Let’s play “Guess That Politician!”

posted at 12:30 pm on February 12, 2008 by Bryan

It’s the game in which I give you the answers that a select politician gave during an interview, and you guess who the politician is. Are you ready? Well, let’s play!

First question: America has lost a lot of friends because President George W. Bush angered, indeed outraged, them. He allowed human rights to be violated at Guantanamo Bay, and he dismissed the joint effort to combat global warming. Under a President [Myster Politician}, could we expect a change of course?

Mystery Politician: Yes. I would announce that we are not ever going to torture anyone held in American custody. I would announce that we were closing Guantanamo Bay and moving those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and I would announce a commitment to addressing climate change and my dedication to a global agreement — but it has to include India and China.

Answer: A) Hillary Clinton; B) John Edwards; C) John McCain; D) Ron Paul

Second Question: Will America attempt to go it alone less frequently in the future?

Mystery Politician: Well, we all hope that America will be multilateral again in the future. There were times when the United States acted unilaterally, but I think we would all prefer to work in concert with our friends and allies.

Answer: A) Barack Obama; B) Hillary Clinton; C) Mike Huckabee; D) John McCain

Third Question: So is America coming back to renegotiate the Kyoto Protocol?

Mystery Politician: I believe America is going to enter into negotiations to try to reach a global agreement. But, as I said, that agreement must include India and China, two of the emerging economies of the world. We would be foolish not to do so.

Answer: A) Al Gore; B) John McCain; C) Dennis Kucinich; D) Hillary Clinton

No Googling. Lock in your replies and then click here for the answers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM

So now it’s everyone else’s fault that the “real conservatives split their vote and flitted around ficklely from Fred to Tanc to Hunter to Rudy in quixotic pursuit of the “real conservative” unicorn until it was decided for you that Romney was the last nonMcCain standing, and thus, the really “real conservative”?

Seriously. Go down to the hardware store, buy a crowbar, and pry your heads from your asses.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM

I don’t see how John McCain connived his way, I see that there seemed to be no one advancing Fred Thompson at the fevered pitch that we see against John McCain. BTW, I supported Fred with financial aid and moral support. I didn’t get to vote for Fred because I voted in Super Tuesday. I then supported Mitt Romney, all thought he’s not a true conservative either, right?

How ever John McCain got to be the front runner, he is there and he should be supported if he is the nominee. The alternatives are absolutely worse.

When people make statements that are not logical or sound like school-yard stuff, “If I can’t have my way, I’ll just take the ball and go home”, I get a little agitated.

If you can figure out how to get a better candidate than John McCain in the running and at the top of the list, I’ll support that one. Until then, I’ll just have to go with what’s there.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM

You mean that “first they came for Tancredo” sililoque wasn’t meant as parody?

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Anybody who talked about the non-conservative issues of a candidate was called deranged. Therefore, as candidates dropped out, people were called deranged more and more often. McCain is a liberal. Deal with it.

I suppose that you are also OK with three new liberal supreme court justices, that we will have to live with for at least the next 20 years.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Like I said, fear. Oh, and the judges McCain would appoint would make Kennedy look conservative.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Seriously. Go down to the hardware store, buy a crowbar, and pry your heads from your asses.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM

How does it feel to support the most liberal Republican presidential candidate of our time?

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM

I hate these smoug Euro-leftists. Questions like : “What role will the United Nations play? Bush always ignored the UN.” McCain should have stood up to the US. Bush went to the UN and triued to get them to act before he “went it alone” with a coalition of other nations. Maybe he did defend the the US but the rag decided not to print that part.

As for the rest of McCain’s answers, the only one I think is dead wrong is his stand on torture. but given his history, I’ll give him a pass.

As for a new Kyoto, he’s asking for China and India to be included. Something that the Senate unanimously asked Gore to get when negotiating the first treaty. We don’t need a carbon-use (count me in as a global warming skeptic), but a demand for including India and China is enough to make such a treaty near to unlikely. Assuming he sticks to his guns on this.

Mig on February 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM

Seriously. Go down to the hardware store, buy a crowbar, and pry your heads from your asses.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Another charming recommendation from a McCain supporter. Thanks for the big jolt of pride that I’m not one of you.

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Because the questioning has some order to it (First Question, Second Question, etc.) the same person had to have said all three things.

That being said the only names that appear three times is McCain and Clinton. Being that Clinton would immediatly start lambasting the Bush Administration given the line of question, it would have to be McCain since such lambasting is not outrightly present.

PresidenToor on February 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM

McCain, McCain and McCain?

cannonball on February 12, 2008 at 2:40 PM

WOW! I am already getting a warm and fuzzy feeling.

ConservativePartyNow on February 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM

I am proud to have marched down to my polling place this past super Teusday and marked my ballot for John McCain, as I had intended to do since September 2007, allongside the outstanding majority of Republican primary voters who also voted for McCain.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Like I said, fear. Oh, and the judges McCain would appoint would make Kennedy look conservative.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM

John McCain may very well appoint a judge that turns out to be as you say, but I can guarantee that liberal judges will be appointed by BHO or the hildabeast. There is no fear here, its a fact!

Look, I know that you will do your ‘principled’ thing, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do because its still the ‘me’ thing. I am not going to convince you that sometimes events are greater than the individual and the individual has to take second chair.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Saying that you’re willing to entertain Global Warmist treaties and legislation “so long as it includes India and China” is actually a great deflection. It avoids having to debate the merits of the pseudo-science with the True Believers while simultaneously making one’s self sound reasonable, but only by betting against something you know will never happen anyway–i.e., international Environmentalist legislation that isn’t inherently anti-American. He could just as well say he’s willing to sign international treaties protecting the rights of leprechauns, which is fine if it serves the purpose of shutting down the leftist interviewer.

As for the tortue and GITMO issues, so far as I know the closest we’ve come to torture is the three or four men we’ve waterboarded, so there’s probably not a lot of useful interrogative technique at stake. And my personal solution to the GITMO situation would be to load all the Islamists in custody into shipping containers for unceremonious deposit in the deepest trenches of the Atlantic. Since I’ve yet to hear any candidate ever echo that particular position, I’ve long ago reconciled myself with disappointment on the subject.

Blacklake on February 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM

1.) A (McCain)
2.) C (Huckabee)
3.) D (Clinton)

I’ll check how I did. You be the judge.

infidelpride on February 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM

I don’t see how John McCain connived his way

It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that McCain and Huckabee connived to push Romney out of the race.

How ever John McCain got to be the front runner, he is there and he should be supported if he is the nominee. The alternatives are absolutely worse.

Even if I accept that John McCain won legitimately, he doesn’t get to demand my support, and neither do his supporters.

When people make statements that are not logical or sound like school-yard stuff, “If I can’t have my way, I’ll just take the ball and go home”, I get a little agitated.

I have never said I have any intention of going home or staying there. I’m in this game with you. It’s just that while all the new rules are being set up, I have just one rule that I want added to the list:

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

If you can figure out how to get a better candidate than John McCain in the running and at the top of the list, I’ll support that one. Until then, I’ll just have to go with what’s there.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM

You don’t have to go with it, belad. Not until we get some concessions, including, for example, a Conservative running mate.

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM

I am proud to have…marked my ballot for John McCain…

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Then you’re a proud liberal. Congratulations. Now we understand where the profanity and insults come from.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Another charming recommendation from a McCain supporter. Thanks for the big jolt of pride that I’m not one of you.

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Enjoy your apparently negligable and shrinking influence.

By the way, if this week we’re pretending that MDS Sufferers are merely being tarred for soberly-stated objections to McCain’s record by big bad pro-McCain meanies, you can keep your heads up there. Out here we remember the MDS Sufferers screeching (exact quote) “BURN ALL MCCAIN SUPPORTERS AT THE STAKE” and the like on these very pages.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Look, I know that you will do your ‘principled’ thing, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do because its still the ‘me’ thing.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Quit associating vanity or arrogance with refusing to vote for a liberal candidate, just because your desperation to avoid 4 years of Hillary or Obama sends you into a fit when you think about it. I will NOT vote for the candidate who, from the beginning of this race, has agreed more with Hillary or Obama than any other Republican candidate.

You can talk about that being “me” all you like, but it doesn’t make it so. It’s a refusal to kowtow to the Republican party, whose only interest is staying in power, NOT in making this country better for us.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM

You really need to come up with tougher questions.

corona on February 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Even if I accept that John McCain won legitimately, he doesn’t get to demand my support, and neither do his supporters.
RushBaby

I have exactly two(2) choices. Support the nominee or not support the nominee, regardless of who he picks for VP. I would like to think that McCain will pick someone that is a conservative, but in the end it still comes down to two(2) choices.

I just happen to believe that supporting the democrats will be far more injurious to the American people and way of life , than if I support a less than favorable candidate.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM

It’s a refusal to kowtow to the Republican party, whose only interest is staying in power, NOT in making this country better for us.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Exactly. When/if McCain starts making noises about how to make this country better, he could earn my vote. Which is different from my support, which he spurned years ago.

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Then you’re a proud liberal. Congratulations. Now we understand where the profanity and insults come from.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM

You can’t imagine how little it affects my worldview to be called a “liberal” by someone who believes, errantly, that torture, protectionism and conspiracy theories about the border are first principles of conservativism.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I just happen to believe that supporting the democrats will be far more injurious to the American people and way of life , than if I support a less than favorable candidate.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Refusing to vote for the republican candidate is not support of the democrats. This is what you need to get clear in your mind. Then, the idea of refusing to cast a ballot for a speech-suppressing, gun-grabbing, tax-raising, amnesty-supporting, environmentalist, petty, vindictive member of the Keating Five won’t bother you so much.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Even if I accept that John McCain won legitimately…

DIEBOLD!!!!

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM

You can’t imagine how little it affects my worldview to be called a “liberal” by someone who believes, errantly, that torture, protectionism and conspiracy theories about the border are first principles of conservativism.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Protectionism? Opposition to the legalization of 12 million illegal aliens, supported as much by Ted Kennedy as John McCain, is protectionism?

Wow. Guess you got me there. How could a Kennedy-supported bill possibly be liberal?

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM

I just happen to believe that supporting the democrats will be far more injurious to the American people and way of life , than if I support a less than favorable candidate.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM

I wish you would answer some of my other points, for the sake of our polite discussion.

As for your new point. I agree with the emotion, but I am still thinking through the implications of:

a) an obstructionist R minority in Congress vs. a Dem POTUS
b) a sympathetic POTUS with a D majority in Congress

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM

MadisonConservative,

Refusing to vote for the republican candidate is not support of the democrats.

Oh, now I see the error in my logic. By not casting a vote for the republican candidate, I’m not helping elect a democrat.

I really feel enlightened now.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Snark snark.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM

You never took a logic class in your life, did you?

Basic premise, since you seem to be unable to comprehend it:
Voting for a republican is supporting the republicans.
Voting for a democrat is supporting the democrats.
Voting for neither is supporting neither.

Clear yet, or are you fixed on the notion of “with us or against us” when talking about your own countrymen and how they vote in a multi-party system?

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Ah, but not voting for the republican reduces the magnitude of the republican vote and the ratio of the democrat victory looks greater and it will then be look upon as a “MANDATE”, not just a win.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM

By not casting a vote for the republican candidate, I’m not helping elect a democrat.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM

There’s another way you can look at that. By not casting a vote for a horribly flawed candidate, you are sending a message that next time around, the Republican Party needs a good candidate who has the capability to unite its constituent groups.

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Ah, but not voting for the republican reduces the magnitude of the republican vote and the ratio of the democrat victory looks greater and it will then be look upon as a “MANDATE”, not just a win.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM

A mandate requires a vast majority of voters. What we are talking about are not a bunch of people switching parties. We’re talking about voters not voting. There can be no mandate without them voting for the winner, and as it looks, that we will not do.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Ah, but not voting for the republican reduces the magnitude of the republican vote and the ratio of the democrat victory looks greater and it will then be look upon as a “MANDATE”, not just a win.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:09 PM

They would do that anyway. After the 2006 midterms, Pelosi was all over the press, claiming a “mandate”.

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM

I only read the first Q&A and I understood that this was all about McCain. Sure enough, clicked on the Speigel link and that confirmed it.

Now what does that tell you about the candidate when someone already knows after reading the first miserable Q&A what’s going to follow?

Shy Guy on February 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Now what does that tell you about the candidate when someone already knows after reading the first miserable Q&A what’s going to follow?

Shy Guy on February 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM

That we’re talking about a miserably flawed candidate.

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Is it the ‘Party’ that trots out all the people that want to be the prez, or is it the individuals that think they can be the prez and trot themselves out to the public and the party members.

I was under the distinct impression that individuals present themselves to the party members and then the party members decide who represents the party. This election cycle has highlighted one really big flaw in the primaries. That is, allowing ‘cross-overs’. If you want to vote in the republican primary, register as a republican otherwise wait until the general election to vote for ‘your guy’. Also, the primaries should all be on the same day, just like the general.

There was nothing stopping all the conservatives from getting together, putting up a lot of money and supporting a true ‘conservative’ candidate. That way he/she could get the seal of approval and stay in the primary cycle as long as the money held out.

The elections of 2006 was not a ‘MANDATE’ on the war on terror(Iraq), it was a repudiation of the feckless RINOs. The elections of 2008 will be seen as a ‘MANDATE’ for the democrats to ‘CHANGE’ the direction of the country to the left, so the conservatives can ‘send a message’ to the party to listen to them.

There is a long way until November and if the conservatives have already made up their collective minds to take a powder, then I don’t see how that helps the country.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM

You don’t have to go with it, belad. Not until we get some concessions, including, for example, a Conservative running mate.

RushBaby on February 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM

It would also be a thoughtful gesture to pull the plug on Juan Hernandez. The symbolism of having a Soros salaried campaign advisor as his Hispanic Outreach Director tends to make one question John’s sincerity regarding border enforcement.

a capella on February 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM

I only read the first Q&A and I understood that this was all about McCain. …Now what does that tell you about the candidate…

Shy Guy on February 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM

I knew it was McCain the second i read the title of the post because the wit and craft of McCain bashing and McCain bashers is precisely that thin and brittle.

Although I wouldn’t be surprised to find that a few “real conservatives” were as shocked by the setup/punchline as a baby is of a jack-in-the-box. These are after all people who walk into every rhetorical beartrap the progressive left sets for them and yet thinks they’re winning the war of ideas even now as they stand rejected by their own party.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I read a lot of negative stuff being sloshed about, but I haven’t read anywhere where there has been an organized effort to email, fax, write or call the McCain headquarters with all these concessions the conservatives are requesting(demanding).

I think if there was an organized and concerted effort to get other republicans on board with these, that it would have a little more impact.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM

They would have to moderate their tone in order to do that, and the “real conservatives” would regard any civil communication with the grand emperor of the “Open Borders Lobby” as an act of self-castration.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Aaaagh!

CP on February 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Seriously. Go down to the hardware store, buy a crowbar, and pry your heads from your asses.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM

The followers of a movement are a relection of its leadership. Ladies and gentlemen, above you have a perfect example of the McCain-for-president movement. In dealing with conservatives, they perfectly reflect their leader’s first instincts in doing the same.

thirteen28 on February 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM

whine whine whine

blather blather blather

thirteen28 on February 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Nobody wants to dispute the point that “real conservatives” did this to themselves, do they?

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Here it is again so you can have a second chance at avoiding responsibility for the primary not coming out the way you might have wanted it.

So now it’s everyone else’s fault that the “real conservatives split their vote and flitted around ficklely from Fred to Tanc to Hunter to Rudy in quixotic pursuit of the “real conservative” unicorn until it was decided for you that Romney was the last nonMcCain standing, and thus, the really “real conservative”?

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 3:47 PM

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM

What does that have to do with the fact that you and numerous other McCain supporters are total a$$holes who choose to insult, browbeat, and condescend to the conservative base rather than actually trying to persuade, on the merits, that he’s the best choice for us?

Like McCain, your first instinct is to attack conservatives, even when they discuss legitimate policy concerns.

Good luck against Obama or Hillary. With supporters like yourself, McCain is going to need all the luck he can get.

thirteen28 on February 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM

belad on February 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Malkin had several of these listed on her site a few days ago. I suspect campaign staffers read conservative websites daily. McCain knows what the hot buttons are. He isn’t ignorant about the issues. He just can’t resist another thumb in the eye to those he dislikes, plus there is that Soros thing hanging in the background.

a capella on February 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM

I knew it was McCain the second i read the title of the post because the wit and craft of McCain bashing and McCain bashers is precisely that thin and brittle.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM

If you consider posting the answers your candidate gave to questions “McCain bashing”, then your candidate REALLY sucks.

I guess we should just not talk about him at all, not even quote what he says. Would keep up the spirit that McCain-Feingold embraced.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Of course it’s McCain. I knew it was him by the growing depression.

moonsbreath on February 12, 2008 at 3:55 PM

I agree with those who say it would be better to have a Democrat president so that the Republicans in congress can fight against their policies than to have a liberal leaning Republican president who will expect support from those same Republican congressman. But since I cannot bring myself to vote for a Democrat, I will have to leave the president choice blank while proceeding to vote straight Republican for the rest of the ballot.

Rose on February 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Most of us could support McCain if he made some logical concessions to the conservatives:
Let’s list some
Keep Gitmo active
Close the borders
No new immigration bills until the border is locked down
No free ride for illegal immigrants
Distance the U.S. from the U.N.
Dump Hernandez, he must be persona non grata
Choose a conservative VP
Sit down with the conservative leaders, and develop a checklist (platform) for conservatives
Put that list in writing
Dump the Kyoto treaty
Hold China up to “fair trade”
Aplogize for McCain/Feingold

right2bright on February 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM

thirteen28 on February 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM

McCain addressed CPAC last week and extended an olive branch.

Go read the threads covering that. You might also read the threads from Super Teusday. These things are a resource. The unusually harsh rancor of the notMcCain supporters make it impossible to take seriously the wounded expressions of antiMcCain nutters who allege that nobody’s being “nice” to them , or engaging them openly on civil terms to attempt to “persuade” them.

Indeed, it has been probably years since one cou,ld approach certain rabid dogs of the “real conservative” wing without getting soaked with the spittle flingging from their teeth as they shreik meaningless tropes like “AMNESTY” and “TRAITOR”.

So my advice to you is to take your scolding tone, and cram it up where your head is wedged so tightly. You lost, and you deserve to have lost.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Someone on this thread sounds like he grew up in a sewer. Are we to take someone who speaks this way seriously?

Rose on February 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM

a capella,

I suspect campaign staffers read conservative websites daily

Reading a web site or having staffers read a website is not the same and doesn’t have the same impact as receiving phone calls, emails, FAXes and letters voicing concerns.

If that is what the conservatives are relying on for their message to get transmitted, I don’t think that is a good strategy to be following.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM

You can’t imagine how little it affects my worldview to be called a “liberal” by someone who believes, errantly, that torture, protectionism and conspiracy theories about the border are first principles of conservativism.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Ditto.

myamphibian on February 12, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Rose on February 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM

I and many others are with you Rose.

Geronimo on February 12, 2008 at 4:15 PM

And McCain kicks us in the nuts again. CPAC was all bullshit. Screw him.

p0s3r on February 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Sit down with the conservative leaders, and develop a checklist…

That is so pathetic on so many levels.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM

Would you be willing to talk to people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Mystery Politician: As long as Iran continues to announce its dedication to making the state of Israel extinct and as long as the country continues to pursue the use of nuclear weapons, I will continue to say that is not an acceptable situation. I will work with other democracies in order to find incentives and punishments for the Iranians.

myamphibian on February 12, 2008 at 4:25 PM

If that is what the conservatives are relying on for their message to get transmitted, I don’t think that is a good strategy to be following.

belad on February 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM

McCain knows the issues. Begging him won’t help. Let’s see him do something besides share jokes with Teddy in the Senate. I have no desire to spend time, energy, or money telling him something he already knows. The ball is in his court.

a capella on February 12, 2008 at 4:25 PM

a capella on February 12, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Actually the ball is in our court. At some point it is going to take a leap of faith. That or accept the liberal alternative and live with those consequences.

myamphibian on February 12, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Foreign interviewer:Your army has already been in Iraq for five years, and almost 4,000 American soldiers have died. What makes you so certain that an increase in the number of troops and the surge can actually have an impact?

Mystery politician: I intend to win the war, and I trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is.

FI: But?

MP: But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

myamphibian on February 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM

The Kyoto signers averaged 18% more CO2 emissions from 2000. The non-signers increased slightly more than 10% and the non-signer, the USA, increased emissions by only 6%. Looks to me that if we sign then we get to put more CO2 in the environment.

jukin on February 12, 2008 at 4:35 PM

I would seriously love to see these questions answered by Obama and Hillary. I can’t find those interviews for some reason.

myamphibian on February 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Hiney Von Pewps on February 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Great post. You’ve managed to:

a) Exhibit a high degree of self-parody;
b) Indulge in projection psychology of the worst sort;
c) Display a staggering amount of self-delusion.

Congatulations on the hat trick. And again, as I said before, good luck.

thirteen28 on February 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM

I thought, when seeing this headline, the article would point to the Quote Quiz.

desertdweller on February 12, 2008 at 5:02 PM

This is but one reason I will never, ever, vote for McCain. For anything. He’ll do and say anything to get into power. I don’t trust him.

BTW, did I mention I would never vote for him?

jdawg on February 12, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Someone on this thread sounds like he grew up lives in a sewer

Rose on February 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Fixed

sloopy on February 12, 2008 at 5:22 PM

I have not and will not attack those of you who support McCain because you agree with his policies. It is your right as a voter to support whomever you chose. I strongly disagree with your choice but it is still your choice. Those of you attacking people like me because we can not support him need to understand something. This is not about selfishness. We are not electing to take our ball and go home. Here is a hypothetical question. What if it were Hillary or Obama with an R beside their name instead of a D, would you still support them because they were the nominee? NO right now that is not the case. I agree McCain is better in some regards to those 2. However, the Rep. nominees have become increasingly more liberal over the last 3 or 4 elections. How long before someone like those 2 is our nominee. When do we as principled conservatives stand up and say enough is enough. I have not made up my mind yet. I my decide that now is not that time. The more I am attacked by McCain supporters (shut up and get inline) the more likely I am to Stand Up!

modin5540 on February 12, 2008 at 5:25 PM

For those of you still in doubt over who to vote for in the general, I give you McCain’s Conservative rating over the years:
Year ACU-Rating
2006 65
2005 80
2004 72
2003 80
2002 72
2001 68
2000 81
1999 77
1998 68
1997 80
1996 95
1995 91
1994 96
1993 83
1992 85
1991 86
1990 87
John McCain did not make enough votes to get a rating in 2007, spending a great deal of time campaigning for the presidency.

Now I give you Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife’s Conservative rating:
2004: 0
2005: 10
2006: 8
Lifetime Score: 9
Years of Service: 4

And just in case you were gonna vote for the Messiah:
National Journal says Barak Obama was the #1 most liberal senator in 2007, while Hillary Clinton came in at a modest 16th.

Now I ask you, do you really trust the Dems over McCain?

Califemme on February 12, 2008 at 6:04 PM

~crickets~

Califemme on February 12, 2008 at 6:15 PM

4 for 4.

Too easy.

P.S. Screw Der Shpeegul. Birdcage material.

hillbillyjim on February 12, 2008 at 6:22 PM

A limerick answer:

My curly little lightbulbs shine his name.

And Kyoto functionaries do the same.

He’s the one who’ll stop the “torture”

On the borders he’s no scorcher

Abel’s brother with a Mc, he the Cain.

profitsbeard on February 12, 2008 at 6:24 PM

a capella, Rush Baby, MadisonConservative,

What did you do to support your candidate?

Did you go out and convince someone that ‘your guy’ was the
right guy’?

Did you support ‘your guy’ other than just voting?

belad on February 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Now I ask you, do you really trust the Dems over McCain?

Califemme on February 12, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Wrong question… and the one the Repub party people are missing…

When I cast my vote, I am voting for the person I want as President, not against the person I don’t want.

Last election I held my nose and voted for Bush, because he wasn’t as bad as Kerry… but then see where we’ve ended up?

Bush is a RINO… McCain is a Washington insider RINO. Its getting nothing but worse.

So I, and many like me, have decided NOT to support a party… but to support an individual… problem is that I can’t support McCain… so I’ll find someone to vote for who I DO want as President… even if they are unelectable.

I will no longer let the gamesmanship the Two parties have created dictate my vote.

Romeo13 on February 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM

~crickets~

Califemme on February 12, 2008 at 6:15 PM

Are you really that self important that you go off in a huff when no one responds to your post in 11 minutes time?

McCain, and his supporters, appear to have only one approach to conservatives: to browbeat and threaten the rest of the party into supporting him. Yes, the conservative base was split between various candidates, leaving the door open for McCain–supported by all those who crossed over to vote Republican in the open primaries of the early states. Those of us who were paying attention are far from “impressed” by this victory, nor are we inspired to vote for a backstabbing jerk as “our guy”.

Keep up the alienating tatics.

TexasDan on February 12, 2008 at 6:46 PM

a capella, Rush Baby, MadisonConservative,

What did you do to support your candidate?

Did you go out and convince someone that ‘your guy’ was the
right guy’?

Did you support ‘your guy’ other than just voting?

belad on February 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM

I’m not sure about a cappella, but RB, MC, myself and many others here sent money and actively supported our candidate.

TexasDan on February 12, 2008 at 6:54 PM

I shudder to think of the damage to our fragile planet should we move the Gitmo prisoners to the US. I mean, that would take fleets of aircraft, ships and land vehicles to transport the detainees and provide security for the operation. And what about accomodations? They would of course need to be constructed or renovated, further burdening our ecosystem as we manufacture man-made building materials, harvest trees for lumber (gasp!), and exploit sheep for the wool to weave proper prayer rugs.

The irresponsibility of these politicians who blithely make decisions without a second thought to the environmental impact is shocking. I suggest we band together to form a Detention Conservation campaign to rouse public opinion on this. How many polar bears need drown before action is taken? Let’s keep Gitmo and win one for Mother Earth.

scatbug on February 12, 2008 at 7:10 PM

a capella, Rush Baby, MadisonConservative,

What did you do to support your candidate?

Did you go out and convince someone that ‘your guy’ was the
right guy’?

Did you support ‘your guy’ other than just voting?

belad on February 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM

I’m not sure about a cappella, but RB, MC, myself and many others here sent money and actively supported our candidate.

TexasDan on February 12, 2008 at 6:54 PM

I’m with you Tex. I sent donations to my man twice. My wife and her friends worked the phones. My sister-in-law organized up state. I was invested in mine. The two left lied about my man. They don’t and won’t get my vote. I’m taking a pen when our primary comes around.

Cold Steel on February 12, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Holy mother of gawd.

Reading this thread sends deathly cold chills up my spine.

Our base is split, theirs is not.

We are going to get slaughtered in November, both for the White House and in the congressional races.

Tax hikes, liberal-activist judges for SCOTUS, surrender in the ME including ditching Israel, socialist health care and global warming hoax preservation.

Where the HELL is may Maker’s Mark/rocks.

melkor on February 12, 2008 at 8:20 PM

McCain supporters never seem to be able to give a positive list why conservatives should vote for him, just the negative: He’s not Hillary, He’s not Obama. belad, hiney, et al – WHAT HAS HE DONE THAT IS AN INDICATION THAT HE IS A RONALD REAGAN CONSERVATIVE?

jeffNWV on February 12, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Our base is split, theirs is not.

melkor on February 12, 2008 at 8:20 PM

HAH.

You haven’t kept up at Kos or DU lately, have you? The divisions over Clinton vs Obama is quite substantial, with a lot of libs hating Clinton’s hawkishness and they don’t trust her much more than we do.

MadisonConservative on February 12, 2008 at 8:36 PM

I guessed right or left, but it could have been any of the other libs (except Paul).

Speakup on February 12, 2008 at 9:28 PM

TexasDan on February 12, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Ugh! I apologize for the crickets comment, I had been reading all the posts beforehand, so it honestly did not cross my mind that everyone had left by then, or to even check when the last post was… oops, my bad!

But neither am I the bad guy here. And, I’m definitely getting tired of being referred to as a McCain supporter!

It’s strikingly funny that we (conservatives) are always deriding the “Blame America” people, and we’d rather that they be “America First” types, and yet, here we are.

The understanding I have from all the anti-McVain people is that conservatism, first and foremost, is what the Republican party is supposed to represent, as opposed to representing “America First”. Is party loyalty meant to be taken to such extremes? I clearly remember the Gipper switched parties before becoming a Republican.

So, I seem to be confused when all the “so-called” conservatives reject the RINO (deservedly so, IMO) and say that they would rather see the Democrats take over the White House, than vote in this particular RINO. I just don’t get it!

What happened to America first? Am I supposed to believe that Ronald Reagan would approve of this stand against McCain, knowing the alternative? REALLY?!? It is my opinion, and of those others who have resigned themselves to voting for Senator McSnide, that we are Americans first, not Republican or Conservative first. We must do what’s right for America, my friends (just kidding!!), but seriously, what other option do I have as an “America First” type of person? Allowing Cankles or Hussein the opportunity to “run” America as it were, Ronald Reagan surely must be spinning in his grave.

Califemme on February 12, 2008 at 9:37 PM

John McCain took the Blue Pill a looong time ago. And now he has taken a nice big gulp of the “Global Warming” Kool-Aid.

One more reason why
Huckabee/Thompson will defeat Obama/Edwards Nov. 2008

ITookTheRedPill on February 13, 2008 at 5:33 AM

To consider the full implications of this prospect, consider just one of the names that appears on most short lists of prospective Democratic Supreme Court nominees: Harold Koh, dean of the Yale Law School. (YLS professor Kenji Yoshino reportedly quipped that he was hedged for 2008, because “either the Democrats will lose and Yale will keep Harold, or the Democrats will win and Yale will loan him to the country.”)

What would a Justice Koh’s jurisprudence look like? Jeffrey Rosen notes that Koh “has supported the idea that U.S. courts should expansively apply international legal precedents without the authorization of the president and Congress.” John McGinnis (.pdf) likewise observes that: “Harold Koh in fact would like to cabin American exceptionalism through the use of transnational materials to assure that American principles would cohere more with the rest of the world.” The increasing use of such precedents by the left wing of the Supreme Court, of course, has been a major irritant to conservatives.

Andrew McCarthy and Doug Kmiec have both raised concerns that a Justice Koh would handcuff the police and intelligence community by judicial fiat. A Law Blog reader quipped that, “other than that he’d be a sure vote for declaring Gitmo detainees have a constitutional right to Social Security benefits, I do not see the appeal.”

On a related point, consider his strong support for keeping military recruiters off the Yale campus. as the Yale Daily News reported, “despite a 8-0 smack down by the Supreme Court in the military recruiting case Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Koh still refused to grant ROTC equal access to the Law School.”

There can be no doubt but that Koh would be a liberal activist of a stripe we haven’t seen since Brennan and Marshall. There can be no doubt that he’ll be at or near the top of the list in an Obama or Clinton presidency.

With the CPAC promise on the record, anybody who thinks John McCain would nominate Koh or anybody remotely near him on the ideological spectrum is suffering from such an extreme case of McCain derangement syndrome that they’re beyond the help of even modern pharmapsychology.
Stephen Bainbridge is the William D Warren Professor at the UCLA School of Law and blogs at http://www.ProfessorBainbridge.com

funky chicken on February 13, 2008 at 9:03 AM

Good post, funky!

Califemme on February 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM

I got all three right, I can’t believe it! No, wait, I can.

MaelstromX on February 14, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Those were easy Bryan

RINO_Hunter on February 14, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2