Heart-ache: Tancredo supporting McCain
posted at 1:35 pm on April 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Krikorian thinks it’s all about making nice with party leaders ahead of his possible senate run two years from now, but I suspect that’s wishful thinking from an anti-amnesty stalwart choking on the news. The truth is, unlike Hillary, Tanc’s never had any difficulty grasping political reality. When he had to choose between slogging on with his campaign or doing what he could to boost a strong immigration candidate in a better position, he went the latter route. When the Democrats took back Congress two years ago, he made some noise about having to compromise on a guest-worker program. Now, suddenly, he’s in the same position as the rest of us vis-a-vis Captain Amnesty. And like 99% of us, he’s doing What Must Be Done:
Tancredo, who once told a national television audience he was “sick and tired” of having to choose between the lesser of two evils, said Thursday he’ll go ahead and back his longtime immigration-reform foe, McCain, because he thinks either of the Democratic alternatives would be worse.
“Sometimes I say to myself, ‘Can I really do this?’ ” Tancredo said of supporting McCain. “And then you listen to Obama or Hillary and say, ‘Yeah, I have to.’”…
Despite [Bob] Barr’s immigration stands, Tancredo said he could not support him because of his foreign policy stands, including “a blind spot on radical Islam.”…
Tancredo said he’s not endorsing McCain, just “supporting” his general election candidacy.
And what’s the difference? “The distinction is that one implies a little more enthusiasm,” Tancredo said.
McCain must be jazzed to have the support of a guy who once said of him, “If Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy spent as much time working on improving border security as they did poll testing creative euphemisms for amnesty, America would be a much safer place.” And Tanc in turn must be jazzed to be supporting a guy who once reacted to his call for a moratorium on legal immigration at one of the debates by saying, “It’s beyond my realm of thinking.” But then, Obama did say he was going to heal America. Here’s where the healing begins, my friends.
Exit question one: Think we’ll be seeing any press releases about this from Maverick HQ? It’ll do wonders for his appeal to Hispanics and independents. Exit question two: Given that the boss is momentarily but officially neutral as between Hillary and McCain, does this mean the man we know as Tancelot is actually to her left?
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:
Why is that a “heartache”? Should he be supporting Hillary or the Messiah?
Hilts on April 11, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Btw I saw Bob Barr yesterday on Hannity & Colmes – he is a real loon.
Hilts on April 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION?!
EVERYONE PLEASE GET IN LINE…
D2Boston on April 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM
I like Thomas Sowell’s comment. I’ll paraphrase:
“There is nothing that John McCain can say that will make me vote for him…
Only Hillary and Obama can convice me to vote for McCain”
Now I’ll quote Rush: “We’re screwed!”
edgehead on April 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
1 – Absolutely not.
2 – No; Tanc is not to the left of Michelle. But she has a luxury he does not, she doesn’t represent anything other then her own opinion, he has constituents, etc. Different worlds.
Spirit of 1776 on April 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
CONFIRMED!
Today’s GOP cares nothing about morality, conviction, or national security.
They care only about power, not America.
madmonkphotog on April 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
If I were Trancelot, I’d be stocking up on the Val-u-Rite Vodka this weekend. Hide in the den. Try to forget it ever happened.
Probably. Perhaps she has “difficulty grasping political reality”.
its vintage duh on April 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Looking forward to the next 4 years of…….
“My friends…..”
Starlink on April 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Comes a man….
KelliD on April 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Tom was one of the precious few who wanted to deal with illegals. McCain doesn’t seen to want to. I guess Tom had to put his support behind the Rep. we are stuck with, sad as it is. bho and hc, no way I would vote for them.
L
letget on April 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Christ.
Tancredo, Thompson…has Hunter backed him up, too?
This…ugh. I don’t know what to say. Disillusionment abounds.
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 1:47 PM
No, she has principles, which is why he has no money, little support from the right, and a real question as to how much different he is relative to Hillary.
-Both acquiesced in the 90’s when our military was being gutted.
-Both will stake out positions opposed by their party when necessary.
-Both will change those opinions and claim otherwise when necessary.
-Both are grasping politicians.
-Both are extremely temperamental and default to personal attacks when
questioned on issues.
-Both would refuse water boarding, even if lives were at stake.
-Both would nuance immigration reform and de facto grant amnesty.
-Both are uniformed on economic issues and solutions.
-Both opposed tax cuts
-Both condemn others when challenged on the stump.
-Both would weaken the CIA.
-Both would bluster but ultimately appease a military confrontation
-Both always point fingers for blame.
-Both opposed conservative judges. -Both support Global Warming
Starlink on April 11, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Over 50 percent of McCains voters disagreed with amnesty.
This is ridiculous the damn war IS killing america.
PrezHussein on April 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Yup. Each one hurts a little bit more than the last.
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
No. Conservatives are supposed to line up behind McCain and expect absolutely nothing in return.
Yes because true conservatives do not settle for the lesser of two evils if settling totally compromises core beliefs.
As a Tancredo fan, I am deeply disappointed in him.
Valiant on April 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Three months = momentarily? Bizarre formulation. Anyone who can spend that long equivocating between Clinton and McCain is far to the left of Tancredo, myself, and any serious GOP conservative. Tantrums are best left for the kindergarten, especially when facing the most serious prospect of Democrat hegemony over our nation for a generation.
Pax americana on April 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
I think MM has a great inference as to why she is holding out…….
Perhaps along these lines:
If you want my money and my support, then start supporting the conservative republican base for longer than one speech and consistently articulate positions that reflect your party.
Instead, he is now proposing another ‘bailout’ bill of the housing market, trying to one-up his liberal friends.
Starlink on April 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
About time.
THE CHOSEN ONE on April 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
While I hate to take a stance which largely agrees with hippies…yeah. You’re absolutely right.
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Given the tenor of your earlier comments, I suspect Tancredo would be pretty darned disappointed with you. Conservatives work towards what is best for this country, not throwing the toys out of their pram and opening the doors to a liberal superstate whenever things don’t go 100% their way.
Pax americana on April 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Also 30 percent of McCain’s primary voters didn’t even know he favored amnesty. Because of his lies and political speak he won.
Its around 40% for Democrat voters not knowing that their candidates support amnesty
PrezHussein on April 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Seems to me that if McAmnesty really was concerned about global warming and the environment in general then he would take a strong stand agsint immigration, illegal and legal. More people begets more energy use begets more “climate change” etc. What I don’t understand is why the enviro-Marxists work themselves into a lather over the border fence and its impact on a few wild animlas but don’t say a word about the impact of tens of millions of immigrants on our environment. New homes means clearing land and despoiling habitats. More people means increasxed stress on water supplies, especially out west. More people, more consumption, more more more and yet…silence.
The enviro-Marxists fear being labeled ‘racists’ more than they really care about the environment. Cowards and hypocrites. This glaring fact really should be used against them. Conservatives are the REAL environmentalists.
DerKrieger on April 11, 2008 at 1:58 PM
What boggles my mind is the subject matter with this particular issue. It really doesn’t fall along the “idealist vs. political realists” argument; and it really doesn’t really fall into the “moderate vs. conservative” argument. This issue goes right to the quick of the notion of sovereignty. Also, Tanc. doesn’t need to do this. Has anyone really been thinking about him lately? Does McCain even want the support of an “extremist” such as Tanc?
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Great point.
Starlink on April 11, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I’m going to defend Tancredo, so let’s play that thought out for just a second. I think you are projecting the idea of a “true conservative” without regard to action. MM is an opinion journalist. She makes a living by selling an idea, which necessitates absolutism. Tanc is a politican, a field that necessitates compromise or pragmatism. And as voters, we have the luxury of taking either position.
Moreover, Immigration is not Tanc’s number one issue. It is the manifestation of his number one issue: which is the safety and continuation of the United States of American and her core values. It’s a slow bleed vs fast bleed situation. He obviously believes that McCain’s amnesty view will destroy America as we know her. But he also thinks Jihad is the great struggle of our time. I understand his view point as a politician to try to win one front with someone he knows is going to fight him on another. He also understands that public opinion is where the immigration debate will ultimately be decided.
Spirit of 1776 on April 11, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Tancredo at least had the moxie to come out and throw his support behind McPain, despite the fact he disagrees with virtually everything McPain stands for. Most likely he sees what things would look like under the rule of Shillary, or worse, the B.O./Soros Cabal.
pilamaye on April 11, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Dude, that door has been opened for a very long time now. Whomever is elected in 08 will only regulate the speed at which we walk through that doorway.
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 2:03 PM
If he values his Republican party, he doesn’t have much of a choice, esp. when MoveOn.org and Soros are ramping up to attack McCain. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.
RMCS_USN on April 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM
As much as I dislike McCain’s stance on a number of issues, particularly illegal immigration, I am relieved the Tancredo, a person with total credibility on the illegal immigration issue, has endorsed McCain. The unpalitable truth is that Hillary and Barack are much worse on all issues I take issue with McCain on, including illegal immigration. I have to take McCain as his word that he will secure the border before attempting anything else concerning illegals.
BTW, has anyone heard anything about what Juan Hernandez said last night at Baylor U. and what kind of reception he received? I will not contribute a cent to either McCain or the Republican Party until McCain fires him from the campaign and completely disavows his views.
ptolemy on April 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Dang, Spirit, you’re good. Thanks for giving all of us political blog junkies a valid motto to exist by.
Entelechy on April 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Welcome to our world, Tanc. I had originally planned to sit out this election as well, but I had no idea just how far to the left both Democratic nominees would run.
World B. Free on April 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Except it’s going to be between McCain and Obama.
Entelechy on April 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM
With his rant against NAFTA, and all the yakking to unions in Pennsylvania, Obama is upping McCain in anti-immigration. The lambs have just not caught on to it, yet. The wolves in the media have, but are giving Obama a break on it.
Entelechy on April 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM
I agree.
its vintage duh on April 11, 2008 at 2:13 PM
If you were to ask most professing conservatives, they would tell you that the further back you go towards our founding, the closer you get to the kind of Constitutionally restricted Federal government that is at the very heart of Conservative ideology. Now once you arrive at that point in history, our founding, you will also find a lot of “action” which coincided with our purer forms of ideals. Therefore, it is wrong to state that the kind of ideas that MM is trying to “sell” requires “absolutism” . For there was a time when the kind of ideals MM is selling (esp. the idea of a nation free and sovereign) was met with a whole lot of political action. Are we to assume that it was easier back then than it is now? Were there not those who were saying, “look guys, you have to be realists about this. You can’t just sink this nation into war with the Brits, simply because you didn’t get you way about taxes.”
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Worse is worse. –John Bolton
Adults can grasp this concept.
funky chicken on April 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Tancredo isn’t stupid. He knows that, regardless of “My ideals say this, that, and the other thing…”, he has two choices in November: Obama or McCain. One will be president, no matter how much we dislike it. He’s going for the lesser of two evils, because the reality is one of the evils will be sworn in come January.
amerpundit on April 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Well, when we’re staring a President Barack Obama in the face, we’ll see if Michelle and everyone else making noises about McCain’s unacceptability feels, knowing that they helped create that reality.
its vintage duh on April 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Last I heard, Hunter endorsed Huckabee. I can’t find anything that says he’s supporting McCain. I could easily wrong about that, though.
juliesa on April 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM
We need Checks & Balances, Vote Republican.
(Democrats Control the House of Representatives and the Senate)
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Chakra Hammer on April 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Does this mean you were supporting Kerry in ‘04?
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Jamiel Shaw’s family could not be reached for comment.
baldilocks on April 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM
We’re adults, and adults have to make hard decisions sometimes. The answer here is not what we want, but what will be worse.
The MSM has abandoned Hillary and will torpedo her until she sinks. Fun as this is, now we really have to worry. The Reverend Wright and his past as a Muslim, Michelle Obama’s talk about taking away people’s piece of pie, and Obama’s insane leftism will now be zealously sheltered by the media. They want Obama elected and they’ll do everything they can to accomplish it.
It’s time to put all oars in or we’re going into the rocks.
bonnie_ on April 11, 2008 at 2:23 PM
John McCain is as much of a Republican as Joe Lieberman is a Democrat.
It sounds bad to some, but I still believe that four years of Americans suffering under liberal rule will wake them up harder than 9/11 did, and 2012 will be the resurgence of the American thirst for freedom and self-reliance.
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Of all of them, this type is my favorite.
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Agreed, for the most part.
You will also find tremendous ideological compromise. The Convention itself is a great example. Of course, there was also plenty of manipulation and lying as well.
I don’t follow your transition. In the early days, the press worked in absolutism as well. If Jefferson gets elected, the nation will be destroyed by atheists! If Adams gets elected, the nation will return to monarchy! Yet, Jefferson was elected by the House…though perhaps JQA winning via Clay is an even better example of the politicians compromising while the press took absolute positions.
No and sure.
Look, I’m just saying it’s a false comparison. Tanc is a conservative and he is a man in the arena.
Spirit of 1776 on April 11, 2008 at 2:25 PM
So – we are left with three American presidential candidates, all of whom advocate that we should award the ill-gotten goods (residency) to convicted criminals (illegal aliens).
Tell me how this is different from a judge awarding the stolen jewels to the convicted burglar (even with a fine!)
And should we expect burglaries (and illegal entries) to 1) increase or 2)decrease with these policies??
And if illegal aliens are given what they came here to steal in the first place – residency – and are made to pay a fine of say, $3000, tell me how that is not an AFTER-the-fact bribe, and any different from a $3000 bribe paid to a BP agent BEFORE they cross the border.
Rewards to criminals, and bribes paid to our government.
Insane. Absolutely insane.
fred5678 on April 11, 2008 at 2:26 PM
No doubt. And I know that your comment was just limited to one person’s view of how a true conservative manifests himself in today’s political climate. I just wanted to use your response as a point of departure to point out that the kind of conservatism that we long for really did exist. And yes, of course there was compromise back then, and I would gladly trade that level of compromise for the level at which we are currently stuck in, namely you must compromise on the first amendment, you must compromise on national sovereignty, you must compromise on the nomination process for supreme court justices, you must compromise on government mandated limits on energy use based upon a lie, you must compromise on…
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Well, I suppose if that *sshole McCain is good enough for Tom Terrific, he’s good enough for me.
jaime on April 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM
The McCain candidancy is not without precedent within the Republican party. I still remember the last time the Republicans nomimated and successfully got a liberal elected. The nominee won in a landslide when he ran for a second term. His name was Richard Nixon.
My collie says:
Indeed.
CyberCipher on April 11, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I am tired of the tantrums folks are still throwing about the GOP nominee. If anybody seriously thinks that throwing fits and screaming about the nominee will suddenly make everybody change their minds, de-select McCain, and place $SOME_REAL_CONSERVATIVE_YOU_ODDLY_CANT_NAME as the nominee, you make the Code Pink clowns look sane. We can’t adequately laugh about the Dems having to violate their own rules to get a nominee if certain contingents are still whinging for the GOP to violate its own rules.
Let’s face it. The Democrat Media Machine cleared the GOP back bench of its best conservatives, leaving only the crew that ran this year, with whom folks found real problems. Of this imperfect group, we picked an imperfect candiate. I can’t believe anubody expected any differently.
But a flawed Republican is like a bad episode of Galacitca:
Still a whole heck of a lot better than the alternative.
Sekhmet on April 11, 2008 at 2:46 PM
anubody = anybody
(I am the Queen of Ham Fingers)
Sekhmet on April 11, 2008 at 2:49 PM
If McCain wants to win, he needs votes INCLUDING conservatives, not just others.
For Tancredo to endorse McCain BEFORE McCain endorses Tancredo’s measures to secure our national borders is folly. The ONLY leverage any conservative has is holding out until the progressive concedes, not visa versa.
maverick muse on April 11, 2008 at 2:50 PM
The case for McCain in two sentences. Whatever, I’m still writing in Freddie!!!
VolMagic on April 11, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Pax americana on April 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
What about when things aren’t even going 10% their way?
VolMagic on April 11, 2008 at 2:54 PM
As a member of the GOP, Tancredo is almost bound to support the candidate if he hopes for any cooperation from the party in the future.
Me, I say to hell with McCain. If he wants to pander to the left, that’s great. They can support him. I could never support likes of a Hillary or Obama, why would I waste my time and money supporting an open borders idiot like him? No matter who wins in November, conservatives will be disappointed.
Zorro on April 11, 2008 at 3:02 PM
“but I still believe that four years of Americans suffering under liberal rule will wake them up harder than 9/11 did, and 2012 will be the resurgence of the American thirst for freedom and self-reliance.”
Sorry, but that’s just idiotic.
Four years of a fillibuster proof Congressional Democrat majority coupled with a far left, anti-American President like B. Hussein O., and there might not be anything left for “conservatives” to pick up.
Even if there is, it will take 20 years to do it. Not worth it.
Too late to save Congress but it’s not too late to deny the White House to Democrat scum.
NoDonkey on April 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Yet another reason why the Republicans will lose the White House and a good reason for me not to vote this year.
Honestly, I don’t see any difference between these two parties, one is extremely Liberal, the other is Liberal.
Conservatives don’t have someone who represents them.
I’ll stick to my principles over any party, over granting my precious vote to anybody I don’t believe he deserves it.
I have high moral standards.
I can’t betray my core beliefs.
Politics in America can’t go any lower than that.
Garbage.
Makes me puke.
Indy Conservative on April 11, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Heartache? Nose-holding? Not working for me…McCain is more conservative than the dueling Dems so I’ll have no problem voting for him even if we don’t see eye to eye 100% of the time.
deedledee on April 11, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I hear you. A source of frustration for conservatives across the board, I think.
He didn’t endorse, he said he’d support b/c of jihad.
Spirit of 1776 on April 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM
That is the crux of our problem. If there was a Reagan out there today, we would have a brokered convention. Since there is no acceptable candidate (not even close) in either party, look for a Dem victory.
Valiant on April 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Well, I’ve come to the conclusion that ALL of the candidates that tried out for President this go-round lack any Principles which trump Party or their own desire to gain/maintain personal power.
They all suck.
God help us.
(I was going to say except for Paul, but his desire for power made him leave the Libertarian Party where he belongs and join the Republican Party…. So, yeah, they all have sold out their principles for their positions.)
LegendHasIt on April 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM
“and a good reason for me not to vote this year.”
While you’re at it, how about leaving the country?
“Conservatives don’t have someone who represents them.”
What do you know about “conservatism”. Seems to me, if you can’t tell the difference between a patriot like John McCain and socialist scum like Hillary/Obama, then you probably don’t know the first thing about conservatism, either.
The kind that makes the best of the situation and doesn’t cry and whine for what isn’t possible, given the current circumstance.
“I’ll stick to my principles over any party”
You have none. Brave Americans gave their lives so you can have the right to vote. Bursting into tears because you don’t have your ideal little candidate, means you have no principles.
“Makes me puke.”
You’ve lost what little remained of your guts, congratulations.
NoDonkey on April 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Moveon ad’s can be used against them.
Chakra Hammer on April 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Haha. That’s straight out of McCain’s handbook “Consolidating the Base”. Classic.
Spirit of 1776 on April 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM
So what Conservatives suppose to do?
Leave their principles at home, pinch their nose, and go vote for someone whom they believe don’t deserve to be president because he doesn’t represent them?
Is this the reason why “brave Americans gave their life” for?
To vote just for the sake of voting?
Ah, I forgot, we’re no more in America, we’re in a Banana Republic.
Anything goes.
Indy Conservative on April 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I’m surprised he didn’t endorse Ron Paul. They both use the same Hillary/Obama populist scare-mongering arguments to demonize free trade.
Tinian on April 11, 2008 at 3:25 PM
If you can’t see the difference between a man like John McCain, who served his country honorably and who is a man of principle and the Obama/Hillary disasters, I can’t help you.
We vote for the best candidate, not the ideal candidate.
This is perhaps the most important election in our lifetime. Sitting at home is not an option.
If you think Hillary or Obama will be such a disaster for your country that you will finally get your ideal candidate, vote for them, I fully encourage you to do so.
If you would rather not subject America to a socialist President who deep down hates this country and everything it stands for, has ever stood for and who will do their best to destroy it in order to perfect it, then you will vote for John McCain.
It’s that simple. Vote your conscience.
NoDonkey on April 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I can tell you’re voting for McCain for pretty much the same reason a lot of people would vote for Obama: You’ve taken a part of their record and decided nothing can tarnish it.
John McCain was brave 40 years ago. 10 years ago he pushed for repeal of the first amendment. Two years ago he pushed for the destruction of our sovereignty and southern border. 5 years ago he pushed for further crippling of the second amendment. 7 years ago he opposed tax cuts.
I can’t tell the difference between him and socialists like Russ Feingold and Teddy Kennedy because he’s in pictures with them all the damn time.
Brave Americans died so we can choose to vote. Free choice was the point of America. Don’t try to impose your will through guilt just because you’re all weepy about a candidate’s activities from decades ago.
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Am I the only one having difficulty differentiating between those?
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I vote for the candidate who represents me.
John McCain does not represent me.
Is this how we came to be?
Vote for the lesser of two evil?
Screw it.
I’m voting my conscience.
This country was founded on principles, not on the lesser of two evils, in case you forgot.
This country is still United because of principles established by the Founding Fathers.
Give up those principles, you have no America.
And I will never give up my core beliefs for anybody.
Indy Conservative on April 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Please give up the belief that you have to press enter twice after every sentence.
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 3:34 PM
I’ve not read all your comments, but those 84 consecutive words might just be your best riff yet.
Spirit of 1776 on April 11, 2008 at 3:36 PM
As an environmentalist, I have ranted and raved at your average brain-dead environmentalist lawyers earning six digit salaries on exactly this issue. For all the intelligence and understanding I get back, I could be talking to a gold fish. They have no arguments back. They don’t care to have any arguments or thoughts on the issue. They just want to get back to thinking about how they are going to redecorate their f****** kitchen.
thuja on April 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM
You’re
asking
the
impossible.
But
I’ll
try
in
the
future.
:-)
Indy Conservative on April 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Castro’s boys were helping and advising the people who tortured John McCain. So, how motivated do you think he is to cover the Castro regime’s butt when Fidel dies? DGI (Cuban Intel) files contain everything we haven’t been allowed to know about Communist infiltration in the United States. VENONA’s declassification was just the tip of the iceberg.
Iran, Venezuela, et alia are waiting for the US to elect a Democrat so that they can cause havoc with impunity.
But go ahead and let Obamajebus win, I’m sure it will make you feel better.
Sekhmet on April 11, 2008 at 3:53 PM
The closer we get to Nov. the more bumper stickers will appear that say: It’s the socialism Stupid!
The lesser of two evils has only rarely equaled the evil that the Alinskyist HillBill and Carterist Obama represents.
Speakup on April 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Of course he did, he wants Maverick’s Air Force Once endorsement for his Senate bid.
THE CHOSEN ONE on April 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Chosing the lesser of two evils is still chosing evil. I don’t know why Tancredo had to say anything. Personally, I plan on not voting in the presidential election but voting for state and local offices. I see no difference between Hillary, Obama or McCain. Yes, we are screwed. But we had to hit bottom with the “malaise” of Jimmy Carter to get a Reagan. There’s always 2012. And a Democrat in the White House might finally make the Republican party get its act together. God help us.
Special K on April 11, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Better than pressing 1 for English and 2 for Espanol after every sentence.
Valiant on April 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM
What the hell did you expect him to do? Some people had better get it together or they can get used to saying President Obama. And as bad as you think McCain is on immigration, Obama will be worse and he will do it while pulling the rug out from under our troops in Iraq.
As far as the boss being neutral between McCain and Clinton, I am not impressed. I have spent half my life in San Diego and know firsthand the effects of Illegal immigration and the importance of curbing it. But stabbing the troops in the back over it is a sure way to lose my respect!
The Opinionator on April 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Special K,
Thanks for nothing this year. You want to show the GOP you mean business so you will stay home. Potential result, Obama and a filibuster proof majority for the Dems in the Senate…defeat in Iraq and higher taxes, a Supreme Court loaded with liberals. But hey, you showed ‘em.
Makes perfect sense for you to want your country to hit bottom, a la the Carter years, to make your point.
The Opinionator on April 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM
This has gotta be an exercise in either ignorance or subversion. Let the Dems win and we’ll see another Warren court that lasts for decades, universal health care (that lasts forever) and all sorts of other socialist goodies.
Even Ronald Reagan couldn’t get rid of the EPA or Department of Education.
If you choose to sit on your ass, don’t complain for the next 40 years.
Tinian on April 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Best. Caption. Evah!
Et tu Brute on April 11, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Yup. If the republicans pick liberal candidates, they deserve to lose. We don’t want two liberal parties, nor do we want to vote for a liberal president. If you do, that’s your prerogative, but you have no right to complain about him afterwards if he wins and implements liberal policies.
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Though the conservative Republican’s failed to coordinate around a candidate to defeat a moderate like McCain, it doesn’t mean that the U.S. deserves 4 to 8 years of Obama.
Perhaps the Naderites felt they taught Al Gore a lesson–don’t know that they were happy with the outcome.
dedalus on April 11, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Wrong.
If you’re a real conservative you have to don a hairshirt and wear it until the second coming of Reagan.
Tinian on April 11, 2008 at 6:29 PM
So, for the coming election…
Which candidate will have a less motivated and enthusiastic base?
Somehow I’m not predicting “record turnout” this go-round.
gekkobear on April 11, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Do the math. If McCain makes one Republican stay home, but in return gets one Democrat to vote for him, he’s ahead. He has the same number of votes, but the Dems have one less. Depending on which districts are involved and which states, that could be good, or it could be very, very good.
It was Col. E. M. House who first made a science of this sort of thing, getting Woodrow Wilson elected twice in the process. (Obligatory plug: read the chapter called Colonel House and a World Made of Law in Philip Bobbitt’s The Shield of Achilles. Heck, read the whole book.)
njcommuter on April 11, 2008 at 7:34 PM
You keep towin’ that party line. I’m sure Trent Lott is proud.
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Tom Tancredo is smart enough to recognize that Obama is a direct threat to America. Whatever warts McCain has (and he was not my first or second or third choice for Republican nominee), John McCain loves this country. Obama, on the other hand, will destroy it.
second digit on April 11, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Madison, I hear your argument and it has merit. Bottom line however, from my perspective, is not just who will implement liberal policies (for the record, I do believe McCain will be more conservative than a democrat) but who will implement policies that will destroy America. I truly believe that individualism and American exceptionalism will go the way of the DoDo if B. Hussein is elected. This Soros stooge has no concept of America’s “Shining city on the hill.” Like Russia, vote Obama. Like China, sit the election out.
second digit on April 11, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Madison,
McCain is not th eideal candidate for lot of us but he is not a liberal. Moderate certainly. But on the biggest issue of th eday, the GWOT, he is on the right side. He is on the right side on judges and has come around on taxes. Obama and Clinton are worse. As someone noted,in the words of John Bolton, worse is worse.
If you are wiling to sacrifice the well being and security of your country because you cannot have the perfect candidate, well thanks for nothing. My brother on active duty thanks you as well.
The Opinionator on April 11, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Is that the moral blackmail card?
Spirit of 1776 on April 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Both my father and brother served in the US Navy and Army, respectively. I only didn’t serve because a heart problem I have they considered a liability. So don’t play that hand, it carries no weight.
And, as some of you McCain shills love to say this in response to criticism of him, most of us that will be sitting out this election are not asking for the perfect candidate. Romney wasn’t the perfect candidate, but I’d have voted for him. Giuliani wasn’t the perfect candidate, but I’d most likely have voted for him. McCain is a dismal candidate, with a dismal record on amnesty, taxes, free speech, and gun control, and has proven in past to be a vindictive little man who cares about politics and how best to play them, not how best to serve his constituents.
The reason many of you use the hyperbole of “perfect” candidate for those who won’t vote for him, is because you know, deep down, that he is the opposite of perfect. He almost switched parties, for chrissakes!
If not wanting to vote for an almost-democrat is demanding the “perfect candidate”, then I guess that’s what I want.
MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 10:34 PM
This is ridiculous the damn war IS killing America.
Yep, that’s why are fighting the GWOT. You people who think this war is hurting our country are wrong.
This war is HELPING our country, and our NATO allies who have historically been willing to kill each other than find a solution (the EU) is not a solution, nor is integration of a religion that wants to suck the financial and moral lifeblood from them.
We did not declare war against islam, islam declared war against the west.
As a warrior I have no problem KILLING the enemy before he kills me and my fellow non muslims.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
winemkr on April 12, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Last word…
McCain blows donkey chunks.
Valiant on April 12, 2008 at 9:44 PM
absolutely, I’ll be voting 3rd party. the republicans are back to being rockefeller republicans. let the libs and ‘moderates’ (the most disgusting creatures of all) vote for them. I won’t.
right4life on April 12, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Comment pages: