expected in a candidate. He did not. I voted for him despite the fact that he was not my ideal – because he was more than good enough, despite what I saw as flaws. Politics has been described as the art of the possible. Holding candidates to impossible standards doesn't help make anything possible.
UPDATE: Comments are heavy on this post. Others bloggers posting: Sister Toldjah, Conservative Reader, American Power, Just One Minute, Classical Values, Poliblog, And here's one to think about: The Gun Toting Liberal wonders if this is confirmation that Ann Coulter is actually a liberal who has been running an act on conservatives. No, I'm not endorsing it, it is just something to think about for a moment.
By NortonPete, February 1, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
This is going to be a repeat of a previous post. If you are backed into a corner by presidential candidates who are not acceptable, vote for the best commander-in-chief.
Our troops deserve this. Elect to congress those who will do a decent job, but think of our troops first and remember how Hillary was greeted during her trip to Iraq.
By clifto, February 1, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Exaggeration for the sake of emphasis is not a new mode of speech; it’s obvious without your saying that you don’t follow Coulter, as she’s fond of hyperbole. But you seem to imply that McCain is a marginally acceptable candidate on one or two issues when you speak of not requiring an ideal candidate. I see McCain as being as bad as either Democrat in the job, worse in fact because of his pretense at being a Republican and his proof-by-repeated-assertion that he’s a conservative. The fact that the New York Times endorses him should be a clue that he’s danger incarnate.
By LYNNDH, February 1, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Excuse me clifto, but McCain as bad as Hillary and Obama? Get real! Think of Iraq, of the military in general, courts, taxes (yes McC. voted against the Bush tax cuts but he had reasons and I don’t believe that he would raise them like the other two) and yes immagration. I just don’t understand people like you. Childish.
By Gaius, February 1, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
clifto, ask yourself if he would really be worse than Clinton or Obama. Then ask what the odds are of retaining some influence – or even getting your way – with McCain or with Clinton or Obama. Be honest with yourself.
I do not – most emphatically do not – agree with several of McCain’s positions on things. But with him, I stand a chance of being heard. With the other two I have no chance at all.
Reagan signed Simpson-Mazzoli and I was livid with him for doing so. But he still stood firm on other things I cared about deeply.
By the way, have you considered that the NYT might have endorsed him as a sabotage move? Don’t think they are capable of doing that? (And he should have rejected that endorsement as some people suggested. It would have changed a few minds.)
By syn, February 1, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
I hope the next CIC is willing to do what is necessary to protect our troops, Americans citizens and will not bring enemy combatants to American soil giving them rights under our laws nor is eager to join the International Criminal Courts (the international community should not be given power to prosecute our military who put their lives on the line protecting our Nation).
More importantly, I hope our next CIC is not a hot-tempered hothead who flies off the handle when things don’t go his/her way; I do worry about an unstable hothead going overboard in their reaction to tough times.
One thing is certain, I am going to miss President Bush deeply, his faithful love and committment to our military men and woman is all the legacy I need. To me he has been the finest President my civilian self could ask for, calm under the worst of times and able to take the most vicious of attacks without ever being vicious in kind. Most of all he never, ever thought of our fine military as torturers others have said they are but thinks of them as freedom’s liberators that they hoave shown themselves to be.
By McGehee, February 1, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
But with him, I stand a chance of being heard.
I wish I could believe that. His track record argues rather strongly not.
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
All this talk makes me think even more than conservatives can become a little nutty over time. I like the sensible, stoic conservatism that a lot of Republicans display, including John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. What I don’t care for is the histrionic, “all-or-nothing” conservatism that others display. Yes, a primary is to select the standard bearer of a party to send up for a general election, but we saw what happened the last time the party sent up someone who was a pure reflection of what the party supposedly stood for. George W. Bush said everything he needed to say to get the votes he wanted, took some tough stands in the conservative positions (and ignored others), but once in office, continued to talk the same language many conservatives are now using in selecting your nominee. The only problem is that THIS time, people don’t WANT to have to choose between ideologues it seems. This time, it seems, people want to have a real choice in November, between two candidates who are sane, sensible representatives of their respective movements. I think people are much more open to either liberal or conservative ideas if they fit in their lifestyle or serve their needs, but what they want to see in candidates is the ability to be flexible to the job itself and not burn down the whole town of Washington when things don’t fall into their little ideological plan.
Ann Coulter. C’mon now. I don’t know why conservatives hate McCain as much as they do, except he’s popular in spite of NOT being in perfect lockstep with the party. If you step back and look at him, on the surface, he carries the Republican line pretty well. Veteran. Spending cutter. Military hawk. Pro-surge. Anti-Abortion. Yet, conservatives don’t like him because he wasn’t willing to set himself and his career on fire for positions that would brand him extreme to a large number of mainstream voters in America. In other words, this man wants to appeal to a broad number of Americans, instead of dividing them up into relatively evenly divided camps and hoping one crushes the other.
Look at the recent Republican nominees who were willing to say and do anything to assuage hard-line conservatives to get the nomination. Dole in ‘96 wasn’t a hard-core ideologue, and yet he said what it took, and the party lost. Why? It wasn’t because he wasn’t conservative enough (a line more people are using these days “we long because we abandoned our values” – you lost because what you campaigned on wasn’t what people wanted…duh). He lost because, at that moment, Clinton was a better representative of what people wanted. Look at the campaign Dole ran. It seemed he was a candidate out of place with a party that didn’t really represent him – a fiscal conservative, and social moderate (which is what he really was).
G.W. Bush in 2000 held the party line, no matter the cost. What happened? He won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote. Did he win because of his hard-line conservative positions? No. He barely won in spite of them. I suspect that if he had moved a little more into the mainstream, he not only would have won the electoral vote, but the popular as well. I mean, c’mon – Al Gore, a nice guy, was representative of an administration the country was clearly tired of. It should never have been a close race in the first place.
So what does this mean about McCain? Conventional wisdom out there holds that Republicans love holding that Oval Office no matter what. Traditionally, it’s been held by Republicans more than Democrats. I say that this wisdom is not true.
McCain can win in November. Frankly, he’s probably the only one who can beat a Democrat in a year where Bush fatigue is going to be a major issue and feelings against Republicans are very high. Why? Not because he’s a conservative ideologue, but because he’s interested in appealing to a broad base of support including people outside the Republican base. That’s how you win in November (and also how he’s managed to win some primaries recently – another thing that irks conservatives).
Yet, despite conventional wisdom showing that Republicans want that office, they seem willing to lose in November because McCain doesn’t say everything they want to hear (like Bush did), and wants to be representative enough of mainstream voters without abandoning his principles (unlike Dole). Coulter’s outburst shows this. Republicans just don’t like the idea of a candidate who disagrees with them or holds forth other ideas that don’t hold the party line, even if they are still provably conservative in philosophy and record on the vast majority of issues.
In short, Coulter and Republicans would rather lose with a lockstep conservative who is truly unlike what the public wnats, than win with a philosophically true conservative who represents the public more closely. In other words, it’s always about what the Republicans (and Coulter) wants, instead of what the majority of hte public wants.
If thinking doesn’t begin to change within this party, I suspect they will soon go the way of the Whigs. It’s dangerousl to believe that you can impose the will of only one group within the public upon the public as a whole. It fosters arrogance. If the public is going in one direction, and the party doesn’t begin to adjust its philosophy with it, either one or the other will change. And as we know – time and progress take no prisoners.
By Gaius, February 1, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
And the chances with the two Democrats are what?
Republicans will not take the House or the Senate this year, there is a chance for the Presidency. But if we lose all three we also lose the courts for a generation at least.
We had all better start thinking about the repercussions of this.
Seriously.
By chez Diva, February 1, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
I saw Ann’s delirious behavior on H&C’s last night and was appalled. I’ve never liked her and have often wanted her to just shut up and go away. Yesterday, she proved once and for all that she has no place in the conservative movement. She is as deranged and unhinged as the KOS kiddies and those on the Far Left.
There is no way a sane person can even begin to equate McCain with Clinton. He may be more liberal than what most conservatives want or desire but he is serious on the GWOT and despite what the polls say he won’t bend to them the way Clinton will and does.
Full Disclosure: I would have voted for Rudy in the Florida Primary but I voted for Mitt because I think he is the right leader at this time and Rudy made some serious strategic mistakes that made me question his leadership skills BUT if McCain is the party nominee I will vote for him – because he is hand’s down better than the #1 liberal in the Senate (obama) or the #16 liberal (hillary).
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Yes – you had. It’s all very childish, if you think about it. Like a child throwing a temper tantrum at Christmas because he got pretty much everything he wanted, but for a few things. Ruins Christmas for everyone.
By Gaius, February 1, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Well written comment, Jason, BTW.
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
Thank you! And would you believe I’m a Democrat?
Your comment is on the money too.
By reliapundit, February 1, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
g –
you wrote:
“Holding candidates to impossible standards doesn’t help make anything possible.”
WOW.
so… being a true conservative is now an IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD and i am an ass for only wanting to vote for a true conservative!?!”?
sheesh.
i could no more vote for mccain than lieberman.
lib hawks.
i am not a lib hawk.
i am a conservative hawk.
i cannot in good conscience ever vote for mccain.
i will do as ann says, or stay home.
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
That right there is the conservatism example of lockstep behavior. “I will do as Ann says, or stay home.”
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
And my question would be: Who decides what a true conservative is?
By Gaius, February 1, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
And I will point out, again, that Reagan signed off on an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. Reagan was a pragmatic conservative, not an all or nothing one.
What is happening right now is both maddening and discouraging. Stay home, switch to the Dems – then watch as what you care most about is lost forever. The courts will see to that, reliapundit.
The impossible standard, BTW is a candidate who can meet every, single isue exactly as you want. I can’t be an all or nothing person.
Too much is at stake.
By NortonPete, February 1, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Jason,
I could be wrong but the discussion is about which Republican candidate would you vote for given the current state of affairs. Now you post and declare you are a Democrat, so are you posting because you are interested in voting for a Republican or is this just playing a card?
Since you are a Democrat who are you voting for?
By Hank 755, February 1, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
The logic for not supporting McCain is quite simple. It says that if Hillary is president, we can fully oppose her radical ideas. If you don’t have 60 votes in the Senate, you lose.
With McCain however, numerous Senators will jump ship when a bad idea comes along (like McCain Kennedy or McCain Feingold). 60 will be easy to reach …not hard.
Also, if Hillary is president, control of Congress will be easier to achieve. The American people seem to like stalemate.
These reasons are the basis for Ann Coulter’s comments.
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Norton,
Why does it have to be a card I’m playing? Can’t I take part in the conversation even if I’m not a Republican? I thought the discussion was about Ann Coulter and jumping the shark. Do I have to be a Republican to even be heard? I’m posting for the simple reason that I think the subject is interesting, and because I think this lockstep principle is hurting your party. Honestly, if it weren’t for this kind of exclusionary and somewhat disturbing behavior that she and a lot of current Republicans exhibit, I’d probably be a Republican myself. I like the ideas of personal liberty, limited government, responsible fiscal behavior, and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, I don’t see the Republican party being open to their own ideals at the moment, and I have more success and am welcome being a moderate/conservative Democrat than I would being a moderate Republican. Isn’t that sad? (And no, Kos doesn’t mean the same to us…not the same way Limbaugh and Coulter does to some within your movement).
I’ll be perfectly frank with you – I am a Democrat, but right now I’m up in the air if McCain is the nominee. I was even pulling for Huck for a bit, because I think he exhibited a common-sense conservatism, despite his positions on abortion and LGBT issues. I won’t vote for Hillary in a primary and REALLY DON’T WANT TO VOTE FOR HER IN A GENERAL (And I’m a Democrat). I would vote for Obama or McCain (and possibly Romney). If it was McCain v. Obama, I’d really be in a pickle. For me, it depends on their proporsals on health care (I liked Rudy’s actually), equal rights, and the economy. Personally, I don’t have a big opinion on whether we stay in Iraq or not. I know that’s weird, but I guess I’m just dead to that issue right now, since issues of war are always largely out of the hands of American citizens no matter what the candidates promise.
I think a lot of Republicans misunderstand why Democrats love(d) the Clintons so much. They don’t really represent us. But…for awhile, many Republicans were just so…well, honestly…mad and somewhat cruel. If I had the time, I’d probably list all the people who were unacceptable Americans to Republicans, but I don’t. There was so much negativity that came out in certain proposals, so much willingness to push certain people out of the discourse, let alone let us be a part of the discussion. That’s why I liked Huck: “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody”. That resonated with me. I am okay that he’s anti-abortion and even has a hard-line on LGBT issues – I was just happy that he didn’t hate people the way some Republicans genuinely seemed to.
The Clintons fought back against what seemed like petty behavior. I’m not sure who started it, but it seemed that when the Republicans swept in in ‘94, it was almost a feeling of “payback”. It didn’t seem benevolent. In the 90’s, certain Republicans were calling for a culture war, to crush the enemy, and ostracize those who didn’t fit into Republican ideals. To cash in on “political capital,” if you will. The Clintons, as flawed as they were, were a strong counter balance to this agressive agenda. Why do you think the people were still supportive of Clinton in his job? It pained Republicans so as to why any American would support an adulterer the way that the public did. Do you know why? I suspect it was because many in the public knew that this new brand of Republicanism, left unchecked, would divide the country. Strong Republicans? Strong Clinton.
And look what happened in 2000? All branches of representative government were turned over the Republicans, and what has happened? Even Republican leaders admit that they strayed. “We went to Washington and Washington changed us.” I suppose that’s true in some sense, but I also hold out this: the ‘94 revolution was based on “payback” for years of perceived liberal oppression and the opening of society to undesirable, progressive elements. There was so much talk of fighting, and culture wars, and gridlock, and impeachments. Isn’t it at all possible that Washington didn’t change the Republican party? Isn’t is possible that Republicans at the time had good ideas, but instead of crossing party lines, were just too willing to fight too often? Maybe that’s why the revolution only lasted 12 years, while liberal Democrats were in control of Congress for decades. It’s a thought. People just don’t like angry leaders, especially ones who seem to push people that don’t fit their mold away. After all, who would you pick? Nixon or Reagan?
I am a Democrat, and I don’t like the Clintons. They suited my needs in the 90’s, but I think it’s time for a change. Personally, I like the kind of Republicanism that McCain espouses and has shown. It’s the kind I could vote for. If it’s McCain v. Clinton, I go for McCain.
And, frankly – I just think he’s a darn nice guy. And I like nice guys.
By Gaius, February 1, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
And if the Republicans do not hold that 40 seat requirement in the Senate, then what? You’ll have thrown out the baby, the bathwater and the sink. And lost a place at the table.
Again. Think about the courts. Think about a really left packed court and how many conservative positions will survive that.
You may not be happy with McCain – I have said I am not in many ways – but I really think the alternative is worse. I can at least vote against that worse choice.
I’d point out that the opposition to Hugo Chavez thought it was a really good idea to boycott the legislative elections in Venezuela, leaving Chavez with a rubber stamp.
How’d that quite simple logic work out for them?
By NortonPete, February 1, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Jason,
I didn’t read your reply, sorry, too much crap. I can’t believe you typed all that in but I skipped it after the first sentence,
Good luck with your treatise.
By McGehee, February 1, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
And the chances with the two Democrats are what?
No better. No worse.
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Norton,
Your attitude is exactly why the Republican party is having a problem. There are way too many people who are, frankly, MEAN and smug. Who would want to be in a party with someone who acts like you?
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Oh, and by the way, Nort – you just proved my entire posting to be true.
Thanks.
By NortonPete, February 1, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
Removed
By Maggie, February 1, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Not to defend Coulter …
But I think you just might see/hear more of this from conservative pundits, especially if McCain gets the GOP nod, to try and bully him (McCain) … a reverse psychology, if you will … into leaning in a more “conservative” direction via the threat of republican (conservative) voters either staying home on election day, or voting for Hillary out of a Coulter-like spite.
I know it doesn’t make for sound politics, but apparently the most conservative of our ranks are showing some desperation at this liberal McCain surge. And I too believe his “popularity” has been spun and promoted eagerly by the MSM.
If he were to run against Obsama he’ll then be made to look like the mean old white man from that bigoted segregation era when sounding strong in debates. Against Hillary he’ll be made into the mean old sexist man when he appears strong in debates. The MSM will make McCain look more “conservative” than Coulter or Limbaugh or anyone else could ever hope or dream he WOULD be … Oh, and who wants that, because we all know how mean, dirty, racist and murdering conservatives are … chains will be handed out in urban neighborhoods, churches will burn, school kids will starve and be forced to drink ketchup, AIDS patients will be herded into concentration camps at gunpoint, unwanted-pregnant women will be issued coat hangers …
Need I go on?
Big Brother is having a good time with this one … at this country’s expense … and possible demise.
By clifto, February 1, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Sorry, kiddies, I can’t see McCain as being in this for any other reason than power and self-aggrandization. I can’t picture him listening any more to my concerns than he did to the concerns about the McCain-Feingold First Amendment Repeal Act. I *can* see him ignoring concerns about immigration, stonewalling and maintaining that his little citizenship fee keeps his plan from being amnesty. If McCain gets the nomination, it’ll be very like having two Democrats run.
I’ve been on record since at least March 2006 in public as saying that if he gets the nom, I’ll be voting a write-in for Jiang Zemin. If the choice is between liberals, let’s draft a *real* liberal for the job.
