McCain fallout: What’s conservative talk radio’s next move? Update: Whither immigration?
posted at 10:53 am on January 30, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Medved used McCain’s last victory to flog the industry for being irrelevant, a dubious point given the fact that he’d won only open primaries to that point but decidedly less dubious this morning with J-Mac and Mitt splitting conservatives in Florida, 33-33. (It was independents registered as Republicans who put him over the top, natch.) What now? The Observer previews the spin:
[One claim] would be that the conservative punditry actually “won.” Mr. McCain has been getting stronger, they would argue, by embracing conservative positions in order to gain the nomination. Mr. McCain confessed that he had learned the lesson about immigration reform, that border control is essential before pursuing any legalization plan for those already here. He promised to retain the Bush tax cuts. He embraced his support of gun rights and touted his pro-life voting record. This, the conservatariat could contend, and not Mr. McCain’s global-warming ruminations or his role in the Gang of 14, is what helped him win.
They could, except that they’ve spent weeks accusing McCain of being a liberal Democrat who’ll quickly resort to his natural ways once elected. To claim now that he only won by tacking right is to admit either that the base is full of gullible morons or that they’re not listening to talk radio. The likelier spin, also identified by the Observer, is to follow the left’s playbook after Kerry lost in ‘04 and shoot the messengers by blaming Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani for being bad candidates. That would at least have the advantage of being true and would theoretically absolve talk radio — although if the knock on Mitt is that he can’t convincingly sell conservatism, the question becomes why, if Rush and Hannity are so influential, their own salesmanship isn’t enough to compensate. The answer may be that they, and he, can sell conservatism, but that “conservative” doesn’t mean “Republican” to quite the same extent it used to. Just a theory for now, but ask me again next Tuesday night if Maverickmania sweeps across the land.
My own hunch, which isn’t really a hunch so much as what I’d like to believe, is that McCain won because he’s the hedgehog to Romney’s fox. Mitt knows many things but McCain knows one big thing, i.e. Iraq, and when push comes to shove the GOP wants to win the war above all else. I’d like to believe that, only because the thought that Maverick won on the merits across the board is too dismal. Anyway, exit question: How does talk radio handle this week? Short of formally endorsing Romney, Limbaugh’s played every card he has on McCain, including an extravagant election day attack and a veiled threat earlier not to vote Republican in November if certain unnamed candidates are nominated. Does he go all-in by breaking his rule not to endorse in primaries and campaigning for Romney in earnest? If so and McCain sweeps Super Tuesday anyway, it’ll be final confirmation of the Medved thesis and the most humiliating rebuke since, well, since Giuliani’s vote totals last night.
Update: Yes, I’m aware that the exit polls put the economy ahead of Iraq as the most important issue, 45-14. And yes, I’m also aware that the guy who won admits publicly to not understanding economics as well as he should. I’m just … trying not to think about it.
Update: Another exit question: Is talk radio in better or worse shape than border enforcement right now? David Brooks and Bob Novak are already crowing about the irrelevance of Romney’s comparatively hard line against amnesty. That can be spun for the moment by pointing to Florida’s big Cuban minority. Same result next Tuesday, though? Not so much.
Update (Bryan): I think Brooks and Novak are intentionally missing the point re immigration. The fact is, McCain had to publicly track to the right on that and enough voters evidently bought it, at least to the extent that it neutralized Romney’s stance. Those voters didn’t hear about Juan Hernandez or the rest of the evidence that McCain’s conversion is insincere because the MSM didn’t report it. Talk radio didn’t do much with it either. Laura Ingraham brought it up, but I don’t think Rush or Hannity have. Novak and Brooks also fail to take into account the recent trio of immigration enforcement wins in NY, MI and MD. Those occurred under Democrat governors responding to pressure from the electorate, and the one in NY rattled the Clinton campaign for a while.
So those two are sticking to their preferred storyline, but they’re wrong.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
No, that is wrong. McCain has told you what he will do in that situation. You just didn’t listen. He will do his very best to capture and then provide that Islamonazi with his very own OJ Simpson lawyer. He will make sure that while in captivity that detainee does not so much as receive a scratch. He is not to be asked too many mean questions. If fact every interrogation tactic that works will be considered “torture.” The Islamonazi will be served 3 square meals daily of orange chicken, caviar and filet mignon. Perhaps some waffles for breakfast?
McCain is the last person to give the command to kill Bin Laden. He won’t do it. He is too liberal. He cares too much about the rights of terrorists in order to pull the trigger.
Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM
MCGUYVER?!? Dude I haven’t seen you in ages.
CABE on January 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I must say that, while I will be caucusing for Mitt on Tuesday, I will vote for McCain if he’s the nominee.
The thought of having Obama or Clinton pulling the troops out of Iraq immediately upon inauguration scares the heck out of me.
As a Fredhead (now Mitt…whatever), I want the most conservative person in the White House.
Even if it’s only 1/3 (national defense) of the Reagan coalition.
As hard as it is to say, McCain is better than the alternative.
Let’s just work to help Romney so we don’t have to go down that road.
zoomzale on January 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM
It makes sense to me. I consider myself a conservative, and I like Mitt. But I am, slowly but surely, buying the premise that Mitt can’t beat the Dems.
And, more than anything else, I want to see a Republican president elected in ‘08, because of the war. I do not want immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I do NOT want a Democrat as Commander-in-Chief. That would be horrifying. Amnesty, not so much - we already have a RINO president who failed to push an amnesty bill, I figure we can fight that battle another day.
So, if McCain can beat the Dems, and he needs conservative votes to do it, he’ll have mine.
Priscilla on January 30, 2008 at 11:50 AM
This is a lame argument. Any Republican candiddate, except RP, would be better then any Dem, regardless. There is no need to have a military background to look out for the soldiers and listen to your generals. It is only the Dems, who say repeatedly, and seem to be in some sort of contest to see who can get the troops out the quickest, with no real thought to what that little soundbite means. Any Republican candidate will stand by thee soldiers. McCain does not own this stance.
Just A Grunt on January 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM
JiangxiDad, you are hardly helping my venting process. Please allow me to go over the top now so I can come back down to earth later. Its better to vent here then the alternative which would be to walk up to the most liberal person I see on the street and punch them square in the face. Believe me, venting on Hotair is far more preferable then that. For them anyway.
Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Looks like the best thing we can hope for is more cases of illegal aliens being tazed by cops.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Haven’t a clue. Never thought about it. I know you are passionately interested in politics, so you aren’t disinterested or uninvolved.
You dissed the E.Coast RINO’s Rudy and Romney for months. Didn’t argue with you on the merits. You aren’t a schmuck, so you’re not a Paul fan. Leaves Fred or Huck or Hunter.
However, if you’re gonna tell me that you had no candidate who you favored in the race, I’ll have to stop reading your comments. I’m interested in the real world and the real choices we have.
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Not Mike Huckabee.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Keep that one for future reference. If the likely-nominee McVain loses in the general election because conservatives sit out, will Medved et al. blame talk radio for President Hillary/Obama?
thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM
You’ve made my point. My comment was specifically in regard to McCain vs. Dem.
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Well I can see McCain attracts voters who endorse his views. Always reaching across the aisle, always compromising, willing to do anything to avoid confrontation. If we used those standards to this war on Islamic extreism I guess we can bring the troops home immediately. I mean heck we have made compromises right? I mean we let Al Queda control some portions of the country right with the understanding that we could work out future compromises right? I don’t think so. We go after them. We never quit and right now we are wiping out their last refuge in Iraq.
But all you folks that think compromise is the answer or you are going to vote for McCain because you think he can beat the Democratic candidate ought to talk to the residence of Fallujah who accepted Al queda in their midst thinking they would have peace as long as you didn’t cross them.
I am through compromising.
Just A Grunt on January 30, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Rush is not the Republican party…..They have parted ways a long time ago.He is a Conservative. The MSM have crowned McClinton the nominee so be it. The only hope if for Mitt to be Fred as VEEP. This is only a long shot.
I’m sitting this one out.
MICHAEL STEELE 12′
GREENTURTLE on January 30, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Aaah yeah!
Again, AllahPundit doesn’t learn any lessons!
He thinks he can get away with posting snarky bullshit, such as this blog and then when I challenge him on it, he posts his wimpy bullshit comment over here on my blog:
Real brilliance you see.
You know the drill Big “A”.
Right after I post this, a screen cap is on the way to record this for posterity.
Mcguyver on January 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I’ve said it many times. I will never vote for McCain. No matter what. It will never happen.
But Priscilla, I didn’t pick your comment to respond to for that quote. The quote that got me was this one:
The reason why this line stood out to me is because of something I was thinking about the other day. I was trying to recall one authentic conservative republican who has ever lost a general election. I couldn’t recall one. But the liberal media constantly goes out of their way to tell us that candidate X is “unelectable” because of an inablility to relate to moderates and independents. But why is it that RINOs lose general elections with such regularity? Why? You would think they would appeal most to moderates. I have a theory. My theory may have to wait until the next Presidential election and the Hillary backlash is in full swing but my theory is that solid conservative Republicans are more appealing to moderates then are RINOs. The entire nation wrapped its arms around Reagan, not because he moved to the left in order to attract moderates. They wrapped their arms around him because he was clearly an authentic conservative Republican. We need to change our math and we need to stop taking the establishment media’s word for who is electable and who is not electable.
Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I’m a bit confused by this. Since Cubans are not illegal immigrants is this just identity politics based on sharing a common language?
I would think that the legal Cubans would be at odds with the illegals, unless the legal Cubans are hiring the illegals to work for them in large numbers and need the cheap labor.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I want to be very clear in the following thought:
If you consider yourself a “conservative” or a “Republican”, and yet say you would rather stay at home than vote for McCain, then you are not a serious person. You are a joke. You consider this is all a game for kids, who can justclose their eyes and pretend it will all go away. You don’t give a rat’s ass about fighting Jihad, about Iraq, about the military, and so many other issues.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM
WHAT TIME DOES RUSHBO COME ON, NOON RIGHT?
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM
It is very obvious that the Republican party is no longer controlled by conservatives. If it was they would have been able to move Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson to the top. It didn’t happen and while it is a bitter pill to swallow it is time to admit that conservatives are losing their voice in American politics. I guess we either learn to live with it or entertain thoughts of looking elsewhere for somewhere that does. It definelty leaves Europe off the list.
Just A Grunt on January 30, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Excellent point. I am a huge fan of Limbaugh, and he has influenced my thinking, and still does. But that doesn’t mean that I fall in lockstep with his opinions.
I also do not believe that he will sit out the 2008 election or vote for someone other than the Republican nominee, even if it is McCain. But, if he does, that will not cause me to do the same.
Priscilla on January 30, 2008 at 12:06 PM
The liberal media and the Dems wants McCain, because he’ll lose against any Dem.
He’s too cranky, withered, snappy and “Washington”.
They want him for the “Republican” candidate.
Because he will be simple to pigeonhole and defeat.
Enough reason to write in a real conservative instead of Capt. McShamnesty.
profitsbeard on January 30, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Also remember that folks like Medved are competition with Rush. It is true that Medved and Rush play different times, but the point is that Medved would probably (hyperbole alert!) eat a live baby on television if it meant getting the number of ratings that Rush has consistently had for over a decade.
Anyway, Medved and those in the MSM who talk about Rush “losing influence” and so forth are talking out of their butt because they are competition.
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 12:09 PM
What Bryan said.
Maverick is running a very effective state-by-state campaign, making a strong argument re: winning in Iraq, trotting out key endorsements at the right time, edging to the Right just enough to blunt Mitt - his only opponent, and I would add working with Huck to remove Christian voters who might support Mitt if Huck were not in the race.
Sadly, the sheeple are buying into it.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I guess you are going to have to stop reading my comments then. I don’t support any of them. The president doesn’t have control over my life like others. I watch politics like people might watch a soap opera. It’s entertainment.
The best part is that to me it’s like ‘groundhog day’ where everything is the same every time. . . but there are still the very same arguments and clueless people about how this process works. It is fascinating to me.
But after I watched Bill Clinton win the election over Ross Perot and George Bush, I nearly drunk myself to death on that election night because I couldn’t believe it. I’m still here nearly 2 decades later, so it must not matter all that much.
I actually don’t think that democracy is a very good form of government. A representative democracy where voting was a privilege, not a right, is how the founders set up our system. Now voting is a right and democracy suffers because of it. An informed vote is worth exactly as much as a paid vote (paid for by welfare dollars).
but I guess you aren’t reading my comments anymore. I look at politics as entertainment. It is just a soap opera that has about as much influence on my life as a soap opera with one notable exception. . . I have to PAY to watch the political soap opera with taxes. If I didn’t have to pay taxes, I would not care one iota who gets to ride in Air Force One. I have never cared about soap operas.
ThackerAgency on January 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Are you sure that’s AP? His name is Allahpundit not Allah Pundit.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 12:11 PM
And here is one of the reasons Romney lost- too much attention to polls, focus groups and shifting his message in response to them during the course of the campaign. Had he picked a couple themes and stuck with them rather than trying to please everybody all the time he’s have come off as much more authentic.
Most Republicans know that the President has a much greater role in affecting Iraq and national security policy than the economic policy- and one of the biggest impacts a President can have in influencing the economy is to keep spending down, something Romney wasn’t very convincing on.
Hollowpoint on January 30, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Heh. Rush’s show just started. I think he is parodying himself right now.
Brat on January 30, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I agree but for different reasons. I think if the electorate has a choice between a republican liberal and a democrat liberal they will choose the real thing.
Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I’ve voted in three states (NY, CO, CA). None had ability to write anyone in that I remember.
Is that just an expression, or can you really write a name in? Is it counted and reported?
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM
If McCain is the Republican choice I will stay home. And while I am sitting at home I will watch the Fairness Doctrine get adopted. (Think John won’t be for it now?)
I will purchase guns, along with instructions in their use for my family members and concealed carry permits while it is still legal, i.e. before Jan 2009.
I will try to find a job that pays under the table to avoid the coming tax increases. (Some of our new, I guess they won’t be illegal anymore, overlords can help with that)
Just A Grunt on January 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Rush paraphrase: all candiates incl. McCain are running to the right how can you say I don’t have an influence . . . brilliant
infidel2 on January 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM
from Drudge:
LIMBAUGH DOES NOT CONCEDE, VOWS TO FIGHT ON… DEVELOPING…
Afterimage on January 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM
The only reason McCain won is that he pandered to the criminal aliens and got their votes. He won by 5%. UGH….
Rush is pretty damned funny right now.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on January 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM
It’s funny you should say that. I’m faaar from “radical” but I have been looking on-line for survival books/tips/kits. I know, I know, it sounds crazy but would’nt you rather sound a little crazy than be unprepared? By the way, I just finished reading The Traveler by John Twelvehawks. Great book! Talks about living “off the grid”.
kcd on January 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Yeah I know. The reason is AllahPundit’s snarky “refresh blog hit” posting strategy gets very old, very fast.
But I lurk whenever I have time and try not to hit the refresh button or post too many comments that attract too much attention and therefore profits for the Big “A”.
P.S. There are a only a few commentators and blogger/guest bloggers that are worth my time responding to or challenging.
Bryan, Michelle, Patterico, Robert Spencer, Jason Mattera, Eric Stakelback for example, are doing a good job, but AllahPundit and SeeDubya are a patently absurd waste of bandwidth.
Mcguyver on January 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Dude, take it up in an e-mail.
You already claimed that AP posted some snark at your blog, yet Buy Danish correctly points out that — more likely than not — it’s probably an impostor. Calm down and take a chill pill. AP and SeeDubya aren’t out to get you. And they aren’t a waste of bandwidth by any means.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Sucks, doesn’t it. :)
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 12:21 PM
As weird as it seems, I think these two facts link up. The Republican electorate have been so inculcated with the concept of “settling” for a moderate (i.e., liberal) candidate that many of them simply agreed to give up on the vast majority of their core values.
In other words, the liberal media have been successful in making Republicans desperate. When that happens, a certain kind of panic psychology kicks in, and priorities are completely re-oriented. People forget all about their most important concerns, and monomaniacally focus only on their single most imminent concern.
logis on January 30, 2008 at 12:21 PM
The last time you posted this it also said Allah Pundit in two separate words. Struck me as weird at that time.
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I don’t know if it’s the same in every state (or is that a function of counties?). In mine, you ask at the poll for a write-in ballot.
Call your secretary of state (or elections) office and ask.
Shay on January 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I hope you can find comfort in that thought, as you watch Hillary or Obama win the election and pull out of Iraq the following day. Because it won’t be due to those of us sitting out. It will be due to those morons who insisted on nominating McCain to represent us. And why did these morons insist on nominating McCain? Because … “he can win?”
So, they vote for McCain “because he can win” while at the same time being told quite clearly that a huge chunk of conservatives will SIT OUT the election rather than vote for him. Even more pathetically stupid, they then post messages on blogs such as this whining about how pissed off they’ll be if he LOSES because of those who sit out. Where’s all that confidence that he can WIN? Why did you vote for him, knowing that conservatives were saying they would sit out?
One more thought on your pathetic comment. Your comment would only make sense if you believed that Romney would pull out of Iraq and do a lousy job of fighting terrorists. This is the same problem I had with those voters who insisted on voting for McCain or Giuliani over Fred Thompson on national security issues. It would only make sense if there was some reason to think Thompson would be “weak” on national security, which there is no reason to believe that. There’s also absolutely no reason to believe Romney would be any less agressive in fighting terrorists, so the entire reason for voting for McCain is a mute point. It’s pure stupidity.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I actually don’t think that democracy is a very good form of government. A representative democracy where voting was a privilege, not a right, is how the founders set up our system.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM
The last time I posted what? Huh? Or are you talking about the last time Mcguyver posted? I’m just echoing Buy Danish’s response: it seems highly unlikely that AP was the person responding on Mcguyver’s blog.
Does this sound like AP? “P.S> Alan Keyes is a homosexual.” I don’t think so.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I disagree on this. The liberal media and the Dems want McCain because … he’s a liberal. With a McCain nomination, they’re guaranteed a win.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
thanks.
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Interesting. I’ve always thought that voting should be a privelege, that US citizens should be required to pass a civics exam to understand how our democratic system and branches of government work (or don’t work). Only then, would citizens be given the opportunity to vote.
But I don’t find evidence that our founding fathers articulated the concept of voting as a “privelege”. If it’s out there, I’d like to read about it though.
There! Life’s better when you PREVIEW before you post.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Rush and Sean were probably persuaded by their ratings success to overestimate their influence on the Republican party. There are a lot of moderate Republicans who aren’t swayed by them. Rush and Sean are influential broadcasters for a segment of the GOP, but in a weak field they lost out to a Senator who was able to leverage his appeal to the moderates.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I was thinking the same thing. It also doesn’t sound anything like what Allah would write. I highly doubt it’s actually Allah.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Would you rather have a system out of Starship Troopers (excellent novel, btw) where you have to earn citizenship through military service? TRUE democracy doesn’t work very well — but our democratic republic seems to be fairly reliable.
I think our primary system needs fixing, as does the rampant gerrymandering that locks up the legislature in states like California, but you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Medved’s full of s–t. A month ago he was tripping over his own feet to get down on his knees and suckoff Huckabee.
LtE126 on January 30, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Yup. Just keep telling yourself that.
docob on January 30, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I though Rush had something big planned. I was wrong. Its over.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 30, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Originally, only land owners could vote in America. Then again, only land owners paid taxes…
Nowadays the only requirement for voting is that you be born - and not even necessarily in this country.
logis on January 30, 2008 at 12:30 PM
One more. As much as St John annoys me, the Military is voting for him big. I’ll vote with our Military.
LtE126 on January 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM
If we rely on McCain’s service record as an analogy to how he will defend us militarily, then all we have to look forward to is . . . POW status?
/in anticipation of the absolute moral (military) authorities!
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM
From my perception, the Democrats are more warlike when in power than Republicans. They are not adverse to bombing a county in ruins and then leaving the residents to pick up the pieces (Bosnia). They’ve gotten us in more wars than Republicans. Furthermore, when in power, they consolidate their power and pass laws further restricting the freedoms of Americans and those individuals that are “visiting.” The only time they seem to be “anti-war” is when the Republicans are in power.
This comment is a generalization and would take more time than I have to research my thesis statement.
PrettyD_Vicious on January 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Yes, close all primaries and eliminate or restrict early voting during the primaries. Eliminate gerrymandering.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM
lol. Conservatives as McCain’s POWs…
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:33 PM
An impostor wouldn’t have the incentive or timing to respond so quickly.
That’s why I posted the time of the response.
See-Dubya or AP have nothing to “get” on me.
They do however have an ego to protect, which is one of “I-am-trying-very-hard-to-look-cool-and-not-upset-too-many-people, because-looking-cool-is-better-than-winning-the-battle-of-ideas”.
This post is a digg on Rush Limbaugh, because Rush doesn’t buy into or cave to the “looking cool” crowd of McCain and Huckabee shills.
As always a screen cap is on the way, just in case.
Why you ask?
Because there are some big egos involved here, that’s why.
Which means anything can happen.
Mcguyver on January 30, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I think we need to do more than that.
Did you check out Slublog’s suggestions?
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 12:34 PM
If voting is a privilege, who or what authorizes the privilege?
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I have already heard illegals and illegal lovers saying McShamnesty is their guy. Check that number in FL and you will see what put McVain over the top. You know damn well illegals are voting and who they’re voting for.
HotAirExpert on January 30, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Just keep telling yourself McCain can win the general election. Say it over and over in your head. The more you say it, the more you’ll believe it.
Just keep ignoring all the polls that show conservatives will not be showing up to vote on election day.
Whatever makes you feel comfortable.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Bingo.
This is a bit like ACLU libs freaking out over the Patriot Act. Here’s a clue - the government is plenty busy tracking down real threats that they don’t have time to listen in on our mundane conversations.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 12:35 PM
What’s up HotAirExpert :)
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 12:36 PM
“Oh no you di’ent!”
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 12:37 PM
He does look like that kinda guy huh?
HotAirExpert on January 30, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Unless — and this is just a crazy assumption — somebody is just trying to make AP look bad and you bought it hook, line and sinker.
Screen captures don’t prove a thing, Mcguyver.
Let me ask you this question honestly: why would AP bother to post at your rather obscure blog? Do you honestly think AP has nothing better to do?
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 12:38 PM
“Oh no you di’ent!”
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 12:37 PM
What?
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 12:38 PM
And why would he use his actual blog name to post such a comment? It’s not Allah.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Eating live babies on the tube. Fo’ reals.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM
IMO, it’s fine to vote if you’re a naturalized citizen, because I know you had to pass a civics test. It’s our own “born-and-educated in America” kids who I worry about because they’re the one’s who’ve quickly forgotten what little they’ve learned in Social or Poly Science. Worse, whatever it was they were taught, it was most likely slanted and taught by Libs.
So, I say restore voting as a privelege, but instead of going back to one-landowner-one-vote, let’s give the right only to civics-minded adults.
I’m dreaming again…
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Hyperbole is fun.
But seriously, to those of you who believe voting is or should be a privilege, who or what controls the privilege?
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 12:43 PM
You’re a Buzz Kill!! :)
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:44 PM
The problem is that what you are saying is a circular argument. I really like Mitt Romney; I just like John McCain slightly more. One of the reasons I like McCain more is that he will not go to lunatic-land to pander to the worst parts of this afamed base. Example: saying he will support an amendment on the Constitution to ban gay marriage. McCain does not support such a gross, insulting, retarded, out-of-place proposal.
Even more so, there can be no blackmail in elections. You and others are free to “warn” others that if McCain is the nominee you will stay at home. It is more than obviously your right. However, my previous argument will still be correct. You cannot possibly claim you care about the United States, about its people, its security and its general welfare and yet skip an election. You can vote for a candidate who will undisputedly be a great leader in the most important issue of the day, which is foreign policy. If you *know* that, and still won’t vote for him because of a pet issue or two -even though he agrees with you on 80% of things-, then I still think you cannot be taken seriously. No offense inteded though. It’s just logic.
I think that’s a historically accurate comment. As a matter of fact, Ron Paul of all people has pointed that out in the debates. What I’d say is that I care about Jihad as a global ideology and threat. On the other hand, the Democrats will not even acknowledge it exists. I’ve browsed through their websites looking for it. They think redistributing taxpayer money is more important. That’s why we should vote Republican.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Cliff,
Heh.
Yeah. I’m sick today, so I’m pulling as many people down as possible.
Is this what it feels like to be John McCain right now?
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Added some
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I have to get back to work but I’ll sleep on it.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Goldwater. The best president we never had.
lodestonejames on January 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Oh no you di’ent. Spelled as sounds.
Weakened via having to explain.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM
This whole primary thing is making me ill. Tomorrow is gonna be my media black out day. No news, politics or blogs.
HotAirExpert on January 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
geckomon,
You have to move just your head back and forth when you say “Oh no you di’ent.” I think he would have gotten it if you had.
Ha.
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
That was Thacker who stated it. I got my blockquotes screwed up. Sorry…
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
The fact that you consider a ban on homosexual marriages as “gross, insulting, retarded, and out-of-place” gives you away.
It’s no suprise you’re voting for the liberal.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Only more recently, I think, unless the Bush chip made it a special case. Limbaugh lost a lot of credibility with me by refusing to criticize Imbecile II as he ran the country into the ground. Thirty billion more to Africa? Bush is bankrupting us. Our military is bogged down in wars he won’t let them win. The Islamists are just waiting for us to leave so they can go back to killing each other and anyone else they can bomb.
Florida is a peculiar state. The Heartland has yet to speak. The Huckster needs to go. Expose his record. Expose McCain’s record. Play hardball.
I won’t vote McCain. Don’t trust Romney but the others are totally whacked. More videos about the records of Huckster and Insane, please. Make them humorous, if possible, like the Hillary 1984 video. Get people to laugh the psychos out of the race.
Feedie on January 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM
HotAirE,
Sounds good to me.
Maybe I should do the same.
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Gregor, there could be a nuance to Baphomet’s position.
I do not support gay marriage, but I also do not support a constitutional amendment to ban it. It’s a decision that ought to be decided by each individual state.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I’ve tried, I’ve tried . . . and failed. Damn DVR! Damn internet! So many inhibitors!
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Weak or strong, thanks for the explanation.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I honestly think I’d rather see Hillary or Obama in the whitehouse than McCain.
The unfortunate fact is that people don’t have political philosophies, they have a favorite-team they call a “party.” And the person who defines the team’s philosophy (if there is one) is the person sitting in the executive chair. That’s why for most of the last 8 years, it felt like the Dems had no platform: because they had no unifying leader.
I’d rather the GOP wander in the wilderness, searching for a leader for 4 years, than have them redefine conservatism to be what McCain represents.
If McCain gets the nomination, I hope for - and will vote for - a third party Ron Paul candidacy.
There, I said it. Hold me to it.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Ludwig on January 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I think it was the syntax and less context that gave it away.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM
You know, the Constitution is not some notepad where you can scribble down a rant against the issue du jour. It is a carefully written document that must only include the essential issues pertaining to government. Defining a clearly private matter between two individuals, regardless of sex, has no place in it. It would put the United States on the same level as countries with similar provisions, such as Afghanistan or Iran. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Now, go out and use it sparingly but poignantly.
That too.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Let’s change that voting thing to “legally employed”.
rgranger on January 30, 2008 at 1:00 PM
This notion of we have to lose to win is, frankly, nuts.
Apply a sports analogy if you will. Anyone here think the Pats will try to lose in the first half of the Super Bowl just so they have an opportunity to come back and win the game in the 2nd?
Or, is this race more like the Tour de France where you save your energy, drafting off your opponent for that final push at the end?
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 1:00 PM
As a practical matter, how can one be “married” in one state but not another?
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Dropping the ban on gay marriage down a few notches in priority will help conservatives. There are other issues that benefit the country more.
Banning gay marriage doesn’t make straight marriage stronger and doesn’t help straight couples figure out how to pay for the expense of educating and raising kids.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Rudy? Guess he forgot his bike.
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Hold the phone, Baphomet. Marriage is anything but a private matter. It’s a legal contract that is sanctioned by the State Gov’t. A private matter between two individuals would better be defined as a tryst. A marriage is a very public declaration no matter which way you slice it.
But that doesn’t mean the Federal Gov’t has any reason to endorse or oppose homosexual marriages. They don’t have any reason to endorse or oppose heterosexual marriages, either. It’s an issue, like abortion, that ought to be decided on a State-by-State basis.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »