Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Republican Crack-Up
The anti-McCain fury on the right is spreading—and it isn't, by and large, the brand of skepticism on display in Matt Welch's Myth of a Maverick. On Hannity & Colmes, syndicated columnist and sputtering lunatic Ann Coulter goes after McCain's deviationist tendencies (immigration) and promises to "campaign for [Hillary] if McCain" is nominated, which, for the Clinton campaign, is like throwing a cement life-preserver to a drowning woman. (If you weren't already convinced that Coulter is utterly insane, make sure to read her series of hysterical attacks on historian Ron Radosh, guilty of the ideological crime of condemning Joe McCarthy.) McCain's apparent skepticism of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, his opposition to torture, and his position on immigration has many on National Review's The Corner, most notably Mark Levin, in high dudgeon. Jonah Goldberg breaks ranks:
But I think I should just be on the record that I disagree with the tone, tenor and substance of much - though certainly not all - of the anti-McCain commentary around here. It's not that I object to a single post or comment - though there've been a few. It's that I disagree with the overwhelming impression that supporting McCain is some kind of lunacy.
[...]
But this disaster talk leaves me cold. McCain wouldn't be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he's the nominee or the president is pretty absurd.
A bit of movement for the righties on the Obama front too. Over at The Atlantic, everyone's favorite Oakeshott-lovin' bear, Andrew Sullivan, who has long stood four-square behind the The Right Honorable Gentleman from Illinois, points out that uber-conservative Jeffery Hart is throwing his lot in with Barack. Peggy Noonan too is a fan. Joe Scarborough is "inspired" by Obama. And in the British magazine Prospect, my old pal and colleague Johan Wennström makes the conservative case for Obama.
More reason on McCain.
Timothy|2.1.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Well, supporting McCain is some kind of lunacy. But not for the reasons that NRO seems to suspect.
|2.1.08 @ 5:28PM|#
MCan'ts being "against" torture is about the only thing I "admire" about the "man."
tarran|2.1.08 @ 5:34PM|#
So, Ann Coulter thinks John McCain is insufficiently batshit
insane for her tastes and that Hillary Clinton is?
Wow, I actually agree with her relative assessments of the insanity
of Clinton and McCain.
The thing that puzzles me is the belief of these National Greatness
Conservatives that McCain won't prosecute their wars with
sufficient zeal. McCain hasn't yet met a war that he doesn't want
to throw the U.S. military into. With a little prodding, I bet we
could escalate this WTO dispute with Aruba in McCain's mind until
he was calling for a U.S. invasion of the island.
He is as big a war-monger as Mrs Clinton, so why are they so
worried?
|2.1.08 @ 5:55PM|#
There's an article in today's NY Times about conservatives who
are starting to talk nice about McCain now that he looks like the
frontrunner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/us/01conservatives.html?ref=politics
|2.1.08 @ 5:59PM|#
McCain is a far bigger warmonger than Clinton, in that he
mongers for far far bigger wars.
Hillary would send the Navy to run a women's health clinic in
Pakistan.
John McCain would send three quarters of a million men to add
Pakistan to our empire.
|2.1.08 @ 6:00PM|#
"...syndicated columnist and sputtering lunatic Ann
Coulter"...
And here I thought, like other cartoon characters, she just had a
speech impediment!
|2.1.08 @ 6:01PM|#
John McCain is very conservative. He's well to the right of most
Americans.
But he's not a Movement Conservative. He's not part of the group,
and he doesn't want to be.
KenK|2.1.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only)
Posted: 12/27/2005
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
Romney at number 8 might not score the same today with the
positions he has flipped to, but McCain didn't even make the
list.
Yahoo Answerer|2.1.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Tarran, I also find it hard for me to believe I am agreeing with something Ann Coulter said. I sometimes think that Coulter is actually a liberal (in the modern sense) who is trying to make conservatives look bad (ala Steve Colbert.)
|2.1.08 @ 6:16PM|#
Coulter wants a War with Venezuela. McCain can't do that, he'll have all the troops tied up with Iran.
|2.1.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Funny how the three things that get the NR folks all riled up are the same three things I actually like McCain for.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 6:20PM|#
and promises to "campaign for [Hillary] if
McCain" is nominated.....
Yes, because St Hill is much more conservative than McCain.
Mrs TWC told me this morning so I was already properly shocked.
I've never paid much attention to Coulter or that other nutty chick
but it is clear to me........
|2.1.08 @ 6:24PM|#
MCan'ts being "against" torture is about the only thing I
"admire" about the "man."
Actually I didn't mind his immigration bill all that much.
|2.1.08 @ 6:25PM|#
If Ann Coulter was flying upside down in an airplane while wearing a skirt with no underwear would that have any connection to the headline?
|2.1.08 @ 6:25PM|#
From Sparky's linl.
Some, including James C. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh, say it is
far too late for forgiveness.
That certainly helps him in my eyes.
Otter|2.1.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Yes, because St Hill is much more conservative than
McCain.
That's not it. (Tr)annie Coulter wants to punish and humiliate the
GOP for defying Her will.
Jameson|2.1.08 @ 6:29PM|#
Well McCain is not batshit crazy enough for Eric Dondero, so I'm not really surprised that he's not crazy enough for Coulter.
Franklin Harris|2.1.08 @ 6:33PM|#
In other weird GOP crack-up news, Michael Medved, nitwit film critic turned worse neocon pundit/radio blabber, actually said on his show yesterday that Ron Paul won the California GOP debate. Given how much Medved hates Paul and his supporters, you know it was a bad night for McRomney.
Bingo|2.1.08 @ 6:35PM|#
If Ann Coulter was flying upside down in an airplane while
wearing a skirt with no underwear would that have any connection to
the headline?
No, but it would make for a headline about our new anti-UFO
freezeray.
Yahoo Answerer|2.1.08 @ 6:37PM|#
How much control of National Review does William F. Buckley still have?
DannyK|2.1.08 @ 6:39PM|#
My fondest hope is that McCain and Romney shoot each other full
of holes and force each other to make ludicrous statements about
the war which will act like lead weights in the general
election.
Speaking of RON PAUL, he was in Seattle yesterday, and got a
surprisingly warm reception from the local media. Not that Seattle
signfies for a Republican candidate.
Yahoo Answerer|2.1.08 @ 6:42PM|#
I have this strange fealing the Ann Coulter is a closet lesbian or in deep denial. Does anyone else get that feeling?
MCW|2.1.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Its very scary when even the Republicans think McCain, who is a
wingnut is too progressive for them.
What do they want? Gheghis Khan?
Yahoo Answerer|2.1.08 @ 6:45PM|#
MCW, I can't speak for all of them but a lot of them want someont who supports free market economics. Oh, yea, and respects the right of free political speech.
Upper Class Twit|2.1.08 @ 6:49PM|#
It's very scary when even Move-On thinks Hillary, who is a
moonbat is too conservative for them.
What do the want? Pol Pot?
Yay! This is fun :)
TLB|2.1.08 @ 7:09PM|#
While I'm sure that cosmotarians couldn't even understand why,
here's one of the
reasons why patriotic Americans should put party aside and
oppose McCain.
As for Obama, his supporters should wise up.
|2.1.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Speaking of Republican crackups, Arlen Specter announced yesterday he wants the Sen. Judiciary Committee to investigate why the NFL destroyed the Belichick Spygate tapes.
Geotpf|2.1.08 @ 7:14PM|#
This is a truly weird election, especially on the Republican
side. On the Democratic side, all the white guys got beat by the
black guy and the chick, which actually doesn't seem as surprising
as you would think-one or the other was bound to happen eventually,
although I think nobody expected that members of the two groups
would be the last people standing, at the same time, beating all
the white guys.
But on the Republican side, they had six main candidates (all white
guys, of course) to choose from (instead one main one who's "turn"
it was and one goofy outsider who was guaranteed to lose but showed
early strength (and 17 also-rans), like they usually do), all of
which could have conceivably got the nomination at one point or
another (well, actually five in that case-Paul never had a chance
and you know it), but none of them could convince more than one of
the different groups that make up the Republican Party to vote for
them (that is, Huckabee had the evangelicals, Paul had the
libertarians, etc.).
And, so after months and months of changing leads and every
candidate pissing off every group that wasn't exactly like them,
they end up picking the guy who's "turn" it was after all (McCain).
And still everybody (in the Republican Party) hates him.
And his pull with moderates and independents makes just as little
sense as his hatred by conservatives and Republicans. I mean, he's
more of a warmonger than Rudy "9/11" Giulani, yet people who's most
important issue is getting out of Iraq are voting for him. What the
fuck?
|2.1.08 @ 7:25PM|#
I think NRO and their ilk demonstrated how much principle means
to them with their early Romney endorsement. I can't say they were
bought off by Romney's machine (though I have long suspected that
more than a few writers over there just know they can collect a
paycheck writing witty stuff on the right), but the group
coalescing around Mitt showed an incredible rush to judgment, need
to "shape" the outcome, and stupidity on their part. Their
credulousness on Romney's numerous and sharp flip-flops shed any
credibility they may have had imo.
It's let to some hilarious moments. I read an article in which they
complained about McCain's "dirty tactics" and his trying to buy the
election (hilarious since Romney has outspent McCain, much of it
his own money and was active and early on the attack ads). Another
as titled "Capricious candidate: A man can change his mind on some
things, but all things?" and was about John Edwards with nary a
mention of Romney (ballsy with that title). If NR was ever a
magazine of ideas and not a hack job with checks and memo faxes
coming in from specific administrations and/or campaigns, they are
not anymore.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.1.08 @ 7:25PM|#
TLB, the link to "one of the reasons" was blocked where I am (I am at work) as a "multimedia download". From the context it probably has to do with McCain's stance on imigration. Am I right? Of all the things I disagree with McCain on that is not one of them (at least not for the same reasons as xenophobes.) I support immigration rights for both plants and humans.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.1.08 @ 7:27PM|#
Sage, I do not always agree with Rush but Anne Coulter makes him look like Ted Kennedy.