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
Removed
By Gaius, February 1, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Knock off the personal attacks. Debate the idea, not the person – or who you assume the person to be. Jason, NortonPete has been here a long time and is a good commenter with a lot of good input. I think an apology is in order over that last outburst. (Or I will edit it.)
We do not always have to agree. But let’s try to have some class when we do.
Lord, this is going to be a long year.
By feeblemind, February 1, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
I was surprised to see Coulter endorse HRC. I see it as a cry of frustration from her. Last time I checked we still had a marginally free country where people can still choose who they support for president. Why all the hyperventalating? But what the debate here at the Crabitat in this thread quickly evolved to whether or not to vote for McCain. This debate is raging all over the blogosphere. I think at the end of the day, McCain will win or lose without the support of a percentage of conservatives. A poll reported at Drudge the other day showed McCain beating HRC by 7 pts and that is with conservatives threatening to stay home. So for the McCainiacs, what’s to worry about? You don’t need the Right. Gaius posted on a Noonan piece a few days back where she said that Bush has destroyed the GOP. She is spot on with that observation. Bush has taken the party hard to the Left and McCain will take it even further. Conservatives are digging in their heels and refusing to follow. They are not going to vote lockstep with the repubs just to beat the dems. And that is the fight we are seeing. The Party lacks strong leadership and it is adrift.
By NortonPete, February 1, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Jason,
Please consider me an absolute dolt, and add all your other equally intelligent banter, I need that for my well being. I will use it as a reverse compliment from a moonbat, I love to feel I am dealing with a real zombie. I’m sure you are over 12 years old.
In addition, I thank you for hitting a superior level of stupidity, I will mark this link as an example of truly wacky wing posting. I am falling down laughing at someone who would type in 500+ words of nonsense that only they would read!
By NortonPete, February 1, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Sorry Gaius,
I did not see your response.
Pete
By Bleepless, February 1, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
The late Senator Henry M. Jackson, who was quite sensible on national defense, supported Jimmy Carter because, he said, with a fellow Democrat, you at least had your foot in the door. It didn’t work. This cautionary tale may be useful.
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
Tell you what…why don’t you edit both of our responses? I’m sure you can see that he was being rude as well. So I’d be perfectly fine with that. I don’t think I should be singled out simply because he’s been posting here a year. Wrong is wrong, regardless of that. Don’t you agree? So I’d like you to edit out his post and mine. That’s acceptable to me.
I’m not going to apologize, however. I don’t feel a need to, because I’ve done nothing wrong, and was only acting in response to him. I think it’s a waste of your time to bother, but if you feel a need to edit responses in retaliation, that’s fine. I hope you edit both, but if not, that’s your prerogative.
By Jason, February 1, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Anyway, moving on….
I think it’s interesting that a lot of people seem to be siding with Coulter in the logic of this, if not her literal interpretation. Maybe Coulter is more of a leader in the party than the establishment gives her credit for. This could be a problem, because I think it’s fair to say she does represent many extremist conservative views that would not fit into the middle of political thought. That middle which usually wins elections.
By clifto, February 1, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Coulter is right, Hillary is more conservative than McCain.
I see no reason to even go to the polls if McCain gets the nomination. We get a liberal for President; living in Illinois I know the Democrat (Durbin) will win the Senate seat, 317 million to six; we have a good dogcatcher and the water’s getting better. Why would I leave my cushy seat in front of the computer to go vote?
By AnAmericanJoe, February 1, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
This Sorry State Of Affairs
I am starting this blog because I have strong feelings about the current Presidential Election Campaign,
and an intense need to put my thoughts in writing.
As of todays date, it appears almost a certainty that John McCain will secure the Republican nomination for President
(unless he self destructs between now and this coming Tuesday). Although I have strong differences with Senator McCain
as regards immigration / amnesty, I supported his candidacy in 2000 and will support him again this time around. He would
not be my first choice (Mike Huckabee would be, but I dont believe he is electable) but Senator McCain is obvioulsy a man of
principles and integrity,and that is, at least, refreshing. That he is alsothe only one of those contending who has actually shed his
own blood for his country is also worthy of my respect and admiration.
What troubles me.as a Conservative, in the contest now unfolding isn’t that my first choice (Gov. Huckabee) is not a viable candidate. Politics, particularly
democratic (small “d”) politics is,after all, all about compromise. Instead, What I am absolutely amazed (and repulsed) at is the level of
insanity John McCains impending convention victory has caused among the self-proclaimed “leaders” of my party.
Rush Limbaugh (whom Paul Begala once aptly described as a “drug-addled blow-hard”) Sean Hannity,Laura Ingrahm and
now Ann Coulter have apparently finally lost their already-shaky grip on reality. Coulter today said that not only would she vote for Senator Clinton
if McCain won the nomination, but that she would campaign for Clinton. Rush said he’d prefer Clinton, because he thought the country
was in trouble either way, and at least then “the Democrats would get the blame”.
To listen to these established “Beacons of Conservatism”, you would think Senator McCain was channeling Lyndon Johnson instead of Ronald Reagan.
Their attacks completely discount McCains 27 year record of championing small government federalism, national defense, the sanctity of life and real,
honest-to-goodness Reagan Conservatism.
Instead they lambast McCain for every prinicipled stance he took that was not in direct support of this President. Their blind allegiance to
an administration that has wrecked the party and the country and prostituted the very principles Reagan embodied, can only be a product of their
rampant egos or ideological corruption.
I am a Republican and a Conservative. Mitt Romney is neither. I will not have my affiliations defined by drug addled blowhards and I
will be voting for Senator McCain.
By syn, February 2, 2008 @ 6:30 am
My instincts about why McCain’s nomination makes me nervous is that so many Democrats are voting for him in the primary but I don’t believe will they vote for him in the general.
It can’t be Democrats are voting for him because of the war, it this were the case the support for the war would have been a lot higher over the last six years and Democrats would have been voting out their own who have been terrible with regard to fighting the Jihadist.
In other words, all the sudden becasue of the war there are all these Democrats coming out of the closet for a Republican?
If this is the case wasn’t Guiliani the much better candidate to attract moderates and Democrats?
In any case, McCain’s media maverick position will change dramatically when the general election begins and it won’t really matter what Coulter does.
The media will not let McCain win the Presidency.
I am surprised that moderates/independents who cannot stand either Clinton or Obama do not realize how the media works? After all these years? It may have been great to get Bush but how will moderates be able to stop Clinton or Obama when the media has so much power to influence voter choice?
By Gaius, February 2, 2008 @ 6:37 am
I Removed both comments that crossed the line into personal attacks.
By syn, February 2, 2008 @ 6:39 am
I have resigned myself to the fact that in order to win any election politicians must offer goodies to Americans, they want to be serfs to the state.
I don’t blame Bush for running in 2000 on perscription drug plan for example since the AARP crowd is the most powerful and largest voting block in America.
If a politican does not offer some goodies to them above all else, the politician will lose.
The politicans aren’t the greedy ones, the greed is in Americans who expect politicians to pander to their every want and need.
Fact is, it’s the people’s fault for demanding the government pander to the people.
By NortonPete, February 2, 2008 @ 6:50 am
Fine with me. I was wrong.
But that comment was one of the few I have made without a single typo or misspelled word.
By feeblemind, February 2, 2008 @ 8:07 am
It is interesting to observe how impassioned the debate is over whether or not to vote for McCain. I can’t remember anything quite like it. Both sides think they are right, both sides care about the future of the country, and the debate has reached an impasse. I think it will take an outside event to resolve.
By john, February 2, 2008 @ 9:19 am
What a brilliant idea -stay home and let Hillary or Obama win. I believe this is called “cutting off the nose to spite the face.”
Honestly, I expected this kind of squeally caterwauling from the Kos crowd. Good luck with that.
By Jason, February 2, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
I appreciate the fact he said he was wrong. I’m sorry if I was too aggressive in my response.
You know, what’s funny about McCain is that I don’t think he could say or do anything at this point to bring together the conservative movement and Republican party. I don’t think there was one candidate this year who could do that. George Allen possibly could have done it, but as we know, he shot himself in the foot with that whole “macaca” statement. Even he may have had problems, as some news articles have painted him as a “less-than-refined” character.
I’m not sure what Repubs are looking for in a candidate and if that candidate even exists at the moment. I see some of the reasons why Republican lights are upset about the possibility of a McCain nom, but I don’t think ANY of them lend themselves to the hysteria that they are displaying. So…can someone explain to me why McCain is vastly different than, say, Olympia Snow or Dick Lugar, who have also broken with the party on occasion? Why don’t these candidates engender the same kind of responses?
And can someone explain to me what a “true conservative” (not issues conservatives believe in, but principals) and how the label does not apply to McCain?
By clifto, February 2, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
And why not stay home? Because our liberal is better than their liberal? There might actually be some perverted kind of logic there, if our liberal WAS better than theirs.
As we discuss whose garbage smells better than whose, it is well that we remember the subject of that discussion is garbage.