Posted on 02/02/2008 11:39:58 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
The LA Times has endorsed John McCain in the GOP primary, and at least two of its reasons for doing so should give conservatives pause: the liberal paper likes McCain because he's weak on border fences and strong on global warming.
Excerpts [emphasis added]:
As the Republican field indulged this campaign season in an orgy of ignorance on immigration, McCain stood his ground, sponsoring legislation that would provide a route to citizenship for the 11 million to 12 million immigrants here illegally. His rivals have argued for mass deportations and strong border fences.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
LA Times endorses McCain for reasons that should worry conservatives. Ping to Today show list.
Ah yes. The Three RINOS. Too bad we have two more RINOs as alternates to McLame.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Oh, now there's an endorsement a true blue conservative like McCain can be proud of....
SNORT.
Is there any one of them that is not parroting global warming?
BUMP for excellence in posting.
Yes, any politician who allows himself to get taken in by the “global warming” hoax is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief. And that’s just for starters.
“Is there any one of them that is not parroting global warming?”
Please don’t insult my lovebird Tukki and my African Grey Taki ;-) They are much smarter than that!
Thanks Lancey. They love him for all the wrong reasons!
Man, those conservative endorsements just keep rollin’ in, don’t they? Who’ll be next? The Nation, Village Voice, or Pravda?
Well looks like this endorsement will sew up California for McCain. Global warming is a religion over there.
From pewclimate.org:
Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act
(As debated in the U.S. Senate on October 30, 2003)
On October 30, 2003, Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) brought a revised version of their Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S.139) to a vote in the United States Senate. While the measured failed by a vote of 43 to 55, the vote demonstrated growing bipartisan support for a genuine climate change policy.
The revised version of the bill would require the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations to limit the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors (as defined by EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). The affected sectors accounted for approximately 85% of the overall U.S. emissions in the year 2000. The bill also would provide for the trading of emissions allowances and reductions through a National Greenhouse Gas Database which would contain an inventory of emissions and registry of reductions.
Target: The bill would cap the 2010 aggregate emissions level for the covered sectors at the 2000 level. The bill’s emissions limits would not apply to the agricultural and the residential sectors. Certain subsectors would be exempt if the Administrator determined that it was not feasible to measure their GHG emissions. The Commerce Department would biennially re-evaluate the level of allowances to determine whether it was consistent with the objective of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change of stabilizing GHG emissions at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Headline: The White House. 21 Jan 2009. President McCain to abandon armored limo for armored sedan chair.
California Republicans are actually pretty conservative. And the LA Times has been steadily losing circulation for some time now.
Newspaper endorsements mean nothing these days.
That picture freaking says it all.
Maybe not to you but millions upon millions of Americans have no other (or very few) other sources of info. Not to mention a news source that has a very liberal editorial position should tell YOU all YOU need to know about the candidate they endorse.
As my very liberal mother once told me when I questioned her about something - "It wasn't in the LA Times so it can't be true"
That should scare the living crap out of any level headed person.
The left can’t wait to nominate the Manchurian Candidate. They will then set about destroying him, and believe me, there’s plenty of fodder for that, aside from the arrogant media “we made you and we can destroy you” routine. A RAT presidency is assured.
But your mother was very liberal already. Which proves my point, the LATimes is preaching to their choir, and that’s about it.
My first response was to say, “Yeah, that will be the day, when the LATs endorses a Republican.”
And then I realized they hadn’t and my world went back to being normal.
Republicans... what the hell were you thinking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.