Posted on 07/05/2010 11:37:17 PM PDT by tlb
First, it was Sarah Palin. Then it was Arizona Right to Life and the National Rifle Association. Most recently, the revered National Review gave its imprimatur to McCain.
When Hayworth entered the race in January, McCain was at his most vulnerable point in decades. Polling showed McCain had a lead within the margin of error and was struggling to redefine himself as a Republican loyalist. But polls now show McCain with a solid lead.
Baker said the McCain campaign may have engineered a sort of domino effect: Each endorsement shows the next group that backing McCain is a safer bet than it may have first appeared, and Republican voters seem to be following the same trend.
McCain has focused Hayworth’s reputation in Congress as a pork-barrel spender, a serious offense to many conservatives. And the senator has run an undeniably negative campaign against Hayworth, openly mocking him and attacking his credibility.
The McCain campaign has posted videos online poking fun at Hayworth for questioning the authenticity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, suggesting that allowing gay marriage could pave the way for men to wed horses, and especially for appearing in a 2007 infomercial urging people to take advantage of “free money” from government grants.
The infomercial for the National Grants Conferences has been the most damning revelation yet, combining the promotion of government spending with a host of informercial stereotypes. It prompted the popular FOX News personality Glenn Beck to declare that Hayworth’s campaign is over.
If McCain had a more conservative challenger, National Review wrote, the endorsement might have gone elsewhere. But while Hayworth’s record is conservative, the article read, it isn’t conservative enough to make a compelling case against McCain.
“He may not be Marco Rubio, but he’s not Arlen Specter either,” the editorial said of McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at azcapitoltimes.com ...
” Wait, wait...I’m not following this. “
I’ll tell the WORLD you aren’t following this.
” You ban her, for, I guess, being a troll who adds nothing to the conversation.”
One is banned for being a troll. A LIAR. A disinformation/disruptor. One is NOT banned for failing to contribute to a conversation
” But then, immediately afterwards, you respond to her.”
So what? There are always a few people who post to someone who has been zotted. Check other zots out for proof.
“Afterwards. So that she can’t respond to you.”
This poster just repeated the same lies relentlessly. You want to argue with a liar? Have at it! The rest of us were sick of it.
No, it’s not libertarian. It’s human nature.
People think that if they throw a tantrum and threaten to take their ball and go home that they will get their way.
Maybe. Once. But eventually the other players stop inviting that kid, buy their own ball and invite somebody else to play.
This is basically David Frum’s MO, by the way.
Actually, that is why someone is banned. A troll by definition contributes nothing. A disruptor stirs the pot just to watch the arguments. And, of course, there are the zealots or paid For the record, I don't agree with the argument, but it's reasonable and could be responded to by an intelligent person.
In addition, the specific post responded to was not a lie.
Look, if you want to justify it to yourself, fine. Ban whomever you want and cackle about it later. Charles Johnson and David Frum do it all the time.
For me, I never feel like I have to get the AH HA! at the end of every argument. If I win, I know it. But it's just one of hundreds of threads on a little message board. It doesn't change anything.
But to respond afterwards? Pretty low to me.
Gee, you really get weepy when trolls get zotted don’t you.
LOL, you’re not quite able to understand the dynamics of troll vs valid contributor or something?
I oppose Obama and the Democrats. I’m really not much concerned with cliquery.
Along with my monthly donation. LOL
Congratulations
” Actually, that is why someone is banned. A troll by definition contributes nothing. “
Thank you for exposing your intellectual shortcomings.
same here
I despise the delight others take in getting someone banned.
Except when it comes to defending trolls. Then clickery is so appealing huh.
Look, you folks need to put down the facial tissue, and move to a place that supports what SoCalPol wanted to hawk here.
This is a Conservative forum that supports Conservative candidates. If you haven’t learned anything else here, you should have at least come away with that understanding.
If SoCalPol wants to support Conservative candidates, I have no problem with it. If she wants to support McCain(D), she can get lost.
I gave it some thought but I think I'm right in that this is not just a non-sequitur, but extremely non in its sequiturity.
” I despise the delight others take in getting someone banned. “
Even if they are repeated bare-faced liars?
That is your problem, not ours.
And it isn’t “delight”, it is relief.
You keep using the word “lie” but (1) even you didn’t argue that this applied to the poster who was responded to after the ban and (2) I read the non-pulled post and I didn’t see a refutation of the “lie”. Frankly, I didn’t see anybody actually refuting them even though I thought they were weak arguments, tangential and beside the point.
Agreed. It really angers me to see people jobbing this forum to back leftist politicians. If people can’t handle what the goals of the forum are, they should opt for greener pastures.
Don’t you have a cow to milk somewhere?
Only because he hasn't changed his registration yet.
He always posts in favor of McCain and dises JD.
” He always posts in favor of McCain and dises JD.”
Yes, and not just “disses”, he outright lies about J.D. and his background. That got old very quickly.
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.