You people do realize the Racist Vote is larger than the Black Vote right?

Besides, why not let Barack continue to delude himself that Republicans actually like him? He will find out the bitter truth in November!

So Hillary supporters are racist? Not saying it is true but you just know that would be the charge from Camp Obama.

highhopes on February 13, 2008 at 1:02 PM

I agree we might tread into racial waters if Obama is the nominee, it’s unfortunate and unavoidable. But I never said anything about race, didn’t bring it up at all, and didn’t say anything that remotely implies it. I don’t know how you get that from what I said.

I’m saying that Hillary’s older, more moderate (relatively speaking, of course) security-minded supporters (only a part of her support base, she still has plenty of wackos) are more likely to goto McCain. If you stick to political ideology only, which perhaps is naive, and you put Obama on the spectrum at the far left, and Hillary just to McCains left (both close to center), then it makes more sense to stack McCain up against Obama and eliminate Hillary’s base of support by sweeping at least some of them into McCains camp. You don’t need them all, not even a majority. If the country is as closely divided as it was in the past two elections, you only need to grab up 3-4% of the ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC VOTERS (not Obama’s strong suit) to goto McCain. It seems to me those are more likely to come from Hillary’s camp.

Worse yet, in the short term every vote cast for Obama only lessens the likelihood of the Democrats going into convention with a deadlock, which is what Republicans should want because it will result in turmoil and animosity within the Democrat party.

Blacklake on February 13, 2008 at 12:50 PM

That’s a good point to consider. Best argument I’ve heard yet for a spoil to goto Clinton.

I’m no fan of any of the three of them. I’m still in mourning over all the real conservatives getting run out of town by the moderates in the Republican party in Iowa, NH, SC and so on. Thanks folks.

One of the possible saving graces of this election cycle seemed to be the fervent hatred of the Clintons on the right. Now that Barack Obama has gained enough momentum to become the front runner, albeit without actually saying anything substantive, thi…

Morons: Republicans cross over in Virginia to vote for … Obama

Hey don’t blame us Ace readers…

(McKinnon said Obama is “wrong on Iraq and pulling out troops too early.”)

No biggie.

Yup. McCain is a disgrace in every sense. He’s weak on the WOT and liberal on everything domestically as well. But here’s the kicker, the big secret, neither Hillary or Obama is going to pull the troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan once elected. Nor are they going to pull troops out of Korea, Japan, etc. They might say they are going to end the war in election speeches but, believe me, neither one of them wants to have to deal with the consequences of those actions. Once the primaries are over, whoever the Dem nominee is will move to the right. Especially considering so much progress has been made since Gen Pattreus has taken the helm. They cannot ignore that progress in the general election. And more importantly they cannot ignore that progress once they take hold of the Presidency.

Zetterson on February 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Bingo. They talk a lot about it because they have to win the moonbats in the primaries. And they may even talk about it in the general campaign. But when push comes to shove, once elected, they will say “circumstances have changed” or some other empty crap and use that as a justification to keep troops in.

When democrats de-funded our defense of Vietnam in 1975 (thereby allowing a chaotic bloodbath to occur in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), they surrendered the issue of national security to the Republicans for a generation. I don’t think they’ll be too anxious to surrender the issue to Republicans for another generation just to placate the moveon.org crowd for the short term.

And the GOP could still get a bonus out of that, as not only would that allow our troops to finish the job, but it could also depress their turnout for th 2010 midterms.

We’ve found the head moron:

Allahpundit

I don’t buy into the premise that the only hope for Republicans this year is Hillary Clinton winning the Dem nomination. I don’t believe there is any hope for Republicans this time around – no matter what. If Clinton wins the nomination she wins the Presidency. If Obama wins the nomination he wins the Presidencey. Its really that simple. I say kill the Clinton Crime Family for good now, get them out of the way. Don’t concern ourselves with the Presidency this time around. Just worry about the Congress. THAT is our only hope.

Zetterson on February 13, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Geez, with people like this around there’s no need for me to say anything.

Exactly Right.

Time to lay out a vision of energy independence, of limited government, of safe secure retirement with the government out of our pockets, of affordable helathcare with the government out of it, of a renewal of infrastructure, of fiscal responsibility, and of winning the damn war once and for all by taking the fight to the enemy.

Only two possible explanations

Well, many people do think Obama’s more defeatable. As I’ve said before: Old people vote, young people don’t. And I heard Democrat who called a public show show to address Clinton’s negatives, saying, in effect, that Clinton’s had topped out, while Obama’s would rise, since those evil Republicans and their noise machine would make the gullible and prejudiced American sheeple believe that Obama was Muslim (and, presumably, thus not someone they should vote for). It’s not that she’s a bigot, it’s those Republicans and the suckers who believe them.

I wish I’d called up in time to tell her that she is a bigot, and those type of tactics are why Clinton has such high negatives, why many who prefer the policies, record, and savvy of Clinton still would rather see an Obama presidency if a Democrat were elected. You don’t see Obama or his minions saying, “Clinton can’t manage her own marriage; how do you expect her to manage the country?” something you’re far more likely to hear from Republicans than any rumors of Obama being Muslim. I’m not an Obama supporter – I voted for Romney – but I find this caller’s logic representative of the cynical administration we’d be likely to get under Hillary Clinton. The self-righteous non-bigot bigots who think like her would find Clinton stronger in the general. And those Democrats disgusted by the likes of her want option (b) – driving a stake through Clinton’s heart ASAP.

funky chicken on February 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Ahhh you obviously don’t know McCain as well as I do. He can’t wait to betray you. Once he holds power he will act pro choice in order to bring the country together. He will turn his back on any and all pork projects. He will promise not to expand our “military machine”. He will consult with Teddy Kennedy in order to pick judicial appointments. And if you were standing in front of him he’d spit in your face.

You’ll see.

The dem primary turnout was about double that of the GOP in 1988 too. Dukakis didn’t win
funky chicken on February 13, 2008 at 1:35 .

Point well taken. From my point of view, however, we’re damned if they do and all but damned if they don’t. My basic point was, I just can’t stand the thought of Clinton as president.

Vyce on February 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM

So the 1994 Republican Congressonal victories had nothing to do with Bill Clinton? It was just an amazing coincidence that voters just happened to swing to the GOP in Clinton’s second year? Sorry, but that’s not how I remember it.

If the voters had been tired of the dems in congress why didn’t vote them out in 1988 with GHW Bush won? Or ’84 under a Reagan landslide? Or ’80? Answer: because the 1994 GOP congressional win was a direct result of the early Clinton years. Voters were reacting to Clinton’s mismanagement, from his attempt to put gays in the military to the Hilary-care disaster.

If BHO wins (which I think he will) he do a very poor job in running the administration. Congressional approval ratings are already in the toilet. And the party out of power always gains seats in an off-year election. The only way the GOP doesn’t see some sort of comeback in 2010 is if BHO is an exceptionally good president. Any bets on that?

McCain is against earmarks. What a disgrace.

McCain wants to expand the military. What a disgrace.

McCain voted for Roberts and Alito. What a disgrace.

Sure Obama will leave our troops over there. He just won’t fund them.

Yeah, Barack will close Gitmo, forbid the CIA to use tough interrogation techniques, stop electronic surveillance of potential terrorists, and leave the border wide open so terrorists could easily get into the country! McCain would never do any of that!

Lehuster on February 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Yup. McCain is a disgrace in every sense. He’s weak on the WOT and liberal on everything domestically as well. But here’s the kicker, the big secret, neither Hillary or Obama is going to pull the troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan once elected. Nor are they going to pull troops out of Korea, Japan, etc. They might say they are going to end the war in election speeches but, believe me, neither one of them wants to have to deal with the consequences of those actions. Once the primaries are over, whoever the Dem nominee is will move to the right. Especially considering so much progress has been made since Gen Pattreus has taken the helm. They cannot ignore that progress in the general election. And more importantly they cannot ignore that progress once they take hold of the Presidency.

Haha. That would be Evgeni, not Michelle. Though I have no doubt Michelle would be a high draft pick for any team.

Zetterson on February 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM

She probably would be a high draft pick, but she’ll need to bulk up a bit to withstand the rigors of the NHL. I suggest the Cindy Sheehan Diet.

Yeah, Barack will close Gitmo, forbid the CIA to use tough interrogation techniques, stop electronic surveillance of potential terrorists, and leave the border wide open so terrorists could easily get into the country! McCain would never do any of that!

Vyce on February 13, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Vyce, if you want to vote for McCain that is perfectly fine with me. I’m not going to though. I never will. I said to myself at a young age that I would never vote for a liar or a backstabber in any election. John McCain is everything I told myself that I would never get behind. I would never support. I would never allow to LEAD me. John McCain is a liar and a backstabber who doesn’t have the decency to be truthful enough to belong to the party he actually aligns with. At least Obama and Hillary are honest enough to run for the party they agree with.

Call me a moron if you want. Call me stubborn. Perhaps I am. But what I’m not is a McCain supporter. Never will be. Never can be.

It just so happens that I believe not supporting McCain is both better for our country and much better for our party.

William Amos on February 13, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Yes, perhaps he is. As one who has not yet decided on my vote in the general, I have to say, Ed Morrisey’s account of their recent phone conference with McCain gives me a bit of hope. I’m still pretty wary, but it sounds like McCain may be recognizing what he has to do. If he continues along the old maverick path, he will lose. I’m willing to keep an open mind as we proceed.