Posted on 01/29/2008 10:31:05 AM PST by Signalman
If you're going for the extreme far-right of conservatives (Levin, Coulter), why not go all the way to the extremist of far-right?
“why not go all the way to the extremist of far-right?”
because your boy doesn’t represent any part of God fearing, America loving patriotic American conservatives...
let us all know when you learn that.
gezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Man, that's just brilliant logic there. You must have been concerned that your tagline didn't tell us enough about your reasoning abilities. By your "logic" we should just nominate Jesse Jackson. If your going to nominate a leftist, you might as well go all the way, right? And Jackson has said about as many nice things about republicans as your back-stabbing boy.
And if you consider Levin and Coulter unacceptable company and somehow comparable to an idiot like Duke, you really need to another place to emote. You won't like it here.
One thing that the Republican Party isn’t figuring in to their calculations is that it is the base that volunteers, makes phone calls, stuffs envelopes, walks precincts to GOTV, etc. The base isn’t going to do that for McCain.
So who will? The moderates and independents who are voting for him in the primaries? Not likely. By definition these are lukewarm people who may vote for McCain, but won’t tear themselves away from American Idol long enough to work for him.
McCain will have to pay for the help that the Dems will get for free, and the Pubbies already have a monetary disadvantage going into the election.
McCain will make Dole look like a strong contender before this is all over.
I consider both mighty extreme for my taste. Although, I was once a fan of Coulter she has become more and more vitriolic and strident. It wasn't necessary for her to call John Edwards a "faggot" (which is in itself right above "spick" or "kike" or "nigger"). Levin has been consistently on the edge too. I prefer talk show hosts and columnist who appeal more to conservative logic rather than conservative passion and feelings of hate (try Michael Medved, Neal Bortz, George Will and Cal Thomas to name a few),
I disagree!
I believe that it was imperative for her to suggest( which is actually what she did, and anyone above the age of 12 would have known this) in order for her to make her very profound and funny point.
And by the way; it's not like she injured his credibility in the Presidential primaries by pointing out what many consider to be obvious.
Okay, and then am I to presume also you're in favor of her castigating some of the grieving widows of the 9-11 tragedy? Anne's sharp wit was interesting when she first came on the scene but, for some reason, it has become increasingly more acid in my opinion. True, name calling cannot physically hurt anyone but it certainly does detract from the name-caller's pedigree.
Are you sure your even a Republican?
Yes, you can most definitely presume that!
Like Ann, I too believe they used their status as "grieving widows" in order to make their predisposed leftist political statement against the President to a national audience. And I still think their Media antics where disgusting!
It is amazing how you or anyone else can so easily assume that because these handful of liberal women who lost loved ones on 9-11 should, without question, go on national TV and blast the Administrations efforts for conducting the war on terror, which started in Iraq, when it's abundantly clear that the thousands of others who also lost loved ones in the 9-11 attacks, didn't join with them.
And yes, I assume the thousands of others didn't join them in their Democrat contrived media spectacle, because they DID support the President!
In fact, I contend that Ann showed remarkable restraint in her column regarding these terrorist appeasing NAGS.
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.