Tammy Bruce: Come to think of it, I might vote for Hillary over McCain too
posted at 10:15 pm on February 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The right-wing blogosphere’s going to be an interesting place this summer.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4
He’s in bed with the Huckster who is presently humping McCains leg whilst VP ruminations are ongoing.
a capella on February 2, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Probably not, but it’s too late now.
Priscilla on February 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM
a capella on February 2, 2008 at 10:32 AM
To quote you from earlier:
Huck is ironing McCain’s shirts. That’s true leadership Huck. Your policies hold nothing outside of Iowa, so you hold water with the big bully. You go girl, I mean Huck.
Cold Steel on February 2, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I love this pathetic attempt to cast McCain opponents as being deranged.
It isn’t derangement when you can line up time after the time the things that John McCain has done as a U.S. Senator that are contrary to Republican party’s values. That is just clear thinking.
1. Gang of 14
2. Lobbied and voted against tax cuts
3. McCain-Feingold
4. Shamnesty and his unwillingness to secure the border
5. His move to switch parties
I don’t trust John McCain. His actions in the U.S. Senate have shown me that he would make a bad POTUS.
He is not getting my vote. I’m writing in Fred!
SimplyKimberly on February 2, 2008 at 10:35 AM
You have to admit the Huckster did play an important part in all this. Where else could all that campaign antiMormonism have come from, and all done in the name of Jesus? If the stars line up right, we’ll be blessed with a religious bigot as VP. The irony of it all is he wouldn’t be able to get away with it against racial groups.
a capella on February 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM
“Racist epithet?” Juan? How about sell-out, back stabber, liar, etc. etc. Buchanan does nothing for me, so don’t project or stereotype. “Juan” sums up my feelings for Mav. It explains the inherent race baiting in his campaign. Turn the whole issue of rule of law and border enforcement into a humanistic, feel-good, mushy racism/nativism argument. Juan has married into the illegal immigration movement. I for one think it is time for him to drop his given name, and to take his new married name…. or at least hyphenate.
Cold Steel on February 2, 2008 at 9:38 AM
=============================
No, you know and I know that using “Juan” is somekind of racist epithet equating spanish/mexican with being anti-american etc. I am surprised that Hotair administrators have allowed this, but I guess so long as it supports their chosen canidate, violating the terms of use is OK.
And by the way, Pres Bush supported McCain-Kennedy (which I oppose) as much or more than McCain. And what happened when they tried to pass is that IT DID NOT PASS, thanks in large part to the conservative base; so why do you think that if McCain, who says he has learned that we need to close the borders for real first before doing anything else, would immediately try to piss off many folks in the Repub Party when he gets elected. A new president needs a base of support in Congress and in country and he is now campaigning on closing the border and if he were to immediately reverse that he would lose any real chance of getting a reliable base of support.
From your point view it is better to Billary as president or the ultra-radical surrendercrat Obama as president than McCain. If you are conservative who values the country more than your personal feelings, you support McCain if he gets the nomination. I happen to think Romney is a big phony and that he will be surrendering to the Islamist like Pres Bush is doing now, but if he gets the nomination I will support him over Billary or Obama because as much as I distrust Romney, I am quite sure that Billary and Obama would be tragic for the country.
georgealbert on February 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM
If the Conservatives got together and AGREED on a candidate to write in, we could really make an impact on the election.
EJDolbow on February 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Excellent point. I’ll start. Michael Steele.
RushBaby on February 2, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Using “Juan” is nothing more than showing that Senator McCain’s allegences are greater to people who call him “Juan” than those who call him “John”
EJDolbow on February 2, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Go right ahead. Then watch your country really go straight to hell. Wasnt 8 years of the Clintons already enough? If it wasnt for the internet boom coincident to CLintons office years, the economy wouldnt have done what it did.
No sooner Bush swears in, friggin 9-11 happened. Gee, who was in office 8 whole years just before that? The CLINTONS!
Take the IRAQ war glasses off, and look back people. CLINTONS are bad news.
As for McCain, he wont run crap anyway but he at least wont abuse the office and be soft on Communism.
johnnyU on February 2, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I’m all for a write in campaign in November.
But Steele is out of the question after seeing him on Hannity & Colmes going on and on about how the Reagan revolution is over. He isn’t the leader I want with that sort of thinking.
SimplyKimberly on February 2, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Perhaps you did not understand. I said CONSERVATIVE.
