Friday’s edition of Today on NBC had several conservative-denigrating moments over the ideological direction of presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. Matt Lauer interviewed columnist Ann Coulter. He threw a spitball about conservatives being babies: "Critics of conservative voices right now are saying for the first time in a very long time, the conservatives have lost. They haven't been able to choose their nominee and it's the political version now of a 3-year-old saying, ‘if you can't play the game the way I want to play, I'm taking my football and I'm going home.’ How do you respond to that?"
Tim Russert acknowledged in his pundit’s corner that conservatives must be assuaged, but that if McCain gives an inch to his right, "the Straight Talk Express will be derailed." For liberal media types, since 2000, Straight Talk was a way to equate talking liberal with talking "straight," that liberalism has all the straight answers. Here’s a fuller bite of Russert:
John McCain is going to have to sit down with these groups the way he did yesterday with the CPAC Convention, reach out to people across the country. The difficulty is if they start demanding compromises on his positions on torture or on campaign finance and he is seen as caving in or weakening, the Straight Talk Express will be derailed and he'll lose his ability to reach across and pull in independents. So it's a very dicey tight rope for John McCain to be walking.
McCain clearly has a tightrope to walk, but it’s a little biased to imply that being conservative would put McCain on the Dishonest Talk Express. Here’s some of Matt Lauer pressing Ann Coulter on conservative brattiness, stealing a bit from Peter Jennings comparing the 1994 Republican takeover as a two-year-old temper tantrum:
LAUER: Critics of conservative voices right now are saying for the first time in a very long time, the conservatives have lost. They haven't been able to choose their nominee and it's the political version now of a 3-year-old saying, "if you can't play the game the way I want to play, I'm taking my football and I'm going home." How do you respond to that?
COULTER: Well, I think I did just answer that. It isn't that. It's that I will always vote for the most conservative candidate, I don't care if there is an "R" after his name. If Teddy Kennedy runs as a Republican, I'm not voting for Teddy Kennedy. As for conservatives losing, I think if we'd been given a little more time. The one thing I think it really shows is the overwhelming power of the mainstream media. Because you talk to these Republicans who voted for McCain, they don't know anything about his record other than he was a POW.
LAUER: Let me just read you one thing Governor Romney said yesterday. He said in talking about continuing his campaign or not, if he continued, quote, "it would make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win and in this time of war I simply cannot let my campaign be part of aiding a surrender to terror." So, if you this support Hillary Clinton as opposed to John McCain would you not be aiding a surrender to terror according to the man you supported?
COULTER: I think he should say that since he hopefully will be running in 2012. One way I'd vote for McCain is if he picked Mitt Romney as his vice president.
At the start of the interview, Lauer laid the attitude on this with "Come on!" Wouldn’t it be nice if NBC tried that during one of their typically fawning Jimmy Carter interviews? ("Israel has apartheid? Come on!") It began like this:
MATT LAUER: Among those angry conservatives is Ann Coulter, the author of "If Democrats Had any Brains They'd Be Republicans." And believe it or not she says she'd rather have Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. Ann, good morning. Welcome back.
ANN COULTER: I prefer to think of myself as principled conservative.
LAUER: Not angry? Well, come on! You got John McCain as the presumptive nominee of your party right now. Are you going to calm down and get in line as he suggests? Or are you going to move to Bolivia?
COULTER: Well, I'll vote for the most conservative candidate. It's just not clear that's John McCain.
LAUER: Come on. Isn't it very clear that John McCain is more conservative than Hillary Clinton?
COULTER: I don't think it is. I think there isn't much difference between the two of them. And I'd rather have Republicans in Congress fighting a liberal president than saying, "oh, he's our president. Let's go along with that." And I'd rather not get blamed for it and live under 30 years of Democratic rule.
The "come on" isn't too unreasonable when Coulter suggests McCain and Hillary Clinton might be equally conservative. But the first usage came along with an insistence that she "calm down" and suggests that the reasonable person will just fall in line, and not "move to Bolivia." I don't believe Coulter threatened to move south of the border. Equating Hillary with McCain sounds uncalm, but a conservative should be able to state that McCain fails many a conservative litmus test. The most egregious one is the way he has sought out the liberal media as more of an organizing base in the last decade than he has sought out the conservative movement.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center















Comments Policy
LAUER: Critics of
February 8, 2008 - 17:53 ET by ironchefofmunchiesLAUER: Critics of conservative voices right now are saying for the first time in a very long time, the conservatives have lost. They haven't been able to choose their nominee and it's the political version now of a 3-year-old saying, "if you can't play the game the way I want to play, I'm taking my football and I'm going home." How do you respond to that?
ME: I'd say you just described the Democratic Party's reaction to Fox News perfectly. Didn't they take their football (debate) and go home not more than a few months ago?
I'm surprised Ann didn't come up with that response herself.
Exactly correct
February 8, 2008 - 18:13 ET by kgExactly correct.
Many a Democrat also threatened to move out of the U.S. when Bush was elected not to mention pouting when the votes don't go their way.
Lets not forget that voter fraud is brought up only when Republicans win. It's funny that almost all voter fraud cases are Democrats.
Start packing
February 8, 2008 - 20:43 ET by VonuMany a Democrat also threatened to move out of the U.S. when Bush was elected
If Clinton is elected the borders will be closed, no one will be allowed to leave, only entrance to the USA will be granted.
Freedom is a vital component of human effectiveness and fulfillment.
Many a Democrat also
February 8, 2008 - 21:28 ET by GregEMany a Democrat also threatened to move out of the U.S. when Bush was
elected not to mention pouting when the votes don't go their way.
Yep and it was all talk. Gee I'm shocked.
Critics .......are
February 8, 2008 - 18:40 ET by motherbeltCritics .......are saying...
Yeah, Matt, that's right up there with "Some say..." and "There are those who say..."
What critics, Matt? Let's have some names, please (if they do indeed exist). At least then she might be able to respond to something specific.
Come on motherbelt, you
February 8, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Chris NormanCome on motherbelt, you know, Critics...
Calling Ann Coulter a
February 9, 2008 - 03:49 ET by M J BCalling Ann Coulter a three year old is a being nice; a compliment.
Coulter blew it
February 8, 2008 - 17:56 ET by Lame CherryCoulter should have said, NO WE ARE NOT LIKE 3 YEAR OLDS
and then stood up and kicked Lauer in the nuts.
and then said, OH YEAH I GUESS WE ARE. RIGHT AGAIN LAUER.
and walked off stating, MAYBE I'M JUST A STRONG WOMAN WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE INSULTED BY A PANSY LIKE YOU.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I am in complete agreement
February 8, 2008 - 18:23 ET by Ruths husband BenI am in complete agreement with you.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. - Ben Franklin
Ann losing her edge a little bit
February 8, 2008 - 22:16 ET by Kuso JijiShe could have responded with "all things being relative Corky, if conservatives are acting like 3 year olds, Liberals are acting like a bunch of retards"...then kicked him in the nuts.
Calm down
February 8, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Jerry MackSo Matt is parroting and defending John McCain. I give him about 2 weeks before he starts his parade of liberals to point out anything negative about him that they can come up with. Real or imagined.
Oh yea just wait. All these
February 8, 2008 - 21:30 ET by GregEOh yea just wait. All these liberal boobs that have been bowing to McCain for years will, once the Democrat nominee is in place, begin to rip him for every word he utters. And of course the good liberals that they are, they'll deny it, same as they denied their votes and opinions on Iraq in late 2002/early 2003.
Here's a pipe dream (w/apoligies to Native Americans)
February 8, 2008 - 18:03 ET by FastEdMcLame gets elected, media whines, demolibs whine, conservatives groan - THEN, JM tells the media, and his friends on the left,
Gottcha! We're gone build unity, we gonna come together - first, build a fence at the southern border, tell Iran to stop the (stuff). Thenn we're gonna have money stay with the people who make it, like reduce taxes, keep the family money with the family when the owner dies, . . .
Then I wakes up, the smile fades, the comes back - he ain't hillary or obama, the goes away, he's McLame.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Oh, yes, the old "critics
February 8, 2008 - 18:05 ET by fitzfongOh, yes, the old "critics say" gambit. "Plugs" Lauer must have learned that when he was chasing coffee and scheduling pedicures for Katie "Network Show Horse" Couric.
I'm sick of the "taking my
February 8, 2008 - 18:07 ET by mattmI'm sick of the "taking my ball and going home" analogy. It's just like Kristol's "tantrum" column.
Isn't politics the citizen's way of trying to get what they want? Isn't a primary the voters of a particular party trying to get the candidate they want - without having their candidate picked by the media, the insider establishment or unscrupulous members of the other Party?
Isn't it our right, as a citizen, to cast a protest vote, and thereby send a message to the political elites that we disapprove of them?
I have more respect for someone who votes for Obama because they believe in his socialism, than I do for someone who would vote for McCain just because he has an (R) next to his name.
Obviously, smug bastards like Lauer think we're all One Year Olds waiting to be spoonfed the Liberal pap they dish out every day.
And, of course, Kristol had
February 8, 2008 - 18:15 ET by fitzfongAnd, of course, Kristol had to steal that 13-year-old comparison from the embittered newsdesk jockey Peter Jennings. And this is how the McCain Campaign and the Weekly Standard types think they're going to consolidate conservative support before the general election. Looks like they've got their work cut out for them.
I'm with you, matt....and
February 8, 2008 - 23:30 ET by motherbeltI'm with you, matt....and btw, what the hay does Matt Lauer, or any other liberal care if conservatives support McCain or not????
They want him to lose....you'd think they'd be glad some don't support him.
Of course it's just a matter of complaining about conservatives...whatever they do. If they were supporting him, he'd be interviewing them and berating them for "selling out their principles."
MATT LAUER???
February 8, 2008 - 18:31 ET by Edguardo"YAWN"
I stopped watching him years ago...
Good for you. Unfortunately,
February 8, 2008 - 19:09 ET by Chris NormanGood for you. Unfortunately, millions haven't.
Co-host Matt Lauer: "Pain
February 8, 2008 - 19:10 ET by rbosqueCo-host Matt Lauer: "Pain at the pump. Gas
prices are going sky high. I paid $2.94 a gallon over the weekend to fill up
the car."
Co-host Katie Couric: "It’s ridiculous. I had to take out a loan to
fill up my minivan. It’s crazy."
— Exchange at the top of NBC’s Today, August 15, 2005. Couric makes about
$15,000,000 a year. Lauer, just as much.
Someone break out a very small violin!
JOHN McCAIN JUST CALLED ME AT 4:50pm FOR MY VOTE
February 8, 2008 - 19:24 ET by reelman46JOHN McCAIN CALLED ME AT 4:50PM FOR MY VOTE
Was it a Twilight Zone episode? I jumped up from my Lazy Boy and grabbed the phone here in east central Louisiana. The voice of John McCain went thru a litany of issues… he made “I wills” as if he was a strong principled conservative. Now I am torn because this man actually opposed with vigor (and shame to me) 80% of the issues he just said he supports.
Does one believe a lying dog who for at least the past 7 years has done everything he could to advance the liberal agenda… to block key advancements in the conservative agenda… to partner up with the likes of Kennedy to advance secular socialism. To push open borders, high taxes and lifetime liberal nutcase judges but now wants to pretend all this did not happen. Somehow we should forgive him… we should do “for the good of the Party” what he never ever cared a wit about “the good of the Party”.
How much nerve does it take to now say you have changed 80% of your principles? Do you know of any congressman who ever changed 80% of his stands on major issues in a year? What does this say about his view of us? About his “principles”? About his trustworthyness? Unless he adds a strong proven conservative as his VP… no dice you lying backstabber. I would not vote for you tomorrow because you are a sneaky lying snake who will advance secular socialism. I know your voting record. You make me sick.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Ohhhh reelman that would
February 8, 2008 - 19:34 ET by bigtimerOhhhh reelman that would irk me something awful if that was a robo-call...you can't say a word back...I too have received those here in Mt. it is infuriating.
Btw...if you didn't know it already with my rambling postings I agree with your sentiments regarding McCain and voting completely.
Well, gee, don't you
February 8, 2008 - 21:17 ET by motherbeltWell, gee, don't you understand? He said he "got the message."
(I don't know about his other positions, but on the border thing, before he decided to run for President and cleaned up his act for the campaign, I believe his exact words were "I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the g-d fence if they want it!"
But now he's gotten the message...he'll build it without the profanity.
And apparently, he's gotten the message on other things too......He knows what he needs to say now.
Matt Lauer
February 8, 2008 - 19:59 ET by PrairieSkyI know I'm going to catch he** for this, but I think there is an element of truth to what Lauer said. There has been an air of petulance to all the gnashing of teeth about John McCain's apparently inevitable nomination. I am a conservative, and am not thrilled about McCain's ending up as the nominee, but I think there has been a complete overreation concerning this whole situation. Like it or not, we as conservatives dropped the ball somehwere along the way by not strongly enough and early enough supporting a more viable conservative candidate, which is why we find ourselves in the spot we're in today. Like it or not, McCain appears to be the man, and it is now a clear choice: McCain or the Democrat nominee. Not voting should not be an option. The result of that will be equivalent to voting for the Democrat nominee.
