FoxNews: Laura Ingraham Declares She WILL Vote for John McCain if Her Candidate Loses

Ingraham on Fox ^ | 5 Feb 08 | Ingraham on Fox

[xzins]

She clearly stated:

I'm not one of those folks who will say that I won't vote for him.

She earlier said that she just didn't think this was the time to turn to party over to the Dole/Ford wing of the Republican Party.

She called McCain an amazing man, and that she deeply respected him.

[rintense]

I think Ann was the one who originally supporter Hunter. To my knowledge, Laura never officially endorsed anyone. But, she’s been in the tank for Romney for quite a while, IMO.

[carmody]

The party that has to 'hold their nose' and vote ALWAYS loses. We are running lukewarm candidates. The left and their friends in mainstream media are highly motivated to CHANGE the Whitehouse back to democrat control. That is the change they keep referring to.

I can get behind Mitt Romney. He wasn't my first choice. But he'll do just fine. However, I won't hold my nose and vote for anyone. It's pointless. McCain is a 'hold your nose' candidate.

[tobyhill]

The GOP has tossed out Conservatives all in an attempt to be all inclusive to even Lib Rats. I think we all saw this coming a couple years ago.

[Finny]

Anyone who assures a return to the Clinton years, IMO, is NOT a conservative.

There will never and can never be a "return" to the Clinton years. There is too much water under the bridge, many, MANY Democrats loath Hillary as much as we do and it looks like an awful lot of them have grown sour on Bill, too. IF Clinton was elected, her presidency would be short-lived and she would be extremely despised and challenged by her so-called "allies" as well as opponents. Odds are high that very little of what she proposes now would ever get the support needed to pass and she would be in for one term only.

... it’s okay to be purists during the primary, but keep your eye on the ball during the general ...

It would seem your definition of "purist" is the Republican who has finally decided to reject Republican candidates who are 90 - 95 percent tainted by liberalism. I will reject candidates in the primary AND the general who have demonstrated a wholesale -- not partial, but WHOLESALE -- embrace of surrendering my freedom and taking my money in the name of intrusive government. Those candidates include Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. The only thing I can do at this point is to use my vote to see that the best ANY candidate gets is a weak plurality. That is hardly being a purist -- it's putting the interest of my freedom and my country before the short-term interest of the Republican party, and it's also doing what I can to salvage the long-term potential of the Republican party.

[citizen]

Mitt is on with Laura right now!

[presently no screen name]

I did not force McCain to offer.....Those are facts. Deal with them.

You ARE forcing us to believe 'Laura knows what going on - McCain will win' and w/your constant covering for McCain - just like the media. You think the feingold thing is the ONLY negative about McCain? Like I said, you've been asleep for seven years and wake up and swallow the liberals love and covering for McCain.

You are a surface thinking - the rest of us aren't. That's the fact - deal with it.

[tomnbeverly]

Whatever.. .You can’t square Flip-Floppers Conservative values that happened to appear only in 2007 and you get pandered too and so you you say I am insulting pepople and thats what is pushing you to Romney...

Lol so how easy was it for Sean or Rush to push you too McCain..

Lemming!

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Why can't we hold Laura's the Mitt supporters' feet to the fire like anyone else? She has they have been preaching principles for months and now will abandon them by voting for the lesser of two evils?

What is the point of having principles if you don't live them?

[Will88]

It seems pointless, and maybe not helpful for Laura to make this statement just before the key vote. She could have kept this opinion to herself until we have nominee.

[Tarpon]

What a pathetic mess we have.

Wasn't that the game all along? Thompson was 64 he was too old. McPain is 72 and he is just right. The media is playing the ignorant for an outcome they desire ... liberal vs liberal so the march to fascism can continue.

Romney with all his faults is probably the last hope to slow the march.

[Just mythoughts]

I am NOT the one pushing a snarly ugly usurping power hungry ‘i am’ god.

[Finny]

That post reveals extreme short-sightedness.

[presently no screen name]

They’re both liberals. Admit it.

There you go again with your liberal propaganda - say it enough so people will believe it. Remember, posters here KNOW the game. MC CAIN is the MOST liberal of all - above and beyond - so much so that all the liberal rags endorsed him.

That's the fact - deal with it - you've been taken in by the media. You should be ashamed but your not - you keep spewing liberal propaganda.

[popdonnelly]

Not the right time to say you’re not opposed to McCain.

[Verbosus]

Quote:
I won’t vote for McCain.

I will be voting for Romney today.
But if McCain gets the nod I'll vote for him.
Anything is better than a lib.
And I will not sway from that opinion.

[bert]

it is sarcasm....

[presently no screen name]

Why ask the question about Mitt and not McCain? No one that is a conservative can vote for McCain. Just one thing - we know he wants to crush the conservative party - he’s been at it for awhile now. A conservative can vote for Mitt - as first choice, no. But the cards have been shuffled and we must play w/what we have. McCain is thrown out - and the liberal media can have their little darling.

[presently no screen name]

What is the point of having principles if you don't live them?

What principle are you speaking of? And what candidate in the running possesses the principles you live by?

[Finny]

I suggest you should seriously rethink your definition of "purist" and also to regard with less fear and more objectivity the actual consequences of a Dem win in November as opposed to a Rep win where the office holder in reality embraces MUCH (not a little bit, which is what a purist would object to, but A LOT, which is what we non-purists recognize as the more potent danger) of the intrusive government Liberal agenda in principle and deed. The WOT is not in the hands of the president alone, and I think it is much overrated as a deciding factor in the rationale people here use to support an Intrusive Government Republican who would be worse long-term from all angles than any Dem opponent.

Coventional wisdom is often an oxymoron. Conventional Republican wisdom holds that any GOP candidate isn't as bad as a Dem, and it is IN ERROR. After 25 years of banging our heads against the wall and voting again and again and again and again and again and again and again and agagin on the "conventional wisdom" principle, isn't it time we finally figured out THAT IT ISN'T WORKING????

We need to change course NOW, and the only way to do that is to withhold Republican votes from intrusive government politicians regardless of what party they belong to. I take it as my responsiblity as a voter.