It sometimes seems that way. Frankly, we are a bunch of assholes, but I still don’t think we deserves this treatment.
He’s still better than Huckabee.
It sometimes seems that way. Frankly, we are a bunch of assholes, but I still don’t think we deserves this treatment.
He’s still better than Huckabee.
Conservatives screwed themselves when they decided they couldn’t get behind anyone who couldn’t quote, chapter and verse, why God hates fags.
Really, people, pick your battles…
[You get that strawman! You get him good! -Ed.]
No, Bunker, your assertion is a picture painted by liberals. People are screwing themselves by not realizing that politics and morality DO mix. It is the reason we are “a government of laws and not of men.” As a people, we’re just not agreeing on the morals anymore.
When the heck am I gonna get any work done today?
I kinda like the way liberal paint us as evil vicious beasts that instantly quell anyone who says otherwise with an iron fist.
Unfortunately, there is a reason for being called “the silent majority”. There is also a reason a bunch of guys that don’t even share our views are running for president on our ticket.
Maybe we should use our Iron Fist of Fascism(tm) to destroy the dems and the retarded republicans.
As I have said previously, the old Reagan coalition of religious, economic and security conservatives is fracturing because in many ways, these groups are at cross purposes. McCain is probably the candidate who is only slightly objectionable to all three groups, as opposed to the others who are totally objectionable to one or more of the groups. Religious folks like Huck and can’t stand Rudy. Security conservatives like Rudy and can’t stand Mitt. Economic conservatives like Mitt and can’t stand Huck. Fred could have probably gotten the three groups on the same page if he hadn’t so badly blundered in his campaign.
McCain’s comments on Alito are puzzling, however. Is he pre-emptively trying to put out an olive branch to a Democratic Senate that might have to approve one of his nominees. “Okay, I’ll go as far as Roberts but not as far as Alito”.
Who’s a liberal? I said “fags”, after all. I’ll even admit to hating them. But that’s just because they’re annoying and have WAY too much money…
Assholes? I thought we were dicks…
Bunker! I mean your statement is typical of liberal assertions – not that you’re a liberal! Read.
If you are a conservative, just picture John McPain with his middle finger pointed at you with that shit eating grin…that’s what he thinks of you while he’s cutting deals with Russ Fiengold and Splash!
FcCain. He pisses me off. Lost us an airplane. Lit the USS Forrestal on fire. Played acey-duecy with the VC for five years. He’s older than Strom Thurmond’s grandma. Cusses out genuine conservatives. We need to give HIM the Big “Screw You!”
Still better than The Huckster? Only if you consider any of the other democrat candidates better. Then again-
I would open an “In My World- President McCain” with him summoning all the leaders of the GOP to the Oval Office. He then stands on the desk, drops trou and wizzes all over them and the rest of the office while laughing manically.
McAmnesty is not better than any GOP candidate. There is a chance I would vote for any one of them (not that I would be happy) but there is absolutely no chance under God’s green earth that I will cast a vote for McAmnesty. He made it very clear who he is this summer.
Yeah the Democrats want him to be the winner for the GOP primary – that way they are assured of having a liberal in the Whitehouse.
#4 – has it really come to that? That “Only slightly objectionable” is the best we have? Ugh. Wake me in 2012.
Come to think of it, though, that would be a great campaign slogan for McCain.
John McCain: on taxes – only slightly objectionable. on judges – only slightly objectionable. On the War on Terror – only slightly objectionable. John McCain: Hey, at least he isn’t Hillary.
McCain’s comments on Alito are puzzling, however.
Only if you haven’t paid attention to the guy.
Didn’t we get into a discussion about the Gang of 14? I’m not certain, but I thought you brought up the point/tactily championed that McCain’s tactic brought about Alito (and Roberts). I, on the other hand, saw it as just another McCain swipe at conservatives and appeasement toward liberals.
Now, I’m not one to say it, but would you care to revisit your position on McCain’s possible motives during the Gang of 14 tango? The man’s problem with Alito wasn’t his judiciary record. It was because he “wore his conservatism on his sleeve.” Excuse me? That is what irked a guy claiming to be a conservative and a guy slamming others for being liberal?
I admire McCain’s service to our country, but he has shown to come up small during a number of calls for leadership. Other than national security, he seems no different than any other poll driven candidate. Problem is, the media clearly manipulates polls when it wants and selectively reports the results. You want that in the White House (not neccessarily directed at you, JoeB)?
Now, the biggest knock on Romney seems to be that he flipped to the Republican base positions. I wouldn’t say “flip-flop” because I haven’t seem him flop back. The media hates him because he flipped to the more conservative position – an unpardonable sin among the media elite.
So, between the two leading GOP candidates, you have a choice between two candidates that may be pandering. Pick the one that panders to the media (a charge with a great deal of supporting evidence) or the one that possibly panders to the conservatives (a speculative charge based on natural skepticism toward politicians).
Personally, I’ve heard Romney’s conversion speech on life issues. I buy it. Does that mean he won’t go “W” on us and become a squishy conservative when the heat is turned up? I don’t know. I do know, though, that McCain’s already gone squishy on almost every issue and the heat’s not even on him.
I dig the nickname FcCain, though. Clever stuff.
#1 – Posted by: bunkerboy on January 28, 2008 04:27 PM
See, this here is why bunkerboy should be considered a troll. I know, I know, some of you have previously scolded me for calling him a troll, but come on!
He is at least a half-troll, which, really is worse than a troll, because seriously, who would ummm… mate with a troll?
RTP – McCain’s position was to keep the GOP from changing the rules to prevent filibusters on judges. Given the fact the D’s are now in charge of the senate, filibuster is really the only tool we have to keep them from running roughshod over us. So oddly, I am glad that he kind of saved us from ourselves. And we did get Alito and Roberts and a few others on other courts.
My knock on Romney is that he’s pretty much unelectable, and I don’t feel like losing at Goldwater level proportions on a hissy. We have maybe up to 8 senate seats in jeaopardy this cycle, and if the D’s win them all, filibuster might be a moot point, as they will have close to a filibuster-proof majority.
With McCain, best case scenario is that he wins, but we only have to put up with him for one term because of his age. Worst case scenario is he loses, but Hillary will have to work for it, and we may be well positioned in 2010 to take back congress.
I have no illusions, McCain is a politician in love with his own soundbytes. Yet given the fractures in the party, he might be the best (or the least objectionable to all factions.)
One of Alito’s biggest supporters on Capital Hill during the hearings was John McCain. Surely you guys remember that.
The idea that McCain somehow finds Alito unsavory… frankly is laughable.
My knock on Romney is that he’s pretty much unelectable
In your opinion. You harbor a deep distrust of his religious tradition.
The idea that McCain somehow finds Alito unsavory… frankly is laughable.
I think you have to take that up with McCain, bud. Like many things, he decided to sell out conservatives when a microphone gets in front of his face.
From John Fund’s column:
Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because ‘he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'”
So, one of McCain’s folks came out and said (like you did), “Hey he was ‘moderately disposed’ toward Alito'” (McCain’s comment on Hannity and Colmes, 2005) There was no refutation, just a comment that McCain didn’t obkect to the conservative judge.
Now, McCain has come out to directly refute the charge. Of course he would. A new microphone is in front of him. I kid, I kid. But Andy McCarthy raises some good points and questions:
I hope Sen. McCain’s explanation to conservatives about his remarks on Justice Alito will include an explanation of (a) why he allowed the Gang of 14 deal to kill the nominations of several conservative judges, (b) why he and Sen. Graham blocked Pentagon General Counsel Jim Haynes from even getting a vote; and (c) how he came to believe the “advice” part of the Constitution’s “advice and consent” clause requires a president to consult with the Senate before nominating judges — an assertion made by members in the Gang of 14 in the announcement of their deal.
Just as significantly, I hope he is asked to explain — though no one seems too anxious to press him on this point — (e) whether he agrees that the conservative justices he claims he will appoint to the Supreme Court are virtually certain to invalidate the McCain/Kennedy [sic] campaign finance reform law (as Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts have voted to do), and (f), since liberal justices are much more likely to support McCain/Feingold (as Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer have consistently done), what he thinks is more important, campaign finance reform or conservative justices?
Would McCain support judges that clearly see the affront to the first amendment? Anyone going to ask Mr. Straight Talk that question?
#19- I don’t deny my opinions about Mormonism color my view of Romney. If he weren’t a Mormon, I’d probably vote for him.
However, I am objective enough to see that polling supports my position. Again, visit RealClearPolitics.com, where polls show that McCain runs about even with Hildebeast and B. Hussein Obama, but Romney trails them by double digits. Even conservative pollsters like Rasmussen bear this out.
Even though I like Huckabee, I think he is nearly as unelectable.
What bugs me about McCain is that he doesn’t seem to recognize that McCain-Feingold has caused a bigger mess than the one he set out to correct. Instead of candidates and parties setting the tone, outside groups like MoveOn, ACT, the SwiftVets and George Soros do.
JoeB,
I don’t give a fig about national polls at this stage. First, they deal with hypotheticals for an event almost a year from now. Opinion shifts too often to proclaim current polls as valuable predictors. As has been noted, a year ago, it was all about Rudy and Iraq was hopelessly lost and the economy had nothing but positive predictors, etc. Next, Romney doesn’t have nearly the national recognition that McCain has, but that would clearly change when the national political machine has it’s candidate. Finally, the media has always looked to cover the unbelievably negative feelings independents have toward Hillary. Hillary polls high negatives among Republicans and many independents. She’s already lost a heavy number of the voters she needs to win and the national cnapaign hasn’t even started yet.
Joe, Hillary doesn’t scare me one bit as a presidential contender. The media will face plant in the Clinton laps, but there’s only just so much lipstick they can put on that pig. Many folks know Hillary well enough to form an opinion and the media’s fawning won’t move as many negatives to positives.
Regarding the Mormon thing, it was nearly unthinkable for a Catholic to be seriously considered decades ago (with respect to Al Smith). As we’ve discussed, I’m not going to defend the article of faith in the Mormon religion. In many ways, they remind me of the early church’s gnostic factions. That said, this nation is more secular than it was when Kennedy was elected. This nation has seen a wholly immoral president hug a bible and lie through his teeth.
If the best whisper campaign the Dems can come up with is that Romney belongs to a goofy religion, they’re swinging in the dark. He’s married to the only wife he’s had, his family seems well adjusted, and he can swing back with the Constitution (no religious test). I’m not nearly as skeptical of religious voters, probably because I’m one of them. Bob Jones (the chancellor, not the president) came out and said Romney’s okay. Other evangelical and serious religious leaders have expressed acceptance of the modern politicians, despite their morally complicated lives.
Don’t let the media and their polls effect how you vote or decide at this stage who is a more viable candidate. They will always put story angles forth that further their agenda.
All that being said, Romney beats NOBODY. McCain can beat Hillary, especially if the homeys get pissed at her and decide they’d rather wait in line at KFC than their polling place.
However, if Yomama wins it, you will have huge black turnout, liberals falling over themselves to show how enlightened they are, and the media running out of superlatives as they announce The Second Coming. It’s already happening, so pray for Hillary…
McCain can beat Hillary, especially if the homeys get pissed at her and decide they’d rather wait in line at KFC than their polling place.
A three-month-old Pop Tart could beat the Hildebeast.
Good point, Obama is a much scarier opponent than Hillary. However, I wouldn’t downplay how formidable Hildebeast is.
JFK ran at a time when Catholics were something like 30% of the nation. Mormons are less than 3%. I don’t think that the Dems will have to start a whispering campaign. Remember, they have the MSM to do their dirty work. I just imagine Perky Katie or Brian Williams doing breathless reports on Mormons and what they believe in. They’ll bring in the obligatory Mormon spokesman to say nice stuff, then they’ll bring in critics for the nutty stuff.
On the issue of polls, I agree, lots of things can change, but even the uncertainty that a large section in the middle is against him or uninformed about Romney doesn’t bode well.
JoeB,
Have you been keeping track of the exit polls? Romney does well with self-described evangelicals.
If by “well”, you mean that only 60% vote against him as opposed to the 70% of the general republican vote, yeah, I guess so.
Today, Guiliani is going to drop out and endorse McCain. That, combined with a Florida win, probably pretty much seals the deal for him.