…

These numbers are meaningless. Are you new to politics?

EJDolbow on February 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Yes. His grandma let him out of the basement for a day and made the mistake of letting him watch MSNBC. He now thinks he’s an expert. But his thinking is as two dimensional as his computer screen that he plays D&D on is.

csdeven, you’re wrong. McCain can win, and will win California. We’ll drink to that, even if the taste will be bitter.

Entelechy on February 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Before October comes around, McLiar will be known as McFlipFlop.

He has already started down the path of disavowing his liberal behavior when he started kissing my conservative rear at CPAC. That’s all fine and good, but eventually he will have to move back down the same path for the general election. That is a flip flop for political expediency and he will be crucified for it.

It’s simply stating truths some people don’t want to hear because admitting them would render their positions indefensible. It was the appropriate thing to do then, and it’s appropriate now.
Blacklake on February 7, 2008 at 11:20 PM

You are absolutely correct. Nice post.

Chakra Hammer on February 7, 2008 at 9:38 PM

Thank you for your perspective. But I still like mine better.

I am American FIRST.
Conservative second.
And a Republican by default.

Blacklake on February 7, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Yep, mis-read it. I freely admit it when I make a mistake.

If you want fear mongering read your own post…

jwp1964 on February 7, 2008 at 11:26 PM

If you had read my post yourself, you’d realize that I consider accusations of “fear mongering” from the mouths of conservatives no less vacuous than accusations of “fear mongering” from the mouths of liberals, particularly when I hear them in response to, roughly, the same arguments. When I (and other conservatives) argued to liberals that John Kerry would lose the War on Terror, they called us fear mongers. Now, when I argue to conservatives (many of whom enthusiastically agreed with my position regarding Kerry!) that sitting idly by and allowing Obama to win would result in our losing the War on Terror, they call me a fear monger.

It might be easier to shout “fear mongerer!” than it is to reflect on the truth, but it’s not more intellectually honest.

(Bear in mind that, aside from the fact that, no matter their intentions, Hillary and Bill would prove as inept a pair of Commanders in Chief as they did their first two terms, it looks increasingly likely that Hillary will not even be the Democrat candidate anyway. Meanwhile, Obama has already actively promised retreat. So, what then? Is it “fear mongering” to point out that the candidate who promises capitulation in the War on Terror would capitulate in the War on Terror? Or should we all just bury our heads in the sand together?)

If you want fear mongering read your own post. You make it sound as if the dems will hand over the keys to the terrorists. I’ve sai it bfore and I’ll say it again H, Hillary is meaner than any terrorist. I also believe that my commie lib friends don’t have any more intent on being dead than I do. I know you don’t want to hear this but dems like dead terrorists as much as we do. They just don’t want us to offend them before we kill them.

jwp1964 on February 7, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Yea, the Clinton’s have such a good track record taking on the terrorists..

:Massive eye roll:

There is nothing more important than the struggle of western civilization against Islamism. If you are willing to cede defeat on that front, the future of conservativism (of the non-Islamist flavor, at any rate), is bleak indeed.

This is “fear mongering” against conservatives in exactly the same way that conservatives “fear mongered” against Democrats in the 2004 election. It’s simply stating truths some people don’t want to hear because admitting them would render their positions indefensible. It was the appropriate thing to do then, and it’s appropriate now.

Blacklake on February 7, 2008 at 11:20 PM

If you want fear mongering read your own post. You make it sound as if the dems will hand over the keys to the terrorists. I’ve sai it bfore and I’ll say it again H, Hillary is meaner than any terrorist. I also believe that my commie lib friends don’t have any more intent on being dead than I do. I know you don’t want to hear this but dems like dead terrorists as much as we do. They just don’t want us to offend them before we kill them.

You’re absolutely right, and I find their thought process absolutely frightening. What sort of victory is there when you sacrifice everything you care about to achieve it?…

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Some people would argue that surrendering the principle of victory over Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan in favor of surrender and capitulation at the hands of Barak Obama would be to sacrifice something extremely valuable indeed.

There is nothing more important than the struggle of western civilization against Islamism. If you are willing to cede defeat on that front, the future of conservativism (of the non-Islamist flavor, at any rate), is bleak indeed.

This is “fear mongering” against conservatives in exactly the same way that conservatives “fear mongered” against Democrats in the 2004 election. It’s simply stating truths some people don’t want to hear because admitting them would render their positions indefensible. It was the appropriate thing to do then, and it’s appropriate now.

That is very upsetting to me.

I am American FIRST.
Conservative second.
And a Republican by default.

Califemme on February 7, 2008 at 7:57 PM

1. Jesus is always First
2. Family
3. Country
4. Ideas/Principals
5. Party

Thats how I see it.

George Allen appearing with McCain

Connie on February 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM

McCain? OHHHHHHHHHH……so THAAAAAAT’S what “Macaca” was supposed to mean…..

Grow up. A lot of people are conservative first, Republican second. It’s a dedication to principles, not a dedication to a now-defunct political party.

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM

That is very upsetting to me.

I am American FIRST.
Conservative second.
And a Republican by default.

I love how these GOP-above-all folks use nothing but hyperbole to try and scare conservatives into supporting McShamnesty. Such ridiculous behavior. Do you really think that clear-headed, rational people will succumb to your worst-case scenarios?

Grow up. A lot of people are conservative first, Republican second. It’s a dedication to principles, not a dedication to a now-defunct political party.

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Hear, hear. I’m willing to listen to grievances, but those are in the Republican Party now. Separate from me. They are the Republicans. I am the new RINO.

They don’t get the whole “principle” thing. They’d rather win, no matter the cost.

You’re absolutely right, and I find their thought process absolutely frightening. What sort of victory is there when you sacrifice everything you care about to achieve it? Ugh. We’d be better off giving up hope for McCain and focusing on trying to win back seats in the federal legislature and governorships.

George Allen appearing with McCain

Connie on February 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM

That could be a huge bone for the conservatives willing to forgive and forget. I’m not one of them, but the majority can probably swallow for McCain. Allen as running mate, interesting?

CNet interview with an FEC Commissioner, from 2005 regarding McCain’s lawsuit.
http://www.news.com/The-coming-crackdown-on-blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html

WSJ Editorial on the lawsuit
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458

Washington Post on the FEC’s final ruling (after the lawsuit succeeded).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701474.html

So, if you’re a blogger for McCain, and you don’t natively qualify as a journalist; you might need a different job/hobby. Because letting McCain pick the new FEC Commissioners in 2005 would definitely give a different outcome.

Dude, your vote is your support. I won’t try to dissuade you from voting for Mcain because we all have to vote our conscience, but your declaration of nonsupport does not fit with voting for the guy.

jwp1964 on February 7, 2008 at 2:31 PM

not if it’s by default. Unlike Bush in 2004 I had the yard signs, bumper stickers, went to rallys, volunteered my time etc. McCain will get none of that from me. He’s lucky to get my vote, that is IF I decide not to put myself in as a write-in candidate.

Grow up. A lot of people are conservative first, Republican second. It’s a dedication to principles, not a dedication to a now-defunct political party.

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM

They don’t get the whole “principle” thing. They’d rather win, no matter the cost.

sulla on February 7, 2008 at 2:37 PM

You may have noticed from my posts…I don’t do nuance. I’m glad you explained it to me and it sounds reasonable.

The Dream Is Dead….

Jared_MA on February 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM

There was no one to lead “the dream” this time around. All the candidates are/were wanting, beyond the “RINO status” so many talk about.

To the Sultry Beauty’s “democrats have no principles, conservatives are nothing but principles” or similar, I don’t think so. All are whores, political ones that is.

- Democrats tend to fall for who’s the most empty and ‘charming’ one, in addition to socialist, of late.
- Republicans, for nothing other than ‘who’s next in line’.

Was, is, and will be, sadly, but true.

csdeven, you’re wrong. McCain can win, and will win California. We’ll drink to that, even if the taste will be bitter.

Then the price you will likely pay for your “principles,” in reality, is defeat in Iraq, revisionist judges, and countless other socialist disasters.

I love how these GOP-above-all folks use nothing but hyperbole to try and scare conservatives into supporting McShamnesty. Such ridiculous behavior. Do you really think that clear-headed, rational people will succumb to your worst-case scenarios?

Grow up. A lot of people are conservative first, Republican second. It’s a dedication to principles, not a dedication to a now-defunct political party.

I do know that Sen Clinton, if elected, would no pull our troops out anytime soon, so the Iraq issue will be moot. It’s more the social side of the country that will be damaging if Clinton or Obama gets in. The Supreme Court being a big reason.

Weebork on February 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM

I agree that the Clintons wouldn’t pull our troops out and deliberately capitulate as Obama would, but that doesn’t mean they have the capacity for military success. Simply having the troops in place doesn’t entail victory; they have to be lead effectively, and the Clintons have demonstrated on multiple occasions that they can’t be counted on in this regard.

I’m with you regarding the Supreme Court, of course.

McCain will be facing his own uphill battle later today in convincing conservatives to give him their support. Romney received huge applauses, and support from the audience during his speech. Clearly the audience is behind Romney.

WWMD? (What Will McCain Do?)