No. After last nights debate, the memories of being called a bigot came flooding back. He did a very good job of playing dodgeball last night...

Since I like both your blog and Ace's, the Kool-Aid will need copious amounts of Valu-Rite Vodka in it. Well, and because McCain is basically a democrat on so many issues.

Frank, respectfully:

I would sooner suck snot from a dead man's nose.

I will not have voter relations with that man.

If my choices are between Kool-Aid, Clinton or Obama, give me the Kool-Aid!

Grape Kool-Aid with a few shots of Jack Daniels Green label is a great way to get "attacked by conservatives". Enough of those and I won't care what happens.

Again, McCain has a 82% conservative voting record from the American Conservative Union.

Solid on the war, solid on opposing government spending, solid on family values issues.

Oh, but wait, he doesn't want to round up the Mexicans. Something about it being "totally impractical".

I'm tired of RINOs besmirching the party name.

As tehy said in Saving Private Ran, "Don't shoot. Let 'em burrrrn."

If its Obama v McCain it think I will have to vote for Obama. I figure if someone is going to screw up the country, it might as well be a democrat.

Ron Paul is starting to look better and better...maybe he really did win new Hampshire...

Jonestown Juice please and make mine a double.

Sorry Frank J. I'd probably spit it on you and give you the finger. But that's just me.

Not even if it is black cherry kool-aid. If Romney can't find a way to knock this McPutz down, then there will be at least one ballot with "Frank J." on the write-in line.

OH. MY. GOD! I love illegals! I love them so much! I love them so much that when someone mentions the words "attrition through enforcement" I plug my ears and shout "BIGOT! ANTI-IMMIGRANT! LOU DOBBS!"

I LOVE ILLEGALS!

But you should post the "Learning to Live with..." series regardless of Super Tuesday outcome. It's been a cold winter and I need the extra rage to keep warm.

Sorry to go against the tide, but if McCain were the nominee, I would have no problem supporting him. He's not my first choice, though.

I'd rather drink from fresh elephant dung

I want some graphic artist to make a bumper sticker.

On the left, it would have VOTE McCAIN. Below that, in smaller letters, it would say MAYBE THIS WILL HELP.

On the right-hand end, a cartoon character of some kind with a stylized clothespin on its nose, reaching out to offer a fistful of clothespins. The offered hand should come out adjacent to the word HELP.

Regards,
Ric

I'm with Donny G in #9: If we are going to have a liberal screwing up the country big time in the next 4 years, I want it to be someone with a D behind their name. McCain is wrong on everything except the military: McCain-Finegold, McCain-Kennedy, etc..............

No way. I will vote for Paul before I vote for McCain. Only because i know Paul doesn't have a chance though.... it's the principle of the thing.

guys, we have to go with what we've got, if it's mccain--then its mccain!--- solidarity bros!-- we cant let them take the country and ruin it!(worse than it already is) and it would get worse!

Support McCain or not, there seems to be one thing that everone is forgetting. The same MSM who loves the guy today, will be ripping him to shreds by the end of the summer. At the same time they will be awash in an ocean of ejaculate from their collective sustained orgasm over the eventual Dem. candidate - regardless of who that ends up being. The MSM loves him becuasue thay can make him look like an old, cranky, corrupt, war-mongering, loose cannon during the general election. Bottom line: Without another major terrorist attack within the US during 2008, there is roughly a 0% chance John McCain will ever be POTUS.

Mix up all the kool-aid you like Frank, it ain't gonna do no good.

With due respect to DonnyG, I don't think I could EVER vote for Obama no matter how screwed up McGriddle is. Now if it was Hillary??? ***sigh*** I just wish she wasn't so damned HOT!

Oh, hell, why not

No way I'll back McCain. If he's it, I'll write in Fred Thompson and put my mark there. If Romney gets the nod, I could back him.

Juggernaut is not partial to the Kool-Aid. Now, if we're talking ice-cold A&W Root Beer in a bottle, YOU CAN COUNT ME IN!!! If I'm going out, it will be with A&W on my breath......

and, probably a necklace made of human liberal teeth around my neck.

I'll vote for any Republican against anyone named Clinton. And I've voted Libertarian for many years. But Jeez! Rudy, what the hell were you thinking?

Could we at least have a sweet In My World or two that has McCain, Giuliani and Ah-nold duking it out with biker Romney and his timberwolf first?

Please?!

Geez Frank, if you handed me a sharp stick would you expect me to shove it in my eye? What kind of question is that? I have guns at home, sometimes they are loaded, just not when I am, yet I never attempt to shoot myself. So I guess following that logic NO! No I would not drink McQueeg kewl-aid even if it meant Hillary or Obama became the President and the blame could be traced back to me. WHY? Because socialism knows neither republican, (now known as progressive lite) or demoncrate as titles are unimportant when it comes to big gub'ment.

Black tequila straight for me please. Screw a bunch of that koolaide stuff.

It's the 18% of mccain's record that worries me. Being correct on the 82% that didn't really matter doesn't count.

Fruit juices are healthier than cool-aid.

No chance. If it's McCain, I'm writing in Fred! in November.

Better make enough to bathe in.

I feel moved to mention: McCain will make a much more enjoyable In My World character than Romney.

Will there be everclear in this Koolade

Sorry, Frank, but McCain just doesn't do it for me. No kool-aid for me. I think a "learning to live with McCain" series will be needed, though, and the humor potential of a McCain presidency is tough to resist. "Elastic Man" or "Mr. Bendy-Straw" would certainly provide the cannon fodder we would need to cheer us up after all our paycheck goes to the illegals.

As I've written in the past I beleive that there is an 80% probablity that the Socialists (I refuse to call them democrats anymore) will win regardless of who the Republican is. So I think the question is moot. But hypothetically speaking I could vote for McCain given no better option. I would seriously suport McCain if he named Fred his VP candidate. McCain would die in office, the stress would be too great and that mass on his left check would explode taking his cerebral matter with it. Leaving us with a positive outcome.

If Juanita McCain really wants to get the support of "true conservatives", there's a blimp available!

John McCain is not my first choice for the nomination either and I hate McCain-Feingold and disagree with him on immigration, but McCain is very strong on the war on terror and on budget issues, the two most important problems facing our country. He is also good or good enough on issues like abortion and judges for me. And most recent polls show him beating either Clinton or Obama.

The bottom line is this: Is it more important that you feel happy when you leave your polling place or that we defeat the jihadists? My personal feelings about McCain aside I want western civilization to win and McCain will do more to ensure this than either of the Democats running. Pass the Kool-Aid.

Who cares about having a true conservative? What's wrong with you people. Bush has been horrid. To keep the GOP alive we need to fix it by becoming moderate. These "true conservatives" tend to believe crazy shit like global warming is false and we can't use embryonic stem cells. This type of nutty far-right nonsense needs to be booted from the party once and for all! Besides these "true conservatives" were a very small minority in the party anyway - just look at how that nutcase Fred Thompson polled. Very few people liked or agreed with that loser.

If I could see into the future and know that, until January 2013, (1) there would be no Supreme Court vacancies and (2) Iraq got better and Iran didn't get worse, I'd buy a lot of gold, keep my vote holstered and let the libs reap the whirlwind their brain-dead, special-interest group-fueled programs would spawn, thus allowing FRED! to easily win the White House in 2012.

[heavy sigh]

I can't see into the future.

[heavy sigh]

Bring the Kool-Aid and make mine a double.

[big cheesy smile]

McCain '08 - marginally better than Obillary!

PS to TerribleTroy: McCain knows not to pick FRED! as his VP; if he did, my money is on President McSnarl getting taken out by a member of his own party before his first full year of office.

No Kool-Aid, no how. I won't vote Democrat (if I were willing to vote for corrupt, racist, lie to my face Socialists, why wouldn't I just vote for McCain?), but I'll go third-party, write-in, or not at all.

I don't see the virtue in making sure the R's win. Why? If they don't stand for what I believe, then why should it matter if they win? Because another group that also doesn't stand for what I believe could win instead? Goody.

"No chance. If it's McCain, I'm writing in Fred! in November."

I would still vote for Fred under the same circumstance.

If VP is Fred, I'll vote for McPain in November. But on January 22, 2009 I will pierce the heart of his voodoo doll.

If it comes down to McCain v. Hillary or Obama I will vote for him.

MikefromtheWVpartofNY asked "...if you handed me a sharp stick would you expect me to shove it in my eye?" But that is not really a good analogy for the choice you face. The choice is more like "What do you want cut off, a finger or your whole hand? Failure to choose or attempts to choose a 3rd option will result in the loss of your whole hand".

I don't like McCain. I don't like many of his positions on issues and I really don't like his personality. But I don't hate myself, America, or the rest of the world enough to want a President Hillary or a President Obama.

If it is McCain or one of the Democrats I will suck it up and choose the least bad choice.

Sam (#39),

Let's see how you do without those "nutty" far-righters... I think that you have a much higher opinion of moderates like McCain than do most conservatives. And who said that Bush was a "true conservative?" He's only slightly better than McCain!

And, believe me, unless you're a scientist and have seen how data can be manipulated for funding purposes, you really shouldn't disparage those who don't believe in the global warming hype...

It's nice to see that so many Republicans have started thinking like Hillary: "You don't have to fall in love, just fall in line." I thought that conservatives (or right-leaning moderates) had more self-respect. Guess I was wrong.

Under the circumstances, I think Jello shots are more appropriate than Kool-aid.

Unless McCain does something REALLY stupid, like choosing Huckabilly for his VP, he can count on my vote.

No, he is NOT the person I actually WANT to win. But he would be far, far better than a democrat alternative. Remember, the winner will have a coattail effect that sweeps into Congress. The House will likely have real conservatives elected if McCain wins, because the House is so gerrymandered that far right candidates can win primaries and still win seats in the general.

McCain victory would probably mean a House comparable to Newt's 1994 House. That would negate many of McCain's bad ideas because nothing becomes law without the House supporting it.

I can live with McCain's picks for SCOTUS. Who is most likely to retire in the next 4 years? Stevens, a committed liberal. Even if McCain appointed Sandra Day O'Connor II, it would be a step forward. Who is next most likely to retire? Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Same scenario. It wouldn't be until after the 2012 election that we would be looking at a possible Kennedy or Scalia retirement - and hopefully McCain would not seek a second term and a new generation of real conservatives can step up.

Who does HRC or Obama put into SCOTUS? John Edwards. Hell, even Lindsay Graham (a serious possibility under McCain) is better than that.

McCain will, at a minimum, fight to win against islamofacism. He will not care what France thinks.

No, I am not a big McCain fan. But he is SERIOUSLY better than Billary Obama.

Better to support McCain now and work on fixing the party for 2012 than handing government back to the far left.

Kool-Aid = Hemlock for me, Frank. But I'll drink it (shows you how masochistic I am!).

Observation: this is one of the funniest and succinct set of comments ever on IMAO, IMHO.

I particularly agree with TerribleTroy's comment:

"...Socialists (I refuse to call them democrats anymore)..."

Brew up an ongoing batch of Democrats = Socialists = UnAmerican - until you finally nuke the moon.

Not a chance would I vote for him. At the very least, if a (D) got into office, the Republicrats in Congress would probably grow somewhat of a backbone and fight most of the more onerous socialist legislation to come down the pipe just because it's a Dem that wants it passed. With McCain in office, the same legislation would be coming down the pipe, but with no blockage in sight because McCain would be all for most of it and the Repubs would not want to go against him because he's from their party.

Also, no matter who gets into office, the troops aren't going to be pulled out of Iraq anytime soon despite what the politicians say on either side of the aisle so that's not something to really worry about.

Who cares about having a true conservative? What's wrong with you people. Bush has been horrid. To keep the GOP alive we need to fix it by becoming moderate.

Bush's problems stem from him being a moderate. he didn't veto McCain Feingold, didn't veto a spending bill until very late in his presidency, doled out billions to the great sand pit called the Dept of Education, broke our fiscal back with the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, pandered to the open border crowd.

