Tired of “everybody hates Mitt” stories? How about an “everybody hates McCain” story?
posted at 11:22 am on February 4, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From today’s Washington Post. Unlike anti-Mitt stories, this one isn’t based on class warfare. Its central theme is that John McCain is a hothead who yells at and kneecaps fellow Republicans. His chief of staff’s defense?
[Mark] Salter scoffed at the idea that McCain is not fit to be president and said most stories about his temper are “wildly exaggerated.” He pointed to McCain’s success at “across-the-aisle cooperation” with Democrats as an example of how he would deal with Congress if elected president.
Yeah, like McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy, a pair of legislative abominations. If that’s how a President McCain would “deal with Congress,” no thanks. But the McCain camp’s instinctive defense here is interesting. Instead of always touting McCain’s recording of working with liberals, which we all know he can do, how about Salter or someone else in McCain’s camp giving us some evidence that McCain can work with conservatives?
There isn’t much of that, at least in the last few years. But there’s this.
McCain’s relationship with House Republicans has been strained for years. After stumping for more than 50 GOP candidates during the 2000 campaign, McCain dramatically scaled back his efforts in 2002 out of pique toward House Republicans who opposed his effort to overhaul campaign finance law.
Great. McCain sacrificed the GOP congress over his wretched CFR crusade. Speaker Pelosi thanks you, Maverick.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Exactly! Get ready for it folks. If McCain wins the nod he will spend the majority of his time “across the isle”. We will think Hillary has been elected!
kcd on February 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM
That’s why this man ius unfit to be our President.
Can’t everyone see this?
omnipotent on February 4, 2008 at 11:26 AM
With all due respect to you, Bryan, but the anti-McCain stuff is running off the rails insofar as the New Media’s concerned (including talk radio.) Just saw Tammy Bruce off her rocker on FOX declaring that Romney was almost like Reagan, whatever the heck that means, and that McCain is who the Dems want to go against because he’s beatable and Romney is not. She then proceeded to say she’d vote for Hillary over McCain, as if that’s supposed to be persuasive, and concluded her remarks with saying “VOTE ROMNEY” several times.
I mean c’mon, when McCain is the nominee, who’s going to take the Anns and Seans and Tammys and others seriously?
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I’m tired of both stories. Wake me when the primaries are over and the real fight starts. (I am Canadian so can’t vote in either the primary or the general elections).
Actually in general, I’m tired of the overly hysterical stories from all directions and about all the candidates. Definitely in a table for one in unpopularness of that opinion.
mjk on February 4, 2008 at 11:29 AM
John McCain has his name on more legislation WITH DEMOCRATS than do the two Democrat Senators running for POTUS.
EJDolbow on February 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM
John McCain has been spending the last 20 years being an obstacle to the Republican party and an enemy of the conservative movement, because he understood that the media would make his career. What a contemptible cynic.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I think it is telling that the most pro-victory in Iraq candidate is doing well among independents and moderates.
VolMagic on February 4, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Trent Lott hates Romney.
THat right there is reason enough to vote for MITT.
Lott was on our local radio station (Geogia) talking trash about Romney and talking up his Amnesty buddy, McCain.
EJDolbow on February 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM
It is interesting that McCain spends most of his time getting angry, by directing his explosions at the people who are supposed to be on his side. Just like on the FOX news show where the put Hillary on with him, McCain gets all chummy and nervous around Democrats.
It is a discrace.
Tim Pancoast on February 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Perhaps he could ramble over to our side of the aisle a bit more often we wouldn’t be having the issues we do with him.
Bonus trivia: Which candidate of either party has the most lobbyists on his/her staff?
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM
How unaware of reality do you have to be to think that America is primed to elect a hard core conservative right now?
Why do you think McCain is surging?
Why do you think Obama is surging?
Most Americans, as opposed to shrill, hyperpartisan drama queens (on both sides of the aisle) are tired of division and want the two sides to work together,
It will not be possible to win an election with an appeal to the hard core right in 2008. The candidate that can work with the other party to find solutions palatable to a majority of Americans can and will win.
I would rather that the consensus President that can reach across the aisle and work with both parties be a Republican than go down to defeat on the back of a candidate that has recently morphed into a dream conservative but has ZERO chance of winning in the general election in spite of the delusions of rabid Mac haters.
I suspect that the shrill will get louder and louder until sometime tomorrow when Romney finally concedes to inevitability.
And yes, in spite of ever more passionate claims of staying home and/or voting for Hobama, you will all be supporting Mac in the General.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM
McCain will be happy to take revenge on those “righties” who scorned his left-leaning embrace and will help his “friends” the Dems, again.
And his wife is another Kitty Dukakis, as the media will start telling you if he gets the nomination.
McDole’s a general election loser.
(Dole was more conservative, more honorable, and more likeable BTW.)
profitsbeard on February 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Actually tired of both!
I could go for an “everybody hates Obama because he’s going to wave a white flag in Iraq and sacrifice 4,500 lives and trillions of dollars of sacrifice story”, though.
BillINDC on February 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Criticizing McCain fairly on the issues is “off the rails” now? Good to know. That’s certainly the attitude that he built into CFR.
Bryan on February 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM
*wave a white flag in Iraq and sacrifice 4,500 lives and trillions of dollars
of sacrificestoryFixed.
BillINDC on February 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Though McCain’s temper might be a problem sometimes. I would have actually preferred that President Bush had a temper when the GOP had control of congress. If Bush would have went to congress and knocked around Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay, instead of just falling in line, we might not be in the position we are today. We might have been able to actually control spending and corruption. Two things that led to the GOP losing congress.
Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Yeah an Obama v. McCain race would be murder. The really bad news is that if Obama is our president AND we lose filibuster privelege in the next congressional election (which from what I’ve heard is looking likely) conservatives are going to be SOL. On the bright side, at least we’ll be giving money hand over fist to Africa.
blankminde on February 4, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I will take those that stuck to their principles far more seriously than I will those that sold them out.
Kudos, Bryan.
tickleddragon on February 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Hard core conservative? How about someone who supports us on taxes? Or judges? Or immigration? Or free speech? Or global warming? Or Gitmo? How about any of those issues at all?
Why is Obama surging? Because he’s an empty suit that keeps pushing “hope”, which the American Idol electorate happily accepts blindly.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM
“Tired of “everybody hates Mitt” stories?”
that’s a joke, right?
jummy on February 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM
True sometimes McCain’s version of “bipartisanship” forgot to be truely bipartisan. Working with the democrats isnt the same as working FOR the democrats.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I’m sure you’ll be read Reagan’s 11th any minute now.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Welcome back. Still not taking you seriously, but welcome all the same.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Which principles? Supporting the war on terror? Or watching the next president fold like a lawn chair for 8 years?
BillINDC on February 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I’ll tell you who, John McCain, that’s who. He’ll be quite serious about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine to punish them and Shut Them Up.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Yeah, and by a McCain supporter. The irony will be so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw.
Bryan on February 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Quoting facts about McCain is perfectly acceptable.
Reminding us for the 8 millionth time that McCain is the Anti Christ because he supported CFR is just showing your desperation.
Perhaps, if your posts attacking the presumptive Republican nominee did not outnumber your negative posts on either Democrat candidate by 10:1, I might still be listening to your argument.
At this point, do really think that your tactics are going to convince a McCain supporter to switch sides? Really, do you?
Ride that Romney Titanic until it’s fully underwater. I look forward to reading your posts again, once Romney concedes and make no mistake, he will. The only question is when.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Apparently after 8 million reminders CFR still doesn’t seem like a big deal eh?
blankminde on February 4, 2008 at 11:44 AM
So when did McCain express support for the Fairness Doctrine? I love how all the ills of liberal government are assigned to McCain83% but rarely ever justified, except that he’s not Tancredo/not Duncan/not Fred/not Mitt. (Pattern, no?)
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Yeah, I see. John McCain is personally responsible for the failure of the GOP to hold onto Congress. No doubt he wrote Foley’s e-mails and personally emplaced the explosives at the Samarra mosque, just as we know he physically dragged each and every illegal immigrant over the border.
CK MacLeod on February 4, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Didn’t take long to get the smearing started. Someone the other day said that most HA commenters were “semi-retarded.”
And it’s coming straight from the top. Check out this gem from Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Open-Borders Wall Street Journal Editorial Gang:
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I will say that the GOP, no matter the nominee is in trouble as Obama surges. The worst criticism I’ve seen of the guy is that “he’s well-intentioned, but naive.” The guy is that likable.
And well-intentioned but naive may or may not be true, given that it takes either a massive degree of idiocy to state that al Qaeda is in Pakistan but not Iraq, so you’ll withdraw from Iraq to fight them “where they really are.”
Such sentiments frighten me.
BillINDC on February 4, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Welcome to the primary, where you push for the Republican you support. The general is where you go after Dems.
Perhaps the goal is to get to people who are on the fence? You know, to sway undecided voters?
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Romney is very intelligent.
Romney is very successful.
Romney is very handsome.
Romney has a very nice family and is still married to his first and forever wife.
Romney is easy to hate if you’re a small-minded, covetous, narcissistic son of a bitch.
D2Boston on February 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM
It is irrelevent, unfortunately.
We do not have the luxury of a dream Conservative candidate.
All trends favor Dems, nominating McCain, is our one and only chance to buck those trends, now that Rudy is out of the race.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM
either a massive degree of idiocy or cynicism
Fixed. man, I am off today.
BillINDC on February 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Do you not understand that those of us who oppose McShamnesty have done so because of his record and not what they say? Maybe you are motivated by all of McCains endorsements, but many of us look to his record.
I’d like to know when Mitt is going to air the ad with McShamnesty telling us to ignore his record and vote for him because of what others say, and then show a clip of John’s immigration adviser, Juan Hernandez, spouting his open borders La Raza diatribes.
csdeven on February 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Look again I look at a McCain presidency as a version of “Weekend at Bernies”
Conservatives just have to prop “Bernie Mac” up in the oval office while we run things. Let him have the glitz of the office while conservatives in congress runs things. Then in 4 years we transfur power to a truer conservative.
Let McCain have the office in exchange for his popularity which we would use to get other republicans elected.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM
The pattern here is his vicious vengefulness against anyone who opposes him.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM
That’s McCain’s lifetime rating, which I’d point out is actually relatively low. How low? Chuck Hagel’s rating is 86%.
His last yearly rating was in the 60s.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM
A great justification if no others work. Ripple Effect Theory of candidate selection.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Hillary or Obama is significantly lower, yet by supporting Romney, you are in effect working to get them elected as Mitt hs no chance in the General.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 11:49 AM
McCain’s actual ACU ratings:
1987 — 83.5
1988 — 82.3
1989 — 85.3
1990 — 82.5
1991 — 81.8
1992 — 84.5
1993 — 74.8
1994 — 89.2
1995 — 70.2
1996 — 75.3
1997 — 71.5
1998 — 68.3
1999 — 67.7
2000 — 61.7
2001 — 66.8
2002 — 59.8
2003 — 62.2
2004 — 51.7
2005 — 59.2
2006 — 56.7
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Why? He’s the good looking, economy-smart Washington-outsider with deep pockets.
McCain has a shot? The 71/2 year old guy that’s been in Washington for over 2 decades, has more lobbyists on his campaign staff than any other candidate in either party, and can’t even get the conservative base to support him?
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Im a pragmatic conservative not an idealistic one.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Hasn’t even earned more than 36% of self-identified Republican votes, much less conservative votes, iirc.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Unfortunately that is the problem. Mitt is seen as too rich too white and too republican. He is how democratics love to portray the republican party as and who we are beholden to.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Thanks for that info. It seems that the 83% is just a tad dishonest then.
blankminde on February 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
True, but he’s also excellent on the economy (the number one issue right now), can well-afford to campaign against the Clinton/Obama machine, and can actually claim to be the Washington newcomer.
Again, McCain admits he knows little about the economy, he’s been in Washington longer than many of Obama’s supporters have been alive, and his campaign is lobbyist-ridden.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM
When a candidate like McCain lies about Mitt’s declaration for public time tables for withdrawls from Iraq, it removes any doubt that McCain will tell a lie to be re-elected and reflects badly on those that a lie doesn’t matter.
volsense on February 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
So your issue is, according to you, McCain tells lies and will do anything to get elected. This leads to your support of Romney.
This is the definition of irony.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Look if Mitt is the nominee dems will rush to paint Bain as some sort of Blackwater or haliburton and claim that its corporations like Mitt’s who are screwing people over to gain profit.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 11:58 AM
And if McCain’s the nominee, Dems will point to his lack of support in his own party, his long time in Washington, his lobbyists and a plethora of other issues.
Bottom line? Start preparing for 2012, because ‘08 is going to be ugly.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM
McCain as the nominee also removes a critical advantage for the GOP essentially from the table: immigration.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I am sorry but i will tend to take Tammy Bruce at her word long before i take anything McLair says . One I trust and respect the other i detest and loath.
Oh and its my God given right to hate anyone I want to hate and for his actions of the past few years Juan McLair has earned every last drop of venomous hatred from me .
Now where is that 50$ an hour lettuce picking job you said I wouldn’t do Juan.
Mojack420 on February 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I just don’t see any facts that should lead you to make such a conclusion. We’re likely to have a larger Dem majority in Congress after this election. A President McCain who hasn’t demonstrated that he’s interested in working with conservatives before that election will suddenly start working with us after that election? I just don’t see that being a likely outcome. It seems more likely to me that President McCain will continue to work for “bipartisan” legislation with Democrats while he continues to kick conservatives in the teeth.
Bryan on February 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM
McDole or The Mitt?
Time to rumble… it’s Super Tuesday mania!
profitsbeard on February 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Bless you Bryan :)
Let’s see. People hate Mitt because he cuts the skin off of his fried chicken; they hate McCain because he’s a nasty, backstabbing s.o.b. who wanders across the aisle and flirts with becoming a Democrat when he’s feeling vindictive.
Thus, I have a new nickname for Johnny Mac:
Mac the Knife.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Whereas Hobama will champion conservative causes?
Because, you can’t be so blind as to think that Romney has a chance against either of them, can you?
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM
No, neither will. Hence the “Where’s the benefit of one over the other” many conservatives are saying.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Amen, amen, amen, and amen!
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM
The dems are going to bring their knives to castrate McCain during the election and after. McCain doesnt like being attacked by anyone republican or democrat. There is peace between them now but that all changes if he gets the White House. McCain might still be willing to deal but I doub the dems will. Bush when he got elected in 2000 also had that idea in mind of bipartisanship. The dems dont do deals unless its a total surrender.
William Amos on February 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Thanks. Looks like that plus 80s figure being quoted around here is pretty deceptive. If McCain’s staff members posting here on HA have to use deceptive data, what does that tell you about the man himself? Actually, I don’t think McCain, himself, gives a flip what conservatives think of him, but his worker bees must be a tad uneasy about it.
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
As opposed to Romney’s honesty and consistency on the campaign trail. *rolls eyes”
Politics is not softball.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM
That is the definition of irony….JayHaw Phrenzie @ 11:58AM
Thats right. McCain says one thing and does another. He says things that are blatantly untrue and there are those who do not consider the truth to be important. Now you are going to jump in and say everybody else lies too.
The Keating 5 was (4) dimocrats and (1) Republican. Guess who that one person was?
volsense on February 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I’m sure McCain can fix that with another horrible free speech-encroaching CFR bill.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Uh, if it was a relevant and persuasive issue, it would have shown up in – ta da! – the Republican primary. Paper tiger.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Hmmm,…none of McCain’s HA shills have yet addressed questions put to them regarding his VP overtures to John Kerry in 2004. An inconvenient truth is best disregarded?
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Reaching back pretty far for that smear, at least unlike some Mitt supporters, you haven’t implied that Mac collaborated with the VC yet.
Meanwhile, let’s talk about the signature program of the economic genius you support, and how it will cost the people of Massachusetts a lot more than Mitt said it would. Oops.
Massachusetts Health Care Subsidy Program Cost, Enrollment Could Double Over Three Years
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Taken in context, I’ll assume that is an admission of deceit.
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Haven’t seen Bryan post this yet. Hmm. I wonder why. I guess a few facts about Romney’s economic prowess intrupts the 15 minutes of MacHate that is practiced here 24/7 these days.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
What has Mitt lied about except the life long hunter non-issue?
csdeven on February 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Yup. We have no response. Your recalling of this point is devastating to our shilling. Shilling is much more difficult now that you’ve brought that up.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Taken in context, it is pointing out your hypocrisy in ignoring the constant lies and misleading statements coming from the Romney camp, while being shocked, damn shocked that McCain is playing rough.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Pattern.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
It did until recently. There was a time McCain had to put his life insurance policy up as collateral for a bank loan. When the concentration shifted to Iraq’s success, McCain got better.
And, in case you haven’t noticed, it continues to be an issue. You know, as evidence by the fact many conservatives oppose him because of it. There has yet to be a real closed primary.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Republicans are in a fog at this time. They don’t trust McCain, and for good reason, but aren’t sure that Romney can beat Obama. Notice how I didn’t say, they aren’t sure that Romney can beat Clinton, that’s because I believe Clinton is toast. When push comes to shove, most clear thinking Democrats will reject her, and her traveling snake oil salesmen show with Bill, for a preceived more honest Obama.
Because of Republican angst with their candidates, they will grudgingly default to McCain, because they believe he is more electable than Romney. Big mistake!!
True conservatives, like myself, will either sit this one out, to protest against McCain and his duplicity, or even cross over to vote for Obama, to really drive the stake thru the heart of his candidacy.
Conservatives would rather concede to defeat, rather than than promote a charlatan that has continually stabbed us in the back.
gunter on February 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
1) He said his health plan would not cost one dollar more than his state was already spending.
2) At a televised debate in New Hampshire, John McCain complained that Romney had described his illegal-immigration proposal as “amnesty” in a television commercial. Romney’s response: “I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don’t call it amnesty.” Well, yes he did.
3) Romney’s oft-repeated claim that his father, George Romney, had marched with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
4) Romney attacks Huckabee again with false and misleading claims.
etc, etc, etc…
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
If “a lot of conservatives” means “not a plurality,” then “a lot” ain’t that much.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM
We’ll get defeated, alright, if McCain is the nominee. Humiliated, too, as we watch his wife’s drug thievery scandal and his conniving Keating 5 scandal get vomited up by the gleeful media.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
McCain works with the dems and sticks his finger in the eye of the reps. Why is it you refuse to accept that simple fact?
csdeven on February 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
He attracted 20-something percent of conservatives to Mitt’s 40% in Florida, IIRC.
And, again, there has yet to be a closed primary.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Your arguments rely on emotions not facts.
This makes you seem like a Democrat to me.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM
So, you are trying to rationalize misrepresenting McCain’s true ranking by attacking Romney? Sounds like one of those moral equivalance thingys. Now I’m beginning to understand why enforcing laws isn’t important to you.
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Are you saying they should support McCain no matter how much they dislike him?
This is the sort of blind partisan thinking that may just get McLame elected.
I’d rather have 4 years of Shrillary and a rejuvenated GOP in 2012 than support McClown.
Metro on February 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Didn’t read the WaPo article Bryan linked to, did you?
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM
So I assume you’re not a Rush fan.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Projection. Sounds like a Democrat tactic to me!
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Changing the subject again, Vizzini? That’s alright, I think everyone here has your number.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM
So, what do y’all think of McCains attempt to be Kerry’s VP?
Just bipartisanship?
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Do you have any evidence of this other than the statements of Democrats.
Odd that on this particular matter, you feel the Democrats provide unimpeachable testimony.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
1) The new legislature is raising the costs, not Mitt. There are also more people signing up than the study expected.
2) McShamnesty’s bill is amnesty. Mitt was being PC and I disagreed with him on it. He said it technically wasn’t amnesty because it had a penalty.
3) This is a tempest in a teapot. His dad did support civil rights and that is all that matters.
4) Mitt said he was tough on drugs but the legislature didn’t support it. He never said he passed the law.
This is all silly examples you have manufactured. Lets get into substantive issues that candidates have lied about.
McCain did push for allowing illegals to stay here permanently.
McCain attacked the 1st amendment and now refuses to admit it.
The list goes on. Just look at the barely 55% rating he has for being conservative. The disgusting puke has run left into the embrace of his dem pals arms.
csdeven on February 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Nope. Just demonstrating inter alia the hypocrisy of your mudslinging, which is symptomatic of the anti-McCain faction (alternatively named the Pro-Tanc then Pro-Fred then Pro-Dunc then Pro-Fred then Pro-Mitt faction) on Hot Air.
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 12:43 PM
The facts have already been stated time and time again. Yeah, I’m exercised about the dumb asses who make excuses for McLiars liberal leanings and contempt for conservatives.
csdeven on February 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM
You asked me to list Romney’s lies and I did.
The fact that you are a Romney supporter and have willfully blinded yourself to his deceit does not offset that he constantly lies and distorts the positions of his opponents.
I backed that up with facts that you dismissed with excuses, because Romney is your guy (at least until his concession later this week).
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Please curb the hate speech (no, I’m not in favor of making it illegal).
I haven’t read any Romney hate here, but there’s lotsa McCain hate.
jgapinoy on February 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Geez, I hadn’t thought about that. Maybe they aren’t really shilling for McCain at all. It does have a Clintonian ring to it. Obama won’t need any help.
a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
The Romney faction is blissfully ignorant of the hate and smears they are spewing. They are just facts!!!
The funniest thing about the all of this passion is that 90% of the Mitt supporters on this site all supported other candidates and only came on board the Romney train when their candidate of choice bailed and Mitt finally morphed into a pleasing form for them.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
The mudslinging is coming from you, Vizzini, to accuse me of hypocrisy for correctly pointed out that the Republican Party is going to be humiliated when the facts about the Senator and Mrs. John McCain scandals are going to be aired out in the media.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »