The following is today's column The following material is new on my blogs, but I wrote it after my appearance on Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican show on BlogTalkRadio. Eric opposes John McCain for reasons that remain mysterious to me.
On Eric's show, the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain. His point seemingly was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative.
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group. I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club for Growth gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.
Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal.
That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the data show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX recently: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
Admittedly, McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics.
I told my host Eric that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.
Note: Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source
Showing posts with label Ann Coulter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ann Coulter. Show all posts
Monday, February 25, 2008
THE CASE FOR JOHN MCCAIN
The following material is new on my blogs, but I wrote it after my appearance on Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican show on BlogTalkRadio. Eric opposes John McCain for reasons that remain mysterious to me.I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain.
His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union ratings and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative. The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain.
I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group. I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism. Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.
Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion.
Rather, it is what the facts show. John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them.
Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics.I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality. I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong.
When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.
Note: Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com)
His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union ratings and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative. The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain.
I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group. I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism. Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.
Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion.
Rather, it is what the facts show. John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them.
Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics.I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality. I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong.
When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.
Note: Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com)
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Maloney, McCain: Immigration & Demagoguery
CONGRATULATIONS TO WHAT HOWARD COSSELL USED TO CALL "THE NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS."
Hi everyone. Welcome to today's visitors from Hobbs, NM, Omaha, Concord and Camirillo, CA, Knoxville, Ewa Beach, HI, Venetie, AK, Wasilla, AK (hi Sarah!), Juneau, AK, Washington, DC, Rome, Italy, Chesham, UK, Southfield, MI, Rome, GA, Gaithersburg, MD, Pittsburgh, PA, Winston Salem, NC, and Beggs, OK.
Please visit the John McCain for POTUS site at: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=240445
LATER TONIGHT (SUNDAY), I'LL PUT UP MONDAY'S COLUMN, WHICH WILL DEAL WITH THE (LONDON) ECONOMIST MAGAZINE'S VERY POSITIVE WORDS ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN.
Also, read the terrific opinion piece by Jack Kelly on "McCain is NOT the Enemy." You can find it by going to: http://post-gazette.com/forum. If you have a blog, please recommend this fine essay to your visitors.
I wrote the following to a radio friend (J.) who asked me about the Bill Russell campaign and expressed the view that John McCain’s immigration approach amounted to supporting “criminal invaders” of the U.S. My problem is that a term like “criminal invaders” is talk-show demagoguery. It’s just plain evil. It doesn’t distinguish an impoverished Guatemalan mother sneaking across the border from, say, Muhammed Atta. If I lose J. as a friend, well, maybe that was a friend I don’t need. Here’s what I said:
I support Bill (and gave him 400 bucks) but he appointed a new campaign manager and the strategy seems to be to wait for a miracle. Bill Russell is a good guy and maybe a great guy, but he doesn't seem to want to wage the hand-to-hand combat necessary to make real inroads into Murtha's big lead. Sad to say, but I'm trying to tell the truth a lot these days.
In politics, J., half a loaf is the equivalent of a five-tiered wedding cake. There are no perfect candidates, and those who claim to be send up a "hold-onto-your-wallet" signal.
There are also some fine "conservative" (sorta/maybe/coulda/woulda) candidates, like Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore (now a trivia question) who attract more flies than voters. Hunter was a good man with status in the House and a presence in Moneyland, USA. He raised $1.8 million and never got up to 1% in the national polls. Murtha has probably raised more money by now.
And then we had the "ideal" conservative, Fred Thompson, the laziest man in the history of American politics. Besides having a stomach problem and belching four times per minute, he finished behind Ron Paul in every state except South Carolina (where Fred finished a weak third).
Is immigration really the issue that most staunch conservatives believe it is? Gee, how did Tom Tancredo (who also came out against legal immigration) do? How did Duncan Hunter do? How does immigration rate (about sixth or seventh) on the issues people care about?
Immigration -- "criminal invaders" notwithstanding -- is a non-issue, J. Ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be the next President, "resolve the issue?" Check out the Dem debate, and you'll find exactly what their commitment to border security -- nonexistent -- is.
A lot talk show hosts (not referring to you of course) got rich on immigrant-bashing, but it is not an issue that is going to play any significant role in elections. Some of the Republicans who were the most anti- lost badly, including Hayworth in AZ and Santorum in PA. People in PA (outside Hazleton) don't care about immigration. They care more about getting Hispanic votes, which McCain, Clinton, and (to a lesser degree) Obama did in FL.
Ann Coulter has come out and endorsed Hillary, and, perhaps for the first time in her life, she's being honest. (Now that I say that, about her honesty, I don't believe it). She's a political whore who makes money by saying offensive things about other people. The big-time talk show people are squealing now because it's become clear that they are irrelevant -- they're profoundly stupid, relentlessly glib individuals.
I hope they follow Ann's lead and endorse Hillary. I sure as hell don't want them on my side.
Hi everyone. Welcome to today's visitors from Hobbs, NM, Omaha, Concord and Camirillo, CA, Knoxville, Ewa Beach, HI, Venetie, AK, Wasilla, AK (hi Sarah!), Juneau, AK, Washington, DC, Rome, Italy, Chesham, UK, Southfield, MI, Rome, GA, Gaithersburg, MD, Pittsburgh, PA, Winston Salem, NC, and Beggs, OK.
Please visit the John McCain for POTUS site at: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=240445
LATER TONIGHT (SUNDAY), I'LL PUT UP MONDAY'S COLUMN, WHICH WILL DEAL WITH THE (LONDON) ECONOMIST MAGAZINE'S VERY POSITIVE WORDS ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN.
Also, read the terrific opinion piece by Jack Kelly on "McCain is NOT the Enemy." You can find it by going to: http://post-gazette.com/forum. If you have a blog, please recommend this fine essay to your visitors.
I wrote the following to a radio friend (J.) who asked me about the Bill Russell campaign and expressed the view that John McCain’s immigration approach amounted to supporting “criminal invaders” of the U.S. My problem is that a term like “criminal invaders” is talk-show demagoguery. It’s just plain evil. It doesn’t distinguish an impoverished Guatemalan mother sneaking across the border from, say, Muhammed Atta. If I lose J. as a friend, well, maybe that was a friend I don’t need. Here’s what I said:
I support Bill (and gave him 400 bucks) but he appointed a new campaign manager and the strategy seems to be to wait for a miracle. Bill Russell is a good guy and maybe a great guy, but he doesn't seem to want to wage the hand-to-hand combat necessary to make real inroads into Murtha's big lead. Sad to say, but I'm trying to tell the truth a lot these days.
In politics, J., half a loaf is the equivalent of a five-tiered wedding cake. There are no perfect candidates, and those who claim to be send up a "hold-onto-your-wallet" signal.
There are also some fine "conservative" (sorta/maybe/coulda/woulda) candidates, like Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore (now a trivia question) who attract more flies than voters. Hunter was a good man with status in the House and a presence in Moneyland, USA. He raised $1.8 million and never got up to 1% in the national polls. Murtha has probably raised more money by now.
And then we had the "ideal" conservative, Fred Thompson, the laziest man in the history of American politics. Besides having a stomach problem and belching four times per minute, he finished behind Ron Paul in every state except South Carolina (where Fred finished a weak third).
Is immigration really the issue that most staunch conservatives believe it is? Gee, how did Tom Tancredo (who also came out against legal immigration) do? How did Duncan Hunter do? How does immigration rate (about sixth or seventh) on the issues people care about?
Immigration -- "criminal invaders" notwithstanding -- is a non-issue, J. Ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of whom will be the next President, "resolve the issue?" Check out the Dem debate, and you'll find exactly what their commitment to border security -- nonexistent -- is.
A lot talk show hosts (not referring to you of course) got rich on immigrant-bashing, but it is not an issue that is going to play any significant role in elections. Some of the Republicans who were the most anti- lost badly, including Hayworth in AZ and Santorum in PA. People in PA (outside Hazleton) don't care about immigration. They care more about getting Hispanic votes, which McCain, Clinton, and (to a lesser degree) Obama did in FL.
Ann Coulter has come out and endorsed Hillary, and, perhaps for the first time in her life, she's being honest. (Now that I say that, about her honesty, I don't believe it). She's a political whore who makes money by saying offensive things about other people. The big-time talk show people are squealing now because it's become clear that they are irrelevant -- they're profoundly stupid, relentlessly glib individuals.
I hope they follow Ann's lead and endorse Hillary. I sure as hell don't want them on my side.
McCain: Talk Show Critics
Last night, I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain. His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union (ACU) the Club For Growth indicated that McCain was a conservative.
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
