Patterico's Pontifications

1/27/2008

Captain Ed Endorses Romney

Filed under: 2008 Election — Patterico @ 2:34 pm



How excited are Republicans about their candidates?

Ed Morrissey has endorsed Mitt Romney:

First, I want to have someone who supports conservative values. In this, we have no perfect candidates. . . . Of the four, I trust Romney and Giuliani most to continue supporting conservative principles in the face of opposition — and in fact I’d probably trust Giuliani a little more.

. . . .

Romney is not a perfect candidate. We don’t have any perfect candidates.

How excited are we? That excited!

62 Responses to “Captain Ed Endorses Romney”

  1. None of the current GOP candidates are inspiring but conservatives will always have the *Stop Hillary* fever.

    DRJ (517d26)

  2. We are obviously not typical Republican voters.

    The new media is not getting through.

    Amphipolis (e6b868)

  3. Right now the different Republican factions are like the different insurgent groups in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, forgetting who the real enemy is.

    And I’m as guilty of that as anyone, because the thought of voting for McCain makes my stomach queasy. I honestly don’t think I can do it. My head says “we survived 8 years of Clinton I and got a Republican congress out of it, we can survive 4 of Clinton II”.

    Skip (7ef1e3)

  4. Stevens and Ginsberg. Would you rather see them replaced by 2 more Breyers? Or two more justices that believe in the 2nd Amendment, Life and criminal justice?

    Or we can all hold our breath until we get the perfect candidate.

    I spent my time in the LP, and I’m rather done with that.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  5. Bah, Skip. McCain is as much an enemy of conservative Republicans as any Democrat. Worse even, because his liberal policies will be blamed on Republicans.

    Kevin (4890ef)

  6. McCain is basically a pro-war democrat.

    That is much better than an anti-war democrat. Why isn’t that enough, at least, to vote for Mccain in the general election? Of course you should support someone more sensible like Rudy or Mitt in the primary. I wonder how much the tide will shift when Mccain names Thompson as his running mate.

    And no, his policies will not be blamed on him. Do you hear that Social Security is Nixon’s fault? That Vietnam is JFK’s? Nobody cares about reality.

    McCain would do a lot of stuff I don’t like, but his justices would not be as bad as clintons. His war policies would save us from a horrible disaster. And unlike Clinton, this guy really does love this country. He is principled. I disagree with his principles, but he gets some credit anyway.

    Jem (9e390b)

  7. Why not vote for McCain? If he wins, you automatically get his anal appendage, Lindsey Graham, as a bonus.

    tmac (5408eb)

  8. I think with McCain anyone he put on SCOTUS would aspire for the clarity of Sandra Day O’Connor. Is that better than the alternative? Not a whole heck of a lot, because we’d end up with a bunch more bad law.

    Skip (7ef1e3)

  9. There’s nothing new about this. The last candidate for President that I really wanted to vote for was Gerry Ford.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  10. You know, with all due respect, I keep hearing how McCain is really a Democrat and so forth. The American Conservative Union monitors votes, and they don’t think so.

    http://www.acuratings.org/2006senate.htm

    Sure, his record isn’t as conservative as it used to be, but have you compared McCain’s ACU voting record to Obama, Clinton, and Edwards?

    Once again, think about Supreme Court appointments. Oh, you may not get perfect candidates. But Hillary or Barack or John will give you ones that are better—or even equivalent?

    Yes, much of this discussion is preconvention hyperbole. But I keep hearing “...we can get through four years of Hillary…” True. But it won’t be for four years, in the current climate. Half the electorate, at least, is very suspicious of a conservative movement. And you need the moderates to win, friends and neighbors.

    And the new Supremes appointed by the next President will be lifetime appointments. With a Democrat-controlled Congress.

    Thus, I worry that a lot of the “let’s sit this one out” movement is actually about intellectual purity, and having complaining rights under a Democratic administration (“…if only people had listened to me…“).

    By all means, vote the way you feel best about. But please remember how voting to send a message or sitting out an election over H. Ross Perot gave us all eight years of Bill Clinton and the possibility of 8 more of Hillary Clinton.

