By now, most NBers are likely aware that Ann Coulter spoke to the Young America's Foundation Friday in a room down the hall from CPAC. Townhall.com has the entire speech on video here.
What folks might be less aware of is that Mark Steyn also spoke at CPAC Friday, and gave a speech that is absolutely must-see (video available here, h/t NBer motherbelt). I highly encourage all to view both.
That said, one of the fascinating issues raised by Coulter was that she would vote for McCain if he picked Romney as his running mate. Do the vehemently anti-McCain members here agree? Would this "heal" the Party, and bring enough Conservatives home to launch a real battle against Billary or Barack?
Would other conservative talkers get on board this ticket as well?












Comments Policy
Vote for Hope!
February 9, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Shooter1002To have any chance McCain must pick a conservative VP candidate.........
Hunter, Tancredo, Z. Miller, Gingrich, Romney..........
So, then, vote for hope! Then hope, hope hope!
71 YO, beat up bad in Nam, years of campaigning and a beautiful wife .......
Wm. H. Harrison ring a bell?
Romney seems to have the most momentum of missed opportunity
February 9, 2008 - 14:48 ET by right4usAnd though I think he would also make the most powerful counter to the assult from the Dems on McCain's "self professed even" economic short comings - and our economic outlook. That said, I think that in the end, McCain is so stubborn/opinionated/left leaning - much of Mitt's advice would probably fall on deaf ears, with McCain rather jumping accross the isle to hear the "progressive" solutions from Teddy K and gang. My skepticism, which has been born out by past actions, is justified in my opinion.
Regarding Ann, I enjoy her commentary. I don't always agree with eveything she says - but, she's made/earned her way to the mic, so she's entilted to make her remarks. Besides, you don't weed out the party platform defectors/issues by remaining silent to problems. And anyone saying we shouldn't air our laundry out in the public - to them I say the left (party of investigations) has much more/worse stuff to unveil. Not to mention, if you remain silent to conflicting/confused and trampled principles - you apparently accept same, as that is concluded. And you can bet the left/Dems will use that against you, again and again. Since the right has staked the claim to adhereing to principles, we are held to them. And unfortunately, the opposite is true for the Dems. Whom, by the way, have no room at all to complain about Ann when their side has many more, and worse vitriolic spewers - they even get their own shows on tv.
I don't really care about the V.P. pick
February 9, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Dee BunkIf he picks Romney it won't matter, they still won't win. If it were Romney with McCain as V.P. then maybe. Romney/Huckabee would have been the best chance. It would have proved to the bigoted left that religious people of different faiths can respect each other an get along.
The V.P. has no effect on Policy especially with someone like McCan. Cheny did with Bush but Bush wasn't the typical egomaniac that usually becomes President. McCain won't give his V.P. any power no matter who it is.
I'll still vote for McCain. I'm not going to be crazy about it but I'm not the least bit happy about it and there isn't anything that can be done to make me happy about it.
Let's clear this up about Romney....
February 9, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Missouri ConservativeI voted for Romney because he was the option in the FIELD. That doesn't mean he is the best conservative out there. Far from it. There are FAR better options for McCain, like Mark Sanford, Haley Barbour, or Marsha Blackburn. I would like to add Tom McClintock to that list, but he hasn't achieved any higher office than state senator, so he's probably disqualified.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Ann Should Take A Pill
February 9, 2008 - 12:35 ET by rammingspeedSometimes we're dealt a bad hand - or, at least, a hand we hate playing. Too bad. You never, ever, ever, going against your party. The rationalizations that McCain will bring the same legislation to the table that the Dems would, and that the Reps in the house and senate would be more inclined to go along with it because McCain has an R after his name does not fly.
People will hate bad laws, and will react against them by voting in new representatives during succeeding elections. There will be steps forward and steps back, but in a free society adjustments are made to the government over time, through the vote.
Shaping a country takes place over decades - generations - and you have to keep the big picture in mind.
A Democrat president would be infinitely worse than John McCain as president.
You never, ever, ever,
February 9, 2008 - 13:04 ET by motherbeltYou never, ever, ever, going against your party. [sic]
What is this, The Godfather? (Fredo don't ever take sides against the family.)?
You sound like a liberal: Shut up peasants and do what your betters tell you to do.
I oppose rino's like McCain
February 9, 2008 - 16:21 ET by TruthMongerI oppose rino's like McCain out of loyalty to the Republican party myself...
And I ALWAYS will:)
Motherbelt
February 10, 2008 - 01:07 ET by JudithYou don't go against them and win.
rammingspeed
February 9, 2008 - 13:27 ET by botgYou never, ever, ever, going against your party.
as cheesegrater reminds me below, wasn't it McC and the gang of 14 who went against the party? Wasn't it McC on ANWR who went against the party? McCain-Kennedy? McCain-Feingold?
Best to put the hit on McC there godfather
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Oh, nevermind.....Emily
February 9, 2008 - 14:52 ET by motherbeltOh, nevermind.....Emily Litella
Right, botg. That's one of those rules that, since McCain is poised to be the "party leader," comes into effect NOW.
Otherwise known as "Do as I say; not as I do!"
'comes into effect NOW.'
February 9, 2008 - 15:03 ET by FastEdAre you telling me that the feminazis are going . . oh, no dots, nevermind! ;0
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
rammingspeed... "You
February 9, 2008 - 20:05 ET by Clear thinkerrammingspeed...
"You never, ever, ever, going against your party."
You have got to be kidding me. It's because of blind loyalty to the party that we find ourselves in this mess. To hell with the GOP!
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
Coulter
February 9, 2008 - 12:46 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
I clicked on Ann's speech late yesterday, and now have had an opportunity to watch the entire thing.
Before she took questions, Ann spoke for about 22 minutes, and spent virtually the entire time explaining why McCain is not a Republican, is not a Conservative, and is a miserable GOP nominee for President.
As this speech occurred days after Romney withdrew, and McCain appears almost certain to win the nomination, was it appropriate of Coulter to spend her entire speech disparaging the presumptive GOP candidate? Might she have used her time better and more productively by elucidating the Conservative position and how we can not only win the White House in 2008, but also take back one or both chambers of Congress?
I understand fully bashing McCain and pushing Romney BEFORE the latter dropped out of the race. But why do it now that he's out? How does this serve Republicans and, in particular, Conservatives?
Thoughts? ns
I don't know if it serves
February 9, 2008 - 13:03 ET by RickTaLifeI don't know if it serves our party any, but it serves our beliefs just fine, and that's what this party's been about since it was started in the 1800s. Hell, in the 1800s, we were considered the "Radicals." Because we wanted an end to slavery, among other things. I think Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner would have said the same things Ann said (without the humor perhaps, but... :-P ) had they been at that YAF gathering. We need to stand up for our beliefs, and what's right (literally, and ideologically), regardless of the consequences. I don't want to see Hillary or Obama in the white house, in fact I have a terrible feeling about what would happen to this country if either makes it. But then again, I also fear for what would happen to the Republican party if McCain becomes its leader.
Ah, I'm rambling....more to the point, I don't think there's anything wrong with what she did. I'm not sure if it hurts us or helps us, but If she feels her beliefs are being treaded upon by the party that claims to support her, she needs to speak up. And we don't have to worry about Ann not speaking up, spunky gal she is. :-)
Peace
telling the truth always
February 9, 2008 - 16:26 ET by TruthMongertelling the truth always serves the party well
it's the only thing that will serve the party well
Ann tells the truth - God bless her:)
Yes, she could have used
February 9, 2008 - 13:35 ET by motherbeltYes, she could have used her time better. I was watching online, and I turned her off after about 10 minutes. She should have talked about where to go from here. As it was, it sounded more like a stand-up vent than a speech.
Ann is easier to read than to listen to. She's also better when she's in a discussion. When speaking, ist's like she has a list of topics to hit, and they don't always segue one into the other, so she just kind of pauses and then goes into the next item on the list. She doesn't seem to know what to do when a line doesn't fly....she kind of founders as she goes from one thing to the next (probably a result of that "list of topics" thing).
In short, I don't think she's good at speeches.
And re Steyn: Just because the Democrats are determined to play "catch-up to the Europeans" (with their socialism and multiculturism) is no reason for Republicans to play "catch-up to the Democrats."
'Nuff said.
TEN as in 10 minutes you turned her off???????
February 9, 2008 - 18:53 ET by SyriusMB,
Never thought you'd lie...Ann came on stage at 4:23 your last comment to me...
Syrius: "Tap tap tap, is
February 8, 2008 - 16:53 ET by motherbelt
Syrius says: "Tap tap tap, is this thing on?????"
30 minutes by the way...you watched the whole thing, but, tuned out b/c her speech was nothing but ranting & venting. I hope she does better when she's out on the Hillary campaign trail!
I will agree with you, though, her speech was flat and not very well done.
Syrius
delete double
February 9, 2008 - 20:41 ET by motherbeltdelete double
So the fact that I
February 9, 2008 - 21:01 ET by motherbeltSo the fact that I commented in the open thread at 16:53 means I was still listening to the webcast of CPAC? That's quite an assumption you're making there....
And why are you trying to keep tabs on me? Are you stalking me?
VP
February 9, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Shooter1002I think Ms. Coulter has made the case that McCain is NOT a Conservative. Her and the rest of us Conservatives' follow up step should be to make it clear to McCain that, at the least, he'd better pick a Conservative for VP or he's going to lose in November! He knows its his last shot at POTUS. Call it leverage, blackmail, extortion or whatever; its politics! The VP slot is the best Conservatives can hope for now and its something that McCain can't flipflop on i.e. immigration promises, taxes, etc.
Its the hand we've been dealt, our money is in the pot, can't quit now!
Coulter's objective
February 9, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Lame CherryAnn Coulter like Rush Limbaugh has an objective Mr. S as I explained in part below.
Rush in goading McCain to pick liberal Huckabee knows the ticket will go down to defeat and if McCain does not pick Huckabee now he will be a pariah among the southern Christians.
Coulter's motives are the same in explaining why McCain is a bad boy. In doing this at CPAC, she has now laid the groundwork for his liberal demise in McCain must now pick Romney which will do him no good as Conservatives are not that locked into him either and Romney will not win any states for McCain, so the end result is the RINO wing of the party goes down into flames.
Just as Rush said, he does not want to see the Conservatives in Congress have to go through defending another George W. Bush's liberal policies and being burned for it.
Ann Coulter is doing the same.
That is the game being played as 23% John McCain is not doing well. If Virginia blows McCain off he is really in trouble and will have to come begging to the Conservatives.
THAT IS what Coulter and Limbaugh are doing in whipping him into line in public the same way we Conservatives whipped W into line over Harriet Miers. Leaders need to be reminded by the whip who is really in charge and it is the people.
This is why I post and have in contacts floated the idea of Lynn Cheney as Vice President to heal the party if McCain is really serious about winning. Lynn would devastate the voting blocks of the left and is the Maggie Thatcher of our party if the GOP would turn her loose.
Ann Coulter is very bright and uses her influence and position with maximum affects and effect just like Rush Limbaugh does. They are not going to come out and demand they want something nor to say, "I'm going to screw with McCain to teach him a lesson", no they are clever in deniability to always keep their illusion of power in simply getting ahead of where Conservatives are going.
The fact is Obama will get America attacked so she will have to respond with a nuclear swing. Hillary will strike with nukes when attacked and McCain will first strike with nukes. The globalist twins of Gore and Bloomberg will start a war to concentrate power for the globalits.
That is what America faces. I do not want Romney near this as the Conservatives will be blamed. Huckabee is like Carter is wringing his hands of those poor Rosie O terrorists dying of being nuked. The only person who can whack John McCain over the head is Lynn Cheney to get him to selective action so America does not get sucked into this coming Eurasian world war.
It is far better for America to be energy secure under the Cheney plan Bush is initiating, with the Middle East nuclear polluted and American military stores falling into Russian hands than for several hundred thousand American soldiers vaporized which will draw Prez McCain into a full scale war.
Annie was right in Hillary will not loose a war being the first girly president.......the problem is she will vaporize huge portions of Asia and that radioactive dust cloud will be giving our kids cancer as it settles here.
I remember living under the Chinese dust cloud test warnings. There is more to Ann Coulter than the obvious. I just would like her to think of Lynn Cheney..........but then maybe that is why I'm floating her name so it comes not from Ann so the left and McCain can think it is their idea when they read it here.
God bless.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
How could one not like, respect Lynnn Cheney
February 9, 2008 - 14:44 ET by right4usBut, in reality - what qualifications/experience would she have to validate a position of V.P. (Pres actually, just in case of immediate replacement). The Dems would eat that alive - not to mention - 4 more yrs of a "Cheney" "Haliburton" "Bush Polices continuation" ect... and lose a big chunk of Independents? Doesn't seem very logical to me, anyway. As predictable, the MSM has already started pointing out the "economic guru" has been rejected for a senator - to not find a solid economic conservative and whiz, will be a big mistake, again to me anyway. It would be even more note worthy if this was a woman/minority figure, and could really help the ticket (as long as they are not another open border advocate, which will cause some backlash). As to the end result of Washington's actions anyway - I will withhold judgement out of experience of being burned repeatedly.
The 1 thing that might make me think about voting for McAmnesty
February 9, 2008 - 12:46 ET by kch50428Would be making Ann Coulter his VP. :)
I'm voting Republican
February 9, 2008 - 12:51 ET by DaBirdI'm voting Republican regardless. That is unless a viable third party candidate shows up. I'm far from a McCain fan, but the other options are very much worse than he.
Mitt's classy speech was
February 9, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Jack BauerMitt's classy speech was clearly (well, to me) a subtle pitch for V.P...
SHOULD McCain want him.
But it's doubtful that he is wanted. By all insider reports of those in the know, John simply will not brook being surrounded by anything but yes men.
I think Mitt's mature enough to bite the bullet that is McCain, but can anyone really see McCain doing that for the benefit of conservatives?
Lynn Cheney for Vice President
February 9, 2008 - 13:01 ET by Lame CherryNewsbusters is making a mistake in grouping people as "vehmently anti McCain" as I do not believe for a moment the majority here are anti McCain..........what they are is pro American Republic, pro Ronald Reagan and John McCain just happens to be an American who is the one who is anti Ronald Reagan Conservative.
There is a vast difference in being pro American and anti McCain, because the people here for the most part are not negative. They are passionate to the point of inspired criticism of John McCain, but it comes from a love of country.
To state people here are anti McCain is like saying people who have children are anti them driving drunk in putting their car into a tree. McCain's policy is drunk driving and people here are simply trying to save the American child from his bad policy.
I have stated a week ago that John McCain must put in a Conservative and I have been pushing for Lynn Cheney. She is accomplished in writing, debate, is vetted, is foreign policy sound with the American Enterprise Institute and touches the sodomite issues in her own family as well as having dealt with the Reaganite issues of dealing with America's domestic policy.
Lynn Cheney would rip a gaping hole in the left feminist party when Hillary does not win the nomination........and if she could convince the cartel to allow her yet..........well who do you think Americans will vote for, the bitch Hillary who mirrors all the hurt in American families or Lynn Cheney who appears like a national Mom next door.
Lynn is a win win for the GOP.
Rush has been floating Huckabee for the simple reason he wants that leftist McCain and RINO Huckabee factions to go down in flaming defeat to end their games in the GOP.
Coulter is pushing McCain to offer him a way to show Conservatives he is real and not this maniac everyone knows he is.
If he chooses Romney though, Coulter knows very well like Rush that he will loose as Huck's pulpit pounders will not vote just like when Bush 41 told the Evangelicals to shut up and go away.
You have to understand Ann Coulter and Rush. They are 10 steps ahead of this game and are screwing with McCain as he screws with them.
I have offered a way to win this and the person is Lynn Cheney. McCain picks her and the party heals as Conservatives trust Dick as he has proven himself for us time and again.
Hillary is kaput. Obama will be kaput as the intention of the cartel as I predicted last year was to fragment the parties which they have done. Obama may be allowed to "win" this as it enters the convention, but a dark horse in Al Gore is still waiting in the wings.
Just remember that Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating Obama and that Hillary has money fraud and sex tapes floating around.
The illusion one sees is not how this will shape up come August. The cartel has backed McCain, Obama to coup Hillary, Al Gore in the wings and Mike Bloomberg to make a quad of globalists in this election.
I will repeat they fully intend to elect a Hugo Chavez loon with 23% of the vote if necessary to carry out their policies.
They now have 4 Hugo's in the race. Exactly as planned in 4 dripping global socialists aka communists.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Nope, as a conservative from
February 9, 2008 - 17:54 ET by BDNope, as a conservative from Cochise County AZ, I AM anti McCain. He long ago ceased to respresent ME in the senate.
BD
February 9, 2008 - 17:58 ET by DelsaI read you loud and clear. In November go to the polls, skip the pres box and then vote the ticket
Delsa
February 10, 2008 - 01:18 ET by JudithYou guys should read a real clear politics article by Debra Saunders. She identifies all of you as "the kiddie wing of the gop". You want osama to destroy Iraq and this country, will that assuage all your one issue agendas? Then have at it, get your pound of flesh, and retire to oblivion and libs forever...if we have a country left.
Ann Coulter is right about
February 9, 2008 - 13:42 ET by TEAnn Coulter is right about almost everything, but she is horribly wrong about not voting for McCain even though McCain is a pretty worthless Republican (e.g., McCain-Feingold Political Speech Suppression Act, the "global warming" hoax, GITMO, economic policy, amnesty for illegals, pro-human experimentation, his love for the leftist Washington press corps, etc.). Also, Coulter's claim that Hillary Clinton is "more conservative" than McCain on the war on terror is a joke. Clinton would unconditionally surrender to America's enemies and then brag about such a surrender. The most important reason to vote for McCain is the federal judiciary. Although there is certainly no guarantee about the quality of judges that McCain would nominate, there is an absolute guarantee that Clinton would nominate only the most lawless leftist freaks to the federal judiciary who would, without fail, impose their fundamentalist leftist religious cult on the country, notwithstanding the United States Constitution.
To Rammingspeed
February 9, 2008 - 13:18 ET by cheesegraterSenator McCain went against the party long before Ann did.
First off I am not
February 9, 2008 - 13:19 ET by dscottFirst off I am not anti-McCain, I am anti-liberal. McCain as a Repub candidate is not even my fifth choice as he is a lib and a dishonest one at that. At least Rudy had the decency to be honest about his liberalism. So here we are being presented with a fait accompli after having our nomination process manipulated by liberals. The basic question at this point is McCain any kind of leader? Does he even understand the concept? No my friends it is NOT what we have to put up with to vote for McCain, is what McCain has in mind where to lead the country with us supporting him in it. If McCain doesn't under the nuance, he isn't a conservative and doesn't merit our support. Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Hysterically Speaking.....When Conservative voters stay home
February 9, 2008 - 13:42 ET by JayTeeHistory ........ as in RECENT ..... taught us that in 2006 if the Conservatives stay home, we put Reid and Pelosi in charge via their majority numbers. Some were very very close votes when the 2006 votes were counted.
We (Conservatives) don't wanna stay home on the Presidential day of voting. There are other Votes on Local representative going to Washington. Assuming McCain is a Liberal, we should send in a Republican conservative Congress and Senate to offset a Liberal president.
There are more people to elect than just a President.
If someone is shooting at you, you don't abandon the position and leave your ammo behind. You make a Strategic Retreat ...
Besides, in another 6 months B-HO and his Congressional company may have Ratings lower than BUSH.
We would have to consult the great Divinity Leon for his opinion on this, as Leonitsky is on a roll ... the MSM brainwashed him into predicting McCain would win the nomination.
Stimulis: Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist. Steve Chapman
Steyn
February 9, 2008 - 13:26 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
Steyn quoted a marvelous statement by Gerald Ford:
And then he said that there's an intermediate stage, which is where most of Europe is today:
What this means is that in Europe, even though the demographics and the economics point to a financial collapse as a result of their entitlement programs, governments aren't able to convince their citizens to give back what is soon to be unaffordable.
Wonderful! And THAT'S what this election should be about, for if America doesn't see what's happening in Europe as a foreshadowing of things to come here, capitalism will be replaced by socialism for decades to come!
And THAT'S what Billary and Barack want!!! ns
Europe (including the UK)
February 9, 2008 - 13:41 ET by Jack BauerEurope (including the UK) is now operating its own new MAD doctrine of Mutually Assured Dhimmitude.
The examples are legion, here's just three from last week.
#1. Britain's welfare state is now so bloated, that 6 million people (one tenth the population) are PERMANENTLY on welfare. They are not only unemployable.. they don't even want a job.
#2. The government has decided that although POLYGAMY is still a crime, Muslims with up to four wives can get full welfare "benefits" for each wife. This is NOT a SNL joke.
#3. The Archbishop of Canterbury twinned with Mecca... say no more.
Steyn
February 9, 2008 - 13:41 ET by Noel SheppardSteyn,
Another great point: Is it more selfish of me to want to keep my money by virtue of lower taxes, or someone wanting to get MY money by raising MY taxes?
The liberals claim the high-road in taxation by painting conservatives as selfish. But which is actually more selfish: wanting to keep what's yours or demanding that you receive what's not? ns
Noel, that quote, IIRC
February 9, 2008 - 14:15 ET by sarcasmoIsn't from Ford, it's from Barry Goldwater. And some of us, speaking of Goldwater's ideas and selfishness, happen to think an inflation-tax imposed on future generations might be a bit selfish.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Now that's thinking
February 9, 2008 - 14:05 ET by JayTeeSuch a view of Europe, shows us that when Europe surges ahead with Big Govt., Socialism, Govt. medicine, Guaranteed Jobs, Zero Population growth thru abortion, open immgration policies for Koran toting immigrants, and leaves behind the USA conservatives pushing down taxes and entitlements. We can learn lessons being taught by European policies. It's obvious to the most casual observer.... but no ones looking . . .
Europe is years ahead in implementing Liberal policies.
Let us be like Kindergarteners, and ask Europe to bring forth their results to "Show and Tell".
As Steyn says...
"A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give it all back."
When the money for the Entitlements in Europe runs out. . . What happens ? The Government suddenly makes lines form at the Doctors office and Hospitals, and people run around with Bad Teeth.
What happens when the Social Security entitlements run out in America ? The US Govt. isn't Big enough to overcome the votes of the Baby Boomers . . . they've got the Govt. out numbered.
Stimulis: Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist. Steve Chapman
Noel, In my opinion, Mark
February 9, 2008 - 14:32 ET by motherbeltNoel, In my opinion, Mark Steyn is the best thing to come out of Canada since Bobby Orr!
LOL
The VP spot
February 9, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Edward CropperA VP candidate has to be someone who has political clout and can be able to win certain states by their own persona.
Romney is the rational choice for VP. He now has the exposure he didn't have when the campaign started. He is without a doubt the smartest candidate in both parties, and he has a dedicated following that would work their butts off for him.
Some of the other candidates suggested are way off the chart.
Tancredo is one dimensional. Haley Barbour is a competent man no doubt but he would have to have someone to translate his mushmouth Mississippi accent.
Hunter is a good guy but no pep.
Newt would not take it and has heavy moral baggage
Pawlenty and others in that category are not known even in their own state.
Elmer Gantry Huckabee is a charlatan and snake oil salesman and would be an embarassment to the ticket except in the minds of his brainwashed followers.
VP
February 9, 2008 - 14:43 ET by ChaitealoverWhat's Mike Pence doing these days?
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
VP
February 10, 2008 - 01:23 ET by JudithHopefully Mike Pence is reading up on the Vice Presidency.
LOL
February 9, 2008 - 14:52 ET by right4usElmer Gantry Huckabee - LOL
re VP
February 9, 2008 - 14:57 ET by BarkerWhat's your take on George Allen?
As unfortunate, and ridiculous as it is
February 9, 2008 - 15:26 ET by right4usHis macca moment has been quite damaging. It will no doubt fill the air again. I can see the NY Times headlines "A stubborn old man and a bigot are going to be the ticket for the Republicans". As unfair as that is - that is an angle they would pound again and again. But, the only way to know is to test George's acceptance now vs past. He never really lost it from the conservatives - but he offended some crossovers/independents/minorities - that loss would have to be weighed against the conservative pickup. It would seem that given the state of our economy and its importance, he needs to shore up his admitted short coming in that department. But, he's a Maverick - who knows what he will do (which is one of the problems).
I still like Ann Coulter
February 9, 2008 - 14:33 ET by candanceNot only do people want us to vote for McCain reluctantly, now we're told we can't complain about him either.
I agree with Jason Lewis. For two weeks leading up to this, talk radio and conservative bloggers railed against McCain nonstop. Now that he has the nod, we're all supposed to say "I was just kidding." This party loyalty stuff is a trip.
Candance
February 9, 2008 - 14:41 ET by Noel SheppardC,
Is anyone telling you not to complain? Please show me where that's happening here?
I don't think it is, and apologize if that's how it's coming across. Instead, folks like me who believe this is indeed a fight for our lives -- and our kids' lives!!! -- want to know when the bickering stops, and the campaign to defeat Billary or Barack begins?
We're supposed to fight during the primaries, but once they end -- and, for all intents and purposes, they ended Wednesday when Mitt withdrew -- we get together and defeat the bigger enemy.
If folks are free to continue complaining -- as they certainly are -- shouldn't those of us that want to pull together for the sake of the nation be allowed to do so while advocating a cease-fire? ns
Don't forget Stalin.
February 9, 2008 - 14:46 ET by balboaDon't forget Stalin.
Yes Noel and I'm glad there are people like you out there
February 9, 2008 - 14:47 ET by Dee Bunkwho have the strength to do it. I'll never be able to sing his praises but we need people who can. I have and will continue to argue that he is better than Obama.
Dee
February 9, 2008 - 14:56 ET by Noel SheppardDee,
I have not yet begun to fight!
I will work 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the next nine months doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to defeat Billary or Barack.
As I've stated here several times the past couple of weeks, we are in a battle between capitalism and socialism, as well as between a strong national defense and appeasement. If we lose, the Dems will do everything within their power to bring us back to the '30s so that they can create more and more social programs that bind Americans to them and to government for decades to come.
I have a 19-year-old son, and a 14-year-old daughter that deserve to live in a country that extols life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- NOT socialism. If we don't win this fight, our kids are doomed to a standard of living WELL below what we've enjoyed the past three decades.
That's not what I've worked so hard to leave for them. ns
Noel - I just had the thought based on my comment to Candance
February 9, 2008 - 15:11 ET by Dee BunkThat we could possibly win with the slogan of "McCain Sucks but he's better than Obama"
If conservatives continue to speak out against him but say they will vote for him anyway then the media won't be able to switch gears and portray him as a right wing nut. You know they will do that if we get behind him. Then mind numb followers will switch to Obama as the so called media defined moderate.
We need to gain more than conservative votes if McCain is going to have a chance at winning.
Dee
February 9, 2008 - 15:19 ET by Noel SheppardDee,
Actually, I think there's a bigger danger in us continually saying he sucks, for that's what's going to be repeated by the media once his nomination is assured. This is why they've paid so much attention to what Rush, Sean, Ann, et al have been saying.
By contrast, if Rush, Sean, et al come home, and unite vigorously behind the battle to stop Billary/Barack, media will stop covering them, for they're only newsworthy when they speak the liberal meme.
Think about it: as much as true conservatives believe it is truly conservative to point out McCain's short-comings, in reality, it is likely more liberal for such opinings will indeed be covered MUCH MORE by the press than support for the Arizona senator. As such, the best way for conservatives NOT to play into the media's hands is actually to get behind McCain, and start saving all their vitriol and animus for Billary/Barack. ns
Noel - I'm not so sure because independents are breaking left
February 9, 2008 - 15:42 ET by Dee Bunknow. They have had 8 years of brainwashing. The media successfully portrayed Bush as a right wing nut even though he is pretty liberal. He's as liberal as McCain actually. The only difference is he doesn't run around trashing conservatives.
I didn't have a problem supporting Bush even though I didn't agree with all of his policies because he was an honest and professional man who didn't bad mouth people. He didn't hide his liberal positions when he campaigned. I actually agree with Bush and McCain on immigration but McCain calls his critics racist and I think that is despicable. Bush didn't do that. He is honorable and it makes me sick how the media have portrayed him.
McCain will be easier to portray as a nut because he actually is one. The media will ignore all his liberal positions and portray him as someone who wants to nuke the world.
If we can find a way to keep the media from portraying him as a right wing nut and yet still get conservatives to vote for him then we could have a chance. I agree that bad mouthing him can backfire.
I really don't know what to do the whole thing just seems so hopeless to me right now. After venting for a while, I'll probably just keep myself quiet, fade into the background and reluctantly vote for him.
A vote is a wonderful thing....don't waste it on B-HO
February 9, 2008 - 15:50 ET by JayTeeA non Vote, in 2006 was a VOTE for Pelosi/Reid to Lead Congress. . . . . Live and Learn.
A Vote is a Terrible thing to Waste.
Relax, calm down, listen to Rush and Ann, and prepare to vote in 9 months or SO. . . . Heck, by that time Obama will have pissed you off so much, it won't be a problem.
JT
February 9, 2008 - 16:43 ET by bigtimerRelax, calm down, listen to Rush and Ann, and prepare to vote in 9 months or SO. . . . Heck, by that time Obama will have pissed you off so much, it won't be a problem.
LMAO!
You are exactly right...earlier this morning I was talking to my other half about McCain and politics ect...I said one thing about it. the msm and the leftist candidates will have us so mad by the time the election comes around we will be voting in droves....if it was in a month or two, it wouldn't happen, but with nine months to go, there will be plenty of time to fire anyone with a brain up... this is also the way the republican behind the scenes big-wigs plan it too.
bIG tIMEr
February 9, 2008 - 16:50 ET by JayTeeI am not looking forward to 9 months of the MSM push for whoever the Dem. Nominee turns out to be.
NB's staff are going to be put on Overtime trying to keep up with the Lies and Sex Scandals (only if Billary wins).
Obama may be a rock Star, but Bill knows how to handle the Groupies, expecially since Bill has arranged to campaign in a State different than Hillary.
Hillay is Pimping out Bill ? ?
Dee
February 9, 2008 - 15:51 ET by Noel SheppardDee,
OK. Let's assume the media start depicting McCain as being a conservative. Won't that be great for us?
Look, the GOP turnout numbers so far appear unfavorable, right? Well, why is this? Is it just because the Republican candidates haven't evoked enthusiasm from the right? Or, is it more because the Party out of power is always more energized during the primary season?
Let's assume it's the latter. What this means to me is that Reps are waiting on the sidelines to see how the smoke clears before they start paying a lot of attention. If the media start depicting McCain as being far more conservative than Billary/Barack, that's wonderful!
In fact, I would suggest to you that they've boxed themselves in a bit. If they continue to characterize McCain as being moderate, this might take votes away from Billary/Barack. If, on the other hand, they start depicting him as extremely conservative, this could motivate conservatives to vote for him.
Either way, this could help him. Make sense? ns
Yes it makes sense Noel but it also follows that either way
February 9, 2008 - 16:23 ET by Dee Bunkcan hurt him. I wish I had your optimism and that is one of the reasons I come to Newsbusters because I'm very pessimistic being surrounded by liberals all the time. I watched my state go from Red to Blue and it's so blue now that it will never be red again. I fear that is what is happening nationally. When the libs get control, they actively pass anti-competitive type things to keep themselves in power. In IL it was the gerrymandering of districts and appointment of Judges. Nationally it will be McCain Feingold, Fairness doctrine, Supreme Court Judges and media obedience.
The media and Hollywood have been winning and I don't see us doing enough to stop it. Bush narrowly won in 2004 when it should have been a landslide. I can't see how McCain can win unless we outsmart the media and we haven't been doing that. We need to do more than complain about it. We need to rise up some how.
Dee
February 9, 2008 - 16:11 ET by shawn228Yes there is a bit of media bias, but you can't completely blame the media for the way they portray Bush.
It was Bush that bungled up the attorney firings. He could have said, yes they are gone because i wanted them gone and left it at that. Instead he had to say the firings were not political and there was a investigation. The former AG is gone, Deputy AG is gone and at least 2 more resignations.
He could have pardened Scooter Libby as soon as he was found guility of perjury, but no...he had to be a coward and waste tax payers money and wait until the appeals process was denied before he communed his sentence and obviously will parden him on his last day of office.
If I remember correctly all the feelings were very warm and fuzzy on this site regarding Bush until he p**sed off conservatives with the whole immigration debacle. His 29 percent approval rating is not just because of the msm Dee.
Nobody messes with Superman
Shawn - Bush could have been better at handling the media but
February 10, 2008 - 11:12 ET by Dee BunkShawn - Bush could have been better at handling the media but that doesn't make it his fault. The media put him in a no win situation with the Attorney firings. They didn't do that to Clinton. There wasn't an investigation under Clinton because Republicans knew it was within his rights. Democrats did it only because they knew they had the media as allies to make it look sinister.
As far as Scooter Libby, President Bush wanted Libby to be cleared (as he should have been) through the courts. He had faith that the court system would not convict an innocent man. He was wrong.
No one has any right to be mad at Bush on immigration. He campaigned in 2000 and 2004 on the guest worker program. It's fine to disagree with him, but he ran on it. The media were despicable and tried to portray his plan as a racist hardline plan when it was the moderate position. The media should have been all over the Dems who apposed it especially Hillary and Obama and they weren't. They apposed it for no other reason then they didn't want Bush to get credit for fixing it.
Bush didn't try to sneak anything through and I am one of the few (if not the only one) on NB that agreed with his plan. I think people made a big mistake apposing it because now nothing will happen. They will keep coming and working in the free for all that they have enjoyed for many years.
Dee, did you see the other
February 9, 2008 - 16:40 ET by motherbeltDee, did you see the other posting here; the one with the 4 "real people" on the "Today" show? One Republican woman actually said McCain needs to reach out to moderates now.
That was "duct tape time" for me!
MB - That is too funny - McCain needs to reach out to moderates?
February 10, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Dee BunkThe media charge has already started. He'll be branded as a right wing nut case.
→ Taiwan
February 9, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Cool ArrowWhere is that war of words over Taiwan?
Any chance the Asian Connection has already cut a deal with the Clintons for that little plum? The Obama camp is a foregone nonstudy in flaccidity.
While we're beating a hasty retreat from Iraq, what are the chances?
♣ a seal
Let me throw this in the blender
February 9, 2008 - 15:17 ET by FastEdof 'in the future' pick for VP - we've been so concerned with J McL's choice (wait 'til we hear he was tortured in Viet Nam), who might be the more moderate liberal choice for either of the other two?
Here in Joisey, we just had a photo op of OUR libs with the hillperson, and we have a gov who is borrowing mucho mucho bucks to pay off a mucho debt - financial wizards they ain't, so I sees your point what will be left to the wee ones, expecially if a (D) gets elected. We already know hillperson will "take those profits" from big oil/buisnes - how much will she take from us "common folk"??
Is it possible, as Rush as opined, that if the demolibs win, the rest of the country, those who don't normally focus on politics, will then understand what demolibs/socialists really stand for, or will they be lead around by their wallets?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Fast Ed - you can't rely on that
February 9, 2008 - 15:24 ET by Dee BunkEvery problem will be spun as because of something Bush did. They will get more middle class people addicted to government handouts and believing that they can't survive without the government. Once government handouts are given they are almost never taken away. People start believing that it's the governments responsibility to take care of them.
That is what has happened with the African American community. They don't believe in themselves. It's not because they are stupid, they are dependent and when large amounts of white people become dependent also they will have stopped believing in themselves also.
normally I would agree,
February 9, 2008 - 15:41 ET by FastEdbut here in the Great Rotten Garden State, the gov is going to borrow $36 Billion to pay down a $32 Billion debt! More to pay off less? There is a reason why people are leaving, even with the hand-out you mention, the taxes are hitting everyone, especially retail, where all the "poor" shop. Gotta wonder, how is it demolibs are so economically stupid??
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
FE
February 9, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Noel SheppardFE,
Sure, but I think it's dangerous, and very risky.
Let's understand that when Clinton came to power in 1993, the country was still moving to the right, and was in a smaller government mode. That was Perot's appeal. Also, though Clinton talked about how bad the economy was, in reality, the recession ended in 1991, and by the time he was inaugurated, we were in full recovery mode.
Add it all up, and at the time, we had a growing economy, and a nation moving to the right despite Clinton's Perot-assisted victory. As such, when Bill went against his campaign promise and actually raised taxes, while at the same time, Hillary pushed for a universal healthcare program, the nation revolted, and gave Congress back to the GOP for the first time in decades.
By comparison, today we have a nation clearly moving to the left because of the war, an economy teetering on recession, and baby boomers about to retire. This, to me, makes it more likely that the citizenry is ripe for government handouts as opposed to against them.
So, if we send Billary/Barack to the White House, and the economy worsens, I worry that the current environment would make people look more towards government to solve their problems. This is especially true if those problems can't be continually blamed -- rightly or wrongly -- on Bush's failures AND the war.
As such, I think it FAR less likely that ceding the White House to the Dems in 2008 will help the GOP in 2010 or 2012. Make sense? ns
Noel - I agree with what you say here 100%
February 9, 2008 - 15:47 ET by Dee BunkI would just add that Billy boy was far more conservative than Hillary and Obama (especially Obama). He did let conservative programs go through without vetoing like welfare reform, NAFTA, and the balanced budget.
I actually can't think of any major new entitlements under Clinton. With Hillary or Barak it will be quite different.
"Make sense?" - yes,
February 9, 2008 - 16:31 ET by FastEd(here it comes) but we have to take into effect what is happening with the old media, vs. new media and how news is being perceived. True, there is a vast majority(?) of people who only get concerned with politics at the last moment. However, with the rise of the new media, there is a larger amount of people getting more info then they did with the oldsters, (admitting there is the nutroots) so there is a chance that what has happend in the past . .
As the third largest state via population, Joisey is starting to see what hapens when handouts (mostly to political friends and govt workers and union teachers) get out of hand. Even the "lower" classes are seeing the bite, especially at the discount retail hangouts. When taxes go up on transportation, the additional costs are being passed along. AND, people take notice when a financial genius as our gov has been called, says he won't cut spending until "pigs fly", we gather at the state house and show him that pigs, especially in Trenton, NJ, do know how to fly.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Noel
February 9, 2008 - 16:01 ET by shawn228It seems before he got the nomination, whenever anyone on this site said anything good about McCain or touted his conservative credentials, that person usually got flamed and it turned into a spittling match.
Now that he almost officially has nomination, the flames are still continuing. I am still waiting to see the debates between the McCain and the Democratic nominee before I decide who I will vote for. My point is lots of people on this site feel, it is better to destroy the conservative party then rebuild it. I have heard at least 10 popular members of this site that said they will not vote for McCain under any circumstance. Even though I don't consider myself conservative that is very strange logic. Before you know it s there might be 2-3 liberal judges on the SCOTUS.
Nobody messes with Superman
Shawn
February 9, 2008 - 16:10 ET by Noel SheppardS,
Yep. Regardless of what your views of McCain are, if a conservative SCOTUS is important to you, you can't possibly put Billary or Barack in the position of nominating judges. Period!
Honestly, that folks aren't ceding this point astounds me, or do you want more Ginsburgs and Breyers? ns
ns -- we all know at least
February 9, 2008 - 16:21 ET by Jack Bauerns -- we all know at least three of the Supremes are only being kept "ticking over" by the most extreme methods, which expire the moment a Democrat gets in the White House.
Though if one were so conspiracy minded -- has the 75 year old Ginsburg actually been seen in public recently?
Noel
February 9, 2008 - 16:22 ET by shawn228Totally agree Noel, Some folks even go as far to say McCain will nominate judges just as liberal as Hilary. I have seen lots of people diss this anology, but the "taking your ball and going home" attitude is totally what is going on here. Not many people are looking at the bigger picture. Obama says he start withdrawing troops right away, when McCain says we will stay there as long as needed. Sounds like a pretty big difference to me.
I hope at the very least, the liberals that are rubbing there hands in glee and pre maturely celebrating a Presidential victory in November will motivate people to vote
Nobody messes with Superman
Shawn no one is taking their balls and going home
February 9, 2008 - 16:37 ET by DelsaShawn. We will all go to the polls and in 9 months we will either vote for McCain or we won't. We will however, vote for our fellow republicans on our respective ballots. Voting for McCain may or may not happen but all other votes will be cast.
Voting is a right I take personally so i will be at the polls. McCain will only win if he goes up against Hillary because Obama has the country fooled and Hillary doesn't
Delsa
February 9, 2008 - 16:49 ET by shawn228If a person truly thinks Hilary is a better choice and they vote her her, good for them. However if someone votes for Hilary out of protest or does not vote at all for the party of their choice, that is taking your ball and going home.
Nobody messes with Superman
Shawn Never fot for someone in protest
February 9, 2008 - 16:52 ET by DelsaNever vote for someone in protest. I could never support that back- ass- ward thinking!
delsa
February 9, 2008 - 16:55 ET by shawn228This is a free country and you are have the right protest anything you like. If you do not like how the Clinton adminstration is handling things next yr, you should not have the right to complain, because you are partially responsible for her in the White House.
Nobody messes with Superman
Shawn- she has not been even nominated yet
February 9, 2008 - 17:04 ET by DelsaShawn,
Hillary has not even been nominated by her party yet much less won a seat in the WhiteHouse.
She will not win if i have anything to say about it and if she should be the Dem nominee, she will loose to McCain by loosing democrat voters who CAN'T STAND THE BITCH!
Get it???
Pardon my French
Delsa
February 9, 2008 - 17:13 ET by shawn228I was just using that as a example. I am a Obama fan and not a big Hilary fan. I am surprised by your statement about Hilary not winning if she gets the nomination. Unlike GOP voters, Democrats are united and will back whoever the nominee is.
You can never tell what will happen in the election, anything can happen in 9 months. Whoever would have predicted McCain would be the probable GOP nominee?
Nobody messes with Superman
Shawn what i mean is
February 9, 2008 - 17:18 ET by DelsaWhat i mean is this Shawn.
Hillary is left, not as left as Obama but he sounds reasonable. That being said, Hillary is NOT liked by very many people in her own party and if it is a choice between Hillary and McCain, a great many democrats will vote for McCain.
Many democrat women i know will NEVER vote for Hillary and even more men will not. That is why i think McCain will beat her and have more difficulty agianst your guy.
Watch the Clintos if she has fewer delegates. They will slit throats to prevent the nomination going to Obama.
Delsa
February 11, 2008 - 01:49 ET by shawn228I believe Obama would be harder to beat than Clinton, I am just trying to say that Obama or Hillary can beat any GOP candidate in the General Election. Even if Edwards got the nod he would win.
We are sliding into a recession, most of the time the POTUS usually takes the heat for that, and it will be no different for Bush. Huh what? Bush isn't running??? Well make no mistake he defininitely is on this ballad. From the irresponsible fiscal spending, to the attorney firings, his immigration debacle etc will all be focus points and the Republicans will pay the price just like 06.
Since McCain has the support of many independents moderates, if he can rally the Republican faithful, he might have a small shot.
Nobody messes with Superman
Shawn The media predicted McCain
February 9, 2008 - 17:37 ET by DelsaThe state contests first played out were in Northern liberal states where EVERYONE and ANYONE could vote in Republican events.
The party leaders made sure liberal states went first and the media made sure to slime Romney and there you go. McCain wins. Who knows? maybe he'll fall under his streight talk express. just say'in
Noel...another
February 9, 2008 - 19:35 ET by JerNoel...another pro-business, liberal/moderate like Breyer would be nice. Ginsburg [Orrin Hatch's choice] is maybe a little too far left for my tastes. In any event, there is a 99% per cent probablity the 87 yr. old, liberal Stevens will be gone regardless of who becomes president. Consequently, the court is likely to continue to be controlled by conservatives.
BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the MSM, if it truly wants a Democrat to be president, championed McCain as the Republican nominee, when national polls have consistently shown that he is the only potential GOP candidate capable of beating Hillary.
Jer
Jer
February 9, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
I'm heading out to dinner. Can I get back to you on that? ns
Noel...Absolutely.
February 9, 2008 - 22:05 ET by JerNoel...Absolutely. Enjoy.
Jer
Jer