Posted on 02/01/2008 3:32:36 AM PST by SkyPilot
"If you're looking at substance rather than whether it's an R or a D after his name...If he's our candidate, then Hillary's going to be our girl, Sean, cause she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism. I absolutely believe that."
With Hillary in the White House, Coulter could be jailed for being politically incorrect, fomenting hate speech or just for disagreeing with Her Highness.
Ann looks good in the clip, btw.
Don't count on it, the Republicans are proving themselves nothing to crawl back to.
So when McCain signs legislation to implement socialized healthcare, to outlaw waterboarding, to close Gitmo, to give amnesty to 20+M illegal aliens including murders and rapists, to increase your taxes and to tax all energy on cap-and-trade legislation, all that is something you want to have counted as signed into law by a Republicans ?
Not me, buddy. I’d rather be able to say it was the work of Democraps, and to use it to elect conservatives based on the excesses of liberalism just like in ‘94.
You need look no further than what has happened to Maryland.
and until it happens on a national level, the GOP just won't get it and neither will the rest of the voters. The GOP will continue to move to the middle and the voters will continue to gripe but keep bending over and taking it from both parties.
It struck me last night clicking onto the D debate (short bursts was all I could take) just how out of the socialist closet the two D candidtates are. It really pissed me off and got me thinking.
I think it's time to just put it to the people through a referendum to split the county into two countries: one socialist and one a return to the constitutional republic the founders intended.
The reason the politicians wouldn't support such a move is that the socialist minded ones would have no population base to speak of in their country which would mean the politicians would have to actually work since there would be no tax money to live off of. (not to mention being in constant peril of invasion by the French who are looking to assert a little masculinity)
the constitutional republic minded politicians (read just Ron Paul and a very few others) wouldn't care, but there would be no tax money to speak of either.
the major corporations and the defense industry would then just invade both countries (and kick out the French out of the socialist minded country who invaded just to show that they can actually kick at least one other country's ass) and just finish their takeover currently uderway.
/rant...sorry, too much coffee and no strict constructionist constitution respecting candidate to vote for come Tuesday.
“When ya’ll come crawling back after the election...”
Guess again. Most conservatives will never vote for a man who’s made a career out of backstabbing them. I certainly never will.
“I don’t favor McCain, but Ann’s position is just as stupid as it is unwise.”
Hold on there pardner, if the USA is going to be destroyed, I’d much rather it be done by a democrat rather than a Republican. What few conservatives we have in congress might actually oppose most of Hillary’s actions, but would probably go along with those of the McCaniac. I will never vote for that wacko.
I haven’t heard that about Alito; my concern is we have no more justices like Ginsburg.
Let me guess, you believe Coulter opposes Souter because he went to church, don’t you?
It probably won’t do any good to take your wallet out...the damage has already been done.
Ann, no.
Eat a cheeseburger. Then polish off a half-gallon of ice cream.
You’ll feel better, and you’ll stop with the crazy talk. Trust me.
McCain voted FOR Bork, Rehnquist, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. Half or more dems voted no. McCain has consistently opposed federal funding of abortion. He has opposed earmarks. he is 70% conservative. I agree with you that the other 30 is quite annoying, but please, grow up. In november we have to vote for the least awful—either R or D—and that will be the R!
Please see #54 and #101.
I refuse to cede the entire executive and legislative branches.
I’m with Ann who is certainly not dumb.
So what if Hill nominates four supreme court justices (more likely two). It changes nothing.
I say burn down the Republican house with the McCainiacs in it.
There is speculation among conservative pundits and people that Mitt will stay on message for 2 and 4 years and have another go at it in 2012, assuming there is no real Conservative already in office.
Yes! Please see my reply above, #215.
No, she hasn't; she's probably finally feeling the affects of malnutrition.
Seriously folks, while late to this party (thread) I still would like to say this: I hope this little incident FINALLY convinces all the Ann worshippers on FR what I've been trying to say since her disastrous comment at CPAC a few years ago vis a vis "ragheads".
She's an attention "you know what", period, only seeking to promote herself and whatever latest tome she has published, and, after THIS comment, I'm not even convinced she's a conservative.
Anyone on this thread who's still supporting her is either insane, or is no real conservative either.
PERIOD.
and she makes that point with me. Perfectly understandable. I don’t think I could vote for a Clinton nor do I feel I will stay home from the polls. If McCainiac is the Republican nominee, I feel we have at least a 4 year wait before we can possibly get a decent president. and I dont agree with those who worry about a liberal supreme court nominee from a Clinton or Obama, as I feel McCain will appoint much less than satisfactory SCOTUS justices than we can possibly imagine.
My deep concern about a McCain presidency is that he could, and probably would, move the country a lot farther to the left than either Hillary or Obama would be able to.
The strongest point in favor of a McCain presidency is that he would possibly appoint less liberal judges and SCOTUS justices than a DemonRAt. That's not likely. His most prized legislative achievement is McCain-Finegold (MF), a constitutional monstrosity that has only been sustained by a narrow SCOTUS majority and one that's abominated by every originalist scholar in the country. There's no chance he'd appoint a SCOTUS justice who'd be likely to overturn MF. That leaves us with the probability that he'd appoint another O'Connor or, as Gerald Ford did, another Stevens.
On the rest of his agenda, including all of the WOT, other than Iraq, he's nearly as far to the left as Hillary and Obama, with one exception: he's a Republican. That exception makes him really dangerous because he'd subvert whatever Republican opposition there was to his socialist policies and get them enacted much more easily than either Hillary or Obama could get similar policies enacted, meaning a McCain presidency would hurt the United States far more than a Hillary or Obama presidency. It would also devastate the Republican party by profoundly corrupting our brand and undermining the credibility of any subsequent Republican who might run as a genuine conservative.
If, OTOH, Hillary or Obama is elected, that individual's pursuit of socialism will be strongly resisted by Republicans in Congress. Given Obama's inexperience and Hillary's tin political ear, either could easily antagonize voters so deeply that 2010 might be a repeat of 1994, especially after either has let the Bush tax cuts lapse. Indeed, each might feel a pull to the center that could cause an actual Hillary or Obama presidency to be a lot less destructive in its accomplishments than a McCain presidency almost assuredly would be.
The foregoing statements are not just political theory based on my powerful antagonism to McCain; instead, they're based on my actual experiences with two horrible RINO governors whose misrule I have directly experienced.
The first of those two monstrosities was Richard Ogilvie, RINO governor of Illinois from 1969-1973, while I lived in Illinois. He defeated Democrat Sam Shapiro, with those of us who voted for him, myself included, supposing he'd govern as a conservative, a view he did nothing to disabuse us of. Then, as stated in the following Wikipedia entry:
Bolstered by large Republican majorities in the state house, Ogilvie embarked upon a major modernization of state government. He successfully advocated for a state constitutional convention, increased social spending, and secured Illinois' first state income tax. The latter was particularly unpopular with the electorate, and Ogilvie lost a close election to the Daniel Walker in 1972, ending his career in elective office.
There's simply no way Sam Shapiro could have increased social spending and imposed a state income tax the way Ogilvie did. Indeed, Sam probably never would have even tried. Ogilvie succeeded in his vile schemes because he subverted the Republican majority in the legislature. The Republican brand has never been the same in Illinois. A McCain presidency is likely to work the same way, just as a Hillary or Obama might end up governing in a way similar to the way Sam Shapiro would have governed, doing less actual damage and enabling the Republicans to retain their integrity.
A couple of moves thereafter, I went to Tennessee and lightning struck a second time with another RINO governor, this time a little more than 30 years later.
We elected Don Sundquist governor in 1994 over Nashville's Democrat mayor, Phil Bredesen. Sundquist governed reasonably well from 1994 to 1998, frequently saying he opposed a state income tax. We, myself included, re-elected him in 1998 by nearly 70%. Wikipedia accurately summarizes the subsequent disaster:
Immediately upon his reinauguration, Sundquist set out to raise more revenue for the state, which had traditionally been one of the lowest-tax jurisdictions in the country. His tax reform plan included a state income tax, previously regarded as political suicide in Tennessee. He quickly offended most of his grassroots base, and his popularity plummeted. Only certain elements in the business community supported him from the Republican Party, and many Tennessee Democrats, especially conservative rural ones, had no interest in either alienating their constituents or helping a Republican. The income tax issue dominated Sundquist's second term, but was never passed. Sundquist became very isolated politically, with many of his Democratic supporters doing so [supporting the Sundquist income tax] only because they wished to see the income tax implemented in a way in that the Republicans could be blamed for it. Several of his original conservative supporters, such as State Senator Marsha Blackburn, led street demonstrations against him. Many leading figures in his own party publicly disavowed him.
* * *
Sundquist, like McWherter before him, was barred from running for a third term in 2002 by the state constitution. Unlike McWherter, however, he was so unpopular at the end of his term that it is highly unlikely he would have even won the Republican nomination, let alone reelection, had it been possible for him to run again. In an interesting twist, many Sundquist allies supported democratic candidate Phil Bredesen and this support is considered a major factor in Congressman Van Hilleary's narrow loss to Bredesen in 2002. [Emphasis added in all paragraphs.]
Here the damage was a bit less than in Illinois since, with an effort close to a civil war, we stopped the income tax. However, as accurately noted in the quoted Wikipedia entry, Sundquist corrupted the Republican brand enough to keep Van Hilleary, a true conservative, from becoming governor in 2002. Bredesen, Sundquist's successor, although a DemonRat, has not even tried to enact a state income tax.
Again, just as in Illinois, we have a very instructive example of what's likely to happen with a McCain presidency as opposed to a Hillary or Obama presidency. The DemonRats are likely to support every one of McCain's socialist schemes just so they can stick the Republicans with them. At the very least, they'll be able to win after a McCain administration, just as Bredesen did, because McCain will have hopelessly corrupted the Republican brand.
The subsequent example of Bredesen is equally telling, since he hasn't even tried to enact a state income tax, being more moderate in the way he's actually governed than Sundquist was. It's quite possible that Hillary or Obama would do the same thing, especially if either wants to get re-elected. Thus, my personal experiences with two horrible RINO governors, each of whom I voted for, my analysis of what McCain is and the probable impact of his potential presidency, have led me to conclude a Hillary or Obama presidency will be far less destructive. Hence, I plan to vote for a third party protest candidate, since I can't stand the idea of voting for Hillary or Obama, and the vote for the protest candidate would show exactly what I was doing, something neither failing to vote nor voting for Hillary or Obama would do.
LOL!
I think I have arrived at that same conclusion.
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.