    And it would not have happened, if people hadn’t registered their protest vote against GHW Bush. Did Republicans learn from that incident? Nope. Did the political aims of the conservative movement gain anything? Nope.

    Just my opinion.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  11. If McCain takes Thompson as VP, vote McCain. Because, you know, McCain is really old…..

    cargosquid (9967d3)

  12. Eric Blair — John McCain’s ACU rating for this past year will be in the 40s or 50s.

    He is getting worse with old age.

    Carolina (7c779d)

  13. I have the same feeling thinking of McCain’s policy record, as I do when reviewing how wage & price controls were imposed by a Republican – and we know how well that turned out in all of its’ aspects.

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  14. Dear Carolina:

    So…has Clinton or Obama’s ratings gone up? They are currently at 8 for each of them.

    I’m not saying you are wrong. I am saying that it sounds more and more like intellectual purity arguments instead of electability in the general election.

    Hey, I don’t like a lot of things that McCain says. But…I dislike the things that Clinton (both of them) and Obama and Edwards say more.

    Again, just my opinion. But I think about Perot, and what that flirtation with intellectual purity and “sending a message to Republicans” brought us.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  15. Eric Blair,

    I don’t want to think about voting for McCain right now. If the time comes that he’s the GOP nominee running against Hillary then I will vote for him, but that time hasn’t come yet and – deep down – I still hope for a better choice than the ones I’m seeing. I know this isn’t logical but that’s where I am.

    DRJ (517d26)

  16. DRJ, I would rather see Romney, yes (well, I preferred Thompson and Hizzoner, but both of them made not-so-smart choices that landed us here). I don’t think that McCain is the Liberal Ogre that some people appear to see. I think that he reads his own press releases too frequently, loves thinking of himself of being a “maverick,” and is apt to go too far with compromise.

    If the other side doesn’t meet you half way, it isn’t compromise.

    Many people don’t like Romney, either. Ditto Hizzoner. In fact, it sounds like many conservatives have more anger toward them than the Democratic candidates!

    I think we all need to get in harness to the real goal: the general election. I do not want Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama making those Supreme Court appointments. Saying—as Professor Bainbridge did—that we can “wait it out” because no one could destroy the country in four/eight years just gives me chills of worry.

    Here is the actual quote:

    But the country survived Jimmy Carter. It survived Bill Clinton. It’ll survive Hillary or Obama.
    Of course, speaking purely personally, it doesn’t much matter what I end up deciding. I live in Howard Berman’s Congressional District, which is pretty consistently 70% Democrat in both Congressional and Presidential elections. I could vote as early and often as Sjostrom might like and it still won’t change the outcome.

    After 2000, how could anyone make a comment that their vote doesn’t count? I am in Washington State, where the governor’s race was decided by less than 150 votes.

    But who the heck am I? I’m not famous, I don’t have a blog, and I don’t drive sports cars. But I do know that voters must make hard decisions based on the least distasteful of two choices, rather than sitting things out until their prince arrives.

    I don’t mean to crack wise. But I do think we need to get back to the goal: the general election. Teaching us all a lesson about conservatism by electing a Democratic President with a Democratic congress seems an…ah…unusual strategy.

    Sigh. Just my opinion.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  17. The choice between McCain and Romney is like the choice between drinking rat poison and playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets in the chamber.

    Adam Graham (b90feb)

  18. If the other side doesn’t meet you half way, it isn’t compromise.

    Eric – I agreed with almost everything you said except for this little snippet. If one sides starts at an incredibly unreasonable position, and is willing to drop half of their incredibly unreasonable demands, leaving half of the unreasonable demands, they have moved half way. Yet, if you meet them half way, you have not compromised, you have sold out the farm. Compromise can only be achieved once all of the bluster, and grandstanding has been removed, and there is a gravity between the 2 positions that almost requires resolution. At least in my experience.

    JD (fc7319)

  19. Nicely put, JD. Much appreciated. Since I have young kids, my version of “compromise” is usually along the lines of “you cut, I choose.”

    Maybe we need to work that into politics.

    By the way, I fully get it that no one is happy with our choices. Me, three. But “teaching the base a lesson” seems counterproductive to me. In fact, I think that if people sit out the election, I’m starting to believe that they should lose their “complaining rights” after the election. After all, not voting means—like or not—you just voted for the winner.

    Oh, I know many people don’t believe me. I’m frustrated, too. But I worry about the Supreme Court. That and Iraq are the main points in the coming election, to my way of thinking. Saying that McCain/Romney/Hizzoner will make bad choices is a maybe, while Clinton/Obama/Edwards are a known quantity, when it comes to judicial preferences.

    Sigh. If only Perot hadn’t been on the ballot in 1992…and if folks hadn’t wanted to teach the base a lesson back then. I guess that many Democrats feel that way about Nader in 2000, right?

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  20. Eric – I am absolutely torn on voting for the lessers of the evils, or not voting at all.

    I frankly do not know where I am going to come down on it yet. If McCain or Huckabee is the nominee, my gut reaction is to not vote. They are both good men, but I do not see them as having earned my vote. Candidates are not entitled to my vote because they call themselves Republicans, or claim to be conservative. They earn our votes, through their history, their actions, and their plan for the future. I do not see that McCain has done so.

    On the other hand, I am not so selfish to not recognize the known disaster that Hill/Bill or Barry would be. In that regard, I think Hill/Bill would cause less damage in the war against terror, but greater political damages, almost ensuring that the Left and Right never again meet in the middle.

    So, despite my internal desires to see better candidates, in the end, I will likely cast my vote for the Republican we all select. With much pain.

    JD (fc7319)

  21. I think we conservatives CAN vote for a McCain or a Rommney and be reasonable safe…

    As long as we stay involved, such as in the immigration debate, where we make sure our thoughts are known…or in the Harriet Myers situation….

    That is politics, too….and from there, we can work on a McCain or a Rommney and get what we need, or at least move in that direction….

    reff (99666d)

  22. None of the current GOP candidates are inspiring but conservatives will always have the *Stop Hillary* fever.

    Sure — if she’s the nominee.

    McGehee (25adee)

  23. McGehee – I do not see her winning.

    JD (fc7319)

  24. Your comments imply that Hillary will go away if she doesn’t win this nomination. When it comes to politics, the Clintons are the houseguests who never leave.

    DRJ (517d26)

  25. Some people are prepared to abstain or even vote for Clinton or Obama, rather than McCain, on the theory that the Democrats will screw up and Republicans will sweep in on the rebound.

    Don’t believe it. If the Democrats get in, they will enact a raft of measures to stack the deck.

    Millions of illegal immigrants naturalized. Felon disfranchisement barred. The 2010 Census ‘adjusted’ for supposed undercounts of blacks and hispanics, so more “minority” House seats and more electoral votes in “Blue” states. Talk radio stifled by a new “fairness doctrine”. Bloggers stifled by “hate-speech” regulation and “campaign finance” regulations. Conservative activists and NGOs hammered with IRS audits and FBI investigations. Businesses punished for donations to Republicans. Floods of Federal grant money for left-wing NGOs.

    If Clinton gets in… Obama may have some scruples; she has none. She learned some lessons from the 90s. The lesson were: don’t get caught; don’t keep records; don’t cooperate; don’t remember; and lie, lie, lie. Use the FBI and other agencies to dig up dirt; use the press to discredit adversaries. Expect relentless legal pressure against Republicans, with Clinton’s U.S. attorneys ginning up dubious indictments.

    The 2012 elections could be like Mexican elections in the heyday of the PRI: dealer wins and winner deals.

    Rich Rostrom (7c21fc)

  26. DRJ – They may not go away, but the brainless following that they once had on the Left is no longer. Many of the Dem faithful are beginning to see them for what they are. I think that the growing repudiation of the Clintonistas tactics and perpetual campaigning will not necessarily make them go away, but it will rip the pulpit out from underneath them, and put them in their place a bit. A couple more assbeatings like the one they got in SC, and Barry continuing to hang around, will only further that end.

    In short, in order for them to eventually go away, which they must, I can only see that happening after a public repudiation of them and their tactics by their own party. A loss in the general election would only further their vast right wing conspiracy crap. Getting tossed aside by their fellow travelers is the only way to push them out. Clearly, their pride, ego, and ability to endure embarassment will not do so for us.

    My fundamental problem with this is that I think a Dem will win, and Hill/Bill will likely do the least real damage, outside of their standard politics of personal destruction, and bald faced lying to a compliant press. She is more serious, in a good way, than any of the remaining Dems.

    JD (fc7319)

  27. …I think a Dem will win, and Hill/Bill will likely do the least real damage, outside of their standard politics of personal destruction, and bald faced lying to a compliant press.
    Comment by JD — 1/27/2008 @ 7:57 pm

    You could well be right but I’m really and truly afraid of Hillary, though I think enough of the country outside of NYState really doesn’t like her that she’d have a harder time getting elected than Obama.

    The long term damage she could do in the areas of socialized medicine, life issues like abortion-euthanasia-stem cell research, judicial and Supreme Court appts alone, would be incalculable IMO.

    When it comes to politics, the Clintons are the houseguests who never leave.

    Comment by DRJ — 1/27/2008 @ 7:33 pm

    They never leave and –she anyway–never gives up. Until she gets whatever she wants. That’s why she scares me. And the Clintons do not take no for an answer. Can you imagine the behind the scenes political strong-armings and shady business that would happen if her SC judge proposal, for example, is opposed?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  28. Eric you are making some good points about voting for McCain if he gets the nomination. However none of those points address the problem of how voting for McCain in the general will further conservatism. And since voting for him will actually set back that goal I have no intention of voting for him. The country can survive 4 or 8 years of Hillary. Trying to say that it cant is the type of post made on DU or Kos where they act as if the end of the country is imminent if Bush continues running the country.

    chas (fb7ad4)

  29. I am a Mitt Romney supporter and I think that Captain Ed came to the conclusion that he is the best candidate, just as I did.
    I wanted to support Fred Thompson, but when you do not want to put your effort, not to mention your heart and soul into it, you see what happens. Goodbye Fred!
    Same with Rudy Giuliani. Maybe after Super Duper Tuesday, goodbye Rudy.
    I have followed Mr. Romney from the time he was elected governor of Massachusetts. Even Robert Novak in a column noted that he was the most conservative Republican governor out of the three Republicans who predeeded him. When the Massachusetts supreme court divined a “right” to same-sex “marriage” he opposed it and tried to get a vote of the people. But, Massachusetts has a complicated way to get innitives on the ballot. On stem-cell research funding, he vetoed it. Mr. Romney did raise some fees, but did not raise taxes. He also understands the real threat that radical Islam poses not just on the United States, but the world. And Mr. Romney has real world business experience. He can bring a real understanding of the economy to the debate and he has and has Sen. John “F— You” McCain stuttering.
    And, when the Republicans “settle” on someone “electable” it usually means we do not care if we win or not. I care about winning and with a clear conservative vision for the United States. And, I believe, warts and all, that Mitt Romney is the Republican who can do it.

    Mark J. Goluskin (56a0a8)

  30. All I know is that I cannot vote for Romney. I think he’s going to just about decimate the party.

    And it’s not his Mormonism. If anything, that’s my favorite thing about him.

    But if I want a slick, characterless weasel in the White House, I’ll just vote for a Democrat.

    If Romney gets the nomination, we lose.

    P (df860b)

  31. Dear Chas:

    You wrote:

    The country can survive 4 or 8 years of Hillary.

    That is gospel from the Bainbridge Brigade playbook, and it worries me deeply. It’s your choice, of course, don’t get me wrong.

    I sure hope you are right, especially about the Supreme Court. Particularly about the Supreme Court. Clinton II and Obama are absolutely MUCH more liberal, demonstrably, than McCain (who, again, I don’t particularly like).

    It sure seems like many conservatives are almost looking forward to seeing the country be hurt so that we will all come to our senses and have candidates cast in the ideological mold you prefer. I don’t mean any disrespect when I write that.

    I understand where you are coming from; you fervently believe in conservative ideals. But I am old enough to remember Reagan, who was not nearly as conservative as people think. He was much smarter than the media ever suspected, and was always a pragmatist.

    This dualism had been evident in Reagan’s two-term governorship of California, where he often sacrificed ideological purity for practical results. As governor, he signed a permissive abortion-rights bill and increased the amount of land set aside for state parks. Brushing off criticisms from a conservative legislator who had accused him of betraying his campaign promises by agreeing to a massive state tax increase, then-Gov. Reagan said in 1968: “I’m willing to take what I can get. You have to take what you can get and go out and get some more next year; that’s what the opposition has been doing for years.”

    Reagan brought this practical approach to his political campaigns. When he ran for governor, the Republican Party was bitterly divided between its conservative and moderate factions. Although Reagan was on the conservative side, he proved a party unifier who campaigned as strenuously for GOP moderates as he did for conservatives.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18329-2004Jun5.html

    Something to keep in mind.

    Again, I’m not claiming I am all brilliant. I’m just another voter. But I will vote. The 2000 election taught me that. And I will vote for the lesser of two evils (if those are my choices), rather than let the more evil person win. Ross Perot taught me that.

    Okay, “evil” is a charged term, but I am following the metaphor/simile, whatever.

    Your mileage may vary, and since I suspect a lot of folks believe as you do, I fervently pray you are right—and that you won’t regret your decision to sit things out later.

    Sorry for the sermon.

    Eric Blair (9e70bf)

  32. For all of the faint hearts out there, just remember that six months is an eternity in politics, we have 9+ to go. No one, I repeat, no one knows what the crazies in the ME are going to do between now and then. Any serious incident by the IslamoFascists can/will change everything.
    And then, there are always the many ways that the domestic situation can come unglued.
    So, let’s just sit back, relax, and enjoy the contest.
    Eat, Drink, Make Merry; for tomorrow you die.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  33. I sure hope you are right, especially about the Supreme Court. Particularly about the Supreme Court. Clinton II and Obama are absolutely MUCH more liberal, demonstrably, than McCain (who, again, I don’t particularly like).

    And you believe you can guarantee McCain would appoint the right kinda justices? With his track record there is no telling what he will do. Look at his signature legislation, all of it champions liberal causes. He has sponsored no significant legislation that furthers conservative beliefs. He is a very un-balanced man, even back to the Keating Five debacle. The interviews back then he was on the verge of assaulting the reporters. He holds grudges that lead him to attack others in gov’t whose side he should be on (Rumsfield). And then gets buddy buddy w/ the worst dem possible to write legislation that no conservative could stomach. And then we are labeled bigots by him and attack dogs for not going along w/ it. I see nothing about him that makes him more desirable as a president than Obama or Clinton.

    chas (fb7ad4)

  34. Hillary is unelectable! See her get the nomination of her party and such will be proven.

    McCain, we look forward to public funded funeral, he is ancient.

    Romney?, well there will be no stained dresses to deal with. With him you only need keep an eye out for one thing, what he will direct to other mormans for enrichment from public funds. Outside of that, nothing will actually change, they just desire respectability is all. (They have been after such since before they bought their statehood)! But he is so pretty, that if he makes it to convention, he most likely win, if only he can get over his Mormonism. A massive hurdle.

    Ron Paul, though possibly crazy, (and it’s possible that this country could use a bit of crazy today), actually stand for REAL and substantial change the country. Actually the only candidate that does so. A win would cause a shake up, and such is probably needed today. How many voted for that little crazy texan that cost Bush 1 his second term?

    Oh and as an aside, candidates need to be discussing real problems and how they would address them. Like our current standing army of police, the 100’s of Nifongs in power, (why does the DOJ continue to stonewall an investigation into the Duke attempted Frame),? the things that effect real people every day.

    As Claire Wolfe said, “It’s too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards.”

    TC (1cf350)

  35. What I don’t get, again, is how conservatives seem to detest the Republican choices more than Clinton/Obama/Edwards. They keep coming back to “we don’t know what McCain/Romney will do” with regard to Supreme Court nominees, which is true of ANY candidate (including Reagan, when you think about it—how do conservatives feel about Justice Kennedy?).

    But conservatives know what Clinton/Obama/Edwards will do, not what they might do. Look at past appointments. Has there ever been a justice appointed by a liberal President in the past 50 years who has “turned” conservative?

    Who is more likely to nominate justices like Roberts? Republicans or Democrats? You may not like how conservative a particular Republican is, but I do know that you would never get a Roberts nomination from any Democrat in the running for President. Remember, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted “no” on Roberts during the confirmation process.

    Guess who voted “yes” on Roberts? And I am NO McCain fan, again.

    None of that appears to matter. And the Supreme Court, in my opinion, is the number one threat to conservative principles at present.

    Again, it seems to me like a desire by many “sit things out” consevatives to see things get really awful as self-justification. Professor Bainbridge keeps up his “…we’ll survive four or eight years…” mantra, abut I’m not so sure that even he wants to see the kinds of Supreme Court appointments that we will get.

    Lifetime appointments, again.

    Anyway, this kind of a drive toward ideological purity has never gone well in politics (Reagan was a pragmatist, again).

    Oh well. Enough conservatives feel that way, and here comes President Clinton. I just don’t want to hear those particular conservatives who sit things out complain when what will happen, does happen. Sitting out the general election remains a vote for the Democratic candidate. Heck, the people who registered their dissatisfaction with GHW Bush by voting Perot in 1992 created Bill Clinton; he never could have been elected without those Perot voters.

    There are lots of ways to fight for change in the GOP. Doing things that make Hillary Clinton smile seems an unlikely choice to me. Again, my vote counts as much as anyone else’s, but I am no pundit.

    Sorry to sound cranky. Heck of a way to start the week.

    Eric Blair (9e70bf)

  36. Although I think things are far from settled, I would say at this point that it will be Obama and Romney in the election and that Obama will take it all.

    I started out as a moderate Fredhead, and have migrated to Romney. I have to say that I am starting to like him more as I see more of him. The other thing is that (TC’s Paulian conspiracy theories aside) is that Romney will probably pick up some votes from the Mormon side. Especially in CA which has 1 million+ LDS. Although Mormons tend to vote and have gone Republican since the 60’s I think the boost in CA might be enough to win the state.

    On the other hand in the south, like here in GA, it could possibly loose the state if the Baptists stay home. Either way, I think that I could support McCain, Giuliani or Romney without too much trouble.

    Dr T (69c4b2)

  37. It’s simple. We’ve got troops in harms way. Leaving them to CLinton or Obama is pretty uncool. They deserve us to do the right thing. Vote for Rudy or Romney or whoever in the primary, but if Mccain is the nominee, Now Is Not The Time to pull another Perot and “teach the GOP” a lesson. You may feel betrayed by the party, but the troops don’t much care. Let them finish this fight and move to the next battle. We could pick up momentum, and Mccain would do a good job on the war.

    I cannot understand pro-war folks who aren’t ready to vote against Hillary or Obama.

    Jem (9e390b)

  38. I think McCain’s biggest drawback is his thin, reedy, breathy voice. He does sound like the guy in the raincoat in the park saying, “Would you like some candy, little girl?” He really should have spent a couple of years on singing lessons — learning to project from his chest. (I had the same problem when young — talking breathily from the front of my mouth — until I taught myself to take deep breaths and talk from the back of my throat.)

    nk (eeb240)

  39. “I honestly don’t think I can do it. My head says “we survived 8 years of Clinton I and got a Republican congress out of it, we can survive 4 of Clinton II”.”

    I am not at all surprised at comments like this from conservatives. I’ve long gotten the impression that once Hillary’s name was on a Presidential ballot, conservatives were going to do all they could to tank their own nominee. And they are doing such a sterling job of that right now:)

    You see, media conservatives made a lot of names for themselves back when Bill was ruling the roost. (And isn’t it just a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh’s radio contract comes up in 2009, in a declining AM Radio market?) And seeing how successful Markos Moulitsas and Keith Olbermann have been in the last four years, a lot of conservatives would like to see those two be a bunch of butt-kissers to Hillary while those same conservatives throw everything in the arsenal at Hillary.

