Geez, Folks - Coulter's Right

I'm not a big fan of Ann Coulter's sometimes contrived theatrics to generate sales for a new book. Maybe I'm wrong, but she isn't trying to sell a book right now as she suggests opting for Hillary Clinton over John McCain.

Personally, I could never vote for Hillary. And now that there's been a MoveOn.org endorsement of Obama, I could never pull the lever for him, as I assume he'll accept it. But I doubt I could ever pull the lever for John McCain, either - and the most important points Coulter makes in the video above seem to be getting lost in the hyperbole.

Republicans in Congress won't fight a John McCain; they would fight a Hillary Clinton tooth and nail. And big picture, there isn't a dime's worth of difference over what we'll get between the two - despite how the issue of Iraq is currently being used to influence the electorate.

Hillary is not going to abandon Iraq as things stand. Geez, wake up people. By then, the Democrats will simply co-opt the victory, the screaming moonbats will fall in line, except for the already neglected fringe. With McCain - and I doubt he'd ever win the general in the first place, Republicans will lose so much politically, they'll be resigned to the minority for years.

At least with Hillary, there's a potential for a conservative Republican emergence, as early as 2012. With McCain, there's no chance.

Most likely I stay home. But, make no mistake - in a race between Hillary and St. John, with the former, we win - with the latter, we lose. And both will undermine us in the war on terror by taking the ACLU line on enemy combatants. May as well toss in Global Warming, immigration and political censorship for good measure. What I can't understand is how a solid conservative, or Republican could ever vote for a John McCain. We lose across the board on issues with McCain. How can you support that?

Ultimately, I'll conclude just what I did when the first Clinton beat Bush 41. The majority of America people don't have a freaking clue what they are voting for. And that includes many a "good" conservative and Republican, too.

I'll add, my biggest fear in 2008 isn't a Hillary victory. It's one for John McCain. We'll never live down the blame we'll take for him and he will absolutely destroy the Reagan coalition. With his positions on terrorist prisoners, global warming and immigration - lack of real dedication on conservatives and the court - how anyone can take any other positon, makes no sense.

Comments

[docweasel]

I can't put it better than Rachel Lucas
http://rachellucas.com/?p=600
You won’t listen to me, maybe you listen to Bill Whittle’s comment:

I would point out that this “let them screw up the country so we can win next time” theory was loudly bandied about in 2006. How’d that work out for us?

We lost the House and the Senate, and we have stayed in Iraq and seen the benefit of the Surge only because we had a President who said he would veto any withdrawal legislation.

Now, many of you are calling for the same strategy again. The result will be to have all three branches of government (yes — especially the Judiciary) go hard left. Forgive me if I do not see the sense in this.

When I hear this argument, I think of this: Grandma smokes in bed, and we’ve told her a hundred times not to do it. So now, to make sure she gets the point on how serious we are, we’re going to stand there and let the bed burn. To teach her a lesson. Hey, know what? Let’s let the whole house burn down! That will REALLY send her a message. I have an even better idea: Let’s let the grandkids burn to death too, because if anything will get her attention, that’s it.

We’ve lost 4,500 soldiers fighting in Iraq. If you think I am going to sit back and let Hillary or Obama cut and run, and have those brave men and women die in vain, simply because I don’t like John McCain (and I most emphatically do not like John McCain), then you have another think coming.

[Dan Riehl]

I could like any good pol who is conservative. That ain't McCain and he can't win the GE - so thisis all moot. How many times is he going to play the Hanoi Hilton card between now and Nov? Because that's all he has to say. Top that off with he has no clue what he's talking about on most issues. The man will be enbarassed in every R vs D debate. Obama and Hillary will run rings around him in the Fall.

[sand dollar]

I regret, more than words can express, that we are witnessing the decline of the United States of America. A return of the clinton criminality is intolerable and unacceptable. obama's loyalty and dedication is to the Trinity United Church of Christ, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, the 'Black Value System' and a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. The only question is how long it will take for us to observe the fall of the USA if either of the 'front runners' is elected. The mass media has already annointed one or the other, hiding by the device of 'polls indicate.'

[Carolina]

If Mitt does not get the nomination, why can't we spend the rest of the year organizing the largest WRITE IN Effort in the history of this great country.

We do not want to vote for McCain or a Dem, lets stage the most beautifl act of democracy and get our guy in the White House and not do what the MEDIA wants us to do.

[Roy Mustang]

Bush signed for McCain-Feingold.
Bush nominated the Souter-like Harriet Myers.
Bush worked with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind.
Bush spearheaded one of the largest expansions of big government (Medicare Part D).

How many of you campaigned for President John Kerry?

I agree with Todd:
“Until today, I thought conservatives were actually more mature than leftists.

Plus, anyone who says the WOT/Iraq is the defining issue of this generation, has turned out to be a phony. McCain has been unwavering on Iraq, and the Surge that saved the war was largely due to him.

You are phonies after all.”

[Mark]

We've got four days to stop an openly hostile candidate who is trying to bypass the base by winning states that no Republican could carry in November (NJ, NY, CT, & CA). He is able to do this with only 1/3 of the Republican vote because the GOP can't seem to keep democrats and independents out of it's primaries and conservatives have been content to squabble about who is the real conservative while McCain walks between the raindrops with the assistance of a hostile media. [Note to the RNC: Get rid of winner-take-all primaries so that democratic operatives and my somewhat befuddled RINO neighbors can't visit this apocalypse on the GOP]

I would rather go down in flames with Romney than win with McCain. I would rather go down in flames with Huckabee than McCain, and I'm pretty sure he's another "compassionate" pseudo-conservative who practices Christianity with other people's money. At least these candidates *claim* to care about the base, and therefore would require their consent to rule.

Forget ending the Reagan revolution... If McCain wins the nomination he has a good chance of ending the party of Lincoln: His strategy is nothing less than eviscerate the conservative base by winning "moderate" votes whose only guiding principle will amount to a wishy-washy cult of personality and a hatred for the free market, free speech principles that define the base. The base won't stand for it and will likely split, ensuring DNC victories for the next several elections.

Ironically, only a victory by Hillary, (or better yet, a fluff candidate like Obama) will remind the majority of Americans just how unpalatable their ideas are. Maybe this is the *real* penance we owe for the bridge to nowhere. Maybe it will be too late, but at least the DP will get the blame. We could use the time to clean out "leaders" like Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham and replace them with people who will do more than make asses of themselves.

I will not vote for McCain in November if he wins the nomination, and will vote for his opponent if it looks like he could win the presidency. I know this sounds extreme, but I have considered the ramifications:

For the larger War On Terror, I think we may have already gotten to the point that it will take another 9/11 to de-politicize sensible policies like robust surveillance of suspects, GitMo, and water-boarding (all of which John McCain opposes). [At least so long as the president has an "R" after his name.] Risky as it is, I don't think that either democrat has the guts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, and they've already hedged their bets on how long it would take to draw down when they have every reason to pander on the issue to their base.

But here is what I know for certain: If John McCain is the GOP nominee than we *will* be swamped with a newly minted underclass of 20 to 80 million regardless of who wins the presidency. The first generation of this group will vote 9 to 1 for socialist programs and the DNC will be able to ride these voters to victory for the next 20 years. This is an existential threat to free market capitalism in America, which would arguably be worse for our nation than if we lost a city, which would at least unite the nation to end the threat of islamo-fascism once and for all. (Perhaps this is the true cost of letting Bush cave to the insanity of political correctness, woefully mismanage the occupation of Iraq, and allow only 1% of our population to carry the burden while we "shopped for freedom".)

Do or die, GOP. I'm voting for Romney, not because he has bound himself to the Reagan platform (he has) or because he actually understands modern capitalism in a way that no professional politician ever could (he does), or even because he looks like the guy who was your class president/team captain/prom king in H.S., but because he can stop the cult of McCain in its tracks.

[Mark]

Roy M.-
1. Bush never won a nomination by engaging in tactics that would end conservative control of the GOP.

2. Bush believed that N.C.L.B. would impose standardized testing on a completely unaccountable public school system ...and he was right, even if it doesn't go nearly far enough. (I'd abolish the whole system if I could).

3. Bush probably believed that the Supremes were going to reject McCain Feingold. I'd be the first to admit that this cynical act was a totally unacceptable betrayal of principle, but at the time many people thought it inconceivable that the court would reject 30 years of jurisprudence which "ranked" "core political speech" as "deserving" of the most protection (an idiotic notion) or that the rudderless moron in a dress who wrote the opinion upholding this egregious attack on freedom of speech would actually use the court's creation of the category as the basis for Congresses' right to restrict it.

4. Please stop giving a serial panderer like McCain all the credit for General Petraeus's genius and President Bush's political will to ignore his advisers. (I believe this was just written about in the Weekly Standard)

Virtually every Republican that supported it actually thought it was too little, too late, including John McCain, who said it should be a few hundred thousand. (BTW, Romney expressed his unequivocal support for the surge in January of 2007, long before the outcome turned positive) As I remember it, the only Republican's who actually opposed the surge were ass-hats like Warner, Hagel, Chaffee, Brownback & Snow (i.e., the usual suspects)

If conservatives stick together we can survive this crisis and perhaps see the day when these craven opportunists are replaced with more responsible representatives that won't cut and run for a fawning sunday morning talkshow junket.

[Roy Mustang]

1. The only way we got you "conservative control" RINOs to vote for Bush in 2004 was to hold the Supreme Court vacancies over your heads.

2. So working with Ted Kennedy (or other liberals) does not automatically disqualify you as a conservative?

3. So dishonesty in Bush is ok, but dishonesty in McCain is unforgivable. (Bush is not dishonest)

4. >70% of the public and even a lot GOP senators and advisors like Sen. Warner and the ISG wanted to abandon Iraq. McCain was a leader in the support of the Iraq War. If McCain was not in the Senate we would have withdrawn in defeat. The surge and its success are simply fruits of McCain's support of the war.

Beating your wife will not make her love you more. Making the GOP suffer through 4 years of Hillary will not make us more likely to nominate your candidates.

[Mark]

Roy,
Are you trolling? I'm a RINO because I won't vote for a dissembling, obstinate, pompous, Hillary-lite in pants (oh wait...) who will derail their own party to win the nomination? Is it your position that a good conservative should vote for McCain because he will *probably* have an "R" next to his name come November?

One more time: McCain didn't head off a pullout, because congress didn't have the guts to defund and Bush would have resigned before he signed that order. McCain whined about the need for several thousand more troops we didn't have and couldn't get without a draft. Gen. Petraeus (the real hero here) suggested 20K, and Bush did it against McCain's initial criticism that it wasn't enough.

I don't agree with the propriety of these attacks on his supposedly "unstable"/volcanic character, but last Friday's debate and his ridiculous refusal to accept the plain meaning of what "is" is made it abundantly clear that HE IS MCQEEG. He's not stupid, just completely unwilling to admit he made a mistake. (The more you look, the more he looks like Hillary the Angry Flick.) We've already done enough damage to the party with that sort of "Heckuva Job, Brownie!" immunity to the obvious.

If the country is stupid enough to elect a transparently phony socialist like Hillary then they will deserve the beating that wife will give them.

[LOL]

from the first comment's link:

"He actually gives a shit about fighting the war against towelheads, unlike Hillary or Obama."

Wow some real winners you guys have on your side.

[joated]

If the choice is between bad and worse, I'll take bad. Those who say they'll sit out or even work for/hope for a sHillary win are living in a fantasy world. They remind me of all those liberals who promised they would leave the country inf Bush were elected/reelected. Not one of them left. Why? Because even under the Bush administration they deplored, life in the USA was better than anything out there. Life with McCain in office will be much, much better, flaws and all, than having either of the Socialists running for the Democratic nomination in the Oval Office.

Remember, if you don't vote you shouldn't complain with what you get. Same goes if you actively work for/hope for a Democratic victory.

Bill Whittle's piece (link in comment #1) is on the mark, as usual, and well worth reading.

[LOL]

I just LOVE all this talk about how leaving Iraq will somehow be abandoning the troops or whatever nonsense you guys seem to believe. It's so laughable how out of touch you are with reality.

I bet you guys can't guess who the top 2 candidates are who are receiving funding from the military are?

First hint: Not Romney

Second hint: They both were against the war from the beginning.

[LOL]

"why can't we spend the rest of the year organizing the largest WRITE IN Effort in the history of this great country."

Simple answer: There simply isn't enough of you guys.

[docweasel]

Heh Mark: "Bush Believed"

Nice way to govern, hoping the things you sign will be overturned by the courts, giving you your cake even as you eat it.

Weak sauce. The stone cold fact is, McCain is almost a carbon copy of George Dubya Bush, whom most Republicans voted for and supported whole-heartedly, partly perhaps because of the disaster John Kerry or Al Gore would have been.

Now, a personal dislike for McCain has them trotting out weak ass game rationalizations like "Mark"'s above.

You're petulant little titty babies, just admit it. There is no substantial difference between Bush and McCain, and a president Hillary would be a disaster it would take generations to overcome, re: her naming of very liberal judges to all levels of the Federal Courts, plus no veto check on the Democrat Senate and House. So the Dems would have all 3 branches of the government, maybe for a generation.

You read about all the Republicans leaving the Congress lately? Face it: we aren't getting either house back any time soon. Almost all the Red-State low hanging fruit has been snatched, that was why there was a change-over: how Republicans would have to win Blue State seats to get a majority, and the winds aren't blowing that way for legislative seats.

A presidential veto is all we have left. And because of a temper tantrum by some disgruntled babies who feel disrespected we may lose that.

I'm still laughing over Dan's risible suggestion McCain can't win and Romney can. By what scenario he comes up with that, I don't know. McCain will bring in independents and even Democrats, such is the dislike of Hillary. Romney will bring in none, no blacks nor minorities will vote for him, and many many Republicans will not only sit home, they leave the party if he is nominated.

There are times when you are justified to leave your party, as when they nominate a hateful, racist, sexist candidate ala Le Pen. McCain doesn't fit that bill. Romney, however, does. He would destroy the party if he were nominated, thankfully, most Republicans aren't immature enough to ignore that and put pique over responsible logic.

[Fred Beloit]

Roy: "If McCain was not in the Senate we would have withdrawn in defeat. The surge and its success are simply fruits of McCain's support of the war."

He helped, Roy. He most certainly didn't do it all.

Roy: "Beating your wife will not make her love you more. Making the GOP suffer through 4 years of Hillary will not make us more likely to nominate your candidates."

And marrying a woman who doesn't love you is usually a terrible mistake, Roy. And this brings up the question of whom you mean by "us" and "you"?
I do not want John McCain to be president of the United States, Roy. I have just as much a right to not vote for him as you do to vote for him. I don't owe my allegiance to the Republicans but to the RepubLIC. I took no oath that I would vote for any dink the party and its primary voters come up with. The Republicans owe me their allegiance as far as I'm concerned. I've been defending them for years. They seem to be failing to present acceptable conservative candidates. That is their problem, not mine.

[Fred Beloit]

doc, stop trying to bully people into voting for a pig's ear. You take too much on yourself. Go ahead and vote for McCain if you wish. If he does well, you can say you helped put him where he could do the most good. If he orchestrates disasters, they will be partly your fault for placing him in a position where he could do the most harm. You should have seen them coming. You were warned often enough.

[Fred Beloit]

By the way, doc, I found Mark's comments intelligent, clear, and logical.

[WAHOO WILLIE SEZ:]

" I don't owe my allegiance to the Republicans but to the RepubLIC."

ooooooo GREAT statement there Fred!!

[serfer62]

Mustang. I disagreed with the single-issue-morons voting out the Pubs however what did the Kommiecrats win? Nothing. Not one of their silly bills, supeonas or impeachments made a dent.

It was only maccain who stopped judical selection, perment tax decrease, wire tapping and a host of other conservative hopes.

Could Sen clinton do worse to the conservatives?...

[Roy Mustang]

In the Bizzaro world where Hillary is as bad as McCain, voting for the Bush tax cuts in 2006 means "stopping permanent tax decrease". In this world, common sense, logic and indeed the laws of physics do not apply.

Hillary and Mitt can have Ann. Look into this mirror, MDS patients.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erMa0F_DCJE&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/01/coulter-no-im-not-kidding-about-voting-for-hillary-over-mccain/comment-page-2/

[Roy Mustang]

Fred, you have an *obligation* to do what is best for this country. Voting out of spite....using your vote to harm the United States is unpatriotic, disgusting and vile.

[LOL]

wingnuts are not patriots. It's about time you learned that. PINOS

[templar knight]

Uh, I don't know about "wingnuts" being patriotic, dufus, but Roy is referring to your side as the one who will harm this nation if elected. You must be slow. Sorry, I meant challenged.

[Mark]

Wow, personal attacks from closeted McCain supporters like Doc and Roy that make specious arguments about what "real patriots" should do. -Now I'm really convinced. Funny how they align so well with the DNC trolls on this thread.

Let's take the gloves off... "My Friends". Doc and Roy's arguments labor valiantly for a coherence they cannot achieve, not unlike McCain trying to explain an economic policy, or remember what position he holds on amnesty or Justice Alito this week.

Roy's spinning hard with one nonsensical sophistry after another: (Bush was bad but well-intentioned, so you should ignore that McCain is bad and ill-intentioned and vote for him like a good Republican or he and fellow travelers like Doc and Roy might bolt the party.) Doc doesn't seem to realize that my pointing out the failings of Bush support my criticism of McCain's failings, they are not an apology for Bush.

Doc claims it's "weak game theory" to point out that the MATURE thing to do is recognize that McCain is UNACCEPTABLE to most of the conservatives he seeks to marginalize, a constituency he has yet to carry in ANY primary and WILL need in the General when the illusory "independents" who are gaming GOP primaries vote for their real choice. Then he claims that actually showing up with a candidate that opposed tax cuts (before he voted for them) [I know... Deja vu] and who favors amnesty puts the GOP in a much better position to win against two candidates that openly FAVOR tax hikes and AMNESTY. Your right Doc, it would be crazy to show up with a candidate that actually opposes amnesty (as do 70% of DEMOCRATS) and favors expanding keeping the tax cuts (those are so unpopular don't you know.)

We don't know about Romney's acceptability, but he was a very popular and successful governor in MA and popular in MI, (A Midwest state the GOP hasn't carried in how long?). More evidence: the resident moonbat is calling him a racist bigot (because he won't play identity politics like the Dems) and the Ron Paul supporter is calling him too liberal are probably excellent indications that most Americans would agree with him more than them. At least 80% of AMERICANS oppose amnesty, and most Americans support aggressive surveillance and even waterboarding. (Geez, why do you think shows like Alias and 24 that depicted far worse were POPULAR).

...So using game theory... UNACCEPTABLE for one constituency that actually does vote for the GOP, vs. UNKNOWN for another constituency that MAY vote for the GOP would dictate... (...think of the blond in the bar...) That ANY vote for anyone OTHER than ROMNEY is a vote for McCain, ...which is really just a vote for the eventual Democrat nominee since they will annihilate him in the General election.

Whose really throwing the temper tantrum here because we say "No"?

[seekeronos]

Let us put it this way:

A Vote for McCain is a Vote for the Democratic Party and its nominee...

A Vote for McCain is a Vote for Betrayal...

A Vote for McCain is a Vote for the End of this Republic:

Because no matter how you think McCain has a chance, he DOES NOT, and he will guarantee a victory for the Democratic nominee (be it Hillary or Obama).

McCain is a stalking horse for Socialism, and the death of this nation - which may very well the wrathful Judgment in hands of Almighty God.