Jesse Walker|2.1.08 @ 7:28PM|#
McCain's apparent skepticism of the nomination of Samuel
Alito to the Supreme Court, his opposition to torture, and his
position on immigration
Is it just me, or is McCain suddenly starting to sound pretty
good?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.1.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Jesse Walker, I think what you are seeing is that McCain is more of a left-liberal (in the modern sense) than anything else. So the reasons that conservatives dislike him might be very different from the reasons libertarians would dislike him.
|2.1.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Speaking of Republican crackups, Arlen Specter announced
yesterday he wants the Sen. Judiciary Committee to investigate why
the NFL destroyed the Belichick Spygate tapes.
Chris Potter, if it weren't for the link, I'd have thought you were
joshing.
Hey Arlen, you are an adult now. Sports are just entertainment and
not important. You are a member of the worlds greatest deliberative
body. As such, you don't worry about somebody who cheats
at sports. It's beneath you.
Fluffy|2.1.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Geotpf -
It's simple, really. The media lies to the public.
The image constructed and carefully maintained by the media for
McCain is that he's a straight-talking maverick who stands up to
Bush. The fact that he neither talks straight nor stands up to Bush
in any measurable way is irrelevant to the media fellating of
McCain.
That means that dumbass New Hampshire residents who want a
withdrawal from Iraq walked into the voting booth and said,
"Hmmm...who should I vote for? Hey, McCain's the one who hates
Bush, right? He's always standing up to Bush? He must be the one to
get us out of Iraq!" and voted for him.
I seriously doubt that 1/3rd of people who have pulled the lever
for McCain in 2008 are actually in touch with the knowledge that
the Senator has done all he possibly could to promise and guarantee
an additional war with Iran. That just doesn't register with most
people.
|2.1.08 @ 7:32PM|#
I think the conservative fawning over Obama is funny. It's
obviously part of the "I know we've been suspect on race for a long
time, so let me show you how unracist I really am by showering this
guy with my praise."
The conservative hate on McCain is crazy too, and I'm glad Moynihan
pegs it for what it is all about: "apparent skepticism of the
nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, his opposition to
torture, and his position on immigration." Interestingly fluffy and
I debated a few threads ago about whether McCain is to blame for
the torture stuff, his hate for him was based on this (and campaign
finance of course). But here we see that the torture advocates
LOATHE McCain. They certainly don't see him as the architect of
that crap. It's bizarre: the man is at the same time blamed for
being the architect of torture and hated for being the foe of
torture...This is why I think the McCain hate is largely
irrational. I also love the "he may have voted pro-life
consistently, but we don't think that way down deep in his heart he
really feels strongly that way" you hear from the pro-lifers, and
the "he may have voted for Alito but we heard he said something
disparaing about him so we don't like him" from the strict
constructionists (or whatever) crowd...Maybe people just don't like
his jowls or something and don't want to say that so they pick
something and run with it...
|2.1.08 @ 7:32PM|#
What is a "wingnut" exactly? Are there really people out there
who care what Ann Coulter thinks about this or anything else? What
has the reemergence of the McCain candidacy done for sales of
Welch's book?
The answer to these questions and more and on the next episode
of...
|2.1.08 @ 7:32PM|#
hahahaha, that's the funniest description of Sullivan I've ever read. Oakshott is great.
Jesse Walker|2.1.08 @ 7:34PM|#
the reasons that conservatives dislike him might be very
different from the reasons libertarians would dislike
him
Evidently so. Though we can come together on McCain-Feingold.
MCW|2.1.08 @ 7:36PM|#
"What is a "wingnut" exactly? "
A wingnut is a-
1)Racist
2)Sexist
3)Corpratist
4)Republican
5)Anti-Middle Class
6)Anti-Worker
7)Homophobic
|2.1.08 @ 7:40PM|#
fluffy-if McCain is to blame for the MCA and torture, then why did he get so little credit, indeed, nothing but hate, from the crowd that put that forward?
|2.1.08 @ 7:41PM|#
"Evidently so. Though we can come together on
McCain-Feingold."
Why the need to "come together" at all? Why not just say
libertarians and conservatives have very little in common. Hell,
you could probably think of even more than one area you could "come
together" with Obama or HRC...
Eric Dondero|2.1.08 @ 7:42PM|#
What about the "libertarian" crack up over McCain. This is a
libertarian site. And though, conservatives are friends of ours, we
should be more focused on how libertarians, specifically
libertarian Republicans are totally disenchanted with the thought
of a McCain as Nominee.
I'm seeing it all over the Blogs. Libertarians who were supporting
Giuliani, Romney and Thompson are disgusted with McCain.
The Libertarian Party has an opportunity of a lifetime. Let's hope
they don't blow it by nominating another Badnarik clone - Kubby,
Philies, et.al.
Get serious LP. Nominate Wayne Root, Bob Barr, Gary Johnson, Ed
Thompson or someone of that caliber.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.1.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Eric, Is it fame you want? Or "political experience" or someone who simply agrees with a commenter who uses the handle Eric Dondero on all or most issues?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.1.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy, I think it would be more acurate to say "Why not
just say libertarians and John McCain have very little in
common."
John McCain is many things but conservative is not one of them.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.1.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Libertarians and Conservatives DO agree on the Free market.
|2.1.08 @ 7:54PM|#
What is a "wingnut" exactly?
A nut is a piece of hardware that, in conjunction with a bolt, is
used to fasten objects together. A wingnut has protruding
"wings" that allow tightening and loosening by hand.
Are there really people out there who care what Ann Coulter
thinks about this or anything else?
No.
What has the reemergence of the McCain candidacy done for sales
of Welch's book?
Matt Welch? We're waiting with bated breath.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 7:54PM|#
"What is a "wingnut" exactly? "
A wingnut is-
someone who disagrees with you on key issues.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Shell wins the thread.
Does that make me a wingnut corporatist? A Cosmocorporatist if you
will?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.1.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Wine Commonsewer, are you a xenophobe? No? Then you are a cosmocorporatist.
|2.1.08 @ 7:58PM|#
Libertarians and Conservatives DO agree on the Free
market.
A small(?) quibble, PIRS -
Libertarians and a few Conservatives DO agree on the Free
market.
TLB|2.1.08 @ 8:08PM|#
Plant Immigration Rights Supporter inquires TLB, the link to
"one of the reasons" was blocked where I am (I am at work) as a
"multimedia download". From the context it probably has to do with
McCain's stance on imigration. Am I right?
For the most part. McCain's director of HispanicOutreach is a
former cabinet-level official with the MexicanGovernment.
Now, he's outreaching to U.S. citizens on McCain's behalf.
Jon|2.1.08 @ 8:17PM|#
"Libertarians and Conservatives DO agree on the Free
market."
Apart from all the areas where they don't agree, like markets in
organs, drugs, prostitution or pornography.
Conservatives may support the market where they approve of the
outcome, but won't hesitate to intervene where they disapprove.
sv|2.1.08 @ 8:31PM|#
this is a threadjack, but i had to post it (so the other losers who are on here on a friday night can comment): how EPIC would it be if Ron Paul used some of his millions of dollars to run a reasonable little ad during the Superbowl this Sunday? Eh? Eh? I say 'reasonable' because God forbid it was that insane, Tancredo-topping anti-immigrant ad he had a while back. Just rent a decent camera and backgrounds (not the usual $20 production value crap that confirms everyone's biases about libertarians being another branch in the loony-conspiracy-nut tree) and talk to the camera about the Constitution and how he is by far the candidate who would uphold it the most.
Jesse Walker|2.1.08 @ 8:32PM|#
Hell, you could probably think of even more than one area
you could "come together" with Obama or HRC
Indeed I could.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|2.1.08 @ 8:34PM|#
"For the most part. McCain's director of HispanicOutreach is a
former cabinet-level official with the MexicanGovernment."
Here is a question for you. Is this person an illegal immigrant? Is
this person a U.S. Citizen or at least legal immigrant? If so why
do you care what job this person had in Mexico unless he did
something truly immoral while in that job? What if Jack Straw (a
former cabinate level offical from the UK) immigrated to the US and
became an advisor to a political campaign. Would this bother
you?
Jon|2.1.08 @ 8:40PM|#
"how EPIC would it be if Ron Paul used some of his millions of
dollars to run a reasonable little ad during the Superbowl this
Sunday? Eh? Eh? "
He's just raised another $860,000 so far today, so he could put
some of that to use.
I thought the Ron Paul blimp was supposed to be over the stadium,
don't know if that's still the intention.
|2.1.08 @ 8:46PM|#
It's quite simple, really: the Mighty Righties have been in the
driver's seat of the party since Reagan got in; now they're just
another group in the tent and they don't know how to handle it.
"Compromise" is not a word in their vocabulary. Neither is
"moderation," apparently.
Coulter and Lonewacko are just the preliminary: the circus is
comin' to town, folks...
|2.1.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Wow, the video is funny. Colmes cracks me up at the end.
Coulter for Hillary!!!
I've always thought that Coulter rabid attitude towards the left
seemed a lot the rabid anti-gay guy that was really a closet
homosexual.
alan|2.1.08 @ 8:56PM|#
A wingnut is-
someone who disagrees with you on key issues.
'Wingnut' is a derisive term to describe political foes, both real
and imagined, used by some American leftist* who are unable to shed
the inbred syntax of their clique, and write in a reasoned manner
that expresses real knowledge and concern for the given topic at
hand.
* I couldn't imagine either Joe or Nice Guy embarrassing his self
with this sort of AlFranklinitus.
sv|2.1.08 @ 8:56PM|#
I've always thought that Coulter rabid attitude towards the left seemed a lot [like] the rabid anti-gay guy that was really a closet homosexual.
hm.. now that you mention it, that is interesting. i think it at
least suggests that the root causes what is in both cases a rabid,
frothing hysteria is some kind of psychological problem. although a
lot of times coulter seems to revel in purely pushing "Liberals'"
buttons.
Robert|2.1.08 @ 11:07PM|#
And his pull with moderates and independents makes just as little sense as his hatred by conservatives and Republicans. I mean, he's more of a warmonger than Rudy "9/11" Giulani, yet people who's most important issue is getting out of Iraq are voting for him. What the fuck?
Fluffy came close. McCain was identified as W's most serious
opposition for the nomination in 2000. W became identified with the
Iraqi war. W is no longer running, so to send an anti-war message,
people vote for the one who was already identified as the
un-W.
Policies on torture are so much hooey. If I were ever so motivated
to the extreme of torturing someone, do you think I'd care what the
official policy on it was?
"Wingnut" is short for "left wing nut" or "right wing nut".
I would definitely prefer Romney or Huckabee to McCain. I would
prefer McCain to Clinton, but Obama to McCain.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 11:39PM|#
'Wingnut' is a derisive term to describe political foes,
both real and imagined, used by some American leftist*
who are unable to shed the inbred syntax of their clique, and write
in a reasoned manner that expresses real knowledge and concern for
the given topic at hand.
Fixed that.
* I couldn't imagine either Joe or Nice Guy embarrassing his
self with this sort of AlFranklinitus.
Wingnut is a favorite adjective of our House Leftie. Nice? Not so
much.
|2.1.08 @ 11:49PM|#
Most Republicans are too stupid to understand their own ideology. They just want things to go back to the way it used to be in their faulty memories. If Paul had been pro war, he could have tripled his vote by taking all of Huck's and Thompson's support, but losing half of his own. When this war gets less popular and the economy gets worse, conservatives will ralley around him and imagine thet had always supported him. That's my prediction and you can hold me to it.
|2.2.08 @ 1:05AM|#
Hillary would send the Navy to run a women's health clinic
in Pakistan.
Ok, that's funny. All too true, but still funny.
You're right that he's not a movement conservative, but you're
wrong about the veryness of his conservatism. He's conservative,
but not very, which is why I like him.
Some Republican conservatives are sounding an awful lot like the
denizens of DU. That's also funny.
Has anyone or any site started a betting board about the manner in
which Team Clinton will take down Obama?
The Wine Commonsewer|2.2.08 @ 1:16AM|#
Stub, Obama has no idea of what is likely to rain down on his head in the months to come.
|2.2.08 @ 2:05AM|#
TWC: I know, and it mystifies me, because he should know. His
team should be ready, and I don't think they are.
Then again, I've been generally mystified by the reaction in some
quarters to the Clintons' recent antics. The shock, the dismay, the
outrage - I mean, I voted for the guy, twice, but never did I think
he was anything other than self-serving and ruthless, and she even
more so. Of course, once she has captured the nomination, his
purple rages and finger waving and distortions and
self-righteousness will be justifiable and inspiring again because
they will be pointing in the right direction once more.
CheshireCat|2.2.08 @ 2:29AM|#
McClintObama Amnesty Plan: 20 million illegal alien voters by
2010
February 1, 2008
by William Gheen
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us
Have GOP Voters forgotten that just a few months ago, John McCain
stood hand-in-hand with liberal icon Ted Kennedy pushing for the
largest amnesty for illegal aliens in American history? While
Rasmussen polling showed that Americans following the legislation
very closely opposed it 3 to 1 (69% to 23%), McCain ignored the
massive public outcry!
The angry calls rolling into the Senate offices, including John
McCain's, were between 50 and 100 to 1 against McCain and Kennedy's
bill. We know this because we stood outside his door counting calls
received by his staff and because other Senators told us the ratios
they were receiving. History was made when the Capital phone system
shut down, due to overload of calls from angry Americans.
John McCain refused to listen to Americans and went so far as to
call members of the Senate who refused to support the McKennedy
Amnesty "Racists"! John McCain showed no regard for American voices
and instead called those who disagreed with him petty names. Who
was John McCain listening to? He was listening to the US Chamber of
Commerce and the racist illegal alien support groups like La Raza
(The Race) whom he openly coordinated the effort with.
John McCain has illustrated in dramatic fashion that when he feels
safe in his office, he couldn't care less about what a majority of
Americans think.
Now, John McCain claims he is listening because he wants to be
President in a few months. He says he will "Secure the Border
First!" Even if you could trust John McCain, which you cannot, his
border security pledge will be quickly reduced to irrelevance, if
his desire for Amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens becomes a
reality.
Barrack Obama brags about how he worked with Senator McCain for
"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" amnesty. If the GOP voters allow
McCain to win the primary, they will be denying Americans any real
choice against Amnesty in November. Unless an independent candidate
enters the race, our choice will be between Clinton, Obama, or
McCain all pushing for Amnesty from the White House, just like
Bush!
Some conservatives will hold their nose and vote for McCain out of
fear of the Democrats, others will go third party. Many
conservatives would not vote for McCain at gunpoint!
The Republican Party will not be destroyed, if the McCain, Obama,
Clinton Amnesty becomes a reality. Each party will race to replace
American voices in their ranks, with the twenty million new voters
who were recently illegal aliens. Does this surprise anyone who is
knowledgeable about how American homes, jobs, tax dollars, limited
health care resources, and finite seats in schools are being given
to illegal aliens as well?
Any border security promised by McCain will quickly fade into
irrelevance beneath the political weight of America's new race
based voting block of legalized illegal aliens. What hope will
Americans have for border security or immigration enforcement once
this happens? The answer is clear... NONE!
Seventy Seven percent of Americans oppose licenses for illegal
aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million illegal aliens
will be eligible for licenses within a few years.
Over seventy percent of Americans oppose taxpayer benefits and
welfare for illegal aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty
million illegal aliens will be turned into citizen voters and will
be eligible for welfare and all taxpayer benefits.
Over 80 percent of Americans oppose in-state tuition for illegal
aliens. Under the McClintObama plan, twenty million legalized
illegal aliens will qualify for in-state tuition.
Under the McClintObama plan, employers will only have to worry
about hiring the next twenty million illegal aliens flooding the
country, in response to the Amnesty provided to the most recent
wave.
John McCain supports Amnesty. If you have any doubts, then ask
yourself why his campaign has deployed open borders fanatic, Juan
Hernandez to secure the Hispanic vote for McCain.
Juan Hernandez is a dual citizen of Mexico and America. He used to
work for Mexican President Vicente Fox by reaching out to and
organizing illegal aliens from Mexico inside the US. Hernandez is
known for his stance called, "Mexico First". He is a regular on
national television, where he flagrantly advocates amnesty and Open
Borders with Mexico.
Juan Hernandez is the face of the McCain's campaign to Hispanic
voters and he did a great job delivering the Hispanic vote in
Florida to McCain!
There are two main reasons McCain is winning the GOP Primary right
now. One is the anti-illegal immigration vote is split up between
Romney and Paul, who appear to be sincere in their "No Amnesty"
pledges. The anti-illegal immigration vote is also splitting to
Mike Huckabee, who truthfully supports Amnesty and a path to
citizenship for illegal aliens, but is a very skillful liar.
Huckabee is deceiving voters by mailing out endorsment cards from
lone Minuteman Jim Gilchrist. The anti-illegal immigration vote is
divided three ways, and the pro-amnesty vote is now collected
around John McCain.
The second reason McCain is winning is that many GOP voters don't
know his immigration stances, have forgotten his immigration
stances, or have forgiven his immigration stances. They say, "He
has changed" or "We have to stop Clinton and Obama".
John McCain has not changed or he would not have Juan Hernandez out
promising Amnesty for illegal aliens. John McCain has not changed
or he would not be saying, "Secure the Borders first", without
getting into the part where amnesty is then passed. John McCain has
not changed because he recently stated on the national news that he
would still vote for his amnesty bill or sign it into law as
President!
Do GOP voters really prefer to have one of their own pushing
amnesty than a Democrat? I am a Republican, getting closer to
independent every day, but I will say that at very least the
Democrats are more honest about their pro-amnesty positions than
McCain and Huckabee.
What madness, lies, or misinformation would infect the mind of a
GOP voter for them to support a man like John McCain, who works
openly with ultra-liberal Democrats, almost changed parties to join
the Democrats in 2001, and has the worst record on immigration of
any of the GOP candidates?
Why would anyone support a man who is so detached from reality that
he told a booing crowd of Union workers that they would not pick
lettuce for even $50 an hour!?!?!
John McCain says he knows all about securing the border because he
is from Arizona. Say what? Has anyone seen the conditions in
Arizona lately, where they have declared a state of emergency and
fought to pass strict state laws to enforce the immigration laws,
which John McCain and his DC insiders refuse to enforce?
There are good reasons why Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean
Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram, Hugh Hewitt, and Michelle Malkin
are heavily criticizing John McCain. There are good reasons for
Ronald Reagan's son, Michael to condemn the McCain candidacy. There
are good reasons why ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, and almost every other
organization in America fighting against Amnesty and illegal
immigration, while supporting Border Security, are screaming NO to
McCain!
The principles of this nation are at stake. The value of our votes
is at stake. The survival of the United States, in its current
form, is at stake.
We must stop the McClintObama Amnesty Plan. We must stop twenty
million illegal aliens from becoming voters by 2010. We must race
against time to warn every GOP voter before Super Tuesday, because
we must do all we can to stop John McCain.
---
William Gheen is the national spokesman for ALIPAC (Americans for
Legal Immigration Political Action Committee) found on the web at
www.alipac.us ALIPAC is a collective of Americans of every race and
walk of life that are unified in their support for Border Security
and enforcement of America's existing immigration laws. William
Gheen is a veteran campaign consultant with over 15 years and 44
campaigns of experience. He has served GOP candidates in North
Carolina since 2000, before founding ALIPAC on 9/11/2004.
http://www.alipac.us/article2920.html
rarr|2.2.08 @ 2:35AM|#
You know, looking at the 'conservative Obama' piece, it really doesn't impress me at all. One of the main points is Obama's appeal to tradition, which apparently involves scorning the American dream in favor of staying in a hut in Kenya.
|2.2.08 @ 6:59AM|#
"Libertarians who were supporting Giuliani, Romney and Thompson
"
..are merely fictitious creations of your confused mind,
Rittberg.
-jcr
John C. Randolph|2.2.08 @ 7:03AM|#
" Michael Medved... actually said on his show yesterday that Ron
Paul won the California GOP debate. "
I guess he wasn't willing to brazen it out and pretend otherwise.
Still, that's more than I expected from him.
Which one of the neos is he backing, anyway? I'm guessing it's the
Huckster.
-jcr
Eric Dondero|2.2.08 @ 8:25AM|#
"Libertarians who were supporting Ron Paul"
A merely ficticious creation of your confused mind" Randolph
Eric Dondero|2.2.08 @ 8:27AM|#
Doubt that libertarians were supporting Romney, Giuliani and
Thompson?
Here's a few names for ya...
Contact them yourself.
JB Williams, Ryan Christiano, Jason Bonham, Andrew Murphey, Cliff
Thies, Karl Baucus, Johnny Ringo, Patrick Jubert, et.al.
Eric Dondero|2.2.08 @ 8:33AM|#
All I want is someone to vote for for 2008. If we're left with
Hillary, McCain, and Kubby/Phillies, there's nobody that I, as a
mainstream libertarian could support.
Yes, I'll still go to the polls, and vote for downticket
Republicans. But I'll be forced to abstain in the Presidential
race.
Now, if the Libertarian Party nominates Wayne Root, or Bob Barr, or
Gary Johnson, than I'll have someone to vote for.
I'm sure there's a lot of other libertarians out there who are in
the same boat. They want to vote Libertarian Party, but they don't
want to vote for some obscure extremist fringe candidate who has
never been elected dog catcher.
All that does is encourage the Libertarian Party to continue
nominating Losertarians each and every election cycle.
Can't we get back to the glory days of the LP with and Ed Clark
type candidate? Is that too much to ask?
|2.2.08 @ 8:43AM|#
Bob Barr is an honorable man for whom I would vote, but I can't see him wanting to be POTUS.
Roger|2.2.08 @ 10:11AM|#
Mean anything to you that Gary Johnson has endorsed Ron Paul? I know it's eating you up inside, but willful ignorance is your MO Rittberg, and you likes it that way. Pathetic.
|2.2.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Eric Dondero wrote,
"Can't we get back to the glory days of the LP with and Ed Clark
type candidate? Is that too much to ask?"
Nope. Guys like Ed Crane who ran Clark's campaign were actually
interested in making the LP a legitimate 3rd party that offered
Americans a libertarian economic agenda and a socially moderate
position on social issues.
The LP afterwards became more interested idelogically "purity" and
tolerating the perception most of middle America has of the LP
which is that it is a dope-smokers party.
|2.2.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Donderoooooooo:
Guiliani spent 49 million for just 1 delegate-
An all time record in futility!
Don't bother to reply. I use a handle cause I like it. I wouldn't
in a zillion years give my name and phone number to a prevert such
as yourself.
economist|2.2.08 @ 12:24PM|#
MCW is back and playing the dipshit again. By the way, how is Ghengis Khan a "wingnut"? He doesn't even fit Marxist Class Warrior's caricature of conservatives. He also wasn't very libertarian, since he had no respect for private property rights, civil liberties, or the right-not-to-be-skewered-with-a-long-damn-arrow-from-a-Mongol-composite-bow.
|2.2.08 @ 12:29PM|#
libertytree,
You can thank Giuliani's campaign manager for that fiasco. They
tried to bank on Florida and ignore all the earlier primaries.
Dumb!
BakedPenguin|2.2.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Nope. Guys like Ed Crane who ran Clark's campaign were actually interested in making the LP a legitimate 3rd party that offered Americans a libertarian economic agenda and a socially moderate position on social issues.
It also helped that Clark spent $1,000,000 of his own money on his
campaign, back at a time when that was a decent amount of money for
a presidential campaign.
economist|2.2.08 @ 3:38PM|#
I am seriously pissed that McCain took the lead in the Republican race. However, I have found an even bigger threat: ManBearPig.
economist|2.2.08 @ 3:39PM|#
Oh, yeah, and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and whoever else is still seeking the Democratic nomination.
boston|2.2.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Johnny Ringo?
Why Johnny Ringo, you look like someone just walked over your
grave.
libertreee|2.2.08 @ 11:11PM|#
For some reason we have a conservative saying that "I am to the
right of Ghengis Kahn"
Why, I do not know.
I guess deep down they believe in conquest and murder with a dash
of nation building baked at 350d =benevolent hegemony.
|2.3.08 @ 12:36AM|#
There is no bigger statist in the race then mccain. Mcain
feingold and the hearings on steroids in baseball should clue you
folks in on that fact.
mccain seems to combine the worst traits of both parties. He has
the anti free enterprise traits of the democrats and the social
conservatism of the republicans.
