Rush Limbaugh: I might have to fundraise for Hillary
posted at 3:05 pm on February 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
There’s no faulting his logic; I made the same point yesterday myself. If you can’t have a candidate Republicans love, make sure the left has a candidate Republicans hate. And needless to say, liberal Jesus isn’t a candidate Republicans hate.
So won’t you please give? This broke-ass loser’s in a hole that’s starting to look bottomless, so much so that not even her anti-semitic Islamic propagandist bundlers can pull her out. It’s up to us. Yes, we can.
Exit question reminder: Cross over. Cross over. Cross over.
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 »
Rush is pathetic.
Vizzini on February 7, 2008 at 3:07 PM
*assuming this isn’t strategic.
Vizzini on February 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Ha!
Maybe she’ll be too broke to run for re-election to her seat.
Iblis on February 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I supported Fred!, and then he lost
I supported Romney, and then he lost
I’m seeing a pattern here…
I support Hillary!
gmoonster on February 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM
If Hillary gets the nomination, I’ll be supporting her over McCain. Conservatives and real Republicans are only going to be weakened by McCain getting elected. He falsely represents us and gives people a false image of what Conservatives and Republicans are. Look at what Bush did, now he made be good on certain issues, but he ran as a Conservative and people see that today and are scared of Conservatives. I don’t think people realize we’re only hurting the real party and the real movement by putting in phonies.
If Hillary gets it, a Conservative has a better chance of running against her next time.
paultevis on February 7, 2008 at 3:12 PM
McCain has Coburn and George Allen introducing him.
Complete7 on February 7, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Rush.
Relevance Lost.
Need I say more?
This committed Reaganite is so, SO sad today.
Shirotayama on February 7, 2008 at 3:14 PM
‘Conservative’ is the new ‘evangelical’. . . the word that seems to mean something because so many people say it. . . but the definition of conservative is fluid amongst those who use it.
ThackerAgency on February 7, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I supported Tancredo, and then he lost
I supported Romney, and then he lost
I’m seeing a pattern here…
I support McCain!
infidelpride on February 7, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Well, that does make sense in a sickening sort of way. But then, that’s kind of the way this election has been going…sickening.
scalleywag on February 7, 2008 at 3:15 PM
There is no difference. Particularly on judges. As Rush says, it would be a nightmare McCain presidency with conservative republicans being dragged into liberal legislation and not supporting their president……
Better to pin it on the democrats for the next four years and regroup. It will be an economic mess with all three.
-Both acquiesced in the 90’s when our military was being gutted.
-Both will stake out positions opposed by their party when necessary.
-Both will change those opinions and claim otherwise when necessary.
-Both are grasping politicians.
-Both are extremely temperamental and default to personal attacks when questioned on issues.
-Both would refuse water boarding, even if lives were at stake.
-Both would nuance immigration reform and de facto grant amnesty.
-Both are uniformed on economic issues and solutions.
-Both opposed tax cuts
-Both condemn others when challenged on the stump.
-Both would weaken the CIA.
-Both would bluster but ultimately appease a military confrontation
-Both always point fingers for blame.
-Both opposed conservative judges. -Both support Global Warming
Starlink on February 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM
You know the Clinton machine will spin any donations given to her by Republicans as a mandate that she should be president. She’ll present our disatisfaction with McCain in light that will sway the moderates into voting for her. Afterall, if we hate McCain so much that we’re willing to give money to Hillary, why should independent voters pull the lever for McCain?
Luckedout on February 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM
LMFAO…..Rush said the libtards would take his comment out of context. Can’t wait to read more of the McCain tools doing the same.
David in ATL on February 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM
It has been my observation that clever strategies like supporting the “most likely to lose” candidate on the other side are not worth the time. It’s neither clear that Hilary is likely to lose nor is it clear that we can do anything to help her. When the levels of uncertainty are so high, sincerity is the best strategy. At the least, you don’t face the regret that you helped bring along the outcome you most hated.
And anyway, in practical terms, the time and money would be better spent helping Republicans to win Congressional races.
thuja on February 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Rush stating this publicly, will give Obama a talking point against Hillary and help him.
jp on February 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I supported Fred!, and then he lost
I supported Romney, and then he lost
I’m seeing a pattern here…
I support Hillary!
gmoonster on February 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM
+++++++++++++++++++
We should start a club; large probable membership.
fabrexe on February 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM
What was that slogan Rush came up with? “Keep her in so we can win.” Something like that.
Clearly, Rush isn’t doing an Ann Coulter.
infidel65 on February 7, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I supported Reagan, and he won.
I supported Reagan, again, and he won.
I “supported” Dubya [the ol' "lesser of two evils" crapola], and he won.
2 outta 3 ain’t bad.
But, no more of that “lesser of two evils” crapola. I’m never going to bastardize my vote, again. If it’s the “lesser of two evils,” it’s still a vote for evil.
Nope, not again.
OhEssYouCowboys on February 7, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I have been listening to rush for over 10 years but if this is the best he can do, I will be finished with him.
Rush, Laura, Sean and the rest need to get over the fact that the party is more important than their overinflated egos.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 7, 2008 at 3:19 PM
It is strategic. His phrase was “Keep her in, so we can win”.
amerpundit on February 7, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Well, finally Republicans around the world can get over their blinding flip-flopping perception of Romney, and with open arms make him their nominee in 2012. He will run again.
Conservatives were so stupid to rally behind him so late. They may point the finger of blame at Romney for not appealing to them, but he had the very same ideology and speeches back when they wouldn’t rally behind him. They blew it, not Romney.
iamse7en on February 7, 2008 at 3:19 PM
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
/too easy, i know
corbettw on February 7, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Why? He wants people to donate to keep Hillary afloat because she’ll be the easiest for us to beat in November.
amerpundit on February 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM
With Romney out, I think I may have to register Democrat to vote for the Hildebeest for the PA Primary. I’ll be able to say I was a Democrat, how ’bout that?
doubleplusundead on February 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Hillary’s campaign says she’s raised more than $6 million in the last 24 hours, and her staff is being payed again.
amerpundit on February 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM
If you do an opensecrets search, does Rush’s name appear in Hillary’s list? If not, he’s being a little hypocritical, isn’t he?
lorien1973 on February 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Don’t you see what he’s trying to do? He’s trying to keep Hillary in the race so that conservatives have someone to rally against – thereby actually helping McCain.
Geez, you guys are so anxious to dump on Rush that you can’t even see it when he’s trying to do your guy good. No wonder you can’t bring the base over to your side.
thirteen28 on February 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM
No, he isn’t.
I know conservatives have this old school hatred for the Clintons, like a lot of Democrats have old-school hatred for Reagan.
[I know I'm going to get raked over the coals for THAT comparison.]
But really, I see Obama as demonstrably worse than Hillary. DEMONSTRABLY worse.
I don’t want a Democrat to take the White House in 2009, but I know for certain, I damn sure don’t want Liberal Jesus taking it. So if that means working to ensure Hillary gets the nomination, so be it.
Vyce on February 7, 2008 at 3:24 PM
It only appears for donations over $200. As Rush said in the audio, the one candidate they did this for, he asked everyone to send a buck.
amerpundit on February 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM
This is what is wrong and why we have a RINO. Its not all about the party, its about the movement. Without the names you mention, you would have amnesty right now.
Big Orange on February 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM
The party is more important, you’re right. But putting a false representative for the Party is damaging. The Conservative movement is only hurt by putting McCain as the nominee. I would rather go through 4 years of Clinton, then make it even harder for a real Conservative to get elected.
paultevis on February 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM
You need to get over the fact that the party isn’t worth sh** without principles.
Principles are ten times more important than party affiliation.
Pcoop on February 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM
If friggin Rudy (who I once supported) REALLY wanted to help us, he would have instead put his chips on running for Hillary’s Senate seat. (You know, the job he wanted a few years back.) THAT would have been awesome. Instead, he again helped Hillary by helping assure a weak candidate runs against her. Now he’ll shuffle away and get back to making millions on his name. Thanks Yer-Onna.
Sugar Land on February 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM
A “real conservative” has no chance in 2008. A “real strategist” can see that clearly.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 7, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I think you can forget those “strategic” votes for HR Clinton with the goal of taking back the White House in 4 years.
It is apparent from Slick Willies’ tenure in office that if these Grifters get control, again, that there is no friggin way in Hell that they will allow themselves to be voted out of office. As they have proven over and over, they’ll do “whatever it takes.”
If the witch gets in, she’s in for 8 years.
there it is on February 7, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Don’t cry for Clinton aides
They’re getting paid, after all.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Dont_cry_for_Clinton_aides.html
bnelson44 on February 7, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Anyone who takes anr of this seriously has a severe case of irony deficit disorder.
But go ahead and get your panties twisted in wad if that makes you happy.
billy on February 7, 2008 at 3:30 PM
The strategic vote’s goal isn’t to allow her to get in. With Obama it’s likely he’ll win in November. With Clinton, there’s a good possibility of us holding the White House. Americans remember the last Clinton administration, and the latest polls show they don’t want to return to that.
amerpundit on February 7, 2008 at 3:31 PM
This is amazing! I got banned before for saying the exact same thing!
Don’t count out Rush yet…The stakes are high, and he understands this.
Logic:
Worst case scenario: If the Dems win, the Hilary will be a better alternative to Obama. AAAAnnnddd, if Hilary gets the Dem nomination, WE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE of winning this election.
He see’s Obama is untouchable because he happens to be black, and the bottom line here really is winning. At the end of the day, it will be easier to take down Hilary.
etan on February 7, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Remember, voting for most of us is voluntary. Like CPAC, most of HotAir critically read and understand and recognize a flipflop and pandering.
If you can’t articulate ideas that motivate your base, other than your war record, then you have spent too much time on the dark side.
I thought military honor supported your troops. Turncoats are not tolerated. How about our own party troops?
Starlink on February 7, 2008 at 3:32 PM
So we need to put maverick up as our answer? Why don’t you just tie an anchor around our neck and push us in the friggin ocean.
Big Orange on February 7, 2008 at 3:33 PM
A hundred times. A thousand times! A million times more important.
HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Of course, we said that in ‘96 concerning another Clinton, and we got ourselves four more agonizing years. I see your reasoning, but in 2012 we’ll be trying against an incumbent, which could very well be much harder (depending on how the first four years go) than defeating her now.
As much as it pains me, we have to secure the presidency for the Repubs, and then as conservatives hold the president’s feet to the fire on conservative principles. Hey, it worked on Harriet Miers and immigration amnesty.
Having a dyed-in-the-wool conservative candidate is great, but what is more important are our voices, pushing our principles, shaping the party at all levels–not just the presidency.
Pope Linus on February 7, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Yeah, I understand Rush’s point.
I’m referring to a number of commenters, including Coulter, who have suggested that they might vote Clinton in the General Election.
there it is on February 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Rush, Laura, Sean and the rest need to get over the fact that the party is more important than their overinflated egos.
michaelhenry on February 7, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Party over principle. No thanks…
eanax on February 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
My God, are you here to promote McCain’s candidacy or to sabotage it??? You’re doing a far better job at the latter than the former.
thirteen28 on February 7, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Nonsense. The GOP doesn’t deserve to win.
HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Last night at work, I was trying to explain to a friend how Hillary is too liberal for America.
“Hillary is obviously too liberal for America, after all she supported the McCain Kennedy Amnesty bill.”
I hesitated and then tried again. “Hillary is obviously too liberal for America, she supported the McCain ban on water boarding even in the ticking time bomb scenario.”
I was getting a little desperate.
“Guns, Hillary supported the Brady Law which of course McCain voted to expand.”
“ABORTION, Yes, thank God. Hillary is in favor of Abortion, which of course, McCain said he wouldn’t vote for a constitutional amendment banning.”
By this time I was seeing that I wasn’t making a lot of headway, and grabbed at the last two straws I had.
“CIVIL RIGHTS. OK, Civil Rights. Hillary is a big supporter of McCain Feingold.”
“Environment, Hillary has said that McCain Lieberman is a good first start, similar to what she and her husband tried to do in 1993.”
I gave up and walked away right about here. Someone have any ideas how I can demonstrate how different Hillary is from our own candidate? I’m not making a lot of headway here.
Snake307 on February 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Need a little help with that sand in your V?
Spanglemaker on February 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM
When the country elected Bush in 2000, we had very little idea what awaited us 9 months later. As it turns out, Bush was most likely the wise choice because his reaction was to fight not flee.
Let us all hope that whomever gets the nod this time around will be capable enough to react appropriately should something similar occur in our future.
Defense Guy on February 7, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Rush and Ann are making a valid point. Principles are more important than party affiliation.
I won’t vote for the dem candidate, nor will I vote for McNumbnuts. I will however write in an appropriate candidate of my choice.
If enough of us do that, the message will be clear to the RNC. The dem candidate wont need the votes and suicide voters communicate nothing by doing that.
dogsoldier on February 7, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Good idea (I’m seriously considering it due to the fact that I don’t get a vote in my own primary, so sure) but I’m not really sure it’s enough, just look at who I quoted below and what that person thinks.
P.S.
Hehe. But in all seriousness, McCain will leave us with a working military, CIA, and FBI at least.
MirCat on February 7, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Then never vote GOP for anything ever again. Your choice. Dump the party, or quit whining.
You want a conservative GOP? Then work for it, no matter who the GOP candidate is. Conservatism doesn’t die with a McCain candidacy. It dies if we all give up.
Pope Linus on February 7, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Vyce 3:24
Correct. Obama grades out as the most liberal Democrat senator. He is considerably to the left of HRC, who is more of a politician and less of an idealogue.
For perspective…We have already had worse than HRC – I refer to Jimmy Carter. Still, she is the most personally offensive individual any of us can imagine tarnishing the office.
whitetop on February 7, 2008 at 3:52 PM
The enemy of my enemy is my candidate? Strange bedfellows, indeed.
locomotivebreath1901 on February 7, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Rush is right. Dear God, it’s come to this.
Hillary ‘08.
John_Locke on February 7, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I’m a conservative. Always have been. And yet… you gad dam so-called conservative elitist media types are beginning to really, really pizz me off. There will be a mighty lashback at some of you clowns. That’s all I’m saying. You’ve all become Democrats… in more ways than one. I hope you enjoy it because I’ll vote against your azzes if it means putting satan himself in. I know this is meaningful because you jackals have always counted on the likes of me to retain your power and push your agendas. That’s over. Open borders for all and the most liberal POS judges we can find. That will be your reward either way. Win or lose. You’ve established your end… and it ain’t pretty.
Griz on February 7, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Obama = Black Jimmy Carter
If you give a d*** about this country, its your choice:
McCain or HRC
etan on February 7, 2008 at 4:00 PM
You only call it whining because it counters your opinion. Can we all quit claiming that all the others on the other side of the issue are whining? To state that we care more about principles than about the party is not whining. It’s stating a fact. And unless you can actually HEAR these comments and a high-pitched uptick in tone of voice, then shut the hell up.
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 4:09 PM
absolutely spot on.
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Well, I wouldn’t go THAT far, Rush.
I’ll vote for McCain when he picks a right winger for VP and then promises to only serve one term. Then I’ll wear a gas mask when I vote and when I get home I’ll wash my hands in battery acid.
McCain slogan: “Don’t vote FOR McCain, vote AGAINST Hillary!”
Tony737 on February 7, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Hey, voting against, rather than for, someone or something, been the logic of the GOP for the past four years, if you’ve been paying attention.
To those po’d at Bush’s overspending/compassionate conservatism in 2004: “Kerry is so much worse! We need to win the war!” That worked — just barely.
Fast forward to 2006: “We need
RepublicansRhinos in Congress to combat the Dems!” (That didn’t work — in fact, the Dems who got elected on the strength of anti-illegals made the difference in the shamnesty vote, lest we forget.)Rush is just drawing the strategy out to its logical conclusion.
Nichevo on February 7, 2008 at 4:12 PM
“I’m seeing a pattern here
I support Hillary!” – gmoonster
Ha! :-)
Tony737 on February 7, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Makes you wish for the good old boring Presidential elections where we had a V.P. already as the nominee, huh?
ThePrez on February 7, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I hear a lot of “support the party”….if the party no longer represents your voice, THEN WHY? If McCain is what the GOP is about, then for the 2nd time in my life(Perot ‘92), I will vote 3rd party or even consider a Dem vote. As a Independent CONSERVATIVE (a Reagan conservative) the Republican party has left me…I owe them nothing.
gozips on February 7, 2008 at 4:38 PM
She’d send it back with a note reading “What’s the deal, first?”
Dusty on February 7, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Um…isn’t this the point Ann Coulter made days ago? That was largely poo-pooed?
They’ve both got the right idea, though fundamentally flawed. Making public support of a liberal candidate by well-known conservatives will make that candidate more repugnant to liberals, and they’ll go to the Messiah instead.
MadisonConservative on February 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM
An unconscionable decision. Especially if one has loved ones in some Iraqi hellhole…or whatever hellhole comes next. Abandonment of the ones we (esPECIALLY all these heavy breathing, Greco-Tragic “conservatives”) profess to support in some misguided fit of pique is despicable.
Big frickin’ deal ~ so McCain’s a pain in the tookus and not everyone’s cup o’ tea. Tough. A majority of REPUBLICANS have chosen him. Quit being big hateful Kosbabies, for God’s sake. As for the things we don’t like? It’s called faxes and phone calls and emails to Congress, just like we did when this REPUBLICAN president tried to shove his amnesty plan down our throats.
But when there’s American blood on the ground and lives still in the greatest, most immediate danger and you don’t vote, or waste a vote because you write-in someone? Don’t even talk about high ground or principles. You have none.
tree hugging sister on February 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I can’t listen to this turd anymore.
V15J on February 7, 2008 at 4:42 PM
First off, it is not worth the risk. She is pure evil and needs to be taken out now.
Secondly, ABC News is reporting that this whole thing was a stunt.
Not Broke.
Dorvillian on February 7, 2008 at 4:46 PM
There are some imporortant issues to keep in mind as we decide who to vote for in 2008…
Will we win in Iraq, the major battlefield in the GWOT?
How many Fed Judges will be appointed between 2009 and 2012?
Will the Gov’t fund abortions?
What will happen to your tax rates?
Do you want Gov’t run health care?
gmoonster on February 7, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Just for feedback’s sake, tree hugging sister, I stopped reading your comment at “Greco-Tragic conservatives”. You don’t win friends or more importantly influence people to your side of things by insulting them.
All the rest of that mud-slinging (at least you’re earthy) is just white noise after the first slap.
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 4:49 PM
–MadisonConservative
FACT: Everything is relative. Relatively speaking McCain and HRC are practically on the same page, with the maverick having taking the prize on some issues.
What’s wrong with those of us flexing our machiavellian instinct on this one in order to keep the black Jimmy Carter out of the white house?
etan on February 7, 2008 at 4:53 PM
When your Party has been taken over by RINO elitists, when the big-whigs in the Party Leadership are all RINOS (remember Mel @ the RNC?), when you can’t get into the Party Leadership unless you’re a millionaire RINO because of Campaign Finance (Thanks McCain), you telling me I to shut up and quit complaining and do something about it is just imbecile. I AM DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT! I’M SPEAKING UP! It’s all I freaking got dude so back off!!!!
Sultry Beauty on February 7, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Conservatism wont die with a McCain candidacy. The GOP will.
That isn’t whining. It’s being realistic. The GOP has turned into the Democratic Party and the Democrats have turned into the Socialist Party. And every conservative who is holding their nose and voting for McCain in the general is complicit.
Vote on your principles. Don’t vote just to have your party win.
HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 5:01 PM
You’re right. I should have said “tragi-comic”. And if that passes for “mudslinging” and “insulting” considering what’s been said on this post and many others concerning the whole McCain thing, your dragonskin is very thin. That seems to be a problem in conservative parts lately.
tree hugging sister on February 7, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I’ve listened to Rush forever, but I’m tired of his schtick lately. I used to get information from him to do conservative battle, but I can get that same information from many conservative sources now that are hopeful, not fearful; thoughtful, not childish. All I know is that my head hurts when I listen to Rush and Sean lately; they don’t inspire me to fight the good fight, they only chide me to take my ball and go away. If I vote for McCain, I’ve done something to take me into overtime to buy more time for the causes dear to my heart like the war on terror and the unborn.
deedledee on February 7, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Yup.
Then we can re-argue the whole thing four years from now.
tree hugging sister on February 7, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Tahellwitch giving; she needs votes. I’m voting for the first and last time for a Clinton on the 19th because Wisconsin is a wide-open primary. For those who, like me, live in an open-primary state, do the same.
I believe the phrase is, “Payback’s a <expletive deleted>” (and if it is okay to use that 5-letter expletive, please edit it in)
steveegg on February 7, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Heehee, you tellem, Girl!
:)
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 5:08 PM
No worries. I don’t feel an overpowering need to agree with you.
As for my “dragonskin,” just can’t get through a post without trying to insult. Your debating skills are what’s tragi-comic.
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Don’t you just know that we conservatives have to just shut up and accept McCain as our nominee. We just need to shup up, calm down, and take it.
Resistance is futile.
You will be assimilated.
We are the Borg.
Weebork on February 7, 2008 at 5:10 PM
And if this means that you aren’t in the Conservative parts, all the better. We prefer to have those with principles they aren’t willing to sell to any RINO hack with a few bucks and some political power.
Good luck with that. Let us know how that works our for you.
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Two words for the McCain sellouts:
Assimilate this!
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 5:12 PM
oh, and I didn’t mean you, Weebork… I thought your post was funny.
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 5:13 PM
tickle,
I know. That was my intention.
:)
Weebork on February 7, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter endorsing Hillary Clinton? Has the world gone mad?
SoulGlo on February 7, 2008 at 5:19 PM
LOL. You forgot the GOP nominating one of the biggest policy backstabbers in politics. Yes, the world has truly gone mad.
tickleddragon on February 7, 2008 at 5:20 PM
SoulGlo,
Welcome to the Borg. To make your assimilation smoother, we demand the following.
1. First, press (1) for English.
2. Shut up.
3. No Whining.
4. Conservatism is dead.
5. Bend over, ’cause here come the Borg implants.
… Did that help?
Weebork on February 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Ditto!
rightside on February 7, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Exactly. With McCain we’re putting off the inevitable. With the harridan a large number of adolescent adults and wannabe hippies will get to see first hand what a Jimmy Carter like, or worse, administration and defecrat congress can do almost immediately. Then, maybe, we can get true honest-to-God conservatives back in office.
Don’t forget to buy guns with your $600 / $1200 rebate while you still can.
BowHuntingTexas on February 7, 2008 at 5:30 PM
And you ~ in good conscience ~ can consign our troops in harm’s way to a Democratic agenda JUST to teach someone a lesson?
tree hugging sister on February 7, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I’m going for the XD compact in .45 ACP. You?
TexasDan on February 7, 2008 at 5:40 PM
She’s not going to accept money from Rush. She’ll just make a huge publicity stunt about refusing Rush’s money.
Riposte on February 7, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Ruger SP101 .357 in a 3-4 barrel. Or, if I like it, in the new .327 magnum.
BowHuntingTexas on February 7, 2008 at 5:50 PM
All i have to say is:
Rush, get over it! It’s time to behind the GOP Candidate! There are 9 hard months ahead and conservatives need to start thinking on how to defeat the “others”.
kylun on February 7, 2008 at 5:56 PM
The “others” are now in the GOP, kylun.
Why would Rush get behind McCain? Why would he want to crap on his own brand? Rush is a conservative, not necessarily a Republican. Don’t expect him to compromise his principles. Don’t expect any conservative to do that, to be honest. It’s naive.
HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM
And to your candidate, the party is more important than principle.
spmat on February 7, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »