Cristi Adkins is mad as hell at Barack Obama, and she isn't going to take it -- his narcissistic, thuggish, dishonest campaign -- anymore.
[On Sunday, I'll reveal "Obama's VP Text-Message Scam." Was Obama really sending out 3 a.m. messages on his Biden choice? Of course not. He was deceiving people with an "information grab," gathering cell phone numbers from individuals he'll contact many times -- perhaps even at 3 a.m.]
Cristi is one of the most effective "Hillary Supporters", a woman who's working 14-hour-days to ensure the defeat on Nov. 4 of the man she calls "Hussein." She calls him that because she believes -- correctly -- that he has only a tangential connection to American values. His history demonstrates that he's much more at home in Kenya than in mainstream America, which is too "bitter" for his rarified tastes.
Obama and his sycophants despise what Cristi, a co-founder of Clintons4McCain and NobamaMission, is doing, and they've responded by initiating a campaign of hatred and innuendo against her.
Cristi is a mom (two teenagers and a three-year-old), a wife, a veteran (former MP), and a nurse. The father of her two teenagers just came home from a combat tour in Afghanistan. In short, she's the kind of American with whom Obama and his fellow elitists have nothing in common.
Why does she bug Obams so much? Mainly because she's frequent guest on shows hosted by people by Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Jim Bohannon. She's even been on the "Daily Show." Right now, she's headed to Denver to "Just Say No Deal" to Barack H. Obama. She's a force in contemporary politics.
For that reason, she's been the target of absurd attacks by bloggers who serve as cheerleaders for BHO. Many of the people reading this blog. Were you aware that Obama PAYS his bloggers? Most of them get roughly $7 an hour, and some apparently receive much more. That would come as news to people who visit their sites and believe they're getting something approximating "straight talk." In fact, those bloggers are presenting all the "news" that fits with the Obama agenda.
In our own NoBama Mission Bloggers, a brainchild of Cristi Adkins and others in the NoBama Mission effort, we will have 200 blogs by the end of this day. How many of them are paid by anyone? A grand total of zero. They are all volunteers -- just like me, just like Cristi, just like the other tens of thousand of people who center their lives around the NoBama effort.
One thing Cristi is asked is why she works with non-Democrats. Well, DUH! She founded Clintons4McCain. She didn't found Clintons4Nobody, or Clintons4theheckuvait. If you're against Obama with us, you're among friends.
The NoBama effort is perhaps the most diverse coalition in American history. It consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and even a stray Libertarian or two. In that effort, there are liberals, moderates, and conservatives. There are no far-left crazies or America-haters, unlike Obama's own scary group.
What binds our people of so many different views together is a commitment to the following statement: "Barack Obama is too inexperienced, too unqualified, too untrustworthy, and too dangerous to be POTUS." Anyone who shares that view is welcome in our coalition.
The hate campaign by Obama, his staffers, and his bought-and-paid for bloggers against Cristi is similar to the effort they waged against Hillary Clinton. Of course, she has been one of the more liberal members of the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate. Many Black members of Congress backed her bid for the presidency. Those who did so are now being punished by Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Charlie Rangel, one of the most important members of the House and a Clinton backer, has NOT been invited to speak.
For her efforts on behalf of civil rights and liberal causes, Hillary Clinton was branded by Obama and his surrogates as a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. Geraldine Ferraro, also a long-time proponent of civil rights, was also labeled a racist, as was President Bill Clinton.
Given this background by Obama and his minions, it's no surprise that Cristi Adkins is under attack. Of course, she isn't being defamed for her statements about Obama, all of which are factual. Instead, they're trying to bleed her to death with a thousand pinpricks. She's accused of saying this (maybe) once, or of knowing this person or someone else, or of advocating this-or-that.
Does Cristi head right to the front-lines, where the chances of taking political shrapnel are the greatest? If you've ever seen her in action, you know she does. Also, she "pushs the envelope." She takes after "Hussein" in creative, imaginative ways. Most of these efforts work, and some don't, which is par for the course with risk-takers.
The main "charge" against Cristi is that she once was in a business venture that didn't work out. Big deal. There are probably 150 million Americans, including this one, who are in the same boat.
In fact, Cristi -- my friend and political ally -- is one of the single most effective spokeswomen in America against Obama. As long as that remains the case -- and it will through November 4 -- Obama and his meanspirited, robotic followers will try to destroy her. In other words, they will try to "Hillary-boat" her, just as they did the junior Senator from New York.
I have news for the man Cristi calls "Hussein." You will not succeed. You will not win this election. You are up against people who will not rest until John McCain send you back to the Chicago political machine that spawned you.
What can the readers of this piece do in support of Cristi Adkins, American? You can go to Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission and sign up as members of those organizations. Many thousands of people have already done. Please do it for Cristi -- and do it for America. Now.
Note: Below is the link to the Jim Bohannen show on which Cristi Adkins appeared. It's very much worth listening to.
http://search.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?dedupe=1&index=8&col=en-all-public-ep&e=20600582&il=en&format=xml&num=10&scol=pod&mc=en-all&start=0&q=networks&expand=true&match=query,channel&filter=1
Showing posts with label Sean Hannity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sean Hannity. Show all posts
Friday, August 22, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Case for John McCain
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
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
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
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:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
