Quote of the day
posted at 9:30 pm on April 25, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Of course, the lack of bipartisanship isn’t limited to Capitol Hill. Obama has taken gratuitous swipes at the Republicans who recently decamped Washington, blaming President Bush for everything from the economy and the war to the lack of sufficient puppies and rainbows. And who could forget the Rush Limbaugh flap — in which Obama’s top advisers, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, orchestrated a public relations campaign meant to undermine the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, by framing talk-radio personality Limbaugh as the real head of the Republican Party.
For now, Obama’s back-pedal on the bipartisanship promise just makes him look insincere. But the real consequences of the mistake will be felt soon enough. As Presidents Bush and Clinton could tell him, congressional majorities do change — and at some point, Obama will need Republicans on his side. He’d be smart to spend his second 100 days making up for the serious snubs of his first.”
Update: Contrary to what the Post originally claimed, Palin didn’t say this. See here.
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 3 4 5 6 Next »
Neville Chamberlain, 1938.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 11:42 PM
:(
El_Terrible on April 25, 2009 at 11:42 PM
John Kerry’s stance. Which everyone called him a flip-flopper for.
Hmmmm…..
ckoeber on April 25, 2009 at 11:42 PM
3000 Americans dead, including infants and small children.
And here you are defending the man who masterminded their deaths against waterboarding.
Apparently 3000 dead Americans mean nothing to you, but you get all choked up over a man who planned their deaths against some “uncomfortable” waterboarding.
You know what is really funny, Americans are dead and the man who caused their death is still alive getting three square meals a day on the American taxpayer’s dime.
Funny as in sad.
kcarpenter on April 25, 2009 at 11:42 PM
What else do you expect from a thug from a Chicago ghetto?
promachus on April 25, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Rasmussens has the Republicans closing the gap in generic balloting and in support on issues. In fact Republicans are coming up on the economy and are ahead in National Security again.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 11:43 PM
A lot of people are keeping score. Obama has a lot of debt on his tally now.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 11:43 PM
double fix
Fighton03 on April 25, 2009 at 11:43 PM
I’m pretty sure that wasn’t John Kerry’s stance. But who knows? He’s about as consistent as Dear Leader’s new friends.
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Oh really? SHUT UP
/sarc
El_Terrible on April 25, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Yeah, in case you missed it that was the critical piece in how Dubya got everyone to support his cause to invade Iraq.
ckoeber on April 25, 2009 at 11:44 PM
No, the Democrat stance was to support the war out of cowardice in the beginning, then to turn against it and use it as a club to beat up Bush later on. Despicable.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 11:45 PM
John Kerry’s evolving stance on Iraq.
HondaV65 on April 25, 2009 at 11:45 PM
and then he was for it, and then he voted against it, then he voted for it, then he reported for duty….
Fighton03 on April 25, 2009 at 11:45 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that Sarah Palin is the leader of the Conservative movement. I hope that we are all praying for her everyday. I am. I pray that God will protect her and give her strenght to endure these daily attacks. I pray that God continues to give her courage, that no weapon formed against her prospers, that the Holy Spirit gives her wisdom, that her family and she have peace and calm and know that God is with her. I pray that we stand with and behind her, watch her back, give her the support she needs to do whateer she is called to do. If we are indifferent or we don’t fight why would anyone help us?
Allah thank you for posting a positive article about Sarah.
CCRWM on April 25, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Didn’t a Democrat drop the A-Bomb on two cities in Japan?
shomegirl on April 25, 2009 at 11:46 PM
ckoeber:
If Obama had been president when the attack came, what do you think he would have done? Said, all hell don’t be mean to the poor babies.
I think people like you are using this issue and exploiting it. You are exaggerating the use of enhanced interrogation to the point of the ludicrous for no other reason than pure political expediency.
I have not heard any moral outrage from the left over Obama’s expanded use of rendition, not even any curiosity about the fate of the people involved.
You are just flapping your gums and beating your keyboard in the hopes you can help out Dear Leader as he turns the US into a Banana Republic.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 11:47 PM
We have been saying that from the start. It was you who coined the term “Obama Bear Market”.
So by that logic we can claim that we are responsible when the market goes back up.
Now you want to downplay the gains as well.
ckoeber on April 25, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Might want to check you facts first. the market was 9511 when Obama won election it is now at 8,000. the market has lost 1500pts since the election of BHO. yes that is right even with the 7 weeks of positive advance we are still about 175 off since Obama won the election. It is still Obama’s bear market. And we have not even started round two of the recessionary wave yet. right now the market is moving on hope and rainbows thinking the recession will be over by the end of the year. while in the real world unemployment is continuing to go higher, taxes are going up, gasoline is going up, forclosures are continuing to rise, the european banks are insolvent and some are bigger than the european’s countries GDP (thus the push to fund the IMF) and we hit debt day today. From here to the end of the fiscal year the fed gov will be borrowing ALL money needed to fund operations. So we are broke and the recesion is just getting into high gear. enjoy the next month or two because the economy will tank.
unseen on April 25, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Didn’t a D get us involved in Vietnam?
Didn’t a D get us involved in WWI?
Didn’t a D get us involved in the Balkans?
Have I missed any so far?
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:47 PM
we are still about 175 off
should be 17% off
unseen on April 25, 2009 at 11:48 PM
we got a first here people….A libtard who isn’t screaming WMD!!!! We did it for the WMD!!!! BUSH LIED< PEOPLE DIED!!!
wow….but let’s not forget Ansar al Islam, subsidizing suicide bombers, and actually harboring AQ operatives, as well as offering UBL ASYLUM…..but hey, it was tenuous.
Fighton03 on April 25, 2009 at 11:48 PM
AMEN!
Kini on April 25, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Didn’t a Democrat who after blowing up two cities in Japan, occupy said country for years?
shomegirl on April 25, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Well … if you take a NORMAL universe – with NORMAL physical laws of time … then …
You would have to conclude that John Kerry and both Clintons were FOR the war in Iraq.
But … hey … we’re not living in a normal universe. This is the Barry and Nancy show – and on the Barry and Nancy Show … we say the exact opposite of what we mean when the nation is in a crisis – then we tell the truth when the heat is off.
HondaV65 on April 25, 2009 at 11:49 PM
That’s when it was kewl.
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:49 PM
In any case, Saddam was a wart on the ass of humanity.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Yes. A dem got us into WW2 and WW1
unseen on April 25, 2009 at 11:49 PM
You know what the ultimate hypocrisy is for the Left: that they support Islamofascists who believe in the stoning of women for adultery and repression of females and their rights while in America they fanatically advocate that women must be independent, career oriented and not under the thumb of any man.
How does the Left reconcile these positions?
technopeasant on April 25, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Well, that’s because they are like super cool and have these magical powers and …
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:50 PM
I particularly like the reason we got into WWI
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:50 PM
It’s not fair to expect the left to think logically.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM
and Vietnam…
kcarpenter on April 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Hardly. There were so many reasons why Saddam had to be taken down. The simplest and most direct one was the threat that Iraq posed to the US fell outside of the post-9/11 threshold (as we, the US, realized that we had been misassessing the risks posed to us by the arab/p[ersian/muslim enemies). While that same risk had appeared to be within our threshold before, the new world after 9/11 showed that we had been mistaken. It had nothing to do with Al Quaeda, itself.
And, for anyone with a brain, the minute that Saddam intentionally dumped 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf and lit just about every single oil well in Kuwait on fire, it was apparent that he could not be allowed to remain in control of one of the most stratetgically sensitive areas of the world. After 9/11, that threat was just far too great to tolerate.
We know that most people felt this way, because the left didn’t open their mouths to complain about a thing after 9/11, until Saddam was finally pulled out of that spider hole and the left felt safe enough, again, to start spouting their seditionist tripe again. You remember. This is why all those dems had to explain their votes for the war after they had defended them again and again. Once Saddam was gone, the left felt safe enough to start trashing America like nobody’s business.
progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM
My friend, with that kind of reasoning, we are going to have to remove Obama with wart remover…
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM
well..WWII but I forgive them for that one
and Korea…but hey that wasn’t a war so we can forget about that. /sarc
Fighton03 on April 25, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Neville Chamberlain he would never emulate
As he thinks that he thought too small and gave too little too late
MB4 on April 25, 2009 at 11:52 PM
particularly like the reason we got into WWI
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:50 PM
yeah Wilson was one of the worse presidents in the 20th century. In fact obama reminds me of Wilson in some things.
unseen on April 25, 2009 at 11:52 PM
ckoeker:
I swear to God, half of the lefties in this country are either in highschool or spent the late 90s in rehab.
Weak link? I can remember the Clinton administration bragging about how they put Saddam in the indictment against the African embassy bombers. I can remember them talking about how Saddam offered sanctuary to people like Osama Bin Laden. The Saddam regime was on the list of terrorist supporting regimes long before Bush ever left Texas. In 1999 ABC did a special series on the ties between Osama and Saddam and they used information from the Clinton administration to do the film.
Now years later we still hear uninformed and ignorant people talking about things they obviously no nothing or little about.
Go read the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. Read the authorization of force passed by a Democratic Senate in 2002. Read the dozens of resolutions from the UN, or at least Resolution 1441, maybe then you will know enough about the subject to at least discuss it intelligently.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 11:52 PM
We’ll have to tell them. They can stop sacrificing unborn gay baby whales out of guilt…
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:53 PM
In that case, elections will do nicely.
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Yes! I think Obama is a 70% mix with Wilson and 30% with Mussolini…
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Murdoch rag.
getalife on April 25, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Thought you quit hot air????
So, basically even your self imposed ban was a lie?
husker3000 on April 25, 2009 at 10:19 PM
At least give it credit for consistancy.
heshtesh on April 25, 2009 at 11:54 PM
so we have what 2 wars for the GOP desert storm and WOt and what 7 or 8 wars fought by Dem presidents…
On that basis I would have to say dems are warmongers and facists that love to scare America into war…
unseen on April 25, 2009 at 11:54 PM
I can also remember Al Gore saying in 2000 something to this effect: “If the Republicans are such whiz kids, why is Saddam still there making trouble?”
ddrintn on April 25, 2009 at 11:54 PM
And Obama never had any plan for dealing with Saddam, other than turning him lose. There was no alternative, there was just Saddam thumbing his nose at the world and then getting away with it.
Obama would not have negotiated with Saddam with any success anymore than he has been able to deal with North Korea or Iran, thus far they have laughed at him.
And he is not negotiating with the Taliban in Pakistan, he is dropping bombs on them.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 11:55 PM
By maintaining a complete lack of self-reflection. It’s really quite astounding and quite possibly is what corporate strategists would call their “core competency”.
venividivici on April 25, 2009 at 11:55 PM
^^ This is BEAUTIFUL shomegirl.
What’s really worse? Bush waterboarding a mass murderer 183 times (and the dude is perfectly fine now) … or DEMOCRAT TRUEMAN’S murder of MILLIONS of innocent men and women?
For the record here – I support Truman’s use of nukes against Japan – as I support waterboarding the hell out of KSM – totally awesome!
But … if you are a liberal who abhors torture. How can you condemn waterboarding without also condemning Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Perhaps one of our Communist trolls can explain this.
HondaV65 on April 25, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Every time a right wing extremist pulls the lever, is equivalent to another drop of wart remover.
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:55 PM
getalife:
Fox number one. CNN number 3. That is some rag.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 11:55 PM
He’s only willing to negotiate with them if they want to rape women…
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Don’t tell my Daddy that Korea wasn’t a war….he went there as a Marine.
shomegirl on April 25, 2009 at 11:57 PM
30% with Mussolini
I’m going with 30% Stalin here. I see the makings of a real serious egomanic with a whim for mass murders.
unseen on April 25, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Upstater at April 25, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Why not 25% Hitler, 25% Mao, 25% Stalin and 25% Alinsky
technopeasant on April 25, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Leftists are people who look at gnats and think “Wow, that thing has a long attention span”.
venividivici on April 25, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Eh, they don’t have the charm of Mussolini and they don’t have the “academic” ignorance of Wilson.
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:58 PM
I do like that Palin is reminding Obama of basic politics. After all, elections matter.
Terrye on April 25, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Honda….I think the trolls went bye bye when we started throwing a little history at them.
shomegirl on April 25, 2009 at 11:58 PM
I put a /sarc on that one, and Semper Fi to your Daddy, I hope he came back (if he did it was still as a Marine).
Fighton03 on April 25, 2009 at 11:59 PM
thayr prolly doin’ sum reserch on teh intahnet…
Upstater85 on April 25, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Ah, here is something similar:
ddrintn on April 26, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Daylight sends them scurrying.
Fighton03 on April 26, 2009 at 12:02 AM
I put a /sarc on that one, and Semper Fi to your Daddy, I hope he came back (if he did it was still as a Marine).
Fighton03 on April 25, 2009 at 11:59 PM
==================================
He did come back and he very rarely talks about it. He was 19 and an Iowa farm boy who was drafted. we still have his uniform and his combat boots.
shomegirl on April 26, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Do you notice that the trolls seldom resort to trying to defend the Messiah? It’s all about the attack. They’re like a football team that is a one-trick pony that only passes the ball and has no defense.
It’s either the long bomb or nothing.
technopeasant on April 26, 2009 at 12:02 AM
venividici:
I know, it is just amazing. I wonder what they were doing back then? I mean did they miss the whole Clinton saber rattling we are not going to back down for Saddam schtick?
I was watching TV when they passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, and there was Bill on TV, with Daschle standing next to him..he was saying that Saddam was a threat to everyone. He said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and mark my words Bill said he will use them.
Now you get the impression that most of the dissidents are under the impression that Bill and Saddam were buds, played golf together and everything was cool until Bush came along.
Idiots.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Same with my FIL and my sons God Father. 3 tours in VN. The stories come out occasionally, but in general it’s not something you really want to remember.
Fighton03 on April 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM
My “favorite” tactic is when they start saying how bad it was under Bush or whatever GOPer it’s kewl to hate. They are even starting to say how “at least it’s not as bad as with Bush…”
Now, if Bush really is the infimum of bad leaders, how much does that say about Dear Leader?
Upstater85 on April 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM
yeah, and they’re really screwed because their quarterback is a ’0′.
Fighton03 on April 26, 2009 at 12:05 AM
His second 100 days will be worse than his first. He will not seek to correct a single one of his flubs or snubs. This ego maniacal narcissist will do nothing of the sort because he truly is stupid enough to believe he is not only right, but CANNOT be wrong.
The 1 term jackass Obama will be known as Carter, times 10.
The worst of all of this is that this horror of a presidency and all that it has brought us will cauterize progress in terms of racial unity and willingness to look past color when voting for an official. It might be wrong, but that’s just what happens. Look at Ferraro and Clinton, how soon will it be before a woman is seriously considered for Pres or VP?
Palin you say? Yeah. You wish.
Good going Obama, you just gave those shits Wright and Sharpton another 20 years of whining and race mongering to profit from.
Spiritk9 on April 26, 2009 at 12:06 AM
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
MB4 on April 26, 2009 at 12:07 AM
I remember the talk about how great the economy was in Bush’s first 6 years and how tax cuts had worked so well.
Why didn’t the GOP run with this narrative more in the 2006 mid-terms. Was Mark Foley that big of a deal?
technopeasant on April 26, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Well you know, if the UN and the Democrats had backed him up Bush1 might have gone after Saddam.
I have a client who has a relative in the special forces and he claims they were in Iraq at the end and they were ready to take out Saddam, but were told there was no authorization. I wonder if that is true.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:10 AM
No. The Shamnesty was. That’s what killed the GOP.
progressoverpeace on April 26, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Hey Spirit … I don’t think we’ve made as much racial progress as we’d like to think.
What was the percentage of Blacks who voted for Ogabe? Wasn’t it around 90 percent? That’s a racial vote if ever there was one – if Whites had voted for McCain to the tune of 90 percent – they’d be condemned as irreparably racist.
And let’s not forget the Black preacher he had saying the prayer at his inauguration – where all races were praised except Whites … who were pronounced as still not “right”.
I think the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction – and I’ll be damned if I know what to do about it. I have not found more than a handful of Blacks who will denounce the racist words of Wright, Farahkahan (however you spell that dunce’s name).
In the Navy – we were all ONE COLOR – Navy Blue. But in Obama’s world – the first thing that counts is skin color and if yours is White … you aren’t right.
HondaV65 on April 26, 2009 at 12:12 AM
If Bush I had taken out Saddam, there would have been screams of “WAR CRIME!!!! HE WENT BEYOND THE UN MANDATE!!!!!!” Guaranteed.
ddrintn on April 26, 2009 at 12:12 AM
techno:
Immigration is what happened to 2006.
Yeah, I look back on the right getting pissed about Harriet Miers and Dubai Ports and even Malkin getting mad about Katrina and I think…Bush doesn’t look so bad now does he guys?
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:13 AM
It’s absolutely correct. Special Forces WERE ALL OVER in Iraq and we were prepared to take him out. But Bush 41 would not authorize it – he was against the “nation building” that would be required.
And he was slurred by the MSM for over 10 years for not taking Sadaam down.
Then his son, G.W. did it and he was slurred by the media for doing exactly what they derided Bush 41 for not doing.
HondaV65 on April 26, 2009 at 12:15 AM
progressoverpeace on April 26, 2009 at 12:12 AM
I’m sorry but I wasn’t following the national political scene as closely as I should have. I thought up to 2006 Bush was doing all right.
Isn’t it ironic that Shamnesty caused the defeat in 2006 and that McCain was nominated by the GOP 2 years later?
technopeasant on April 26, 2009 at 12:15 AM
ddrintn:
No doubt about it. They would have turned on him. Refused to help with anything that came after. The left would have immediately gone into Saddam as victim mode.
But the world would probably be better off today if he had.
And if Carter had smacked down Iran as far as that is concerned.
When you think about Lebanon and the dead Marines, all the attacks on Americans over the years, it seems to me that it makes the case that these kinds of killers do not change. Hoping they will go away or wear themselves out or find someone else to hate just does not work out. Sooner or later you have to deal with them somehow someway.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:17 AM
That’s what happens with open primaries and MSM advocacy.
ddrintn on April 26, 2009 at 12:17 AM
techno”
It is even more amazing that it was not a major issue in the presidential campaigns in 2000, 2004 or 2008.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Yep. He took advantage of a splintered right. I always said that if McCain had any integrity, at all, he would have taken himself out of the primaries after his shamnesty was so soundly defeated and the GOP suffered such a terrible loss because of it. A decent man would have acknowledged that the base hated his guts (many of us did, at least – as McCain’s own mother spoke about) and that, for the good of the party and the conservative movement, he was retiring, or at least not running for Pres. But, McCain cared only about himself.
And Bush contributed mightily to the shamnesty debacle, too. It was the dumbest political move in all of human history, I would say.
progressoverpeace on April 26, 2009 at 12:20 AM
McCain did stick his head on the chopping block for amnesty and got it shoved where the sun don’t shine by hispanic voters. He alienated the base and failed to bring in the new blood to the party.
We had no unity behind any candidate and ended up with McCain. You can still see all the division among the Romney, Paul, Huckabee supporters. We need to get it together for 2012
msmveritas on April 26, 2009 at 12:21 AM
ddrintn:
I don’t buy that. This system did not change. This is the same system that nominated Reagan for heavens sake. The problem was that conservatives could not stop attacking each other long enough to come up with someone they could all get behind. The open primary thing is a myth, an excuse. I mean come on..where were all the Republicans. More Democrats were voting in their own primaries than ever. It is not as if they were voting in the Republican primary instead. I mean who was the guy who was supposed to get it, but the system screwed him? Romney? Please, there were people who refused to vote for each and everyone of these people when and if their guy did not get picked.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:21 AM
In 2008, they were all scared to death of it. It was Shrillary’s idiotic backing of Spitzer’s driver’s licenses for illegals that cost her the dem nomination. That debate where she started with that marked the beginning of her fall.
progressoverpeace on April 26, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Again, twisting the facts.
October 12th, 2007 – Dow Index – 14,093.08
January 20th, 2009 – Dow Index – 7,949.09
http://finance.google.com
ckoeber on April 25, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Just curious could you post what occured between Nov 5th and Jan 20?
heshtesh on April 26, 2009 at 12:22 AM
You read all about the Islamofascists living for the day that they can be martyred and sent to heaven to be comforted by 72 virgins and these Leftist somehow think that we ‘throw them a bit of temporal love’ that they will come around and eventually call Americans brothers.
Look, the love that islamofascists desire is not found on this earth. How can the lefties be so stupid?
technopeasant on April 26, 2009 at 12:22 AM
msm:
It was not McCain that lost the hispanic voters. The truth is the rhetoric during that debate got a little heated and the Democrats got 80% of the hispanic vote. In 2004, Republicans got 44%. That was not McCain’s fault.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:23 AM
progressoverpeace:
Hillary was flumoxed about that no doubt, but Obama made no secret of the fact that he is very liberal when it comes to immigration. In fact I think he will probably push for a bill in the hopes that he can get Republicans to go after each other again in the debate. Divide and conquer. Post partisan my ass.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Yeah, true. Actually I thought from the beginning that the GOP field was sort of weak. None of them inspired me particularly. I was more into voting against Hillary or Obama.
ddrintn on April 26, 2009 at 12:28 AM
I really don’t agree with that. The only TRUE conservative in the run was Fred Thompson – and he came in late and many said without a lot of enthusiasm. But damn – we’d better off today if we had him in the White House.
Romney is NOT a 100 percent Conservative – he’s flipped and flopped. I like Mitt – but this is just a fact.
Huck – is not a Conservative at all – he’s a narcissist and that’s it. He’s an Arkansas politician and there are plenty of scandals on him.
I think the problem was not Conservative voters – but the choices they were given. None of these people were very inspirational – including Thompson.
When THE ONE inspirational conservative came along – SHE was hitched to the RINO. Without her – he would have fried alive in that election. She is the only thing that got him as close as he got.
HondaV65 on April 26, 2009 at 12:29 AM
What’s the big deal about partisanship. Just govern, be a statesman, and get ‘er done.
I’d like to see MORE partisanship from the Republicans.
Mojave Mark on April 26, 2009 at 12:29 AM
progressoverpeace:
And how does McCain staying in the race have anything to do with his integrity? If people did not want him, they did not have to vote for him. As for splitting things, you could just as easily say that when the House GOP tried to make illegal entry a felony without the support they needed to push it through that just helped get people in the streets and then things began to go to hell.
But to blame McCain for having the audacity to win the nomination instead of quitting and letting someone else win is not fair. Especially now that the election is over. If he had backed out Huckabee probably would have won the nomination anyway. I doubt people would have liked that any better.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Just out of curiosity, why Fred? I don’t think he ever really made his case to me. What makes him the “true conservative?”
Upstater85 on April 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM
I agree with you: Bush’s support of comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty) was one of the worst Presidential decisions ever made by a Republican President.
technopeasant on April 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Oh, there’s more…
Bush is no Conservative…
Compassionate Conservative (whatever that is) perhaps.
Upstater85 on April 26, 2009 at 12:32 AM
Honda:
Well fine, then Fred should have stayed in and people should have voted for him. How is that anyone else’s fault? Who stopped him getting in and staying in and who stopped people supporting him?
No, they were too busy stabbing each other in the back to just pick someone and stick with them, whether it be Fred or Rudy or whoever.
And yes, Fred would be better than what we have. No doubt about that.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:33 AM
In retrospect if it was not for macaca, would George Allen have gotten the nomination if he ran in 2008?
technopeasant on April 26, 2009 at 12:33 AM
That’s very true, but BHO made one of his usually meely-mouthed statements about the licenses (while Shrillary had gone all-in on the concept) and the media kept away from the topic of illegals for the rest of the primaries and the general. Everyone knew that it was a political live-wire such as no one had seen. It was absolute kryptonite, so the MSM kept it all out of the headlines.
Sad to say, but I think you are exactly right on this. Another run at amnesty will tear the right to shreds, since some GOPers are going to stab us in the back on this, and it’s a total deal-breaker to many (myself included). But he has to watch out, because most of the dem voters don’t like it, either. The amnesty fight will be a total death match, with the US hanging in the balance. No doubt about that.
progressoverpeace on April 26, 2009 at 12:34 AM
I am not sure I know what you mean. Are you saying from the Republican base heated rhetoric alienated hispanic voters?
msmveritas on April 26, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Upstater:
Bush was a pro lifer, a social conservative, strong on national security and he believed in low taxes.
And as far as immigration goes, I think the fact that people were willing to ignore the problem for so many years tells you that it was not considered a big deal to conservatives even a decade ago.
After all, what did Gingrich do about it when he was Speaker? And look at who was up for the nomination in 2000, certainly not Buchanan. He got about 1% of the vote on his own in 2000.
Terrye on April 26, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »