Michelle tells Glenn Beck: I won’t vote for McCain over Hillary

posted at 4:25 pm on January 30, 2008 by Allahpundit

“Not at this moment,” she says, leaving herself a teensy bit of wiggle room. Civil war within the Hot Air family? I fear the worst, my friends.

Take your pick: 16 minutes of audio or the quickie transcript. The meatiest stuff is in the last few minutes of the second clip, but if you missed the uproar over Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio, settle in and listen to it all. They’re a particularly egregious stain on an already egregious immigration record. Like she says, America needs to know.

CPAC is going to be awesome this year.

Update: “McCain Derangement Syndrome”?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

I’ll vote for the non-Democrat candidate.

I’m not in the mood to sit back and watch over 3000 American soldiers die in vain.

fogw on January 30, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Eh I just took it as Michelle telling McCain she will hold his feet to the fire. McCain cant win the White House without conservatives so he better make deals with us and keep them.

I agree. There are significant principled differences between McCain and Hillary. To help elect Hillary is to allow harm to come to America.

I think she’ll vote for Johnny Mac, make his life a living hell for 4 years, and support a primary challenger in ’12.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:28 PM

jp on January 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Accepting McCain isn’t compromise, it is surrender.

doubleplusundead on January 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Is there really that much difference between Bush and McCain? Bush would have signed the shamnesty bill had it reached his desk; he signed McCain-Feingold into law; he pushed though free prescription drugs for over 65s (the largest entitlement program in 40 years); he allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill.
The one big difference I recall is the tax cut issue. I think McCain will be tougher on Iran and North Korea; he won’t have the chance to sign an amnesty bill; and he’ll fight earmarks and pork more than Bush has done.
When Michelle calms down, she’ll vote for McCain. Just like millions of other conservatives.

infidel65 on January 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Conservatives who talk about giving the Republicans a shellacking and implementing a scorched-earth policy against them in November if McCain is the nominee are disregarding the fact that we are in the middle of a war that we need to win. If this were a time of peace, I might see such a strategy as a viable limited-use tool to change the direction of the Republican Party. In an important war, one that is critical to the future course of freedom in the world, we don’t have the luxury of using this approach without putting the security of the world and our nation in jeopardy.

The fact is that this approach hasn’t served us very well during the past 30 years. If we want to change things, we need to find better ways of appealing to the conservative values in our fellow Americans and to get them on our side. The reality is that most Americans don’t particularly like negative, slash and burn approaches. If we take the scorched-earth path, they will simply move away from us, even though they may share many of our core conservative values. Intense lobbying of our leaders combined with more personal involvement in our national and local political processes is an effective way to change the system without alienating the large block of independent voters that has grown during the past 20 years.

When we attack the leaders of our own party and advocate withdrawing from active support and involvement with them via the electoral process, what message do we send to those outside of the party? What message do we send to those in our own party who are near the center political fringe. Are we sending a message of inclusion and hope or are we driving them away from us by fostering an environment of negativism and intolerance?

Unless conservatives begin learning more effective use of less destructive tools like persuasion and logic with our friends and neighbors, conservatism will not take firm root in this country or anywhere else.

NuclearPhysicist on January 30, 2008 at 5:31 PM

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 5:02 PM

At least he has to face us and he has to listen, but you’re right: he hasn’t so far so… I’m not happy about him as our candidate either, but Cankles? No way. Then again one of the best arguments I’ve heard on the board is that if we get 4 years of McCain we won’t have a snowball’s chance in 2012 and maybe by then the damage won’t be too far gone. Then again, if it’s Hillary, the press is going to hide everything corrupt that she does, whitewash all of her scandals and tell us over and over how everything is puppy dogs and ice cream. One way or the other it will be 4 years of shite. My fear as that with the MSM telling the sheep how great things are while she’s president, she’ll get 8 years. Ugh.

foxforce91 on January 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Oh dear, yet another candidate for remedial kindergarten mathematics.

1+0=1
1+1=2

LimeyGeek on January 30, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Yet another candidate for remedial:

Physics – Deccelaration is acceleration in the opposite direction.

Diplomacy – Either you’re with me or you’re against me.

Elections – A vote not cast is a voice not heard. They won’t care what you think if you aren’t playing the game. It’s just like when The Family Values block stopped going to the movies . . movies just got worse. Hollywood won’t make money from people who won’t see them so it was a downward spiral. We are in this mess of only having libs running because conservatives have stopped voting. If you vote less lib and then less lib you will swing the pendulum in the reverse (which takes me to the above 1.)

And for crying out loud why aren’t we grooming locals to run thus providing stock for higher offices?

- The Cat

MirCat on January 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM

You hard core conservatives would rather LET a democrat be elected than give up your precious principals by voting for a republican that doesn’t fit like a glove ? You have no principals.
Once again, that’s face down, buns up kneeling.

Sasnak on January 30, 2008 at 5:18 PM

No, it’s those of you that would so eagarly sell out your principles that have none left.

And the problem isn’t that McVain doesn’t fit like a glove – none of the candidates did, not even Fred. It’s that McVain doesn’t fit on any issue other than Iraq, which may very well be a non-issue by election day if the current success continues over there.

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 5:33 PM

fogw on January 30, 2008 at 5:27 PM

And you’ll never get a response from a “conservative” who’s threatening to sit this one out or worse, vote for the Dem. You know why? It’s pure emotion on their part. I want to believe they’re not even thinking about our soldiers when they make these ridiculous statements, for if they were, they’d reconsider their planned non-participation.

CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Unless conservatives begin learning more effective use of less destructive tools like persuasion and logic with our friends and neighbors, conservatism will not take firm root in this country or anywhere else.

Well said. Persuasive.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:34 PM

… or protest vote.

CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Michelle loves to talk about questioning people’s patriotism. Maybe it’s time to start questioning hers, especially if she’s willing to vote for someone who will pull the troops out of Iraq before they finish their job and someone who will obviously be weak militarily. There are other, and dare I say, more important issues than immigration at stake.

SnarkVader on January 30, 2008 at 4:36 PM

I agree. (Except that Michelle said she is not prepared to vote for McCain “at this moment” and that there was still time to “fix” the situation.) I was among the army of phone callers who helped derail shamnesty, but there is NO WAY I will do nothing to stop a billery presidency. I mean, McCain wants it both ways on this issue, but Hillary has stated openly that she will not only do nothing to end illegal immigration, she is actually in favor of giving licences to illegals. So we need to put all this irrational MDS away and get to business putting the best candidate that conservative Republicans have to beat Hillary AND McCain: Mitt Romney. We need to fight McCain, but we do not need to do so at the cost of selling out to the freaking Arkansas communists!

argos on January 30, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Accepting McCain isn’t compromise, it is surrender.

doubleplusundead on January 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Fine, think 1945. Do you want do surrender to the Americans or the Soviets?

BohicaTwentyTwo on January 30, 2008 at 5:35 PM

I don’t blame anyone who chooses to sit out the GE if McNutty is the nominee but keep in mind there are very important House and Senate seats up for grabs. Please show up to vote on those.

Buttercup on January 30, 2008 at 5:27 PM

I’ll definitely do my part on that one. Sen. Cornyn is up for re-election, and I’ll definitely be supporting him. My rep., Michael McCaul is also running for re-election, and he’s been a staunch advocate of border security.

So on that one, Buttercup raises a great point. Let’s not punish good conservatives just because our likely nominee is not one – show up to vote on the downticket.

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Sorry boys. I can’t give that bastard my vote. McCain doesn’t deserve to be president and I will not be a part of that tragedy. I could have gotten over the tax cuts vote…but the amnesty bill…hell no.

I would rather watch this country fall to a Democrat then watch a Republican take it down as well.

msipes on January 30, 2008 at 5:37 PM

The War on Terror will STILL be an issue for the conceivable future (2-3 years). Not voting for McCain is implicitly a vote for the Dem. While many of us, me included, have problems with McCain, there is no way I’m sitting home and watching the Dem win.

Those of you who can’t see the lesser of two evils argument clearly do not know how to function in our representative democracy.

FLcapitalistthug on January 30, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Accepting McCain isn’t compromise, it is surrender.

No, it is a good way to save the lives of innocent people.

People like Vince, Ron, little kids in Arkansas…you get the point.

But seriously, this sucks.

Dorvillian on January 30, 2008 at 5:37 PM

There is no way in hell I am voting for the cut run surrender party. If McCain gets the nomination I will hold my nose and vote for him.
What NuclearPhysicist said.

SoTX on January 30, 2008 at 5:38 PM

I’m with MM. She’s one of the most brilliant women I know. I honor and respect her opinion.

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on January 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Those of you that select the next pathetic president can shoulder your responsibility alone.

LimeyGeek

This

Benaiah on January 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM

“Not at this moment?” eh?

Hmmm

Ok, so let’s figure it out.

What would it take for you to vote for McCain.

Here’s my list…(even this may not be enough because he has a tendency for doublespeak and backstabbing…but what else are you going to do?)

1. Get a conservative on the ticket, a Duncan Hunter, a Thompson maybe. NOT HUCKABEE. (I actually think Romney would be the best choice but I think these two hate each other)

2. Fire everyone of your open-borders staffers and pledge a security only bill – with NO amnesty provisions, within your first 100 days in office.

3. Not just proclaim, but promise a strong supply side agenda at the convention. Be specific. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent, end capital gains taxes, etc. Some sucking up to the Club for growth would be nice too.

4. Promise no more Gang of 14 shennanigans. Dance with them that brought you.

He won’t actually do any of this because his ego is huge and he doesn’t think he actually needs the base anymore. He will be counting on independents and moderate democrats to win. Small problem. None of them will vote for him when they have the chance to vote for a real democrat and he will have alienated the base so much by then, it won’t matter. He could clone Reagan and make him his veep and it wouldn’t matter by then. Also, he’s still vainly counting on a fawning press, moron.

Basically, he’s toast. He can’t win without the base and he doesn’t have the humility to reach out for them. So don’t anybody try to guilt those of us who will be sitting on the sidelines this time.

game over man.

tlclark on January 30, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Keating five.**cough**b*st*rd**cough**

My collie says:

‘Nuff said.

CyberCipher on January 30, 2008 at 5:40 PM

At least he has to face us and he has to listen, but you’re right: he hasn’t so far so… I’m not happy about him as our candidate either, but Cankles? No way. Then again one of the best arguments I’ve heard on the board is that if we get 4 years of McCain we won’t have a snowball’s chance in 2012 and maybe by then the damage won’t be too far gone. Then again, if it’s Hillary, the press is going to hide everything corrupt that she does, whitewash all of her scandals and tell us over and over how everything is puppy dogs and ice cream. One way or the other it will be 4 years of shite. My fear as that with the MSM telling the sheep how great things are while she’s president, she’ll get 8 years. Ugh.

foxforce91 on January 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM

You can keep stuffing dirty laundry in the hamper, but sooner or later the smell is going to get out. It matters not how much the MSM carries her water, everybody already knows what the Clintons are about. I think 2 years of a Dem (Hillary or Obama) in the WH combined with the Nancy and Harry show in Congress will light a fire that allows us to retake one or both houses in 2010. Once we’ve done that, the damage can be minimized until 2012.

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 5:40 PM

It’s unfair to criticize MM (or challenge her patriotism) because she feels that McCain does not represent the qualities she feels this nation needs in the Presidency.

I feel the same way. I have no intentions of voting for John McCain. He’s a self-serving backstabber. And I don’t need any wiggle room, FWIW.

Gull on January 30, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Update: “McCain Derangement Syndrome”?

Roger L. Simon relates MDS (McCain Derangement Syndrome) mainly to his stance against water boarding, then only in the last paragraph mentions immigration. He also says Mitt is more liberal then McSham. It’s easy to see who this spinster supports.

abinitioadinfinitum on January 30, 2008 at 5:41 PM

NuclearPhysicist on January 30, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Haven’t you heard? Iraq is going so well we’re almost ready to bring our troops home. Then, we can roll up the carpet on the GWOT and focus on our pet conservative issues. There’s absolutely nothing Hillary or Obama can do in office that’ll change the outcome.

Yay! The war is won!

CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 5:41 PM

All of you chastising MM and the rest of us who are contemplating sitting out … would you still feel the same if Ron Paul was the Republican nominee? How about Mike Huckabee?

I’m not going to vote for someone just because they have an R next to their name.

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Thanks Michelle.
My sentiments exactly.

edgehead on January 30, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Bacon/Nugent 08

Buttercup on January 30, 2008 at 5:45 PM

And you would prefer to leave the job of protecting America to a Clinton again?

BohicaTwentyTwo on January 30, 2008 at 5:08 PM

Maybe.

I know one thing for sure, I’m not voting the the not too tightly rapped Juan McShamesty.

Besides:

“The Bush administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws ast year, government statistics show.

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 (Clinton)to four in 2003 (Bush), and fines collected declined from $3.6 million (Clinton)to $212,000 (Bush), according to federal statistics.

In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies (Clinton). In 2004, it issued fine notices to three (Bush).”

Do you really think that if Bush was not better than a Clinton at protecting America and it’s integrity, that Juan Plantation McShamnasty would be?

MB4 on January 30, 2008 at 5:45 PM

infidel65 on January 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Yeah man those are really excellent points. There really is no significant difference between McCain and Bush, except that McCain is quicker on his feet and is unlikely to give the press corps as easy a time slapping him about.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Is there really that much difference between Bush and McCain?

Bush is too lenient towards people that attack him, McCain might nuke people that attack him.

Seriously though, no one is mentioning the fact that we might be up against Obama. In that case, well, I don’t know how well McCain would do.

I’m scared to death of both Dem options, we need a military. An armed, funded military. If McCain’s our only hope for that I’m with him.

But not until every last primary ballot is counted. Otherwise, go Mitt go!

NTWR on January 30, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Without resorting to cutting and pasting from various comments above (which I LOVE to do), let me be more general:

I remember a line from some song by an obscure group back when I was just a teeny little guy:
“If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

If your personal viewpoint is “I won’t vote and therefore I am not responsible for whom other idiots put in office” is your defense, then please take a moment to reflect on American history since 1900. Apathy has gotten this country (and, dare I say, the world) in the situation that we now find ourselves.

The Founding Fathers of this country were wise beyond their years. Power was given to the people. The fact that we the people have chosen to ignore our role and responsibility in our government is just inexcusible. We do not hold our officials to true accountability and then hide our own culpability by playing a school yard blame game. It’s the Democrats fault. Or the Republicans. Or this. Or that.
It’s our fault ladies and gentlement. And the fault of many that came before us.

The government of the people, by the people, and for the people has been allowed to become a government of the government, by the government, and for the government. Insert ‘special interest group’ for government as you see fit.

America now finds itself at another dangerous period in history. By selling out our morals and ethics for selfishness and greed, we are on the verge of plunging the knife into our own backs.

I would laugh at the antics of our candidates if the consequences were not so dire. I would laugh at the antics of our Congress if the consequences were not so dire. I would also laugh as people chose apathy if the consequences were not so dire.

“If a disaster is going to happen, I would rather it occur on a Democrats watch”…Great idea except that it ignores a simple fact. Those that are left have to deal with the consequences. There are those that are just full of glee that 9/11 didn’t happen on ‘their’ watch. Unfortunately the people from 4 planes are not available for comment. Or some people from a few buildings in New York, the Pentagon, Bali, etc., etc.

Vote for who you want. Don’t vote if you so choose. But when it comes to pointing fingers, don’t forget to stop at the mirror first.

SwampRat on January 30, 2008 at 5:47 PM

In 2004, Paris Hilton campaigned like crazy for “vote or die” and then she did neither.

Think seriously of the consequences of choosing not to vote. It’s a choice, to be sure. But I think I’ve made it clear how stupid I think not voting is.

mjk on January 30, 2008 at 5:48 PM

I don’t know if I’d go so far as vote for Hillary, but I probably would pull the Obama lever over McCain. I’ll take known knowns any day.

askheaves on January 30, 2008 at 5:48 PM

tlclark on January 30, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Think you got it just right, both with regard to MM’s comment, and to McCain’s likely response. We shall see.

JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 5:48 PM

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Don’t vote for McCain because he is a Republican, vote for him because he is a least a better Republican than Hillary. What was Hillery’s stance on Shamnesty anyway? Better, worse or the same? What about every other category. Isn’t there at least one (GWOT) that McCain is a little better on?

BohicaTwentyTwo on January 30, 2008 at 5:49 PM

I’m not going to vote for someone just because they have an R next to their name.

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 5:43 PM

And you shouldn’t. All that does is enable the demise of Conservatism. Don’t settle and don’t be an enabler. We need a third party. The Conservative Party, what a concept.

Buttercup on January 30, 2008 at 5:49 PM

Is there really that much difference between Bush and McCain? Bush would have signed the shamnesty bill had it reached his desk; he signed McCain-Feingold into law; he pushed though free prescription drugs for over 65s (the largest entitlement program in 40 years); he allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill.
The one big difference I recall is the tax cut issue. I think McCain will be tougher on Iran and North Korea; he won’t have the chance to sign an amnesty bill; and he’ll fight earmarks and pork more than Bush has done.
When Michelle calms down, she’ll vote for McCain. Just like millions of other conservatives.

infidel65 on January 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM

At least in Bush’s first term he gave something significant to each of the 3 legs of the conservative coalition. I don’t need to restate what he did for national security/defense. For the economic leg of the stool, he pushed for and got 2 huge tax cuts which gave a lot of stimulus to the economy. And for the social con leg of the stool, he told the ABA to get lost while putting up one good appellate court nominee after another, keeping his promise that he would nominate strict constructionists.

I certainly have my issues with Bush, as he’s done plenty to disappoint me as well, but on the same token, he’s much, much better than McVain – who tried to cut two of those legs out of the stool by opposing tax cuts and throwing some good judges overboard in the Gang of 14 compromise.

In other words, whatever you say about Bush’s level of conservatism, McVain’s level pales in comparison.

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 5:50 PM

the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court the Court

If McCain is elected, might he appoint a “consensus candidate” like Anthony Kennedy? Sure. Would that be bad? Sure. McCain doesn’t like conservatives. But Hillary loathes conservatives. If she gets in, she’ll appoint people to the Marxist left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That should be fun.

And, by the way, do think Hillary thinks we “need no stinkin’ borders…”?

eeyore on January 30, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Here’s a silly thought. What if we could “protest-vote” against a candidate?

In other words, if there were no candidates that we liked, we could vote against a candidate in the general election, say Hillary for example. I go in to my precinct, I vote “no” for Hillary, and it counts as one vote against her. Then, when the results are tallied, all the “no” votes are netted against the “yes” votes to give Hillary her final number of votes.

Discuss…

CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 5:51 PM

All of you chastising MM and the rest of us who are contemplating sitting out … would you still feel the same if Ron Paul was the Republican nominee?

No, because Ron Paul would have us believe that we attacked ourselves on 9/11. He is a traitor and a freak. I would vote for Geraldo before him.

How about Mike Huckabee?

Ugh! Yeah, I’d vote for him to keep the dems out. And so would Michelle. We are all adults here, are we not?

argos on January 30, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Maybe the democraps SHOULD get in, hang themselves out to dry, and the conservs come back in ’12 with a proper conservative candidate and take back the whole ‘g’, ala Ronny in ’80. Right! And who would that candidate be? We would have 4 years to find and groom one. Don’t forget, Reagan lost the nom in ’76 and came back with a vengeance to rescue the country after that jerk Carter really screwed it up.

countywolf on January 30, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Buttercup on January 30, 2008 at 5:49 PM

That’s been on my mind for a while now. Too late for this election but maybe soon.

Les in NC on January 30, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Once again, this is why the left-loons get things their way so often. No matter how much dung they hurl at each other in the primaries, you don’t hear them making noises about “sitting out” the election if their pet doesn’t get the nomination.

This isn’t principle. It’s pique, pure and simple.

If McCain meets the requirements on one issue — Iraq — that put him way ahead of the Dem candidates.

We talking some GDS (Geraldo Derangement Syndrome) here?

MrScribbler on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Is there really that much difference between Bush and McCain? Bush would have signed the shamnesty bill had it reached his desk; he signed McCain-Feingold into law; he pushed though free prescription drugs for over 65s (the largest entitlement program in 40 years); he allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill.
The one big difference I recall is the tax cut issue. I think McCain will be tougher on Iran and North Korea; he won’t have the chance to sign an amnesty bill; and he’ll fight earmarks and pork more than Bush has done.
When Michelle calms down, she’ll vote for McCain. Just like millions of other conservatives.

infidel65 on January 30, 2008 at 5:29 PM

This is a good point infidel. There really is not much of a difference between McCain and Bush. Other then perhaps the fact that McCain was against the Bush tax cut. But I think Bush’s lurch to the left has created the situation we have now. George Bush, as leader of the Republican party, has attracted “moderates” over the years despite the beating he has taken by the press. He’s moved our entire party over to the left in an attempt to appease the media (or perhaps he’s just more liberal then he let on in his run up to the election(s)). Now we have a situation such that what was once considered the Reagan Republican base is too far right for the party. The Democrat party has shifted left as well. JFK’s tax cuts were larger then Bush’s. Now the words “tax cut” are a swear word at a Democratic Convention. Government grows bigger no matter which party is in office. George Bush is a big government, small “r” republican. The Constitution is getting ripped apart piece by piece by both parties.

The sad part is that if Bush had just stayed true to limited government Republican Conservative ideals we would all be so much better off for it. The country would be better off and the Republican party would be healthy and strong and firmly in line with the historical positions of the party. If Bush had just paid attention to Reagan’s admission that granting Amnesty was the biggest mistake he ever made we would be better off today. If he had recognized the fact that McCain/Feingold was unconstitutional and treated it as such we would all be better off now. If he even cared one bit about limiting government spending we would all be far better off for it today.

Unfortunately when faced with decisions, when he stood at the crossroads (one road pointing left one road pointing right) George Bush, more often then not, chose poorly. He chose the road to the left, in my estimation, so as not to pick a fight with the establishment media. In the end all he did was steer the entire country left. He has paved the way for a John McCain presidency and an abandonment of what was once considered the Republican base which has its roots planted firmly in both the letter and intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

George Bush has destroyed the Republican party. Reagan could not win the Republican nomination today.

Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

I don’t know if I’d go so far as vote for Hillary, but I probably would pull the Obama lever over McCain.

That would be like kissing Ted Kennedy on the mouth.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM

No disrespect intended – but that attitude is nothing but knee-jerk infantile narcissism. It’s the political equivalent of “I’m taking my ball and going home.”

There is no universe in which a Hillary Clinton presidency is preferable to a John McCain presidency. Letting that happen isn’t just politically stupid it might be personally reckless; people may just die as a result; you might just be one of them. If that sounds like hyperbole, you weren’t paying attention in September 2001.

Deeply disappointing.

Fortunately, I know something some of you seem not to: the conservative blogosphere in general and this place in particular are woefully out-of-step with average voters. The vast majority won’t make the mistake some of you seem eager to embrace in all its childish glory.

Thank God for the non-blog readers. In other words, 99.9% of the electorate. You aren’t “the base,” kids. No matter how much you think you are.

If you really believe that you are, the current election must be awfully puzzling to you.

Immigration isn’t everything. McCain won’t kill us. Hillary might. One way or another.

Now take your ball and go home. Sulk for a while. Let the adults do the work.

Professor Blather on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM

the same jokers who wanted me to grin and take it up the *** over Giuliani. the same jokers who told me that GWB would be a conservative President. the same jokers who want me to vote for a ‘true conservative’ in Mitt Romney (yeah, right). These are the same jokers who want me to *not* vote for McCain.

Excuse me while I laugh my head off.

tizzidale on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM

How about Mike Huckabee?
Ugh! Yeah, I’d vote for him to keep the dems out. And so would Michelle. We are all adults here, are we not?

argos on January 30, 2008 at 5:53 PM

What if Hillary had an R in front of her name? Would she be preferable to the Democrats? Lieberman? Oh wait, he’s already with McCain.

Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Start here. I’ll help you all through it.

Rightwingsparkle on January 30, 2008 at 6:00 PM

That would be like kissing Ted Kennedy on the mouth.

Or in worse places…

CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 6:00 PM

Illegal immigrants will be the least of our problems if our Commander in Chief is a Democrat intent on surrendering to the terrorists by bringing our troops home.

Weakness is their aphrodisiac.

When they come, when their suicide bombers enter our malls and our schoolgrounds, when a dirty bomb goes off down the block, we won’t give a rat’s a$$ about amnesty, shamnesty, healthcare, earmarks, abortion rights, gay rights, mormons, flip-flopping or the super bowl.

What we will be 100% devoted to then, is surviving and protecting our families, and wondering what happened to that level of comfort and security we did have with a republican in the White House who stood up for America and went after our enemies.

But then it will be too late, and then is when you can ask yourselves, “What was I thinking when I allowed Hillary to be our president?”.

fogw on January 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM

tizzidale on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM

GWB was vastly better than Gore or Kerry. McCain is not much different than the defeatocrats. The only real difference is Iraq which hopefully be in a totally different situation thanks to the surge and Patreus.

Les in NC on January 30, 2008 at 6:03 PM

the same jokers who want me to vote for a ‘true conservative’ in Mitt Romney (yeah, right).

Mitt Romney is the truest available candidate, with any chance of defeating McCain, in THIS election with superduper Tuesday one week away. And that’s a fact.

But if you would rather make Pelosi’s day putting her girlfriend in the Oval Office, then by all means …..

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Good for her — for now. We’ll see where she and Rush stand 10 months from now.

Drum on January 30, 2008 at 6:06 PM

What if Hillary had an R in front of her name? Would she be preferable to the Democrats? Lieberman? Oh wait, he’s already with McCain.

Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 5:59 PM

What if you grew a brain? But please, let’s be reasonable here.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:07 PM

McCain needs us conservatives in the general more than we need him. I presume he’ll all of a sudden make some promises (that he won’t keep) to enough of us to make us vote for him.

SouthernGent on January 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Or in worse places…

CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 6:00 PM

[in my huskiest Hotlips O'Hoolihan impersonation]

Oh! Teddy!

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:10 PM

For the last 20 years we conservatives have been told by ‘wiser, calmer heads’ to suck it up and vote for whoever the GOP machine decides to push. And there is always some ‘reason’ given that we should wait until later to stand up for conservative beliefs.

And we keep on kicking that can down the road. There will ALWAYS be some reason that the ‘wiser, calmer heads’ will tell us we have to settle for the lesser of the evils, rather than once and for all fix the problem. Meanwhile, the Rinos move the bar of ‘conservatism’ to where a liberal Democrat was in 1950, and todays Liberal Democrats are more Karl Marx than FDR.

How much farther left do we have to see this country move before we draw that line in the sand and say “NO MORE”?

Do we have to wait until after McCain and Juan Hernandez get another hundred million folks out of Mexico and give them the vote in the US?; When McCain and Gore get together and destroy the US economy because he believes that us evil white men are causing ‘global warming’?.

Will we be allowed to demand a better candidate then? Or because the economy is destroyed and conservatives are outnumbered by 100 million regular liberals and 100 million new ‘hispanic’ liberals, will we be asked once again to settle for another RINO political hack.

If we keep on following the advice of the ‘wiser, calmer heads’ the spiral downward and leftward will never end until what became the greatest nation in history in the shortest amount of time, DUE TO CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES, is just another “dog eat dog” third world country.

ENOUGH! I say.

LegendHasIt on January 30, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Immigration isn’t everything. McCain won’t kill us. Hillary might. One way or another.

Professor Blather

Immigration is a helluva alot more than you make it out to be. One quarter of Mexico lives in the US. Some parts of the US are simply unrecognizeable as US territory anymore. The tax burden is simply astounding and jobs that would normally be at a higher pay scale aren’t. Look at Europe … their unfettered immigration policy is a nightmare. Granted, if I was to be overrun I would prefer hispanics to muslims … but i don’t want to be overrun. I want my damn country back.

McCain is nothing but Hillary in pants. We’ve all been played for suckers and now you say let’s just pick the lesser of two evils.

darwin on January 30, 2008 at 6:11 PM

The only real difference is Iraq which hopefully be in a totally different situation thanks to the surge and Patreus.

Whom McCain backed all the way.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:12 PM

. The only real difference

there are many differences. you people just don’t want to see ‘em. Yet I was told that I *had* to vote for GWB. Or I *had* to vote for Guiliani. I’m sick of talk radio and talking heads determining the True Conservatives(tm).

tizzidale on January 30, 2008 at 6:15 PM

NuclearPhysicist on January 30, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Well spoken.

davidk on January 30, 2008 at 6:17 PM

ENOUGH! I say.

LegendHasIt on January 30, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Yeah but a good part of the problem here is that the conservative block cannot get its ACT together behind ONE viable candidate. Instead of ONE such candiate, we have fredmitthuck. And McCain is making hay of it. We need to stop blaming everyone else for our own idiocy here. We have one week to get our collective act together.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:18 PM

A VOTE FOR MCCAIN IS A VOTE FOR THE DUMBOCRATS.

A VOTE FOR HILLARY IS A VOTE FOR THE DUMBOCRATS.

Prepare for four years of darkness, my friends.

madmonkphotog on January 30, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Oh it will get darker – if McCain becomes the next President and Rudy is his VP, which I am sure is in the works.

That’s a big yet you might want to prepare yourselves for.

AprilOrit on January 30, 2008 at 6:20 PM

The way I see it is like this: the anti-war sentiment in our nation today has presented the Democrat Party with an opportunity to morph into the Socialist Party. It works similarly to the way McCain supporters are trying to sway conservatives to vote for McCain even though it’s not in their best interests, and that is by a soft form of blackmail. They say, “Not voting for McCain is a vote for Hillary.” In other words, we don’t have a choice, which is essentially the same basis that the Democrats are using to force Democrats to vote for a socialist candidate, “Not voting for Hillary (or Obama) is a vote for the continuation of the war”.

As a result we have a Socialist Party, which is the Democratic Party, and we have a more traditional Democrat candidate, which is the new Republican Party.

But this can work to our advantage if we have a strong conservative 3rd party ticket and if Republicans can overcome their loyalty to the letter “R” next to the names of everybody they vote for. While the left will split between McCain and the socialist candidate, a serious conservative 3rd party ticket might be able to win in a landslide.

FloatingRock on January 30, 2008 at 6:20 PM

FloatingRock on January 30, 2008 at 6:20 PM

I am for Mitt all the way baby, but I will vote for McCain if my guy loses the primary. Nobody is “blackmailing” me to aver that. I am a Republican.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:26 PM

To be a conservative in the GOP is as to be a black in the Dem Party…. ignored and taken for granted.

bloviator on January 30, 2008 at 6:26 PM

I have no trust for McCain. He wants power… he wanted it eight years ago and he can taste it again now. He LIES to America then makes that stupid looking two thumbs up move that makes me cringe. His speech last night was nothing but more of the Beltwqay Boys Club (thank you so and so, thank you other so and so). ROMNEY’S speech was motiviational, inspirational.

Mitt needs to slam McCain tonight… I’ll be live blogging with everyone else. GO MITT!

cannonball on January 30, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Professor Blather on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Professor, your opinion is regularly one that I hold in high regard. But on this matter I find myself in opposition. What does it mean to be a member of “the Republican base?” If we are going to have a conversation about a term it is imperative that we define the terms. We can’t just make proclamations by whim as to who is and isn’t part of the Republican base if we have not defined what that term means.

I have always considered the Republican base to mean, a percentage of constituents (Registered Republican voters) who most closely agree with the stated positions set forth by the party leaders. In other words, there are a number of issues that define a party. The Republican party has always positioned itself as the party of small, limited government. It always made lowering taxes a staple. It always was in support of a strong national defense, etc, etc, etc.

If that is how we define Republican base then we are it. If you want to define it as something else, then perhaps we are not. If, for example, the Republican base was simply the largest percentage or Registered Republicans with a set of common beliefs. Then we are probably not it. For instance, if there are currently a huge percentage of Republicans who believe that we should be raising taxes right now, then sure, Hotair commenters don’t represent the Republican base. If there was a huge percentage or registered Republicans who believe that we don’t have enough illegal aliens in the country, then sure, Hotair readers and the Republican base are two entirely different things.

I don’t know Professor. How do you define Republican base?

Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 6:27 PM

McCain’s free pass he truly earned by his armed forces service and his time as a POW has expired.

I supported McCain in the 2000 primaries over Bush. I was wrong to do so.

McCain will not get my vote.

Oh wait…actually…by McCainsian Logic, if 12 million of us simply refuse to abide by the IRS tax laws, we won’t have to pay taxes. He’ll grant us taxation amnesty!

Yes!! Sign me up padre! McCain 2008!!

Montana on January 30, 2008 at 6:27 PM

“Not at this moment,” she says, leaving herself a teensy bit of wiggle room. Civil war within the Hot Air family? I fear the worst, my friends.

Michelle

You are too generous. For me, it’s not now, not ever. This mujahid, who opposes Gitmo & Waterboarding, dares to call himself the national security candidate. National security of whom – dar-ul-Islam? That’s no different from him calling himself a conservative.

Allah

Civil war? Who among you support McCain for this to be happening?

infidelpride on January 30, 2008 at 6:27 PM

I am a Republican.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:26 PM

I’m an American. I want to vote for a candidate who supports American sovereignty and our way of life. I don’t care what party they belong to, I just want to win so that we can preserve America for future generations.

FloatingRock on January 30, 2008 at 6:30 PM

Ugh

The MDS crap has to stop. Whiny conservatives, who won’t vote for McCain out of protest, only help Hillary Clinton. Michelle is an incredibly smart political person… but she’s obviously wrong in terms of McCain. And she, along with Rush are hurting the GOP.

Opinionnation on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 PM

i won’t vote in this election if my choice is mccain versus anybody else.

reliapundit on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Blather is taking spanish lessons and might be one who enjoys mexican food. He probably doesn’t mind a few more closed hospitals and over crowded schools with mexicans, who will never be, and refuse to become, Americans, ask them if you don’t believe me. I’m another one who,wants my country back! STOP the flow of illegals! BUILD a proper fence! THROW OUT the illegals and make them come in legally!

countywolf on January 30, 2008 at 6:37 PM

And she, along with Rush are hurting the GOP.
Opinionnation on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 PM

No, The GOP is hurting itself.
Michelle, Rush and the rest of us who know the value of genuine conservatism are only pointing out to the GOP that it is running away from the principles upon which it was formed.

LegendHasIt on January 30, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Unless conservatives begin learning more effective use of less destructive tools like persuasion and logic with our friends and neighbors, conservatism will not take firm root in this country or anywhere else.

Huh? It’s more like “conservatives” are leaving their roots. This country has always been — until recently — a nation of practical conservatives, in general. We’re seeing less and less of this as the years go by…

eanax on January 30, 2008 at 6:40 PM

All we can hope for now is Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate. At least with Paul we won’t get any shamnesty. With a 3 person race, Paul can win by only grabbing about 35%. All conservatives not voting for McCain, just put an X next to Ron Paul.

jjcarrillo on January 30, 2008 at 6:41 PM

McVain will keep lying and betraying the nation while using whatever catchwords (“conservative”, “strong on defense”) manage to sucker enough of the Republicans into voting for his Democrap-lite stance.

No border control, no country.

You can’t win a global war if you lose the one at home with infiltration and de facto invasion.

The Rose Garden, however, would bloom like never before …with all his b.s.

But Obama will beat him if he is the Bob Dole- Reflux candidate.

profitsbeard on January 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM

i won’t vote in this election if my choice is mccain versus anybody else.
reliapundit on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 PM

What if it’s a choice between Hillary, McCain or Bolton, for example?

FloatingRock on January 30, 2008 at 6:43 PM

I don’t vote for Democrats so I won’t be voting for McCain!

Hell, I’m halfway out the door of the RINO party as it is. Next time I hear McCain, Romney, Huck, Rudy etal call themselves conservative I swear I’ll hurl.

Buzzy on January 30, 2008 at 6:44 PM

To be a conservative in the GOP is as to be a black in the Dem Party…. ignored and taken for granted.

bloviator on January 30, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Nah. Blacks are a minority in the nation (~11%), and a minority in the dem party as well. And they have a long history of staying away from the polls. In contrast, conservatives (e.g. the “true” Republican congressmen who refused to allow Pelosi & Reid to stab our troops in the back) are the backbone of the GOP. And sometimes, when we come together like adults, we are able to position ourselves as the backbone of the American people. At present, we (conservatives) seem to be a big fat chicken with no head.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Michelle, Rush and the rest of us who know the value of genuine conservatism are only pointing out to the GOP that it is running away from the principles upon which it was formed.

Please, give me a break with that BS. First of all, conservatives don’t own my party. They are not my keepers. More importantly however, genuine conservatism doesn’t include slandering a war hero’s character just because you don’t like his positions. -phony conservatives do, however.

Opinionnation on January 30, 2008 at 6:45 PM

What if you grew a brain? But please, let’s be reasonable here.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:07 PM

That is one heck of an argument there argos! I’m impressed. Truly.

We are supporting the same candidate argos. I’m dissapointed John McCain is going to be at the top of the Republican party ticket. Very disapointed to say the least. I’m disapointed for multiple reasons. First, I think Romney would make a far superior POTUS. Second, there is no way in hell McCain is going to beat either of the Dem candidates. I know national polls say otherwise right now but in an election season completely engulfed in the theme change an old Washington insider/lifelong politician is not going to cut it. And if a nation that has been leaning left has the choice between a John McCain liberal and the real thing, they will choose the real thing. And historically, a candidate that cannot excite members of their own party is not going to be successful. Never has and never will. We will lose if we are DEPENDING upon hatred for Hillary in order to excite Republicans. It has never worked before and it will never work in the future.

I believe a vote for John McCain in the general is a vote to push this party further to the left. I believe a well placed protest vote will do far more good to our country and our party. McCain is not going to win the election (no matter who you vote for). It is not going to happen. The best thing we can do at this point is make it clear just how off course the Republican party has veered. And trust me, argos, myself and Michelle Malkin are far from alone in that belief. Call it small minded or idiotic if you want but I am firmly in the belief that my decision is the correct one and yours, though well intentioned, is the wrong one and has enabled us to be in the place we are now.

Zetterson on January 30, 2008 at 6:46 PM

No disrespect intended – but that attitude is nothing but knee-jerk infantile narcissism. It’s the political equivalent of “I’m taking my ball and going home.” …

Fortunately, I know something some of you seem not to: the conservative blogosphere in general and this place in particular are woefully out-of-step with average voters. The vast majority won’t make the mistake some of you seem eager to embrace in all its childish glory …

Now take your ball and go home. Sulk for a while. Let the adults do the work.
Professor Blather on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Blather, I typically agree with your posts, but despite your intentions to the contrary, the disrespect comes through loud and clear, and quite frankly, is very McCain-like. Responses like that are not doing your any favors in pursuit of your objective to sell him to the conservative base.

There is no universe in which a Hillary Clinton presidency is preferable to a John McCain presidency. Letting that happen isn’t just politically stupid it might be personally reckless; people may just die as a result; you might just be one of them. If that sounds like hyperbole, you weren’t paying attention in September 2001.

There is a universe – this one – where comparision of a McCain presidency and a Hillary (or Obama) presidency is about as big as the difference between falling into a bucket of puke or falling into a bucket of sh!t. Either way, it’s extremely unpleasant.

You bring up the national security issue again, with the allusion to 9/11, but you omit the fact that McCain himself wants to make it harder to stop things like that. He wants to get rid of the ability to use harsh interrogation methods against terrorist, he wants to treat them as if they are covered by the Geneva convention, and he wants let them take their chances in our courts of law. This is dangerously stupid and hardly distinguishes him from Hillary or Obama. It undermines our ability to gather intelligence, our ability to stop future attacks, and our ability to prosecute the war in general.

Look, we’re not asking him to torture people for jaywalking. But for crying out loud, if there is a ticking time bomb scenario, I want our side to be able to do whatever is necessary to stop it. Without that ability, the rationale you presented in the quoted paragraph above simply does not exist.

Immigration isn’t everything. McCain won’t kill us. Hillary might. One way or another.

You’re right – immigration isn’t everything. But it’s something, something very important.

So are judicial appointments, and McCain has more than earned his mistrust with conservaties on that issue. Telling us we’re acting childish if we don’t believe him now is not going to convince anybody to the contrary.

So are tax cuts, and McCain has more than earned his mistrust with conservaties on that issue as well. Telling us we’re acting childish if we don’t believe him now is not going to convince anybody to the contrary.

The global warming hoax is yet another issue. McCain has bought into it hook, line, and sinker, and is more than willing to sell us down the river on that, thereby solidly earning conservative mistrust there as well. Telling us we’re acting childish if we don’t believe him now is not going to convince anybody to the contrary.

First amendment? To me it’s pretty important. So it is to conservatives as well. Needless to say, McCain-Feingold earned him a truckload of conservative mistrust as well. Admonishing us as acting like spoiled children will do nothing to convince us to overlook that.

On big issue after big issue, John McCain has sided with the liberals, and openly against conservatives. He rarely criticizes the Democrats, and saves his harshest rhetoric for Republicans (thereby repeatedly violating Reagan’s 11th commandment, which McCain supporters whip out every time someone criticizes him). And yet those of us who raise legitimate concerns with his record … we’re the ones acting like children?

How very McCain-like. Good luck bringing the base together with arguments like that.

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 6:46 PM

All conservatives not voting for McCain, just put an X next to Ron Paul.

jjcarrillo on January 30, 2008 at 6:41 PM

That will be the day I start calling myself something else.

argos on January 30, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves – making these sweeping proclamations?

The “Magic Number” of delegates needed for the Republican Nomination is 1191.

So far, of those 1191, only 195 have been determined…Roughly, 16%, with no one candidate with more than 95 (McCain,) or roughly 8% of the total.

Meanwhile, Romney has 67, roughly 6%.

I think, the heartland is going to be trouble for McCain…At least, I HOPE it is.

So, let’s chill

franksalterego on January 30, 2008 at 6:52 PM

And she, along with Rush are hurting the GOP.
Opinionnation on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 PM

How? I keep hearing that Rush has no influence over the GOP anymore. Ditto with blogs – no influence.

So how?

thirteen28 on January 30, 2008 at 6:54 PM

conservatives don’t own my party.

Quite true.

Oh, We started it, we made it work. We made it last for almost hundred and fifty years.

But you and your ilk took it over and are destroying it, just like Moveon/Soros took over and are destroying the Democrat party.

LegendHasIt on January 30, 2008 at 6:57 PM

I always appreciate the information Michelle brings us and I agre with her on many things. However, I will make p my own mind as we all must. I will weigh the things I like about Sen. McCain against the things I wish he would change his feelings on. I will also keep in mind that even if he does not feel as strongly about (for instance) immigration now, as I think it is important for our country to do, he has 9 months of listening to us ‘advise’ him of our feeling and he might get the point.

I am sure Michelle will be among those outspoken people offering him her advice on several issues stating at CPAC. Also please keep in mind it works both ways. While he may seem to drift more to the left while running he will hopefully suprise us upon election.

SilntThnkr on January 30, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4