Michael Steele is from the Christie Whitman, John McCain, Lindsey Graham wing of the Republican Party.
EJDolbow on February 2, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Don’t forget he has an important member of his campaign staff who really is named Juan, who holds dual Mexican-U.S. citizenship, and was a former member of Vincente Fox’s government. He is in charge of Mccains Hispanic outreach program. Is that close enough?
a capella on February 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM
georgealbert on February 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Don’t change the argument. GWB is not running for office. His vote on illegal immigration is not the issue. McCain’s is. Don’t get “holier than thou” with this anti-Mexican sentiment. McCain obviously cares nothing for principles I espouse: not lying, rule of law, decorum, decency….. so I return fire. You get offended over this? Grow some more skin. What’s truly offensive is McCain’s divisive campaign strategy cloaked in hints of compassionate Christianity. You cannot begin to comprehend phony. McCain’s strategery comes from Bush hold outs who used some of these same tactics on him, with great success. That’s one issue I have with GWB and the “compassionates.” But as I stated earlier, GWB is not running. McCain the divider is. Get off your high horse.
Cold Steel on February 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM
He said as president he would sign the McCain-Kennedy shamnesty bill, he wants Gitmo shut down, and will tax your eyeballs out in the name of global warning.
a capella on February 2, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I might add that the argument that Bush was also in favor of Shamnesty and it got shut down anyway, doesn’t wash because the election will be used as proof that the electorate really does want a president who favors the bill. Apparantly the McCain campaign workers who post here are in favor of it.
a capella on February 2, 2008 at 11:05 AM
a capella on February 2, 2008 at 10:58 AM
How is a Marxist environmental program meant at curbing growth in the name of green being soft on communism? If we constantly attack wealth through class envy and wealth re-distribution, are we not on the path towards communism? As far as McCain not abusing the office… he’s already shown how he abuses the truth (very Clintonian), what’s going to check his ego? Romney was right on about McCain’s Nixonian tactics. The ends never justify the means. McCain has proven time after time that he will use whatever tactics to crucify his opponents. We will lose our credibility as a governing party under his stewardship. We’re still paying for Nixon’s ego. McCain’s will echo and amplify those tendencies.
Cold Steel on February 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Wow. Didn’t know, thanks for pointing that out. Does the disappointment EVER end?
RushBaby on February 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Ronald Reagan handled the Iran-Iraq War brilliantly: by helping both sides.
For 20 years, we conservatives have been opposing the “moderate” (i.e., furthest left) wing of our Republican Party every step of the way. We’ve been whitewashing the message they’ve been so desperately trying to convey to the American voter.
And it’s time for that obstructionism to stop. We need to get out of their way and let them get their message out. Better yet – since they’ll have no megaphone of their own once the primaries are over and the liberal media cuts them off – we’ll need to proactively HELP them explain to the American voters exactly how the left wing of the Republican Party compares to the left wing of the Democrat Party on the issues of supporting illegal immigrants, coddling terrorists, socializing medicine, etc., etc….
That’s the only way the voters will be able to make an informed decision in 2008 – and again in 2012.
logis on February 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM
That’s really stupid. No way I’m voting for a Marxist like Hillary.
someguy on February 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I can see that. To be fair, both camps are putting party first, just their version of what the party should stand for. You said it yourself, McCain-”haters” ( I don’t hate McCain, btw) believe that McCain will destroy the conservative movement. We also believe that the conservative movement is good for the country or we wouldn’t be defending it so hard. So to ask us to hold our nose and vote for the very person we believe will destroy not only the movement, but be bad for the country is the same thing as putting party over country from our POV.
They call McCain ‘Maverick” for a reason, and there’s a reason why he’s not only popular with the MSM, most of whom are liberal Democrats, but with most Dems (so much so that McCain had to hold a press conference to announce that he wasn’t considering running as John Kerry’s VP nominee). McCain can be counted on to cave-in on Conservative principles.
eclark1849 on February 2, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Don’t change the argument. GWB is not running for office. His vote on illegal immigration is not the issue. McCain’s is. Don’t get “holier than thou” with this anti-Mexican sentiment. McCain obviously cares nothing for principles I espouse: not lying, rule of law, decorum, decency….. so I return fire. You get offended over this? Grow some more skin. What’s truly offensive is McCain’s divisive campaign strategy cloaked in hints of compassionate Christianity. You cannot begin to comprehend phony. McCain’s strategery comes from Bush hold outs who used some of these same tactics on him, with great success. That’s one issue I have with GWB and the “compassionates.” But as I stated earlier, GWB is not running. McCain the divider is. Get off your high horse.
Cold Steel on February 2, 2008 at 10:54 AM
==========================
Really, “Cold Steel” you are quite emotional.
The object of noting pres Bush is because you say that if McCain is pres we will get open borders and there is no reasonable evidence that would be the case. If fact the evidence is the opposite of that.
And when you continue to us racist language I am going to call you on it and you don’t like TS. Here in America we have values that are contrary being racist. And I do get offended when people are racist; clearly you don’t.
And for you to say that John McCain, cares nothing about not lying, rule of law, decency, is not fact based. Decorum? maybe you are right on that, but so what?
I disagree with McCain on McCain-Feingold, on the gang of 14, on the Bush tax cuts, on McCain-Kennedy and on characterizing folks were against him in the illegal immigration debate as bigots. I think he was wrong on all of those. But to say that John McCain does not care for the rule of law, or decency, or honesty is BS. He is far from perfect but we never get perfect candidates. Ronald Reagan was not perfect. These folks are human beings and the task of the voters is to make choices about getting good policies implemented and the histrionics by the anti-McCain crowd do not show the better side of conservatism.
Why don’t the Romeny folks try to argue for their candidate rather than aruging against McCain?
georgealbert on February 2, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Cold Steel @ 11:11
Your memory of Nixon may be influenced more by the MSM than fact, as his greatest folly was not an enormous ego so much as his desire to be loved by the people accompanied by an odd sense of insecurity, usually refered to as paranoia.
I do not see the parallel that you attribute “about McCain’s Nixonian tactics”. McCain has no unrequited love for or from the American public. In McCain’s total self obsession, he feels no emotional need to be accepted, let alone loved by the American citizens. If we despise McCain, McCain will not cry in his pillow, racking his brain for a way to appease the silent majority of wonderful Americans as Nixon did.
Instapundit featured headline “Nixon-like” Romney referencing McCain, but nowhere in the article text.
Perhaps you would explain your “Nixonian” usage.
McCain has actually proven that there are tactics that he will not use to crucify an opponent or enemy; torture. So far as that goes, Ann Coulter is wrong to align with the Clintons. On that basis, it was the Clintons who tortured and murdered American civilians prior to any trial in a court of law. The children, women and men were tortured for weeks, bombed and burnt alive for not submitting at Clinton’s Branch Davidian massacre. Hillary and Bill and all of their government are literally drenched in American civilian blood.
To McCain’s discredit, he had no problem accepting shady money from Keating and lobbyists, and facilitating legislation enabling the crooks to abscond with tax dollars and personal moneys from the ruined savings and loans. Why were those S&L crooks bailed out by tax dollars? Also, McCain was acually found guilty of the very behavior that Travis County DA Ronnie Earle, without a law on the books, indicted and refuses still to prosecute Tom DeLay. The GOP set DeLay up for political ruin, organizing a temporary protocol that did not apply during the activity in question and was rescinded as soon as DeLay stepped down. One can investigate McCain’s involvement in destroying DeLay’s career. But the GOP cannibalism of DeLay’s career would not have succeeded without Gingrich and the party leadership now backing McCain.
maverick muse on February 2, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Before you get too hung up on Michael Steele, IIRC he supports McShame.
hilchar on February 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM
cold steel @10:54
Actually, GWBush’s involvement in the GOP is absolutely relevant to this election. One could argue that any liberal legislation that McCain sponsored was at the behest of GWBush, carrying out whatever “mandate” that Bush claimed to have from the American people as voiced at elections.
My argument is against the “compassionate” government, as ultimately, any such presumptuous folly as the role of government becomes obscene. Charity works at the local level from local hearts and hands, not from afar where greed and avarice plunder the fund, as Bill Clinton explained his illegal behavior, “because he could”.
maverick muse on February 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Maverick:
Good points and analysis. My comparison is ego driven and a means based point. I’m not going into the thought behind it. You must admit that McCain employs dirty, plumber-like tactics.
To your last points, I don’t trust Gingrich. He tries to come out above it all, but his inaction and enabling seem self-aggrandizing to me. Propping up Reagan conservatism and hiding personal agendas behind it are ineffective governance at best. Gingrich is not my standard bearer. The greatness of conservatism, IMAO, is that it relies on individuals bearing their own standards, except for the explicit issues covered by the constitution.
Cold Steel on February 2, 2008 at 12:10 PM
maverick muse on February 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I agree to a point. But saying McCain carried any water with GWB might be a little off. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was/is no love lost. Unless you buy into the fact that McCain is running all foreign policy in GWB’s White House from the senate and campaign trail. I mean McCain did invent the surge don’t you know?
I agree with your compassionate governance sentiment. The government has no constitutional role in it. This to me is an attempt to marry one’s religious tendencies to the government. It’s an imposition by whomever is in power. Their belief system takes precedent, because they know what is right. This will come to odds because some groups will eventually be left out. It also tells people they need to go outstretched to the government….instead of reaching within themselves, or to their God.
Cold Steel on February 2, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Sarah Palin of Alaska for VP…I think to get back in Romney needs to come out with his VP choice.
tomas on February 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM
You mean like the McCain supporters argue for him by arguing against Hillary and Obama, all the while ignoring the many deal-breakers he represents for conservatives?
Stashiu3 on February 2, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Do you all think Hillary or Obama will take care of our troops as well as McCain?
tomas on February 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Actually, yes I do. None of them care about the troops as much as their own agenda. If any of those three win the troops can expect to get screwed.
Stashiu3 on February 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM
That just isn’t true. My problem with McCain, Obama And Hillary is the Economy. They are Senators who have six year terms and sit around talking about things. Romney is a doer and you can’t explain that away.
tomas on February 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM
If Amnesty McCain is the choice of the old country-club Republicans, I wouldn’t have a problem writing in:
Mitt Romney
Sen. Jim DeMint
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Gov. Mark Sanford (SC)
Gov. Palin (Alaska)
Rep. Tom Tancredo
SouthernGent on February 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM
tomas, you asked a question and I answered. Then you say my answer isn’t true (basically calling me a liar since you could have said it was wrong instead of saying it wasn’t true.) Then, you talk about a completely different topic (the economy and Senate terms being used to sit around and talk) as if it related to my answer. Then, you say I’m just implying something against Romney who wasn’t even part of your question, nor part of my answer.
Do you see a problem here?
Stashiu3 on February 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I can’t see you but…If I must, McCain cares about our troops and it wasn’t worth arguing over.
tomas on February 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Then why ask the question if you weren’t prepared (or even willing) to discuss a contrary answer?
Also, I’m not sure what “I can’t see you but…” means. You’re not making a lot of sense here and I’d like to understand.
Stashiu3 on February 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I can’t stand liberals — especially liberals who pretend to be conservative.
2Brave2Bscared on February 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM
+1
Stashiu3 on February 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM
The response wasn’t worth arguing.
tomas on February 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM
FIFY
Stashiu3 on February 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM
I know many native Spanish speakers. I have many Hispanics in my family. I have never heard any of them refer to “Juan McCain.”
Nothing makes someone look like a bigot more than some BS justification for bigotry. I’m not saying you are a bigot. I do think you’re a ginormous wuss for offering such bile as a logic.
I think that “Juan” is being used pejorativeyly in most cases. Why else would it be used? For praise?
I don’t think that Hispanics or even John McCain have the monopoly on being targeted by provocative language. We all use words to attack. That is nothing new.
***
Matthew Iglesias on “Juan McCain”
The Race Card on February 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM
And call George Bush…”Jorge Busho”, so what of it?
TOPV on February 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Ditto. I think most got your point. But this is touchy feely, politically correct times we are in. You have to spell things out these days or else you might hurt someones feelings (and we say we want to be tough against islamofascism…ha, not if a word gets us offended).
TOPV on February 2, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Then why are you voting for McCain? Party over principles? Single-issue voter? Seems to be several points of disagreement with ol’ John…
And I’m voting 3rd party, by the way.
eanax on February 3, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I would prefer to have the candidates to name those and the positions of the cabinet they would fill. This would tell you more about the person and also, give you an idea where the candidate is about to take you.
Hitlery would probably have Angela Davis and Sec. Def., and bring back the cronies of ‘Wild Bill’ because they were loyal and knew how to kowtow.
McCain, may try to appoint himself for all of the positions because he has had the experience of dealing with all of them over the years. However, he may surprise us with some logical picks that would get the job done. Sheriff Apio as DHS Secretary would give terrorist and illegals something to think about before they make their decision to enter this country.
MSGTAS on February 4, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4