PS...You have posted
February 8, 2008 - 20:02 ET by bigtimerPS...
You have posted these sentiments a lot now, which is fine...
My point is I think so far by what I have read, the majority of all of us are still going to vote....it may just not be for McCain, but we are still going to vote...the House and Senate are too important not to.
BigTimer...posted
February 8, 2008 - 21:03 ET by PrairieSkyI have expressed my sentiments here many times, just as many others who disagree with me have expressed theirs many times...including you. I will continue to state what I feel is the more clear thinking perspective as long as others express their dissenting views. As for possibly not voting for McCain, not voting at all, or voting for the Democrat nominee, fine. That's your right. You reap what you sow.
Why thank you PS....I am
February 8, 2008 - 21:06 ET by bigtimerWhy thank you PS....I am glad I receive your approval to do as I like.
BigTimer
February 8, 2008 - 21:09 ET by PrairieSkyAren't we cranky today?? No approval was being given. Lighten up!! It's Friday!!
PS.... ROFLMAO! You
February 8, 2008 - 21:11 ET by bigtimerPS....
ROFLMAO!
You think I'm cranky....
I am happy as can be...you ought to see me when I'm cranky...lol!
BT
February 8, 2008 - 21:15 ET by PrairieSkyGlad to give you a chuckle...have a good weekend!!!
PS... ...and you do the
February 8, 2008 - 21:18 ET by bigtimerPS...
...and you do the same!
BT
February 8, 2008 - 21:20 ET by PrairieSkyThanks!!!
You're more than welcome.
February 8, 2008 - 21:41 ET by bigtimerYou're more than welcome.
PS, I don't think it's
February 8, 2008 - 22:15 ET by fitzfongPS,
I don't think it's petulance at all. In retrospect, I think this result was highly orchestrated. For months, all the media coverage was dedicated to Romney, Giuliani and Fred Thompson. But the media coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Meanwhile, McCain and Huckabee were hiding out in the tall grass, generating virtually no media coverage (and, in this case, no publicity was better than bad publicity). As the campaign approached Iowa, all of the focus shifted to Huckabee vs. Romney. Huckabee fired the first shot by cheaply arousing prejudicial suspicion on Romney's religion. No one talked about Thompson anymore because the press had succeeded in its "lazy candidate" hatchet job. No one talked about Rudy because he inexplicably laid out until Florida. So Romney was left to take all the hits. Then McCain managed to steal New Hampshire and South Carolina using the "open" primary set up to drag Independents and Democrats over to boost his numbers. By then, his toadies at the Weekly Standard and New York Times were picking fights with talk radio, Huckabee was pandering to single-issue "conservatives" to weaken Thompson and Romney, and McCain was getting a hell of a lot of flattering free airtime with Russert and his ilk (in-kind donations that his partnership with Russ Feingold conveniently failed to address). Then McCain colluded with Huckabee to take out Romney in West Virginia and the inevitable snowball caught its downhill momentum...eliminating Romney in the process. Now, after McCain, Huckabee and his media pals pulled off the heist of the decade, McCain's followers expect those of us who didn't even have a chance to vote in the primaries until it was too late to simply accept this non-violent coup as if it was based on the will of the people...and to rally behind his candidacy as if we mean it. Well, PS, Trent Lott famously referred to his job in the Senate as "Herding Cats"...getting divergent personalities to sacrifice some of their principles for the greater good. This is a classic legislator's tactic. Problem for McCain is that he and his apologists look at us as if we should be easy to herd...as if we were cattle or sheep. If he looked at us like cats, he would realize that like cats, we don't easily trust people (especially people who have done wrong by us before), we're independent thinkers, we don't take orders and we don't follow anyone unless we're given good reason to. McCain has a few months to figure that out.
fitzfong...petulance
February 8, 2008 - 22:49 ET by PrairieSkyI keep hearing this.."McCain and Huckabee colluded to take out Romney..." I am not saying that it didn't happen, but that does wax a bit 'conspiracy theorist' to me. Where is your proof? Convince me...
Oh, yes...the proverbial
February 9, 2008 - 04:42 ET by fitzfongOh, yes...the proverbial cherry on top. You've got nothing so you trot out the tried and true "conspiracy theory" cliche. Go ahead and believe what you want to believe. If you are delusional enough to suggest that McCain and Huckabee were above board, that we dissenters are just "petulant" spoiled sports who will "grow up" and fall into line behind McCain because we have no choice, prepare to be very disappointed in November. You obviously think too much of yourselves.
fitz...
February 9, 2008 - 16:47 ET by PrairieSkyI've got nothing...you're the one who is floating the idea that there was collusion between McCain and Huckabee. As I previously said, I am not saying that it did or didn't happen. I don't know. I asked you for your proof. If you are so sure that this went down, you should be able to provide some kind of info to back it up. Otherwise, this is a waste of time. And as you said, "believe what you want to believe".
Yes, you've got
February 9, 2008 - 17:08 ET by fitzfongYes, you've got nothing...
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/05/paul-eliminated-wva-gop-convention-voting-ends-without-winner/
fitz...
February 9, 2008 - 18:00 ET by PrairieSkyI know about the delegates switching to support Huckabee in the second round in WV. That was hardball strategic maneuvering on McCain's part-no doubt about it. It is not necessarily proof of collusion between McCain and Huckabee. With Romney out, it helped McCain enormously. The fact that it also helped Huckabee is not proof that there was something going on "behind the scenes". While it can be seen as suggestive, it is not proof. Politics is a contact sport-like it or not, if this is what happened, this kind of thing goes on all the time. It doesn't make it right-I don't like it, and I certainly don't defend it. The bottom line...there is, unfortunately, no way to know for sure what happened. Even without what may or may not have happened in WV, Romney did not have a good night on Tuesday night in other states as well. It was a surprise to me. I had expected him to do much better than he did. I am no fan of Huckabee (never have been), and was fairly surprised that he did as well as he did around the country Tuesday. I think that surprised many others, too.
Proof smoof...you had to be
February 9, 2008 - 18:09 ET by bigtimerProof smoof...you had to be wantonly blind to not be able to see the two of them working in tandem, especially if you watched the debates....in one of those debates I'm not so sure Thompson wasn't included...much to my chagrin.
Btw...Huck has won in Kansas big-time...I don't think Ol' Brownback helped McCain much out here...lol.
'Twoud be hysterical if he came close to McCain in the end with the delegate count...I would laugh my a$$ off.
BT...Proof...
February 9, 2008 - 18:21 ET by PrairieSkyIt is interesting...I do think that Huckabee knows the score, that he'll likely never catch McCain in the delegate count, and is doing everything he can to cozy up to him in hopes of getting VP (Lord help us). I had high hopes for Thompson...very disappointing how that turned out. As for Brownback-you're right on-that endorsement did absolutely squat for McCain, didn't it?? Who knows what will happen next. If anything true can be said about this election cycle (Democrat or Republican), it is that nothing has gone the way that I think anyone would have predicted just a couple of months ago.
PS, McCain has to learn
February 9, 2008 - 18:38 ET by fitzfongPS,
McCain has to learn to be patient. As a legislator, that hasn't been one of his strong suits. At the end of the day, McCain has 9 months to prove to us that he'll be adequately Conservative. His current attitude seems to be "they may not like it, and I'm not going to change, but they'll soon have to come to their senses and see me as the Conservative". He's banking on the notion that our collective distaste for Clinton will eventually win out...but I think that's a very risky position to take. First of all, Obama could be their nominee...Secondly, he has some work to do if he thinks his overall record makes him distinctly different from the others. He better find a good Conservative running mate.
fitz...McCain has to learn...
February 9, 2008 - 18:56 ET by PrairieSkyDitto...If he doesn't manage to find a real conservative running mate, he is toast. The base, already extremely unhappy, will very likely never turn out to support him. This year, the running mate will be incredibly important, which usually isn't the case. McCain has a LOT of work to do between now and the election.
See? We agree. :-)
February 10, 2008 - 00:43 ET by fitzfongSee? We agree. :-)
Fair enough, PS. But I
February 9, 2008 - 18:29 ET by fitzfongFair enough, PS. But I believe it's a bit rich and a bit early for the McCain campaign to expect the conservatives within the party to be enthusiastic about his imminent nomination. He exploited the process by recruiting Democrats and Independents to oppose Conservatives in the early open Republican Primaries. He got a leg up through pretty shady methods...all the while maintaining that he is a Conservative when his record proves otherwise. By the time Super Tuesday came around, McCain was inevitable due in large part to dubious tactics. The nomination had been secured before many of us had a say in the matter...and the continued presence of Huckabee (if Huckabee's role wasn't to take out Romney for McCain, why did Huckabee save all his attacks for Romney and none for McCain?) only cleared the path for McCain. In my view, McCain has managed to pull the rug out from underneath us...now he demands that we accept him as a Conservative without him having to make any changes. That's not "coming together"...that's bullying.
fitz...
February 9, 2008 - 18:37 ET by bigtimerThat's not "coming together"...that's bullying.
That is putting it rather nicely to-boot.
I mentioned the herding
February 9, 2008 - 18:45 ET by fitzfongI mentioned the herding analogy in an earlier post. McCain seems to think that he can just get the Border Collie (unfortunate breed given McCain's record) out and round dissenting conservatives up like sheep. I've even heard the "bunch of 6-year-olds" cliche trotted out...as if McCain's supporters are simply going to shame everyone into supporting him. Instead of dwelling on what's wrong with us, he ought to do a better job of showing us what's right with him.
fitz...herding...
February 9, 2008 - 19:07 ET by PrairieSkyExactly...that is exactly what he has to do between now and November. He has to convince many Repubs and conservatives (especially), that he's worth turning out to vote for, versus staying home. Although, I still personally feel that he would be better, warts and all, than either of the Dems.
fitz...fair enough...
February 9, 2008 - 18:50 ET by PrairieSkyIn general, I agree...McCain is rather presumptuous, and doesn't always work and play well with others. That is one of the reasons I have not been a big fan of his. I do not believe that he is a true consevative, or ever really has been. As for Huckabee and McCain, there could have been something going on, or not. Who knows? Either way, Huckabee did benefit from Romney being out. It could have been just to help McCain, and/or to help Huckabee's chances for VP.
Republicans
February 29, 2008 - 00:56 ET by DarlaYou won't be catching he** with me.There are certain people on these blogs that almost seem to be threatening anyone that is voting for McCain. As IF we are not allowed to speak or think for ourselves.Some people choose to stay silent instead of being drug threw the dirt from hard core DEM's and hard core REP's. The hard core is what will rag at you and possibly shot you only in the back and hang you on the court house steps. I have yet to see any PERFECT candidate out of all 3 that still has a chance.AS a matter of fact,before ALL of the garbage came out I didn't know there was such a thing as the PERFECT candidate. I would have liked to have had more info on John Edwards but since he Seemed so normal, I guess that had to be a bad thing as well.WHO the heck we will get in 4 years from now,I can only imagine.Just so I'm not misleading anyone I am voting for McCain.Now I am only 1 person,with 1 voice and 1 vote.I suspect that for all the hard core people out there that wants to harm me because of it,you will have a much tougher way to go when trying to decrease the population and do away with all of the people that are chosing to go with McCain. Anybody that knows anything KNOWS that all politicians mess up at some point in their lives or WILL as that is a part of growing up and sometimes learning the hard way.Prairie skys, I already know who is after your behind,they do this to me as well.WE all think we are so darned important and holier than thou that we can't see straight.(lol) TOO MANY people counted on Romney or Huckabee to be our lord and saviour and haven't taken the time to look at who is the least evil of the 3 that are still running.I live in a county that almost always eveyone votes Democrat but not me,not this time and maybe never again. They are having their own fun picking each other apart between Clinton and Obama.At the very least we should hang with our chosen party,instead of acting like a baby or a brat. I do think that the Dems will take it this year but I don't have to get down and kiss their bu** IF they do get in.I AM STILL VOTING FOR McCAIN.
Russert Believes
February 8, 2008 - 20:10 ET by exLibKeep in mind Tim Russert believes that Regan was only elected because he was such a likeable guy. That in reality people really preferred Jimmy Carter's policies.
In fact, Tim Russert stated after Bush won in 2004 how Republicans run and win on personality while Democrats always have the best policy positions but tend to run unlikable canidates.
That's why the Media talks non-stop about how much everybody "likes" Obama because they "figured" out that is how to con people into voting for him.
It also amazes me how angry, rude and demented the left is. They go around with bumper stickers announcing the date of Bush's departure yet the media rarely portrays Democrat wins as a result of angry liberals. Ever try arguing politics with a liberal? What is the first thing that happens when you start using logic to refute their positions - They got steaming mad!
Russert...
