Tammy Bruce: No, I’m not kidding about voting for Hillary over McCain
posted at 2:14 pm on February 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Like Coulter, she says she’s serious about the nuclear option, and (presumably) like Coulter, she thinks Mitt would be a tougher out for the Dems than McCain. Would he? We’ve already had this debate, more or less, in another context, but to imagine Romney being elected at this point you have to envision him winning not one but two races as the “anyone but” candidate. Has that ever happened? Has any guy ever swept through the primaries and the general on the tide of atmospheric loathing for his opponents? It’s a sure loser against Obama, who carries no baggage and whose charm and “authenticity” (and historical significance) match up, shall we say, very neatly with Mitt’s perceived stiffness and phoniness.
Anything’s possible against Hillary, but why does Tammy think Hillary would wipe out McCain, who’s always done better against her than Romney has head to head (possibly because of the greater name recognition), while Romney would give her a race? Her organization delivered an unlikely win for her in New Hampshire and an impressive six-point victory in Nevada; his organization’s 1 for 5 in hotly contested primaries against opponents vastly weaker than the one she has to contend with. Is centrist opposition to Hillary so strong that independents are going to come out in force for a weak candidate whose own party only turned to him at the eleventh hour out of panic about the alternative? Hard to believe. Which isn’t to say Hillary won’t beat McCain either, but that doesn’t seem to be Tammy’s fear. Her fear is that she won’t beat him and then we’re stuck with the RINO brand — another worry that I think is overblown.
People are sending me this piece about McCain’s possible Supreme Court picks too, I guess so that I can dump on it. Judicial appointment are one of the least worrisome aspects of a McCain presidency. He says himself he doesn’t care about social issues; appointing pro-life judges in the Roberts mold is a perfect way for him to buy himself credit with the base that he can then go spend on the leftist crap that makes his heart sing, like amnesty.
Exit question: These Tammy/Beckel tangles are really getting “edgy,” aren’t they?
Update: It’s all probably moot anyway.
[T]he winner-take-all/proportional split among the primaries has just sorted out terribly for Romney. He’s going to get a decent slice of the vote in McCain’s best states and absolutely no delegates to show for it, while McCain gets a few here and a few there in Romney’s best states, and California probably splits pretty evenly.
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 Next »
Protect the unborn! Vote Hillary!
Sweet Jesus that’s dumb. And Ms. Bruce obviously doesn’t know too many active duty military people, because they sure don’t think that.
Idiocy on a massive scale.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Tammy’s pro-choice.
Allahpundit on February 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM
How is McCain going to win without Conservative voters in a general election? He won’t because he won’t have the libs and he will loose a lot of independents when a Democrat candidate is added to the mix.
Also did you see McCain with Hillary on FOX. It was discusting the way he reacted to her.
Tim Pancoast on February 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Because most of those conservatives will turn out for him. Don’t go by the blogosphere. If the blogosphere were any indicator, Fred Thompson would have clinched the nomination already.
Allahpundit on February 4, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Tammy Bruce = Retarded
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Tammy Bruce is a pro-choice, classical liberal feminist.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I disagree, Bryan. SCOTUS justices sit for life once confirmed. Legislation comes and goes, and can be amended or overturned with enough votes.
A far left justice can’t be repaired and will last for years and years. I’m not trusting of McCain to pick conservative justices. He’ll fold like a cheap lawnchair at the first sign of resistance.
BacaDog on February 4, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Those that do deserve the government they get.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Okay, two, female headcases are going to vote for a female, Marxist, if McCain gets the GOP nomination. Sounds about right, to me.
Incidentally, Bruce USED to be on-air in OKC, but she was dumped a few months ago – basically, because she was a nut who sucked on the radio. Sure, Tammy, I loved hearing about your cat.
I, truly, care about who you’re going to vote for.
As for the other nut, she’s all about getting attention. And, if she does vote for the female, Marxist, she’ll get even more of it. Exactly what she wants.
OhEssYouCowboys on February 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Sorry, AP not Bryan.
BacaDog on February 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM
But a large percentage of GOP voters aren’t. She is saying that McCain = Hillary. It’s simply demonstrably untrue.
How about stop porkbarrel bribery? Hillary is terrible, McCain is very good.
Understanding of, and lack of hatred for the military? C’mon.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Don’t worry, McCain will win the conservative vote. Which will make the knee-jerk RINO-labellers immolate themselves, or else call all self-described conservatives voting for McCain RINOs or non-conservatives, because they of course know better than McCain supporters what McCain supporters are better than McCain supporters themselves.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Tammy’s performance was repugnant.
Although I do respect her and I share most of her views, she did not present herself well.
Anyone that makes Beckel seem reasonable by comparison needs to tone down the emotion laden rhetoric.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM
How serious do you think Ann will be about supporting Hillary once Mitt has conceded and her Hyperbole has no chance of swinging votes?
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM
She shows how seriously opposed conservatives are to McCain. Many Repubs feel he is a real BOGUS dude. Sure, bonafide war hero to his country, sacrificed 5 years of his life for us, but his politics suck! It would’ve been better if he just turned democrap. Or was a democrap from the beginning. Then everyone would know his true postion. Doe he think people are going to forget his stance protecting illegals, or voting against tax decreases, to name a few of his democrap ideals. I don’t think Repubs will really vote for Barry or the Clintdumbs, but they might just sit this one out and wait for ‘12 to start all over without McCain.
countywolf on February 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Exactly.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM
OhEssYou….I believe Ms. Coulter is going to get a wee bit of non-fan mail for her recent comments in favor of Hillary over McCain from folks in the military who used to like her.
Not that she cares, but, hey.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM
It isn’t just the blogoshpere. It is what I am hearing on the radio and seeing in my own neighborhood, and among the people I meet. McCain will not have the majority of Conservatives with him and the few that are will not be energized supporters. They will be the hold your nose and vote for anyone but Hillary Conservatives. That won’t be enough to put McCain over the top.
The way he gets nervous and starts acting deferential around Hillary is going to kill him if he gets into a debate with her. His nervous giggles won’t score him any points.
Mitt Romney will be a serious opponent to any Democrat he has to face.
Tim Pancoast on February 4, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I thought Bruce was alot more moderate than Coulter, you’d think McCain would be a good fit for her?
jp on February 4, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Mitt would be a serious LOSER to ANY Democrat!
General Election: Romney vs. Obama: Obama +15.4
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-231.html
General Election: Romney vs. Clinton: Clinton Clinton +11.3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I’ve got to love the argument for McCain. He doesn’t hate the military and he wants to push for less pork, despite having more lobbyists in his campaign than any other candidate.
That’s what it’s come to for our nominee.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Tammy Bruce came off as not only disgruntled but unhinged.
Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Do we need this placed into stone? Those polls are not reliable. Carter led Reagan coming out of the conventions.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Romney will attract and hold more of the GOP traditional base, excluding the Mormon haters, than McCain in the general. Whether that is sufficient to offset the emotional knee jerk to McCain’s military record is pretty hard to judge. Depends on the opponent, I suppose. They both have a decent shot at Hillary, but Obama would be an uphill battle. I suspect a large number would mimic Coulter and Bruce, if Hillary is the candidate. It is in her best interest to have McCain as her opponent.
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 2:30 PM
McCain will get creamed in the general election , regardless of whether it’s Hillary or Obama.
He’s a dog of a candidate.
billy on February 4, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Clinton and Obama both Poll over 50% against Romney!
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Rasmussen like/dislike
Core Favorability/Opposition Among All Voters
Candidate Def. FOR Def. AGAINST Net
Obama 29% 36% -7
McCain 22% 33% -11
Huckabee 21% 34% -13
Thompson 21% 34% -13
Edwards 23% 38% -15
Clinton 30% 47% -17
Giuliani 23% 42% -19
Romney 19% 47% -28
Paul 10% 48% -38
Bloomberg 5% 49% -44
Core Favorability/Opposition Among Unaffiliated Voters
Candidate Def. FOR Def. AGAINST Net
McCain 20% 26% -6
Obama 22% 31% -9
Edwards 20% 31% -11
Thompson 18% 31% -13
Huckabee 16% 34% -18
Romney 18% 38% -20
Giuliani 18% 44% -26
Clinton 22% 48% -26
Paul 14% 43% -29
Bloomberg 8% 42% -34
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Carter was predicted to cream Reagan. Mondale was going to do well, too.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Doesn’t matter, the dude is a Massachusetts flip-flopping liberal.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Eh, these hysterics may convince people to vote for the “true conservative” Romney, just like they convinced people to vote for the “true conservative” GW Bush in 2000. I was a Rudy/Fred supporter, so I don’t have a dog in the fight.
It’s just amusing to see them playing exactly the same game now as before, and in support of another cipher-in-a-good-suit Ivy Leaguer.
I’ll vote for the GOP nominee, but I do fear that Romney would go down hard, unless he gets a brilliant VP pick.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Yet he still has won 3 out of the five highly contested primary races. By your definition I’m sure Romney would love to be a “dog of a candidate”
Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Hey Ted Olson for the Supreme Court sits well with me.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 2:35 PM
They were busy complaining that they had no conservative candidate, just before they started claiming that Romney was the only conservative candidate left. You know, the stalwart Pro-Tanc-Dunc-Fred-Mitt camp.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Gawd!
Apparently the blogosphere had so much influence that they catapulted Fred as the front runner according to national polls, even before he entered the race last summer. /sarc
If the blogosphere isn’t influential, than why haven’t you posted equal everybody-hates-McCain-vs-Mitt posts prior to now?
Were you afraid that you could influence a few readers with factual information?
Gasp! We can’t have that now can we?
Mcguyver on February 4, 2008 at 2:36 PM
At least the “True Conservatives” aren’t trying to spread a rumor that Senator McCain had a black son out of wedlock, this time around. At least, so far.
That’s an improvement from 2000.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Allah,
Come on dude. McCain will be horrible for conservatives. If one is not conservative and wants McCain fine. But I will not hold my nose and vote for that man and for the record…I AM ACTIVE DUTY ARMY!!! and I HATE MCCAIN!!! I think he is a traitor to the conservative movement.
revans2468 on February 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Better than a flip-flopping New York liberal who lives like one. Guiliani hired the police to escort his mistress around.
btw. is that you Deroy Murdock? Have you shifted from Guiliani shill to McQueegiac?
Heck, Mitt governed MA. about as conservatively as you can get. McCain gets elected in AZ and then throws his weight leftward.
BKennedy on February 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Funky, a normal, Conservative person wouldn’t want that kind of attention; but, Ann Coulter is a sociopath – any attention is good attention. It feeds her sociopathy.
OhEssYouCowboys on February 4, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Your dude,(McCain),left his wife after she had a car accident.
After she stuck by him during his captivity in N. Vietnam.
Left her for a 25 year old.
A 25 year old daughter of a billionaire.
How’s that gonna play in November?
What are those poll numbers gonna say when this subject has been talked about everyday on Oprah and the Today Show and the View?
billy on February 4, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Intrade Market Prices for Republican Presidential Nomination
McCain 87.9
Romney 10.0
Huckabee 1.0
Ron Paul 2.2
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 2:39 PM
?
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 2:39 PM
That complain isnt so much that the didnt back Fred (though is some of that) but rather the let McCain skate in the early primaries. IF McCain is such a bad choice they should have spoken up against him from the START not wait till he has things almost locked up.
Its a very fatal lapse that hit conservatives in the last few months. I dont blame McCain for winning I blame conservatives for losing.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Chill out Mcguyver, AP is an equal opportunity hazer. This will all be over tomorrow for the most part, so just lay off the big A. He tries really hard.
BKennedy on February 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
If you can say McSwain if Cankles in a suit, is Cankles McSwain in a
dressdrag…what would Cankles be in other in the butch suits she already wears. This is all so confusing.Wade on February 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Hey, the black son out of wedlock could be McCain’s running mate! LOL (kidding)
Anyhow, this is from the Weekly Standard article above. My head is just spinning from the silliness of it all. I mean, Fred! didn’t deserve to be the nominee because he wouldn’t commit to campaigning hard in New Hampshire, but McCain is stupid for having a campaign spot in Massachusetts? Which is it, oh great pundits? Good grief, it’s not just Arlen Specter who needs something else to do.
W
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I don’t think so. This coming election is very significant in that regard. I think the threshold has been reached, and if McCain is nominated it will have long term impact on the GOP, not just in votes, but financial and grassroots support. If we take Obama out of the equation, the question then becomes, Does Hillary hate outweigh McCain hate and how short term are we willing to think?
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
G.W. Bush. In many respects. Twice.
Lawrence on February 4, 2008 at 2:43 PM
He admitted his mistakes.
“My marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine.”
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Umm Jimmy Carter and George McGovern ?
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM
“This election is the most important ever yada yada vote with me because I’m prescient yada yada I’ll self-immolate before I vote for McVain/McShamnesty/GrandeJuanMacMexico yada yada cats and dogs living together in peace.”
Yup.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Wait you included general so strike mcGovern
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I’m sure the Clinton/Obama campaign will take a very charitable approach to the issue then.
In fact I doubt it will even come up.
billy on February 4, 2008 at 2:46 PM
William Amos—yep, they didn’t get out and support either Hunter or Fred! big time, but just sat back and watched Huckabee snatch up all those votes. Now they want to throw tantrums because it’s not going their way. I gave lots of $ to Fred because I thought he was someone that religious and security and fiscal conservatives could compromise on and support. I liked Rudy early but knew that once the primaries came along he didn’t have a ghost of a chance because he is pro-choice, and didn’t choose to reinvent himself to court “values voters.” McCain has been steady in being pro-life his entire career. That makes it easier for some folks to support him, I think.
Oh well.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 2:46 PM
That is exactly correct.
If he’s elected, any concern he has for credit with the base is out the window. He’ll appoint anybody he darn well chooses, and we will all like it, see, SEE!
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM
BTW, I’m divorced(because of my X’s infidelities) I have since , forgiven her.
She is now remarried, to someone else, good for them.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Fixed.
2Brave2Bscared on February 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Tammy Bruce’s radio show is painful. She makes Stephanie Miller look like a genius.
SnarkVader on February 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM
This going to be hard, but after giving it some more consideration and after hearing what Hillary said on the talk shows Sunday, I have decided that while I’m still holding out for Romney to win, If It’s Hillary v. McCain, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for McCain. Seriously, we can’t afford to let Hillary in the Oval Office.
So McCain will get my “anybody but…” vote, which according to Allah, means he will probably lose anyway.
eclark1849 on February 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I’ll bet that’s what Ted was also thinking when he lined up at the trough.
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I say we tell the party to void all the early primaries and hold an open convention.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Hey Ted Olson for the Supreme Court sits well with me.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 2:35 PM
He’s too old.
The nominee should be someone in their late 50’s-early 60’s.
billy on February 4, 2008 at 2:50 PM
*Here he is making an obvious statement of his bias that has been ongoing.
HotAir in it’s total blog post equation may be an equal opportunity hazer, but don’t confuse AP with that total equation.
AP is an equal blog-hit opportunist, but that shouldn’t be confused with being unbiased politically.
Mcguyver on February 4, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Hmm there is a big state out there that just had a big flip
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html
Mitt Romney 30%
John McCain 29%
Mike Huckabee 20%
Ron Paul 8%
Alan Keyes 3%
Unsure 10%
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Tammy Bruce is wrong re: Clinton beating McCain. It certainly would be a tough choice for a lot of moderate liberals, but McCain is a perennial fave among them.
That said, I sympathize with her on the general point. It’s hard for me to justify voting for McCain when we’d basically get the same policies as a Clinton. Might as well let the Dems carry the blame.
AP is also right with a Romney/Obama matchup. Romney is now my guy in the current race, but I have a hard time imagining a scenario where Romney would beat Obama in the general election.
Get ready for 4 years of liberal governing…hopefully it won’t be 8.
Tim on February 4, 2008 at 2:51 PM
2Brave2Bscared, Pro-Choice does NOT mean Pro-Abortion.
You can be Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion..
You can believe, that the ultimate choice should be let to the woman, but also believe and work hard to encourage that woman to keep the baby or choose adoption as an alternative.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Man, Huckmania is tearing Romeny a new one across the south today. I wonder if we’ll get some video soon?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 4, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Yep, but too bad the race will be decided after tomorrow. Texas won’t get a chance to meaningfully vote in the primaries.
Tim on February 4, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I can’t wait to steal a ton of Obama’s support, because they hate Hillary.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 4, 2008 at 2:55 PM
William Amos at 2:51 PM,
Right. It was Huckabee that was leading in Texas just a little short while ago.
Keep in mind that the Texas primary is still a month away.
By the way, Mitt Romney has hit Rush’s airwaves, paying confiscatory prices for ads, in a big way today.
It’s just money.
Mcguyver on February 4, 2008 at 2:58 PM
- The dumbing down of America via the public schools
- The underrated power of the MSM
- Success in the war lulling people to believe it’s over
- Reaping the fruits of years of Rovian triangulations
I’m trying to find the reasons why we’re in this horrible mess, with a non-rational, politically illiterate electorate…
Halley on February 4, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Fred divorced and then married a woman 25 years his junior. Big deal. He’s still a conservative. Carol McCain was already divorced once when they married, and was injured in 1969, at the same time John was being tortured and injured by the Vietcong. They split in 1979. Hardly the reason for separation. He’s been married for 27 years and by all accounts is a great father to his kids. This is a non-story.
Not really on the level of ‘McCain had an illegitimate black daughter’ or ‘McCain was a Vietcong collaborator’ crap, but on the way. You stay classy. Sick smears from the deranged wing of the GOP cost McCain in 2000; they won’t fool the electorate a second time.
Pax americana on February 4, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I am so mad at Ann and now Tammy sounds just as foolish. Granted none of us like McCain but to make a assinine statement as Ann has deserves to have all her books burned.
Her point was ludicrous. Hillary is a socialist and ignorant people will follow Ann’s dumb lead. I don’t want McCain as much as the next person but I want Hillary less.
Someone with guts, and it was obviously not Hannity should call Ann on this. Her millions are based on repetitious books how liberals and the Clintons are bad. What’s her next book? “Liberals aren’t that bad, I was only kidding, I want more money, suckers.”
Conservatives R Us on February 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Halley, I think that’s a good analysis.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I watched this exchange with Beckel and was cheering Tammy all the way. Her point is in the same vein as Rush’s “If the country is going to go to hell, I’d prefer it happen under a Democratic administration.”
I like the reference to the ‘nuclear option’. Let me add my voice: If McCain is the choice of Republicans, I’ll vote for Clinton over Obama because:
She is older, and so contentious that one term is all she would last
and
Obama is younger, likeable, more easily re-elected. Four years of purgiteery instead of eight. And then, hopefully, a younger true Conservative will rise up and tack our course back to the right.
Doug on February 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM
An excellent point, and one I raised a few times on this site over the weekend.
If you hate McCain, you had your chance to pick your “real conservative” candidate before now, and you failed. Now it’s essentially just Romney & McCain, because Huckabee has no shot at winning it (and is crazy), and neither does Ron Paul (who shouldn’t even be running as a Republican, and is even CRAZIER).
Vyce on February 4, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Hillary is apparently less Godless than McCain, I guess?
snort, yeah.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Pax americana on February 4, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I personally don’t care about McCain’s marriage,(or anyone else’s for that matter) and the whole story is probably not nearly as distasteful as I’ve described it.
But that’s the whole point.
The media and democrats (who’ll have several hundred million for the effort) will shred the personal reputation of John McCain, war hero.
And once his reputation is in tatters, what will he run on?
The issues?
Like his principled opposition to illegal immigration?
Low taxes?
He looks good now, but wait until he gets the nomination.
Then the gloves will come off.
billy on February 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Oh yeah, let’s give the way left wing part of the dem party control of all 3 branches of government for 4 years. It’ll work out great!
3 new justices who will all be like Ginsberg, giving the wacky left an untouchable majority on SCOTUS for decades. Yeah!
Definitely better than having McCain possibly appoint moderates. Communism all the way!
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Ah, Hillary will get less critical treatment from the MSM than McCain. Yes, I can see that as a reason to vote for her.
What are you people smoking?
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Enough! I’ve been a conservative all 70 years of my life and frankly, I couldn’t care less who Tammy Bruce votes for. Furthermore, I’ll decide which candidate I believe is best and if I want any advice from talk show host, I’ll ask for it.
rplat on February 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Mr. Chicken (or is it Miss Chicken),
You are totally missing the point. If Hillary Clinton is the president the Republicans in congress will FIGHT her liberal ways.
If John McCain is the President, the Republicans in Congress will NOT fight his liberal ways.
It is better for people who are interested in Conservative governance that John McCain never be President.
EJDolbow on February 4, 2008 at 3:16 PM
That is a reach. Bush backed amnesty as much as McCain and republicans rallied against him. To say the republican party would forfit all their values because McCain is president is untrue.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM
fixed
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM
EJ, sorry but that’s just stupid. They stood up to GW Bush when he tried to do stupid things. What makes you think that they have any greater love/fear for McCain than Bush?
And if a dem wins POTUS they will have coattails. And the dems already have majorities in both houses of congress. Jeff Sessions is one of my senators and a real hero on both spending and immigration. But if he has fewer than 30 other votes to hold a filibuster, it won’t matter how hard he fights.
And why you think Clinton or Obama would be more likely to listen to Senator Session than McCain, who has been an ally on spending and has cordial relations with Sessions, I can’t even begin to imagine.
But as I’ve said before, McCain derangement is a religion. Which means it’s not subject to reason, so I’m not going to spend any effort talking you out of it.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Hillary or Obama bring us:
Surrender to the Islamists – Sharia law in your bedroom
Massive loss of 2nd Amendment Rights
Massive Taxes Increases
Government Bureaucrats taking away personal choices on healthcare and goodness knows what else
The IRS in your bank account
—-Sure, other than these minor items, lets vote for Hillary
georgealbert on February 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
At this point, I’m having a hard time seeing much of a difference (excluding oil/environment and possibly taxes) between a McCain presidency and Bush’s. Just a continuation of the same, the good, bad and the ugly. I think this goes directly to McCain’s most electable myth, especially if the Dems. put up Obama. It’ll be pretty easy to paint a great big red “do you really want more of the same?” target on McCain’s chest in the general. Add the fact that this man has a walk in closet full of bones, it makes it really hard to support him in the primary.
I do not believe the choice will be made tomorrow, so I’ll just keep plugging away with my Fredhead for Mitt thing and see what happens.
ChrisM on February 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Is it really so far fetched?
The typical Washington pol will look at the events of last summer and draw this conclusion:
McCain went against the wishes of the popular will and caused the Senate phone lines to melt down.
But..
The net result is that McCain ends up winning his party’s nomination and possibly the presidency.
The only conclusion they will draw is that amnesty will do no lasting damage to political career.
A McCain presidency will lead to amnesty more surely than Romney, Clinton, or Obama.
billy on February 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM
The republicans also saw what happened to spitzer for backing DLs for Illegals. There will be no rush to commit suicide I assure you.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Bleh, typo. I meant 39 other votes, of course.
funky chicken on February 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM
And McCain is running AWAY from amnesty he isnt pushing it as an agenda. FOr him to turn around and say “Ya know what the people really elected me to pass amnesty” would be a seriously stupid thing to say and justify
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Huckster was endorsed by the NEA. Huckster is carrying water for McCain in hopes of being VP. So far, McCain seems O.K. with it. He might even want to cross the aisle again and put together another, more potent No Child Left Behind bill with Teddy. They work well together. One never knows. Troubling times, indeed.
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Ann Coulter… Tammy Bruce…. who gives a flying something-or-rather. Ann Coulter is as relevant as Michael Savage and that says a lot about how irrelevant she is. Tammy Bruce is even less relevant and the only way for these irrelevant nobodies to be noticed is by saying and doing outrageous things. It is expected of Coulter – the Sheehan of the Right – and not much of a surprise from a nobody like Bruce. But to say that they will vote and campaign for Hillary over McCain is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. I do not like McCain any more than anyone else but if the choice is between he and Hillary, McCain gets my vote any day of the week. As a matter of fact, I will volunteer here and do whatever I can for McCain in order to counter the ignorance and self-absorption of people like Ann Coulter.
With the supposed leaders of the conservative movement only looking out for themselves and shoving daggers into the already fragile state of the conservative movement for their own selfish desires, it is no surprise that I am seeing things like THIS .
zerodamage on February 4, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Correct — not a big deal. His first marriage lasted almost 30 years (1959 to 1985) and he did not marry again until 2002.
SunSword on February 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
She’s right about one thing, Hillary WILL wipe the floor with McCain. He’s old, snarky, and has alienated a huge number of Republicans over the past 10 yrs. Independents will NOT vote for McCain. The media is pushing McCain because they know that McCain can’t defeat Hill or Obama. Sorry to disappoint, but it’s true and Tammy is right. Feel free to file this under “future predictions that will become truth.”
Gartrip on February 4, 2008 at 3:45 PM
And yet he’d get away with it.
The Wall St.-Washington establishment wants amnesty, or more precisely, open borders.
If he okays it, they’ll give him all the cover he needs.
And if there is another outpouring of rage like last summer, Congress will ignore because they’ll know they can.
billy on February 4, 2008 at 3:47 PM
From earlier in the thread
Core Favorability/Opposition Among Unaffiliated(independant) Voters
Candidate Def. FOR Def. AGAINST Net
McCain 20% 26% -6
Obama 22% 31% -9
Romney 18% 38% -20
Clinton 22% 48% -26
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Tammy & Ann are both right on the question of electability. One thing that everyone else assumes is that since McCain can attract Liberal Republicans, Independents and Moderates, he’ll add to the number of default GOP voters. However, all that assumes that Conservatives are going to go and pull the lever for anybody with an (R) after his name.
It ignores the probability that Conservatives may simply sit out, or pull the lever for all Conservative officials in their district except McCain. Given that Conservatives have sat out against far less hostile candidates than McCain, such as Dole, Hastert, Frist, that is quite a leap of faith. While the bulk of them may not do what Ann and Tammy are threatening, simply sitting it out is enough to hand things to the Dems. And if McCain is the nominee, even Hillary wouldn’t be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Throw away the static analysis, guys. Don’t assume that McCain being the candidate won’t cost the GOP any votes.
infidelpride on February 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Allahpundit on February 4, 2008 at 2:19 PM
McCain will not be able to carry the South. The South will split. Most states have democratic state governments but vote Rep in national elections if not given a conservative choice most WILL stay home. McCain has no chance of winning the general. None. He has 30% of the party behind him which is most of the party leadership. The same leadership that is hated by the base.
unseen on February 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM
I’m probably atypical. I’d say I’m fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, against big government, have supported Bush on the war, but oppose his police-state “homeland security” policies.
I’ve voted Republican in 12 consecutive presidential elections.
But I will NOT vote for John McCain under any circumstances. McCain has demonstrated his contempt for both the Bill of rights and the rule of law. He is a dangerous man. Republicans who vote for him will eventually regret that decision.
Diane C. Russell on February 4, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »