Video: President Bush says John McCain is a “true conservative”
posted at 4:55 pm on February 10, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Well, John McCain is every bit as conservative as President Bush is. Both have worked on major legislation with Ted Kennedy, for instance, and they see eye-to-eye on border security. Neither one has been very successful at pulling anyone on the other side of the aisle to the right.
Those aren’t the arguments that the president uses.
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: « Previous 1 2
Why are any of you even wasting your time discussing McCain? He is losing in Nov, and he is losing BIG.
The brain-dead let the MSM pick our candidate for us, our weakest sure-to-lose candidate, and the masses fell for it. Even readers of this board fell for it. POTUS 2008 is OVER. The dem’s take the oval office. Yes, of course I will vote for McCain, but it won’t make any difference. It’s a foregone conclusion.
WHAT WE SHOULD ALL BE DOING: Look at the competitive HOUSE and SENATE races closest to you, even if not in your district. We **** MUST *** support, promote, campaign and fundraise for conservative republicans to FIGHT our new democratic overlords.
Time is short. Get to work!
JustTruth101 on February 10, 2008 at 7:54 PM
lmao! Now that’s what I call a man with a mean sense of humour!
Pax americana on February 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Actually, I quite like Huck’s sense of humor too.
Pax americana on February 10, 2008 at 7:59 PM
It will be easier to win POTUS than control of Congress – are you aware how many vacant seats the GOP has to defend compared to the Dems? If mcCain loses big rest assured that will have an effect on the congressionals.
Pax americana on February 10, 2008 at 8:03 PM
And this is based on….?
There’s not a single poll that I’m aware of to back up that claim. To the contrary, they all have McCain solidly beating Hillary, and beating Obama as well.
JetBoy on February 10, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Bingo!
John on February 10, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Speaking of polls, I wouldn’t put any value behind them. For the most part, the “conventional wisdom”, that is to say, experts and talking heads, pollsters and the like, have been consistently wrong in their polling results over the course of this election cycle.
I won’t and haven’t believed in polls essentially since the 2000 election. I was foolish of late to believe the one’s showing my candidate, Gov Romney, ahead in several states, only to find out they were totally wrong once the actual election results started coming in. I guess the axiom that “the only poll that matters is the one on election day.” is the only poll that we should pay attention to. The rest is rubbish and useless.
Weebork on February 10, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Completely untrue.
McCain v Clinton: McCain by 1.6, and the MSM hasn’t started their full frontal assault yet.
McCain v Obama: Obama by 3
I don’t believe in polls, though, I’m just citing these as an FYI since you wanted to talk polls.
# ballots were cast for dem’s in the primaries: 14 million
# ballots were cast for rep’s in the primaries: 8 million
I will vote for McCain, but trust me, he is going down. And coattails play a major role in years when there is a presidential election, which is why I advise working long and hard to get Congressional seats for republicans.
Yes, paxamerica, it will be tough winning congressional seats for republicans. But at least it’s possible. And, it’s our most powerful weapon against the socialists.
JustTruth101 on February 10, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Saw this on a business site of all places -
That’s crapaganda from the McCain campaign….an alleged blurred distance shot of him sliding his sorry ass down the side of the plane and escaping the carnage he caused [the fatal 'incident' on the aircraft carrier] like a rat scurrying for his life is your evidence? You’re as sick and as sorry as he is. My source of information was a sailor on the boat. I know this man personally. He says emphatically that the whole thing was caused by McCain…a widely despised mean little sonofabitch whose daddy was an admiral…and who made sure everyone knew that daddy was an admiral.
MB4 on February 10, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Saw this on a business site of all places -
That’s crapaganda from the McCain campaign….an alleged blurred distance shot of him sliding his sorry ass down the side of the plane and escaping the carnage he caused [the fatal 'incident' on the aircraft carrier] like a rat scurrying for his life is your evidence? You’re as sick and as sorry as he is. My source of information was a sailor on the boat. I know this man personally. He says emphatically that the whole thing was caused by McCain…a widely despised mean little sonofa#itch whose daddy was an admiral…and who made sure everyone knew that daddy was an admiral.
MB4 on February 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Agreed. It would have been hard for any Republican to win after Bush, for McCain it will be impossible. The states he won in the primaries will all go to Democrats, the base in the red states will stay home or not vote for him. If violence in Iraq increases this year some time, he is really toast.
The libs will paint him as an out of touch, over the hill war monger who is worse than Bush. It is already starting.
echosyst on February 10, 2008 at 8:22 PM
To continue on my thought, essentially nobody knows how the election is going to pan out. Hell, people don’t even know the outcome of the Democratic primary. There are certainly a list of possibilities that could happen but that’s all they are, intangibles, at this point.
Still, it is fun to argue and throw these ideas around, though it has becoming more and more boring for me to do so. It’s not so much apathy as it is burn out.
Weebork on February 10, 2008 at 8:26 PM
T H I S
SilverStar830 on February 10, 2008 at 8:29 PM
I agree with that too. I sure as hell am not going to be following the remainder of the campaign as I don’t have a candidate in there I can get behind. The libs seem to be more fired up than we are. I am done for awhile.
echosyst on February 10, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Yep…there’s a lot of blame for the demise of the GOP being tossed at McCain, when really, McCain is just being who he is, we know who he is, but Bush is much more responsible for the stunning defeats of 2006 and 2008.
JustTruth101 on February 10, 2008 at 8:30 PM
heh, I printed that out from Malkin’s blog last year and sent it in to the GOP in response to a fundraising appeal.
JustTruth101 on February 10, 2008 at 8:33 PM
echo,
Despite the outcome of the primaries and the election, there will always be Weird Al Yankovich to brighten my day.
Weebork on February 10, 2008 at 8:34 PM
SilverStar,
We need someone with the artistic ski’zillz to redraw the picture but with Sen McCain’s face instead of Mr Bush’s. I think it would be fitting given the election.
Weebork on February 10, 2008 at 8:35 PM
JetBot,
Thanks for responding.
His support for global warming legislation. His contempt for Big Business. His (self-admitted) cluelessness about economics. Reagan studied economics at college.
Millions upon millions of Mexicans who are hostile to the United States and refuse to speak English have migrated to America illegally and are systematically ethnically cleansing blacks and whites with the explicit approval of the Mexican government.
You’re making a fundamental mistake by thinking in terms of individuals rather than a collective of millions of people. If the entire Mexican nation illegally immigrates to America then eventually you will be the cleaning lady who is no threat to them and your country will be destroyed.
No one believes him. His behaviour over the last few years indicates his pledge is worthless.
Huh? It makes eminent sense to deport illegal aliens at any time. There’s no reason why this should be dependent on securing the border first. McCain says this because he’s never going to secure the border and thus, according to his own logic, never has to deport anyone.
Yes, which was the whole point of the strategy. When Iran was winning, Reagan sold Iraq arms. When Iran was winning, he sold Iran arms etc.
I know that. Saddam sought and received permission from Jimmy Carter to invade Iran. My point is Reagan knew enough to keep them at each other for eight years to their mutual detriment.
Short answer: A Democratic Congress.
Long Answer: It seems to me that after Watergate American voters were disgusted with Nixon’s underhanded corruption and, after the Ford Presidency, voted for Carter due to his law-abiding devotion to honest and transparent Government. Carter adhered to this but was a total disaster what with the failing economy, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage crisis and his (literal) kissing up to Soviet leaders. My theory is that in 1980 American voters were offering Reagan an unspoken mandate to bend or break the law, domestic or international, in order to mend the American Republic. I can’t offer any proof of this but nothing he ever did, including the Iran-Contra Affair, ever made a major dent in his popularity.
This is disingenuous. You point out that Reagan had the same flaws as McCain and when your argument is refuted you complain that McCain is being held to an unusually high standard which isn’t true.
aengus on February 10, 2008 at 8:58 PM
See CK Maclaud’s analysis of Dem v. GOP primary turnout figures – this year is nothing unusual.
And yes, McCain is at least level in the polls with Hillary and Hussain, unlike Huck and Romney who were 10-15 points adrift. This is bound to change throughout the campaign, but your defeatism is quite astonishing.
It doesn’t take much sense to work out that if McCain loses big it will be harder to secure gains in the congressional, not easier. I don’t recall any losing candidate in postwar history having his party regain control of Congress
Pax americana on February 10, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Write down the top 5 issues that are most important to you in selecting our next president. Then compare what you want to Huckabee’s stated positions.
Winning the War vs. Islamofascists?
Securing our borders?
Judges?
Taxes/Economy?
Sanctity of Life?
2nd Amendment Rights?
Etc., etc.
If Huck’s positions, repeatedly stated and committed to in writing, match what you are looking for, and you choose to vote for another candidate who’s words and actions aren’t what you are looking for, I think that’s the definition of a fool. Challenge your assumptions and preconceived notions about Huckabee. He’s not looking to be McCain’s VP. He’s looking to win and take this country in the right direction.
McCain will lose, but it won’t be in November.
Huckabee/Thompson (or Huckabee/Steele) will win in November.
ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Thanks for the info, pax. can I have a link to the “Maclaud’s analysis of Dem v. GOP primary turnout figures – this year is nothing unusual” so that I can check it out for myself?
I’m not being a defeatist, I’m a realist. The BASE won’t even support McCain, and you expect him to win? We’re running a 71 year old who’s going to run against the dem’s messiah, and you expect him to win? There will be McCain videos of “bomb bomb bomb Iran” and “duh, I don’t really understand economic” played over and over and over, and you expect him to win?
Please, when you have to convince members of YOUR OWN PARTY to vote for you, you are going to lose. He may have a chance, a SLIGHT chance of winning if he picks a true conservative to run as VP, but we’re talking about John McCain here, the maverick, so my prediction is: HE AIN’T GONNA PICK A CONSERVATIVE AS VP. He’ll pick Lindsay Graham, or someone like him, just to poke his finger in our eye AGAIN.
Your time, my time, is ALL better spent working on those congressional seats. That’s what good strategists do. That’s what we should do.
JustTruth101 on February 10, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Nor do I, necessarily, although I think that refusing to be released when his dad became CINCPAC and the North Vietnamese offered to let him, but not his comrades, go was pretty damn heroic. I think that refusing to meet with anti-war propagandists like Dave Dellinger, who came to Hanoi for photo ops with him and could have gotten him better treatment had he agreed to make the North Vietnamese look good was, if not heroic, certainly a sign of high patriotism and “core principles”.
Well, I actually don’t have a problem with that – and the Chelsea Clinton joke is kind of funny.
Perhaps I misspoke there….but it is undeniable that there are many comments on this blog, claiming that the election of Clinton or Obama would be preferable to them than McCain’s election, and that they hope that a Democrat in office will further their cause. I understand what they are saying, but I think they are wrong…big time wrong.
As to your example of Hitchens and the Spanish Civil War…well, Hitchens IS a socialist, so I don’t know that he’s applying that argument in a completely negative sense, just adding it to his list of good reasons to have supported that side.
Bottom line, either McCain steps up and wins over the conservative vote or all conservatives lose. I hope he does it. And I hope that conservatives keep an open mind .
Priscilla on February 10, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Sure. I agree.
And I am Mother Teresa.
Welcome to Election-Year! Where crap is the stomp speech and stench is the endorsement.
Indy Conservative on February 10, 2008 at 9:59 PM
I really hate giving Dems ideas but this will be
used as an ad come general election time!
canopfor on February 10, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Fixed that for you. Conservatives would lose even if McCain won. Think about Supreme Court nominations. 5 of the 9 justices are 68 or older. Do you really trust McCain to pick strict constructionists? I don’t. Sure McCain voter to confim Roberts and Alito, but that’s because he wanted to run for president and not voting to confirm would have ended his chances right there on the spot. McCain led the gange of 14 and called Alito “too conservative”.
My Prediction:
Huckabee will win both the nomination and the general election twice. In his eight years in office, he will nominate and get confirmed 3 strict constructionists, and the court has a solid 7-2 conservative majority for years to come.
Most of your predictions:
McCain/Clinton/Obama win. We end up with more Souters and Ginsbergs on the court, and never move past having 4 strict constructionists on the court.
Honestly people, which option do you prefer?
ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Oh. A conservative is someone who:
1. Selectively ignores laws (immigration) as they pander for votes
2. Has no problem funneling MY money to illegals
3. Thinks profits are evil (even though he buy votes with MY profits)
4. Calls me a racist because I believe in the rule of law and in the sovereignty of nations
5. Stifles free speech to protect his incumbent position
6. Is a Liberal
I get it now. I was so confused. Thanks George.
Montana on February 10, 2008 at 10:21 PM
There. Fixed it for me this time. :-)
ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Let none of us forget…Ronald Reagan narrowly lost the nomination to Gerald Ford back in ‘76. And although the convention floor would let up until Reagan spoke, the Gipper’s words should be taken to heart today.
It’s time for everyone…all Republicans…to back John McCain. Listen TO THIS …what would Reagan do?
JetBoy on February 10, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Yeah. Right. That’ll happen right after: “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True…Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.” — and not before.
SunSword on February 10, 2008 at 10:31 PM
McC’s view of the “un” is another problem I have with him and it’s the double talk like this that scares me the most. It’s coming from Hillary also in this little talk in Munich. She’s a just little more subtle.
these two links were on the first page when I Googled it, I wonder what else is out there? Maybe this global goverment talk isn’t so far off the mark after all…….
jerrytbg on February 10, 2008 at 10:41 PM
the moderate/liberal whores are supporting McLiar. If he wants we true conservative support, he is going to have to move toward conservatism. We are not moving toward his liberalism.
csdeven on February 10, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Most of the posts I see against Huckabee here are of the following variety:
Great. Isn’t all of that true about McCain? If you have two Republican candidates that you aren’t sure you can trust (and two Democrat candidates you know you can’t trust!), isn’t it best to go with the candidate who at least publicly commits to being for what you are for? Are all of you who fought amnesty really ready to support McCain? Hello? He was the freakin’ sponsor of McCain-Kennedy! If he really “gets it” now, why hasn’t he committed to Jeff Sessions’ immigration plan? Not only is Huckabee is the only candidate who has, Huckabee publicly states on the “Issues” page of his web site that “My number one priority is to secure America’s border.” You follow the link to the “Secure America Plan” and you see that not only has he committed to building the fence, he has put a date on it:
Why are you amnesty fighters supporting McCain when you have a viable alternative? And don’t tell me that Huckabee is not a viable candidate. That’s like saying the New York Giants weren’t a viable team against the New England Patriots. Huckabee may be down, but he’s not out. In fact, he’s gaining momentum.
The crap that is going on in the Washington State caucus right now (where Huckabee was leading most of the night, and then McCain was declared the winner with a 242 vote lead and 13% of the Precincts had not even been counted yet!) needs to be cleaned up. The same way that corruption in Arkansas had to be cleaned up in the wake of the Clintons. Huckabee saw that first-hand. He ran against the Clinton/Democratic machine in Arkansas and won…not once, not twice, not 3 times, but 4 times.
It’s time for many of you to take a SECOND LOOK AT HUCKABEE
And don’t tell me that “It’s time to all rally around McCain”. The Democrats likely won’t have a nominee before their convention, so why do we have to have one before ours? Huck will get it to a brokered convention, and he will win the nomination and the general. And you will be glad he did.
ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 11:22 PM
ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 11:22 PM
and a second and a third and finally the fourth. The answer is still NO.
jerrytbg on February 10, 2008 at 11:27 PM
awesome vid…thx (needed a pickup!)
JustTruth101 on February 10, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Huckabee Commits to Sessions’ Immigration Plan
ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Looks like ol’ Fred Phelps is back.
Pax americana on February 10, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Build the wall first, then we’re allowed to think about what to do with the illegals.
Here’s a better idea. Give any business that hires an illegal a million dollar a day fine per each illegal they’ve hired. The instant background check was no problem as far as the Brady Law was concerned right? If that’s no sweat, why are we saying we can’t come up with an instant citizenship check hot-line? Oh I remember, it’s just too hard right?
Then we start rounding up the illegals, giving them a chance to turn them selves in and request assylum or citizenship by the rules currently in place, which I might add were part of McCain’s Immigration fix in 1996. If the numbers or the process is too long, propose the changes, but enforce the laws we have now.
If the illegal in question chooses to go the turned in and requesting citizenship route, tag them with one of those ankle tags, or better yet, set up a tent city jail and hold them there. Tents are cheap and easy to set up. At any time, the illegal if they get tired of waiting, can request to be repatriated to their own nation, and what do you know, we’re willing to do that ASAP.
Cheap, easy, and if you are interested in having them work while in jail, have work details put together. Policing the trash they’ve left all over the desert. Perhaps building or maintaining the wall that McCain is suddenly so in love with, you remember the one that McCain called us all racists for wanting? Sort of like the one around the house he wants to live in?
Snake307 on February 10, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Comparative Democrat vs. Republican Primary Turnout since 1972
Scroll down for the chart. It’s not my analysis, but something put together on Larry Sabato’s blog at the Center For Politics.
My gloss: The average ratio from 1972 to 2004 was 3:2, Democrats swamping Republicans. The only years that R primary turnout exceeded Dem turnout were ‘96 (Clinton re-election) and ‘00 (Gore coronation).
Republicans won 6 of these 9 elections, including ‘88, which is interesting because, like the current one, it also followed two terms by the same party (supposedly a disadvantageous position for that party’s nominee – an observation that was a cliche in ‘88 and still survives, even though it was overturned by Bush 41, also isn’t really borne out by history). More to the point, though the nomination fights were contested on both sides, the Dem turnout nearly doubled Republican turnout. Despite this massive turnout “advantage,” the Democratic nominee, Dukakis, was blown out in the general election.
In short, there’s no correlation between primary enthusiasm and general election results. Given that the Republicans won 6 of the 9 elections over this period, you could argue that it’s negatively correlated, and propose several reasons why that might be – including a boom/crash relationship where primary-time hopefulness gives way to general election remorse and disillusionment. I think it’s more likely, however, that there just isn’t enough data to establish any positive or negative correlation, if indeed any exists.
I DO think, however, that there may be a meaningful enthusiasm gap this time around. It’s just nowhere near as significant or unusual as you might gather from the a-historical observations of MSM analysts, Democrats, and many Republican defeatists and alarmists make out. Just as Bush 41 could run and win as more of a centrist than Reagan, I think McCain could and should run, and could win, as more of a centrist than Bush.
CK MacLeod on February 10, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Will you vote for him in the general election?
If he wins the nomination, and you still say you can’t back him in the general, after all of the conservative positions that he has publicly committed to, then I don’t think you have any right to call yourself a conservative (if in fact you even do).
ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 11:32 PM
There won’t be a brokered convention, but it is still good to keep this contest running so that the GOP keeps in the media headlines. I hope Huck keeps going till Penn, but also hope that Mac isn’t foolish enough to take him as VP. Secretary for Agriculture or Health and Human Services would be more like it. A few setbacks for Mac in the short term would be a good way of ending the complacency among his supporters and of spurring them into action.
Pax americana on February 10, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Thanks. Very informative analysis.
dedalus on February 10, 2008 at 11:40 PM
ITookTheRedPill on February 10, 2008 at 11:32 PM
I’ll say this again… I will only vote for POTUS if bHo is a “candydate” and anybody would be better than him or more accurate,less dangerous. Otherwise, I’m only voting in the local, county, state and US Rep races. Both of my “Seneators” are out of cycle this time and both of those guys need to go also but…
jerrytbg on February 10, 2008 at 11:49 PM
You’re quite welcome. Eventually we may be able to defeat this defeatist meme. Since this at least the second time I’ve referred to it on HotAir, I’ve posted a version of it to my blog for easy reference in the future. (Note: It’s not really a politics blog.)
I haven’t found any statistical overview on comparative campaign spending, and have to wonder whether it would present a more worrisome picture – even if by now we’ve seen many examples of much better-financed individual candidates going down to crushing defeat.
CK MacLeod on February 11, 2008 at 12:05 AM
So, if Hillary is the Democrat nominee, you’d be content to sit at home, let her win, and let her put Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court?
Not I.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 1:04 AM
So, if Hillary is the Democrat nominee, you’d be content to
sit at homeonly vote in the local, county, state and US Rep races, let her win, and let her put Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court?Not I.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Hey, that is informative…I can’t believe I believed an MSM lie…I try so freaking hard not to do that…I’ve heard so many times this primary season that we are getting killed just because of the sheer number of voters…
I should have known better. NOTHING the MSM reports can be believed unless it’s completely subjective fact…for example in this case, I can believe the numbers, but have to figure out for myself what they mean. Foxnews lulled me into a false sense of security…I guess I just have to consider them one of the MSM now.
Anybody else notice that even fox is spinning these numbers? I think fox is in the tank this year for Obama, just my personal opinion.
JustTruth101 on February 11, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Now that is a disturbiing thought.
Pax americana on February 11, 2008 at 1:23 AM
It does boil down to the supreme court. As much as I abhor McCain, his picks for the supreme court will be magnitudes better over what Hillary or Obama would select. We are looking at a minimum of 2 or 3 justices that will retire or die in the next 4 year term.
Sergei on February 11, 2008 at 1:35 AM
Indeed. Six of the nine justices will be over 70 by the end of the year. McCain’s credentials on the Supreme Court are rock solid, and leagues away from what Hussein and Hillary will be offering.
Pax americana on February 11, 2008 at 1:42 AM
George Bush wouldn’t know a true conservative if one bit him in the rear.
Goodale on February 11, 2008 at 1:43 AM
IF a lib captures the oval office, Stevens and Ginsburg will almost surely retire so that the prez can nominate younger liberal justices. This election is about Iraq and the Supreme Court.
JustTruth101 on February 11, 2008 at 2:36 AM
McCain might drop dead before they do.
aengus on February 11, 2008 at 3:59 AM
mcain would rip the hildebeast to shreds in a debate, and i am confident that he could beat her in the G.E.
obama, i am not so sure, though… the cult of personality around him is “freaky-deakily” huge (AP, please forgive my appropriation of your awesome adjective). let’s hope that if he is the nominee, mccain can make him look like the inexperienced wimp that he is…
homesickamerican on February 11, 2008 at 7:12 AM
It is not all about the Supreme Court, but why do we not lookains legislation. The only judges to support the McCain/Dem legislation have been liberals/fence sitter. This does not auger well for conservative, even if McCain is elected.
Better than Democrats, but not by much.
davod on February 11, 2008 at 7:46 AM
Which means that there are a lot of Republicans sitting at home who haven’t been voting in the primaries so far. If they have a motivation to vote in the remaining primaries, they could come out of the woodwork. And they will. They will look at the two choices put before them: McCain and Huckabee, and they will say Huckabee better represents their values. Knowing that Huckabee must have their support now in order to be a choice come November, and realizing how much they don’t want McCain or a Democrat, they will come out and vote for Huckabee. Meanwhile, McCain supporters will sit at home believing that he has the nomination wrapped up. Huckabee will win the nomination and the general.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Believe it. If Hillary nominated him, a Democrat controlled Senate would confirm him. The Dems wanted to make Billy Jeff the “King of the World” over at the United Nations. But they would settle for a lifetime appointment on our Supreme Court. Imagine all of the European ways of doing things that could be written into Supreme Court decisions (as has already been happening, if you aren’t aware). Huckabee said in his speech to CPAC that any justice who relinquishes our national sovereignty by using another country’s judicial decision as the basis for ours, should be summarily impeached. I agree 100%.
ITookTheRedPill on February 11, 2008 at 9:45 AM
When eating slugs in a tiger cage makes you a Conservative, yeah, by that limited definition, McCain’s a Conservative.
Can’t wait to see how he implements these skills in the White House. I’ll be staying home on Election Day.
Spanglemaker on February 11, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Bush says John McCain is a “true conservative”
Bush lied. Let’s hope no people died.
Kevin M on February 11, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2