Why vote for a guy that had a total political transformation just for the 2008 Presidential Nomination?

Chakra Hammer

Fair question. In answer, when McCain sued the FEC in 2005 to try to force them to regulate and control all internet political communication; and now wants the job that would involve selecting FEC Commissioners (the only thing that stopped him last time); he became worse than Romney.

Now, you might not like free speech. You might think shutting down political speech from “unapproved” sources is ok.

But McCain has shown he’s worse than a guy who had a political transformation. McCain is both unwilling to change his mind on his “hot topics”, and one of his “hot topics” is silencing non-approved speech.

That will never get my support. Now maybe, if we’re lucky, he’ll select FEC Commissioners who disagree with his main point… but betting on that outcome? Not exactly a risk I’m comfortable with.

Why vote for a guy that had a total political transformation just for the 2008 Presidential Nomination?

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:22 PM

You’re right Chakra Hammer, why should I vote for a man who was shoving amnesty down out throats last summer, and now says he never supported amnesty, despite the fact his name is on the bill?

That was an amazing political transformation, going from a blowhard Shamnesty Senator to a blowhard “It’s not really Shamnesty, It was never Shamnesty, the earth is flat, there are four lights!” Shamnesty Senator.

Btw. Deroy Murdock must be really stupid if he’s just writing a hit piece about the Vietnam incident now. I know you like self-promotion Deroy, but that’s a bridge too far.

Mitt Romney = John Kerry without the fake medals, carrying Clinton’s Dictionary.

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM

Chakra Hammer = Michael Moore without the fake movies, carrying a load of never ending $hit.

Or maybe the party left them.

What good is it to elect a guy who might win, but is a Democrat? You might as well vote for Hillary if you vote for McCain, the end result the same, a Democrat in the white house ( even if McCain wins ).

While that may be true, I’m getting a talk-radio “I’m a life-long registered Republican, BUT…”, fauxpublican vibe. I might be off, though.

My logic is sound regardless if you believe in a republican or democrat or whatever. If you want the best chance to win the general, that choice is mccain as of now. I emphasize “as of now” because this could all change.. tomorrow.

That’s not based on any sort of.. policy basis. Who would make the best republican candidate and who would actually have a better chance of getting elected are two different discussions. On a policy side im obviously going with romney, but what good is great policy if the guy can’t win an election?

Reagan used to be a democrat, so I guess Regan was against Regan priinciples at one time. Geesh, this is such old news. But to an uninformed electorate, maybe it’ll matter.

JustTruth101 on February 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Reagan wasn’t against Reagan-Bush.

The problem is that he is getting it ALL wrong now and for the last 7-8 years.

If you can ignore McVain Feingold,Kennedy,Lieberman,Global Warming and Juan Hernandez all because of something he did right 15 years ago, maybe you should just not vote.

It is mildly amusing to see McCain talk betrayal

MCPain has betrayed people on a host of issues long after Tsongas. No need to print the list since it goes right over the heads of pol-ops

However the best newest McPain betrayal is the slush fund otherwise known as his foundation, which pays salaries to campaign members using dollars donated by the likes of Soros. These employees then work on the McCain campaign as unpaid volunteers. Donations to such a ‘foundation’ are not limited like campaign donations are under campaign financing laws

Laughingly, public interest groups including foundations are limited from running political information ads before elections due to McCain Feingold

I caught a few seconds of Rush today and he hit a home run, basically that critics who say we will put in a DEM if we don’t vote McCain are saying it is more important to vote for someone who will win, than someone who supports your views.

To the RNC: Your game will not work this time. I have no need to vote to keep you guys in business. You do not represent my interests. You represent my detriment.

This is not the Perot election. This is the understanding that the RNC pol-ops do not support my needs. Not Bush, Dole, McCain, Graham, border buster governors or any other liberal RINOs and pol-ops clinging to the intestine of the beast.

McCain cannot win without the conservatives and he and you know that. Dems have real choices and will not vote McCain. If McPain loses he will jump for joy for he will have kicked the arse of his nemisis: the conservative base

Polyps are not always excised, but periodically examined for carcinoma

Willard is the only one that doesn’t seem happy with his life.

Wake up and smell the profit, moron.

NemoParticularis on February 4, 2008 at 10:38 PM

LOL’s!!!!!!!!!

BWWHAHAHA!!

Why is that the other Candidates loathe Willard?
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:19 PM

Il est evident qu’ils sont verts de jalousie, n’est-ce pas?

/see ya.

LOL, Rush, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, Tammy Bruce, Etc. will all need to go to therapy together. – Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Wake up and smell the profit, moron.

How would you like President Hillary Clinton With the Nuclear Option?

Gang of 14 which shot down GWB nominees.

Actually the Gang of 14 got lots judges confirmed.

As I just posted in a slightly different context, there is a difference between reaching across the aisle and joining the other party. I would suggest that, on balance, Romney has been bi-partisan while McCain has been a turncoat traitor to his party.

highhopes on February 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I feel much better now. They’re both RINOs

Romney’s outrageous willingness to work with scumbag democrats on anything.

myamphibian on February 4, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Um…. McCain-Feingold(the guy who still wants impeachment hearings) CFR legislation.

McCain-Kennedy (enough said) amnesty bill.

Gang of 14 which shot down GWB nominees.

As I just posted in a slightly different context, there is a difference between reaching across the aisle and joining the other party. I would suggest that, on balance, Romney has been bi-partisan while McCain has been a turncoat traitor to his party.

It matters not. What matters is El Rushbo hates McShamnesty. Rush and I are the only true conservatives anyway.

myamphibian on February 4, 2008 at 10:23 PM

LOL, Rush, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, Tammy Bruce, Etc. will all need to go to therapy together.

Why is that the other Candidates loathe Willard?

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:19 PM

It matters not. What matters is El Rushbo hates McShamnesty. Rush and I are the only true conservatives anyway.

What bothers me most about the contract with America clip, is Romney’s outrageous willingness to work with scumbag democrats on anything.

myamphibian on February 4, 2008 at 10:17 PM

It’s called, “reality”. Anyway, I think his point was mostly that you need to give people a face-saving graceful exit and not make them feel like losers…if they lose.

In 2008 Mitt Romney says that the older he gets, the smarter Reagan gets.

Vote John McCain. He got it right in ‘92!

BKennedy on February 4, 2008 at 9:45 PM

So who should we respect more?

Somebody whose views evolve over 15 years of experience and thought or the guy who hasn’t changed one bit in 15 years?

The guy who spent those 11 of those years in the private sector and the remaining four as a successful governor of a state ruled by the opposing party or the guy who has spent that time in the same public-sector job.

The guy who has proven he can reach across the aisle compared to the guy who has a long record of joining the guys on the other side.

John McCain- Right for 1992, wrong for 2008!

Go Romney/Thompson!!!!