But some conservative commentators don't like mccain.
Which I suppose explains the reflexive snark fest instead of taking
a look at what mccain stands for and how it squares with your
libertarian philosophy.
|2.3.08 @ 6:32AM|#
Here's a couple of disturbing sentences from Goldberg's
article:
"Maybe they were right that Giuliani would be a better wartime
president than McCain...."
"So it's a bit hard to believe McCain would be a disaster given
that he would be - at minimum - pretty good on the single most
important issue facing the country."
Is the viewpoint among Goldberg and his peers? That America is in a
state of war against terrorists, that this is the single most
important issue facing the country, that the current president is a
"wartime president" and the next president will be a "wartime
president" also. And I suppose we can add to that that Oceania is
now at war against Eurasia, and yes, Oceania has always been at war
against Eurasia.
Chad|2.3.08 @ 9:36AM|#
I too fall into the group of "conservatives" who strongly prefer
Obama to Clinton and McCain over the other Republican. Both Obama
and McCain are people whom I would be proud to consider my
President. Huckabee is a nice guy with whom I disagree a lot, while
Clinton and Romney are dynastic phonies who can easily be seen
through by anyone who doesn't agree with them almost
completely.
I feel a bit sorry for Obama, because running in the primary has
forced him to be much more like a typical Democrat than is
displayed in his memiors. He still, however, largely refrains from
the "anyone who disagrees with me on this must have some evil
motive" attitude that is prevalent among Democrats. Overall,
though, he is passionate speaker who has a solid understanding and
respect for his political opponents. Even when I disagree with him,
at least I can disagree politely.
Clinton, in contrast, is simply a phoney hack that will say
whatever it is that she believes will get her elected. She tries to
play it both ways on controversial issues such as the Iraq war, and
wants to look tough without being tough. Only idiot partisan
Democrats can't see through it.
Obama also has a tactical advantage, by being a pure anti-war
candidate (with a Muslim background as an added bonus). The war in
Iraq is one of perception, not of military tactics. The troops come
home when we win the propoganda war, and I can't think of a bigger
bit of propoganda than electing Obama. Muslims will see right
through Clinton, so electing her gains us nothing.
As for McCain over Romney (Huckabee is toast, of course), it really
comes down to the same as Obama over Clinton. Romney, like Clinton,
has no convictions other than to say what it takes to win. He is
100% pure phoney and should be rejected at all levels. I love how
McCain, more so than any major politician in recent years, is
willing to look at the electorate and say we are full of crap. He
does the same to his own party. You know what? Sometimes he is
right, and he always has at least a good point.
|2.3.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Chad,
At the last debate, Ron Paul hit the nail right on the head:
there's very little in the way of policy differences between them.
Given that both of them have absolutely terrible policy positions
on most issues, and if they follow through on their rhetoric would
introduce even more elements of the welfare-warfare state into our
flagging republic, I'd prefer the guy who I think is lying over the
guy who really believes in that garbage.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.3.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Chris,
Would this same reasoning also imply you'd prefer Clinton (a liar -
or at least some sort of dread mistress of triangulation - and
hence not really a true believer) to Obama (someone who at least
seems to be truthful when he speaks)? Or do you see actual
policy differences between them?
As to McCain versus Romney, I understand your take. However, keep
in mind that the guy who's lying could actually prefer
worse positions than he advocates rather than better ones.
There's really no way of knowing when you're dealing with someone
for whom the truth is so malleable.
|2.3.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Chad,
Obama's father herded goats. Senator McCain's father was Admiral
McCain.
No, it's not President, but it's not working your up from the
streets, either.
|2.4.08 @ 4:47AM|#
Ok. Unless your last girlfriend is "Jennifer" (for whom I have
an undying devotion) then Ann Coulter is probably less crazy than
she is. Sorry suckers, but aside from her affinity to serious
religion, she's as big a libertarian as most of you.
Now, let's be clear about something: McCain is as establishment as
it comes, he is no friend of the first or second amendment. Sadly,
without Fred Thompson in the race, there's no one looking out for
us at all. (It would take a miracle to get Paul in as vice
president)
Robert|2.4.08 @ 12:48PM|#
As to McCain versus Romney, I understand your take. However, keep in mind that the guy who's lying could actually prefer worse positions than he advocates rather than better ones. There's really no way of knowing when you're dealing with someone for whom the truth is so malleable.
Of knowing, no. Of estimating, yes: regression toward the mean. If
both of these people state worse than average positions, then if
one of them is lying the chances are greater that his positions are
better than he states.
|2.5.08 @ 1:12PM|#
I think I've figured it out. Limbaugh is saying vote for a
democrat over McCain because they want to blast the dems for
whatever happens. If a republican wins and acts like a dem or
liberal they can't attack in the same manner.
Coulter says she'll support Clinton. I'll bet that if Clinton gets
the Whitehouse, Coulter gets what she wants. The ability to bitch
about the liberals in the Whitehouse.
It's all about preserving the whipping boy for entertaining right
wing radio.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245