So, you answer is to replace Bush with pretty much the same guy (McCain), except add in McCain's natural squishiness?

You were one of those Sanjaya voters, just like the Ronulans, weren't you?

Bastard.

Sorry Frank,

If it is between McCain and either Democrat I plan to write in "Rush Limbaugh".

Eric

One word: Judges. And we don't even have to be talking SCOTUS here (for which there's likely to be at least one opening). There are somewhere around 100 empty federal bench positions for which the Democrats have managed to block Bush's nominees - obviously in hopes of a Presidential win in November.

I'll put a thousand clothes pins on my nose if I have to, but I'll be damned if my vote (or abstention) gives one of those socialists the power to affect the courts for the next 20-30 years. Is winning a comparatively small battle in the ideological war for the party worth losing a much larger battle in the ideological war for the nation?

McCain killed Vale Tudo. I would not vote for him under any circumstances.

If McCain, my state's VERY senior Senator gets the nomination, I'll be endorsing a write in candidate for the first time ever. As much as I love FRED!, I backed him because Duncan Hunter wasn't getting any recognition. But I'll be scrawling that name Large and Bold with the marker pens we use at the polls in AZ.

As an AZ Resident, I have a deep and abiding shame that he is our elected official and that I have voted for him.

I've scrubbed down to flesh and bone, THRICE, and still don't feel clean.

By the way, in the Interesting and Bile Raising Facts Category, McCain's Hispanic Outreach Director on his campaign is an Ex Vicente Fox cabinet member.

The Cabinet position was created as a means to tie Mexicans living abroad, mostly in the US, back to Mexico. This includes the illegals and criminal transplants. This department also encouraged Mexicans abroad to be Mexican first with loyalties to Mexico above all.

Really puts the lie to the ingenuous and ad nauseum cries of McCain that he has "learned his lesson", "Heard the people", and believes in "Enforcement first."

He wants the border security to be certified by the Border Governors. This means Schwartzenegger, Napolitano and Richardson... who are all pro-Open Borders.

Not to offend SarahK, but the McCain supporters that frequent this site need to GET A F***ing clue.

No, I will not be drinking the McCandidate flavored cool-aid.

I do like the idea about the series though.

Vive Juan Mexicain! Viva La Raza! Chupa mi pito, maricones! Si no ensena me respeta, voy a matar tus padres con un senal de alto.

Gotta brush up on the new national language. It's like this... Hellary and Obama supporters HATE each other, at least in my best estimation. The candidates can't stand each other either, so there's no way they'll run on the same ticket. Juan Mexicain picks Jooliani as his veep, tantalizing the middle and swing voters, and easily wins... tolerance for gays, illegals, and abortions skyrockets... oh joy. i mean, bueno.

"F*ckin amateurs..."
(Walter Sobchak, The Big Lebowski)

There's one reason that all of you guys should want McCain over Hillary or Obama. The War.

If one of those two gets in, they will find the fastest possible way to surrender and give up what 4000 brave young Americans died securing. They will do exactly what they did in Vietnam, cut and run, leaving people who worked with us to be slaughtered by the thousands. And they will leave us with another war to fight, because we aren't going to confuse the terrorists by running away some more.

But if being mad about immigration is more important to you than what I've just said above, by all mean, write someone in, vote for a goofball third party, or stamp your feet in a corner.

(would it be rude to point out Magic Underwear said that McCain's proposal was "perfectly sensible" before he started pandering to the trogladyte vote? Probably.)

And would it be rude to point out that I am a douchenozzle?

hell to the no! i ''threw" Away my vote in 1992, and wse got the Contract with America -- anyone whose thinks the country is doomed if a dem gets in is blowing smoke -- the only thing that parliament of whores understand is pure power, and nothing gets them in line quicker is the thought of losing it - and i'm getting sick of conservative apologists--i'm looking at u medved--trying to convince me the gutless gang of seven did us a favor
--the politicians eschew conservatism at their peril--i'm ready for a night of the long knives come november

#10 is the only one who gets it? #48 took the hint

drinking the kool aid is a joke about committing mass suicide and making it palatable for the children

don't forget to shoot the congressman trying to fly away to tell the world the horrible truth.

wouldn't that be Ron Paul?

its harder to type on the bus than u might think--and all these freakin ads raise hell with my pocket pc!

But if being mad about immigration is more important to you than what I've just said above, by all mean, write someone in, vote for a goofball third party, or stamp your feet in a corner.

JoeB,
Trying to marginalize or trivialize the very real issues conservatives have with RINOs, like McCain and Huckabee, does you little good. It makes you appear like an instigator for the sake of instigating, not unlike McCain last night with his bizarre "timetables" charge. It was clear to everyone in the room, even Anderson Cooper, that Romney in no way meant what McCain alleged.

Pressing a falsehood (Romney/timetable or that your intra-party opposition are single issue voters) only gives otherwise reasonable people the reason to write you off as the cranky uncle at the end of the table.

Conservatives have many issues with McCain. Ss many have pointed out, the 18% seems small in number but shows a clear ideological disconnect.

McCain-Feingold was an assault on political opposition voices, increased the role of BIG money in politics, and was designed (by accident or intentionally) to insolate the incumbant from criticism.

McCain-Kennedy was amnesty and McCain has even backed away from it, as the last debate showed. Now, I'm not as strict as others about what to do with the illegals, but there's no way even I would sign on with a $3,000 fine that is easily lawyered away once passed. He was dragged kicking and screaming to the idea of securing the border first. The man has "DC" in his blood, because no one in his state - the legal voters - wanted border security as an afterthought.

McCain-Lieberman was a terrible econimic proposition when our nation is in direct competition with the greatest pollutors on the planet. They wanted to unilaterally straddle our economy with feel-good environmental trinkets as China and India kick our ass in the global market.

McCain was wrong about the Bush tax cuts and has lied to cover the reason he was against it. The chick from the LA Times had to call him out on it last night. He was against it because the job creators (i.e. "the rich," since I don't know a poor man that offered me a job) would keep more of their money. His priorities are clearly "DC." His open hostility to the capital market (I served for patriotism, not profit - as if there is something dishonorable or unpatriotic about building a life for your family) is clear.

He has tried desparately to backtrack on his Alito comments, but two well respected reporters independently confirmed the account. John Fund and Bob Novak used separate sources and Novak even has a "double blind" confirmation method that left no doubt. John McCain is hostile to conservative judges, like Alito, Scalia and Thomas and only warmed to Roberts because he charmed the Senate and ran intellectual circles around them.

His politics are DC. For a "Maverick," he certainly got along famously with the opposition, the DC establishment, and the DC media.

He wants to be known by the company he keeps? So be it. He stands with Kennedy, Feingold, Lieberman, and the DC/NY media. I suspect he's more interested in the conservatives that stand with him. That's fine, but take both in and weigh it. What really is the difference between McCain and Lieberman?

I'm not as big on judging by company. I'll look at his key legislation. His actions in the 60s were admirable and there is no definition of "heroic" that wouldn't include his service. However, his actions the last seven to eight years are more telling of where he intends to go with his presidency.

I'm JoeB131! I need to wake up and realize that you can't fund a war if you have a crappy economy. I love illegals too much to realize that McCain is abysmal on economics. I don't care about that because I'm a weepy class warfare lovin jackass.

#10 is the only one who gets it? #48 took the hint

Umm, no dude. I think most everybody, especially sports fans (used often on sports boards), get the idea.

Not ready to drink...

Uh, Fake Me, (I bet that's Alan) we have a crappy economy now, but it has little to do with the people picking lettuce and cleaning toliets...

RTP, you make some interesting points I'd be happy to address, but you dodge my main point- The war is more important than ANY of those issues.

#63 - all valid points, plus I would add this: if I cannot trust a candidate to be truthful during the campaign, how will I trust him to be President? If he lies about someone else's record to my face now, of course, he is lying about his promise to secure the border and keep taxes low! He believes in what he believes in, and it is not what I believe in.

I'm JoeB131! I fail to realize that my beloved illegals have a HUGE negative impact and outting a huge strain on hospitials and schools. I'm too stupid to realize that populist bullshit economics have never helped anything! I can't figure out that thanks to high costing projects such as the V-22 (KA-CHING!) are already bankrupting the military, and McCain's complete lack of economic knowledge.. I'm such a thickheaded dolt that, to me, meaningless bullshit rhetoric = common sense! I prove The Onion right! http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

you dodge my main point- The war is more important than ANY of those issues.

Not an intentional dodge. There is no substantive difference between McCain and ROmeny or even Huckabee on the GWOT.

Hillary, for all her Leftist bluster, isn't an idiot when it comes to Iraq. She will have the same advisors as Clinton had, for the most part. They were the ones, you may recall, that changed our policy toward Iraq to regime change in 1998. They won't pull out. They'll "rescue" the mission.

Obama has a lot of poetic words. He doesn't have the stones to stop the war and pull out of Iraq. The man can't even take off the gloves against Hillary - a woman with more skelatons in her closet than Jeffrey Dahmer. Obama could never stand up against the JCS.

Now, that doesn't mean they can't royally F it up. Of course, there's no guarantee McCain won't. He backed the Surge, but would he have proposed it? There's a big difference and that's what the governors on the stage were trying to say. Bush had to convince the JCS and the Pentagon (for the most part) that the Surge strategy was needed. It took hours. Does McCain have the patience for the next major substantive challenge? Can he look into the eyes of very experienced military men and tell them that they are wrong and he is right? McCain makes a lot of concessions to others to really convince me he can stick a pole in the ground and say, "Move me."

I agree RTP. People also need to take a serious look at economics. You can't have populist economics and a strong military. Where in the heck are you going to get money for the military if you're regulating the bleep out of the economy? If we don't learn from the Soviets then we're going to end up just like they were at the end of the 80s.

If we're on the topic of "wasted" or "wasting" votes, but looking to make a statement, what better than to write in Big Fred T. ?

My conscience will rest a lot easier knowing that I made a principled electoral "fungo" rather than any manner of nose-holding which would occur with either a McLame, Osama Obama, or Broom-Shrillary vote.

(Just one knuckle-dragger's retrograde opinion.)

One word: HELL NO!

Oh, let's NOT be objective for a moment.

WHAT IS IT about McCain??

He's like a cheese log that's been sitting out for weeks and it's now covered with various fuzzy, colored molds... gray, black, orange, red... molds. It's old, it smells. I can't stand the thought of it. It's the smell. That is it!

I'll go back to being objective in a minute...

The log will then tell you it hasn't changed color, it's not fuzzy, moldy or smelly, just experienced...oh yea, and screw you too for even thinking it was cheese.

What is it with these win-at-all-cost "republicans?" This isn't a F!@#king baseball team.

I'm not gonna just eat peanuts and stupidly wave my banner because the guy happens to have an (R) next to his name. I've voted Republican in the past because, for the most part, they have represented me. It appears they are ceasing to do so.

I could call it the end of the relationship... but instead I think I, like many people, will instead simply allow them to lose. It's more important to me to have a pure conservative to vote for than it is to have a "Republican" in the White House.

Yeah, Robert, then everyone around the table keeps reminding you that the cheese is the only thing to eat. For some strange reason, they're NOT holding their nose. They like the cheese!

And the cheese just gets moldier - and with more colors. Like green. Nasal green.

I may drink the Hemlock, but I agree very much with the way r2streu in #76 is feeling.

Frank -- you need to hold out insane hope, it's more amusing. Support a Lieberman / Zell Miller ticket for the Democrats & then who needs McCain, have a "going to Damascus" moment, get the Ronulans all frothed up that you capitulated to their eloquent reasoning, and then come back out with a "fool you haha" moment. It's mean, but no meaner than the stunts you're pulling now for a laugh.

Only if it is 50% Jonestown Juice and 50% Stolichnaya.

I am NOT a republican, I am a conservative.

If the choice given to me in November is Clinton/Obama or McCain.

I will hold my nose, retch in my mouth and vote for John McCain.

I have two reasons: Justice Ginsburg and Justice Stevens.

The next president WILL decide the balance of the Supreme court as neither of these horrid idgits will last another 5 years.

Do I trust McCain to appoint justices like Roberts and Alito?

No, Hell No. I don't trust McCain to do anything except put a shiv in the back of conservatives.

BUT

I KNOW what kind of @$$^%$& that Hillary or Obama would put into place.

I refuse to give up hope that either Ginsburg, Stevens or both will be replaced by a justice that actually has at least read and preferably understands the constitution.

Like the election in Louisiana a few years back that had a corrupt @#@#$ vs a KKK grand dragon. Where there were "vote for the crook, it's important signs" everywhere.

Obama or Hilldabeast vs McCain boils down

"Vote for the @#%$^&* Rino asshole, it's important"

I understand the sentiment of those here who don't want to vote for McCain. Every fiber of my being LONGS to vote for a president, rather than against his or her opponent.

But with the Supreme court in the balance, for the love of your children (or my children if you ain't got any midget money suckers of your own), for the love of your country, for your continued freedom, for your property (see Kelo decision) and gun rights. Vote for the schmuck, it is that important.

Please excuse me now, I need to shower. Repeatedly. With Lava soap.

Michael, that 50/50 cocktail will be served by Dracul, The Impaler. It's definitely NOT "attacked by conservatives." You be lookin' like some kind of weird Mobius-striped Klein Bottle when you're done.

# 70 - THere is one substantive difference between McCain and Romney on the GWOT- credibility. Romney avoided Vietnam by becoming a Missionary trying to convince Frenchmen to join his whacky little cult. None of his kids serve in the military. McCain's war record is well known, he's got one son in the Marines in Iraq and another at Annapolis (Imagine the pressure on that kid, his G-Grandfather and grandfather were Admirals and his father is a war hero/senator/possible President.) One measure of leadership is not asking your followers to do anything you aren't willing to do yourself. (It was an important lesson I learned in the military.)

actually, McCain was the guy calling for more troops in Iraq when Bush was stubbornly "staying the course" with the inadequate strategy and numbers we had. If I fault Bush on Iraq, it was that he stuck to a strategy that was obviously failing and didn't replace Abizad and Sanchez and Casey when he should have. Lincoln and FDR replaced Generals who didn't get the job done. I give him credit for doing the surge, but he should have done it much earlier. (Not enough space on Frank's blog to post all my thoughts on the war.)

The problem with Clinton's "realism" on Iraq is that in 1998, her husband did not have a base to whom victory in Iraq was the worst thing that could happen. If we win in Iraq, then that would be admitting on some level that George W. Bush was right, and the left simply is never going to go along with that. In 1998, Iraq was a nice distraction from Lewinsky. What I saw was that the same Dems who defended the Dec 1998 Wag the Dog attack to the hilt suddenly proclaim in 2003 that Saddam was a clubbed baby seal.

Obama was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. No doubt what he'd do there.

Like I said, I was in the military for 11 years, active and reserve. What I found is that military officers are very prone to group think and often being unable to see beyond their limited scopes. I would feel a lot more comfortable with McCain dealing with the JCS than Hillary or Obama or Romney.

#62- I address the Amnesty issue because that seems to be the one that some of our more angry friends seem to go on about, barely disguising their overt racism. I know you're better than that, but McCain-Kennedy wasn't the outright Amnesty of Simpson-Mazolli that Reagan signed off on. Aliens had to wait 13 years to become citizens, pay a fine, and forgo the right to bring relatives into the country. It also called for tighter workplace enforcement and tighter border security. Was it a bad bill? Yes. Did the way they went about it the wrong way? Absolutely. Was McCain wrong to call all the opponents racist? Damn straight. But was it the horrible thing that Alan and others make it out to be? No.

McCain-Feingold I think was meant from the best of intentions, but it addressed the problem from the wrong end. As long as you have a government so large and intrusive, those of means are going to try to influence hte process. Since more incumbants were turned out in 2006 after the law, than in 2004 or 2002 or 2000, I would say that the complaint it protects incumbants is off the mark.

On McCain-Leiberman, what if they are right? What if we are destroying the ecosystem? (Most scientists, while not subscribing to Al Gore's alarmism, do think we are having an effect.) The concept of "Well, we have to keep polluting to keep ahead of the Chinese" is kind of nutty if in 100 years, there are no Chinese or Americans or for that matter, Homo Sapiens.

Even if they aren't right, what do we get? Cleaner air AND we can stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to the crazy Ayatollahs and Hugo Chavez. Furthermore, if we develop the new technologies, our economy will benefit because we will be an energy exporter instead of an energy consumer. Come on, we're freakin' Americans. We won WWII and put men on the moon! We can't find a way to get away from petroleum if we really wanted to?

As for "populism", I think the reason why populism has become popular, even amongst Republicans (combine Huck and McCain, you have over 50% of the GOP vote) is because Corporate America became so in love with greed that it lost sight of its important role in society, and has become more of a menace than a help. Certainly, the way to get them to find their way back is not to nominate a corporate raider like Romney.

Pass me some juice, because there's no kool-aid to be had. McCain is a conservative. A good conservative. You can disagree with him on campaign finance, taxes, immigration and global warming (as I do as well) but in the issues that makes conservatives fundamentally better then liberals McCain is as right wing as they come. Those issues are national security, the war on terror and Iraq. He supports the military 100%, knows that the threat of the 21st century is Islamic jihadist terrorism and that victory is the only option in Iraq.

These are the most important issues facing the United States and he stands firmly on the right side of them. He's also shown he won't change these positions based on polls or pressure from interest groups.

Polls and trends also show he's more then likely to defeat either Hillary or Obama, both of whom say they want some kind of withdraw from Iraq.

So do you want to win in Iraq or not?

Support McCain or not, there seems to be one thing that everone is forgetting. The same MSM who loves the guy today, will be ripping him to shreds by the end of the summer. At the same time they will be awash in an ocean of ejaculate from their collective sustained orgasm over the eventual Dem. candidate - regardless of who that ends up being. The MSM loves him becuasue thay can make him look like an old, cranky, corrupt, war-mongering, loose cannon during the general election. Bottom line: Without another major terrorist attack within the US during 2008, there is roughly a 0% chance John McCain will ever be POTUS.

Bingo! We have a winner!

Face it, kids: McCain doesn't stand a chance of beating Hillary, Obama, or anyone else on the Democratic ticket. If he gets the nomination, the election's a write-off anyway, even if you convinced every last IMAO reader to hold their nose and doom the Republican Party to an endless RINO parade.

The Tooth Fairy ain't coming.

Not a chance would I vote for him. At the very least, if a (D) got into office, the Republicrats in Congress would probably grow somewhat of a backbone and fight most of the more onerous socialist legislation to come down the pipe just because it's a Dem that wants it passed. With McCain in office, the same legislation would be coming down the pipe, but with no blockage in sight because McCain would be all for most of it and the Repubs would not want to go against him because he's from their party.

Also, no matter who gets into office, the troops aren't going to be pulled out of Iraq anytime soon despite what the politicians say on either side of the aisle so that's not something to really worry about.

And another winner! Fact: Presidents affect the military fairly little. What affects it more is Congress and the press. If you're really that concerned about the war, try starting with the places that actually matter.

Now, that doesn't mean they can't royally F it up. Of course, there's no guarantee McCain won't. He backed the Surge, but would he have proposed it? There's a big difference and that's what the governors on the stage were trying to say. Bush had to convince the JCS and the Pentagon (for the most part) that the Surge strategy was needed. It took hours. Does McCain have the patience for the next major substantive challenge? Can he look into the eyes of very experienced military men and tell them that they are wrong and he is right? McCain makes a lot of concessions to others to really convince me he can stick a pole in the ground and say, "Move me."

This is what it aaaaaaall comes down to, boys and girls.

McCain is a conservative. A good conservative.

That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You're going to have to give me a better reason than trying to insist a dyed-in-the-wool liberal is really a conservative in spite of his record on just about everything. Hell, even the Kos Kiddies aren't fooled, and that should tell you something.

The far right sucks that's why McCain is easily going to win the GOP nomination. People are really sick and tired of the far right in the USA. The funny thing is the "true conservatives" got their butts kicked before we even got to the actual election. A "true conservative" couldn't even win a single primary. That just shows you how much people dislike the far right in this country.

But MSanderson,

If the "far right" stays home, NO Republican stands a chance of winning the general. What do you think happened in '06?

And I'd love to see what people like yourself consider to be "far right." Does it mean pro-life, pro-gun, pro-free interprise, and anti-ILLEGAL immigration? If so, then I'm happy to be "far right," and I'll be more than happy to stay that way and let the moderates kill the Reagan coalition.

And JoeB131, I don't think that you're going to convert anyone to your candidate's side by stating that people are barely disguising their overt racism. That's what got him into trouble. And just because you say that he shouldn't have called people racist doesn't mean that it makes up for the fact that you essentially did the same thing 3-4 sentences previously.

I swear. I'm beginning to dislike "moderates" more than liberals. They don't even have the balls to say that they're liberal.

#67 Joe B-

No, that wasn't me. You're already a parody of yourself, and if I have anything to say to you, I'll do so here. That or I'll leave a comment on your Bebo sissy-ass Chelsea soccer fan site, mate.

But if you're ever in ABQ, well then... you just let me know, kiddo & I will definitely set you straight, face to face.

Cheerio!

Presidents affect the military fairly little. What affects it more is Congress and the press.

That's wrong for many reasons, but I'll just list one. If the president has the backbone to not back down to the press or Congress then the latter has very little control over the actions of the military. The press can try to sway opinion and Congress can threaten to cut funding, but the president is the one that pulls the levers.

Another thing I don't understand is how those who call themselves "true" conservatives can back Romney. You can't ever be far right and win any election in Massachusetts. Ever.

I swear. I'm beginning to dislike "moderates" more than liberals. They don't even have the balls to say that they're liberal.

Same can be said of "true" conservatives backing Romney. Can't they at least admit they're really moderates?

No.

And we'll accuse you of being a puppy blender too.

2008 is a bust. Vote David Petraeus 2012

Next you'll accuse me of never having been a vet. Not that I ever have been, but still.

Never took a Social Studies class, either. I mean, I don't get this whole "separation of powers" bit. It's too confusing and the words are too big.

To the McCain supporters, he wasn't awarded the Maverick™ title because he'll do what you think he will. He won't. That is how he got the title.

To the others, I'm sorry that the AZ GOP wouldn't ever run anyone against the incumbent and that the AZ Dems and Libertarians couldn't run a candidate more viable than a hamburger. In our state, if you've been elected and didn't get convicted while in office, you get to keep your job. Whoops!

Ann Coulter on FOX news tonight (1/31/08) said she would vote for Hillary before she would vote for McCain. Alan Colmes said his job there was done and asked her to fill in for him next week.

Methinks Fred dropped out of the race a week too soon.

Just remember:

McCain = dead terrorists

Romney = possibly dead terrorists, no wait, maybe, what do the polls say?

Also, McCain is a vet. Therefore everything he says is sacrosanct.

Saying that McCain is good on everything BUT the military is like saying we don't need anything EXCEPT air to breathe.

Either we fight the terrorists, or we declare ourselves dhimmis and hail our Islamofascist overlords.

I choose the former.

Alan, I don't think why you think that British website is anything to do with me. I only post as JoeB131 on this thread. In fact, I use a different screen name on every board I visit. (Also, scouring the web for anyone named "JoeB131" is kind of, well, obsessive.)

Funny you crawl out from under your rock the minute I call you on it, though.