February 8, 2008 - 21:31 ET by PrairieSkyI agree! Russert's contention that people vote for Repubs only because of their winning personalities is total bunk! I guess he has forgotten about Richard Nixon...what a warm and fuzzy guy he was, huh??? This is more typical lefty crap...Repubs are all dim bulb buffoons, and the Dems are all brilliant.
exLib...
February 8, 2008 - 21:39 ET by JerIn fact, Tim Russert stated after Bush won in 2004 how Republicans run and win on personality while Democrats always have the best policy positions but tend to run unlikable candidates.
Sorry for being skeptical, but is there any possibility you could provide a link to Russert's statement?
Jer
Sorry Jer
February 8, 2008 - 22:32 ET by exLibI wish I had taped it, but alas I didn't.
I saw it and heard it.
He said specifically that people preferred Carter's policies to Reagan's and that of Michael Dukakis to GHW Bush.
Russert and, I think it was Brokaw (but I could be mistaken) and one other pundit were waxing poetic after Bush won the election. It was a very candid moment and one I will not soon forget.
You can believe it or not. Your choice.
I believe you exLib...there
February 8, 2008 - 22:55 ET by JerI believe you exLib...there have been times when I have posted something with a clear recollection of having seen or heard it, but would require a team of full-time researchers days to locate the source, if at all (even in the age of "googling").
You're obviously very sure you saw and heard Russert say it...good enough.
Jer
Conservatives never had an iron grip on the party
February 8, 2008 - 20:19 ET by nkviking75Lauer: "Critics of conservative voices right now are saying for the first time in a very long time, the conservatives have lost. They haven't been able to choose their nominee..."
Matt, Matt, Matt, conservatives haven't been getting their way for awhile. In fact, the two Republican presidents since Reagan were not conservatives, and a lot of the most powerful Republicans in Congress are not conservative. We are where we are in part because we've allowed this situation to build for a long time. We have a lot of work to do to reassert our power, and this time we have to go for the kill (metaphorically speaking, of course).
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
and twice on Sunday
February 8, 2008 - 20:23 ET by ThisnThatI'll take 3-year olds over thumb-sucking, temper-tantrum, lemming-like, misdirected, weasle-worded, mis-behaving, anti-American, poopy-mouthed, back-stabbing, clueless UN suck-up liberal lunatics any day, and twice on Sunday, Matt. Get a life!
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
This is from Mona Charen's
February 8, 2008 - 22:13 ET by motherbeltThis is from Mona Charen's townhall.com column today, about why some Senators don'l like John McCain (emphasis added throughout):
There is a strutting self-righteousness about McCain that goes hand in hand with a nitroglycerin temper. He flatters himself that his colleagues in the Senate dislike him because he stands up for principle whereas they sell their souls for pork. Not exactly. He is disliked because on many, many occasions, he has been disrespectful, belligerent and vulgar to those who differ with him.
Bradley Smith, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission and the leading legal scholar on campaign finance issues, experienced the McCain treatment firsthand. Because Smith opposed limits on political speech, he was denounced as "corrupt" by the senator......
Though he served on the commission for five years and made several attempts to meet with McCain to discuss the issues, Smith was rebuffed. The two did accidentally meet outside a hearing room in 2004 when they were both scheduled to testify before the Senate rules committee. At first, McCain grasped Smith's outstretched hand (Smith was in a wheelchair, recovering from surgery), but when he recognized his campaign finance opponent, he snatched his hand back, snarling, "I'm not going to shake your hand. You're a bully. You have no regard for the Constitution. You're corrupt."
That's just one example.
Gee, I don't know why they're not out there singing his praises now.....
motherbelt...
February 8, 2008 - 22:38 ET by JerThis reinforces my concerns about McCain's temperament, and is the reason I would have preferred [and voted for] Romney against Hillary even though, ideologically, McCain is closer to my views.
Jer
McCain's temperment...
February 8, 2008 - 23:09 ET by PrairieSkyI too have concerns about McCain's temperment. He is known for being mercurial at times.
Lauer is
February 8, 2008 - 22:29 ET by dscottLauer is being facetious as usual, first his Clinton MSM operative buddies manipulate the nomination process to deny the public choices they the Clintons don't like then they have the gall to claim we are 3 year olds because we won't go along with the choices they presented us. What Lauer is really afraid of is we still hold the power to change the course of the election and we know it. So Lauer, your greatest fear is about to be realized, McCain realizes he can not win the election without us, hence his speech at CPAC, therefore he must come to us and offer something in exchange for our support. Our votes will not blindly be given for free just because he has an R behind his name or because he is the only game in town, McCain is not the only choice, we have a choice with our votes.
Remember what I say folks, you have a choice, your vote means something and therefore it has power. The onus is on McCain, not us, to enlist our vote. If McCain wants your vote, i.e. wants to represent you as the POTUS, he therefore must propose what he is willing to do for us to be our leader. You can buy a liberal's vote, they will sell it cheaply because they want others to make choices for them, on the other hand the rules are different with conservatives, because their vote means something quite different. So Mr. McCain... where is your leadership going to take us? And why should we consent to give you the power to lead us? Simply claiming because it's me or them doesn't cut it, since once we are the opposition there are no rules binding us to any one persona and that means we will be free to clean house at the GOP.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Tim Graham, Could you
February 8, 2008 - 23:04 ET by bigtimerTim Graham,
Could you have been interrupted anymore than you were on H&C just now?
Sheesh...you didn't even get to make the point you were trying to completely regarding Chelsea and Shuster ect...
Nothing like blow-hard talking heads, what would we do without them...eh?
bt, I just caught that segment, too.
February 8, 2008 - 23:07 ET by R D HelmI do not know what they are paying Tim, but he should at least be considered for combat pay for having to do battle with Colmes.
What a snotty little man Colmes is.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Hi RD...Hannity was just
February 8, 2008 - 23:16 ET by bigtimerHi RD...
Hannity was just as bad with his interruptions too in my opinion, ....oh the love to listen to thine own voice syndrome is just a must with the msm...of all venues...the self-importance and legends in their own minds is simply astounding at times...
...but hey, that's just me.
...LOL!
Btw Tim you did great with what you could get in...glad I read your blog post first...
bt,
February 8, 2008 - 23:21 ET by R D HelmSean has gotten to the point where he is nearly as annoying as Colmes at times. Brit's show is about the only one I can stand on FNC anymore. And maybe the first five minutes of BOR, if I have some Mylanta around. LOL.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
I agree... I used to love
February 8, 2008 - 23:42 ET by motherbeltI agree... I used to love Sean hannity, but now I find myself frequently being annoyed by him.
He's getting robotic, when he's questioning someone, he will keep repeating the same litany of talking points, counting them off on his fingers.....even his interruptions have gotten repetitious...
Man I though it was just me, I'm thinking Jeez, everything annoys me!!
The usual conversation on H&C is some varioation of this:
Colmes: Bush did XXXX and I think that's terrible.
Hannity: Well Bill Clinton did it, and you didn't have a problem with it.
Colmes: and your side blew a gasket when it was Clinton, but now that it's Bush, you're OK with it.
How's that for a stimulating discussion?
That's why I seldom watch "Shout Shows" any more.
You're right about Brit Hume; I find him calm , as well as smart. And I really miss Tony Snow....
motherbelt,
February 9, 2008 - 00:04 ET by R D HelmTony Snow should have never left FNC to go to work for the W the Rino.
I think the stress of his having to cover for that man daily contributed heavily to his health problems, and I just don't see trying to save W's bacon, which was already cooked a long time ago, as being worth all that.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
just wondering
February 29, 2008 - 02:11 ET by DarlaHave any of you heard about Tony Snow working with O'Reilly? It may just be the radio portion but if any one knows......Please let me know.
Tony has recently been
February 29, 2008 - 02:28 ET by JerTony has recently been designated by BOR as his "permanent" guest host for the radio [only] Factor.
Jer
Ann Coulter is an idiot. And
February 9, 2008 - 03:29 ET by KeithAnn Coulter is an idiot. And if it isn't clear that McCain for all his faults is more conservative than Hillary Clinton then she's a BLITHERING idiot!
Ann Coulter
February 29, 2008 - 01:13 ET by DarlaI totally agree with you.
let me count the way
February 9, 2008 - 14:20 ET by Catherwoodyet another reason to make sure I never watch NBC or buy the products advertised on the Today Show. Lauer is such a liberal weenie. I think he like acting the part of the liberal so that he can impress all the lefties around him. He's too stupid to have an opinion of his own. I wonder if NBC realizes how many viewers don't watch the Today Show anymore because of its left-wing bias and obvious disdain of the common people whom they see as the inferior to themselves. When you think about it, that's the way Hillary sees the world too. they sit at the top of the intellectual world gazing down on the little people..