I find it kind of funny that so-called conservatives think their "savior" is a guy who said that he would be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy, imposed socialized medicine on Massachusetts, raised 800 million in new taxes, proudly said that he was not a "Reagan-Bush", Republican and even (gasp) said that McCain-Kennedy was "reasonable" and "Not Amnesty". Contrary to his pro-life views now, he made up stories about a close family member who died from a back-ally abortion.

http://www.observer.com/2008/defense-mccains-attacks

I have an honest question for you. Who do you respect more, someone who honestly disagrees with you but is straightfoward on it, or someone who lies through his teeth and tells you whatever you want to hear? Forget personalities, forget names, in your personal life in ABQ, who do you respect more in your personal dealings?

McCain isn't my first choice, but I think he's probably the most electable.

Frank, mix me the 64 oz. size and don't forget the "good stuff".

Gotta go with the judges and Tearrists thing.

Best hope....Fred for VP and "Maverick" pops a valve hyperventilating over some conservative opposition to his idiocy.

And JoeB131, I don't think that you're going to convert anyone to your candidate's side by stating that people are barely disguising their overt racism. That's what got him into trouble. And just because you say that he shouldn't have called people racist doesn't mean that it makes up for the fact that you essentially did the same thing 3-4 sentences previously.

#87 - Posted by: Billy

When people come on this board and use terms like "Juan Mexicain", exactly how am I not to conclude that some of them are racist. Do I really have to wait for them to say "spic" before I come to that conclusion? Sometimes, good points are undermined by having unpleasent people on your side.

Give you an example. In 1990, conservatives opposed a new civil rights act that would have essentially made it way too easy to sue for discrimination, and Bush-41 vetoed it. It was a solid position, it put the burden on employers to prove that they were not discriminating, not the employee that they were. Well, up pops David Duke, getting on every talk show spewing his racist nonsense. Pretty soon, a lot of Republicans, including President Bush, changed their tune because they didn't want to be associated with Duke. Not surprisingly, a slightly changed version was passed in 1991, and Bush signed that one.

It wasn't just John McCain who called the Minutemen racist, it was President Bush. Now, maybe that was the wrong way to go about it, but clearly, there are racist elements in the issue we need to distance ourselves from.

#94- Having a hateful person like Coulter support Hillary would be a blessing. Seriously, why hasn't any conservative told her to STFU? She makes us look mean and stupid every time she opens her mouth.

NOOOOOO!!!!!

I'd vote for McCain before any of the other guys. McCain is the only one that sees the need to fight global warming. Global warming is a real threat to our future. Besides as McCain points out even if we are wrong by global warming then all we will be doing is leaving our children with a cleaner world. Cleaner world = good. Dumb Republicans like Fred Thompson and Mitt Romeny who love pollution and asthma = bad. I think Republicans like that should go f*** themselves. Our country is going green whether you right wing bitches like it or not.

Hey Wallace,

GLOBAL WARMING IS HYPE!!!!!

Let's see...global warming believer...uses term "right wing bitches"...

I'm guessing liberal. Hey, it's a McCain voter!

Hey, the NYT says Global Warming is real and the Iraq War was a mistake. They wouldn't lie.

Well, with Arnold in the mix it's unfair, but my thought was that we should get Steven Seagal to endorse Romney and then forego the Convention and have Seagal, Chuck Norris, and Stallone fight in a no holds barred deathmatch, winner's candidate get's nominated.

JoeB,
I don't think you'll find many enthusiastic conservatives supporting Romney. I was a Fredhead and have to settle for Romney. It took a compromise of principle. Suggesting I compromise my principles again to support the media's darling is simply not something I'm willing to do at this point. As I've said, I may still vote for McCain, but I'm not going to do so thinking he's anything other than a stinking RINO. Further, he's not getting a nickel of my money. Finally, when he's getting beaten by the media for not being a Democrat, folks like me will sit on our hands.

There's no guilting me into voting for him.

That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die.

(Also, scouring the web for anyone named "JoeB131" is kind of, well, obsessive.)

Perhaps you've heard of Google before; it's like the Scrubbing Bubbles for the web; no scouring needed! As for the nonsense about "I only post as JoeB131 on this thread. In fact, I use a different screen name on every board I visit.", well... whatever. What a coincidence it is, if you believe in that sort of thing, that the special name you use just for posting comments here corresponds to some other kid in another country.

Funny you crawl out from under your rock the minute I call you on it, though.

Said the troll...

And please, don't flatter yourself- you have yet to correctly "call" me or anyone else on anything, unless it was an insult. So get real, Joe...I wouldn't act that way towards you; You pose no threat to me whatsoever, I don't care enough about what you think, nor do I feel like I would need to do that to you, especially now that the special name you use is unique to IMAO & all.

Again, if I have something to say to you or about you, I'll do so under my own name; some of us don't feel insecure enough to have a plethora of pseudonyms for fear of detection.

Having a hateful person like Coulter support Hillary would be a blessing.

Coulter supports Hillary? Hmmm.... well she is a moderate and very tough.

I don't think you'll find many enthusiastic conservatives supporting Romney. I was a Fredhead and have to settle for Romney. It took a compromise of principle. Suggesting I compromise my principles again to support the media's darling is simply not something I'm willing to do at this point.

Gold star!

Sure, Joe talks a good show about 'fairness', but when comes his turn to compromise, suddenly he can't seem to walk the proverbial walk. I already flagged him as a hypocrite of the first order...this just added petrol to the fire.

At the same time they will be awash in an ocean of ejaculate

The John Edwards grand finale thread is ------> that way

#109 - Basilisk, WTH are you talking about? Fairness? I think I am being more than fair to Romney. He's a liberal RINO who supported abortion rights, gun control, socialized medicine, gay marriage, and illegal immigration. Heck, he even hired illegals to cut the shrubs around his mansion because apparently, even though he made billions as a corporate raider, he can't seem to pay Americans a fair american wage.

He proudly declared himself "independent" of Reagan, six years after Reagan left office. He promised to be better on Gay rights than Ted Kennedy. He raised more taxes than Huckabee did and imposed socialized medicine on Massachusetts (something even Dukakis never tried.)

In short, before telling you everything you want to hear, he was for everything you claim to hate.

The thing is, that even if I could overlook his goofy religion and his obvious hypocrisy, the fact remains that he is pretty much unelectable. He hasn't won a single contest without a qualification (home state, unconested caucus).

I am willing to compromise. Personally, I like Huckabee a lot better, but I can see that he has little support outside his base. I was perfectly willing to support Fred had he not engaged in public narcolepsy.

If the goal is to keep Hillary or Obama out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then McCain is really our best shot.

Okay, Alan, I mean, what are the chances that some kid in the UK might be named "JoeB". I mean, out of 70 million Brits, what is the possibility? (I'd say pretty good, but obviously, mathematics probably isn't your strong suit.) Not sure why the Brit would use "131", but I use it because 131 was my old regimental number in the Illinois National Guard.

Now, I know that you are upset I've called you for the bigot you obviously are, but maybe you need to take some time for interspection. Hate can make you blind.

even if I could overlook his goofy religion

And to think he called me a bigot on another post...

You're absolutely right about him, Basilisk.

out of 70 million Brits, what is the possibility? (I'd say pretty good, but obviously, mathematics probably isn't your strong suit.)

So, is that to say that "pretty good" is an accurate mathematical summary? In addition to being a former member of the IL N.G., you're a mathematician too...

But who needs all that when you can just feel victorious in name-calling?

Now, I know that you are upset I've called you for the bigot you obviously are, but maybe you need to take some time for interspection. Hate can make you blind.

Physician, heal thyself.

#115- SOrry, I don't hate anybody. Well, Terrorists, maybe. I just think that we shouldn't let rich people walk all over working folks and that we shouldn't let someone who belongs to a religion that advocates the overthrow of the constitutional government to be president. Those are opinions, not hate.

Alan, on the other hand, really hates Mexicans. Don't believe me, link onto his Myspace page. Scary stuff. Now, me, I've known a lot of Mexicans, and they are probably the nicest people you'd want to meet, for the most part.

#114- Alan, I'm kind of worried that you go around trolling Facebook and MySpace looking for kid's webpages. Don't they have laws against that sort of thing?

#115- It's not hate to make an evaluation about someone's religion based on its history and beliefs. Mormons believe in the following.

God lives on a planet called Kolob, and had physical sex with Mary to conceive Jesus.

Black people were marked with darkness as a curse from God. So were Native Americans. At least until 1978, when God Apparently got over it.

An Angel named Moroni gave Joseph Smith a bunch of tablets with a historical account of Hebrews who emigrated to the New World and established an advanced civilization. (Archeological evidence pretty much disproves this.)

The Constitutional Government will one day "hang by a thread" and the Mormon Church will step in and be the new government.

I think that most people would agree that "goofy" is a mild adjective to describe these beliefs.

Now, all of that said, I don't want to round Mormons up and deport them to another country, like you want to do with the Mexicans. I don't want to deprive them of their jobs, homes and medical care, like you seem to think we should do to undocumented workers.

I just think we should think twice about giving one the highest office in the land, especially when he is being so shifty about what he actually believes.

A final point. Why should Romney's beleifs be "off limits" for discussion?

We have heard a lot of discussion about whether Mike Huckabee believes in Evolution or not. Forget about the fact that 53% of Americans believe in creationism and another 30% believe in "Intelligent Design" (that evolution occurs, but a higher power is guiding it, which happens to be my belief).

We've heard a lot of discussion about the "Afro-Centric" Church that Barack Obama belongs to here in Illinois, not to mention the poor man has to insist he isn't a Muslim every couple of days.

So why is it off limits to discuss the strange beliefs of Mormonism and how much of those beliefs Mitt Romney might bring into the White House?

JoeB,
I don't think you're going to find any non-Mormons that will say Mormonism is a perfectly crumulant religion. My point has been that I've found Mormons to be good people, if a bit hesitant to interact with outsiders. Of course, given some folks' reaction, I think it's understandable.

A final point. Why should Romney's beleifs be "off limits" for discussion?

Article VI, section 3

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Deciding someone is or is not fit for the presidency based upon religious beliefs, runs counter to one of the core principles that has made our nation great. A religious test, in many forms, is a measure of gross intolerence for the beliefs of others.

As I've said, I think G-d probably gets a chuckle that we see HUGE differences between Christian faiths (and maybe even between Christianity and other faiths), rubs his foreheard (so to speak), and says, "Didn't I make it simple enough? Judge lest ye be judged? Treat others as you want to be treated? They still seem intent on over-complicating things."

No one was talking about a Religious "test" as applied in Section 3 of the Constitution, which was a deviation from British law that said all office holders had to be members of the Church of England.

That was to keep the GOVERNMENT from discriminating, not the voter from making judgements.

Let me put this another way. Tom Cruise announces for President of the United States tomorrow as an independent. He gets a bunch of his Scientology buddies to back him. wouldn't his beliefs in Scientology be a legitimate area of inquiry? They most certainly would. The fact that Scientology was a cult started by a con man named L. Ron Hubbard certainly would put it under scrutiny.

So why is it not legitimate to scrutinize someone who belongs to a cult started by a con-man named Joseph Smith? If it is truly inoccuaous, why doesn't Romney come out and announce, "I believe a man can become a God, God lives on the planet Kolob, and black folks like Obama were given the Mark of Cain!!! It's all here in the Book of Mormon, which I will swear on when I am innaguarted!!!" Why? Because we'd probably throw a net over him. So he gets cagey about his beliefs and acts all offended if someone dares ask him a question about it.

SOrry, I don't hate anybody.

Says the guy who hates Mormons. (And possibly Mexicans, since the Mexicans I know are all legal immigrants and are pretty damn insulted when white 'multicultiralists' assume they can only get into the country by being crooks. Yeah, that goes over real well)

I wrote something a while back about Joe being an immature believer if indeed he was one at all. I had my doubts about admitting that before...not any more. Nailed his own coffin on the question of his spiritual immaturity, he did.

Whoops, didn't sign in.

I will drink your kool-aid, Frank. I will also vote for Hillary before I'd vote for McCain cuz if someones gonna screw up the country I'd like it to be a democrat for posterity's sake