    BTW, we all know that GW Bush would have lost to Hillary if he backed down from his own rhetoric and decided not to invade Iraq.

    Brad S (f4a3ad)

  40. Patterico,

    Since it appears you’re looking a little ahead to the next few years, shall we start an over-under on how long it takes conservatives to mount a vigorous defense of GW Bush and call Hillary a “Cut-and-Runner” if she deviates even in the slightest from Bush’s Iraq/GWOT plans? I start the bidding at March 2009.

    Furthermore, shall we take a few guesses to see who the first media conservative will be that makes defending GW Bush a part of his/her on-air persona? That person will likely have ratings that will rival Rush Limbaugh’s at HIS peak in short order. I’ll start with Mark Levin, and he’ll prep the battlespace right around mid-November 2008.

    Brad S (f4a3ad)

  41. Ah, but Brad, Hillary is going to be more aggressive in Iraq, Iran and the GWOT, she’ll be “the most uncompromising wartime President in US history”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  42. Ah, SPQR, I see that you are one part scared of Hillary’s alleged supernatural political powers, a second part convinced that the media will stay in the tank for Hillary the next 4 years, and a third part wanting Hillary as the perfect enemy.

    Come on, guys: You don’t think the majority of the electorate, which has at best a cursory attention span on politics, hasn’t seen through all of that already? I must admit, though, that a John McCain winning does have the potential to throw a number of conservatives’ business plans in the dumpster. And I’ll even bet that John McCain is fully aware of that little tidbit:)

    Brad S (f4a3ad)

  43. Why vote for a lesser evil?

    Cthulhu 2008

    “I like Cthulhu’s foreign policy of killing everyone and consuming everything, but I don’t agree with his domestic policy of killing everyone and consuming everything. Still better than Hillary.” — “Sean” in a comment at Screw It.

    “It just occurred to me that one of these jokers — Clinton, McCain, Obama or Romney — is going to be the next President. It’s almost enough to make one pine for the old days of Bush v Gore.” — Vodka Pundit

    Horatio (a549f7)

  44. Uh, no, Brad S., your mental telepathy kung fu is not superior.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  45. I wish Senator McCain had not spent so much time attacking the CIC, agreeing with anti-war Democrats that our US military engages in torture and, had not spent the last two years campaigning instead of working at his job then perhaps our fine military, veterans and military families would have all the necessary money and support they need to get the job done.

    Besides which, no member of House or Senate should be taking credit for accomplishments achieved by others;Gen Petreaus, our fine US military members with the Iraqi soldiers and
    civilians wholly deserve this honor.

    syn (95c574)

  46. agreeing with anti-war Democrats that our US military engages in torture

    Mostly it’s our intelligence services who engage in torture. And guess what: they do! The campaign for “harsh interrogation” is a black comedy.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  47. McCain is a non-starter for me. We might as well vote for Hillary.

    See Hotair and Michelle Malkin for all the latest on Juan Fernandez and various Soros-funded entities who are hired by the Maverick’s campaign.

    Astounding, terrible.

    Patricia (f56a97)

  48. Has there ever been a justice appointed by a liberal President in the past 50 years who has “turned” conservative?

    Frankfurter? White?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  49. #37

    Jem,
    You have a very good point about support for the military. For conservatives to abandon the party because a McCain or Rudy is the nominee makes all the hand wringing in the last few years about “supporting the troops when the Democrats wouldn’t” nothing more than BS they really didn’t mean….

    May seem harsh but that is how it will be played and deservedly so.

    Voice of Reason (590c85)

  50. sorry i forgot to change my moniker in this browser for comment 48

    voiceofreason2 (590c85)

  51. The campaign for “harsh interrogation” is black comedy.

    So is forgetting about the 3000 Americans who died as the result of an enemy attack on 9/11/2001 and the “truthers” who are convinced was perpetuated by BushMcHaliburtonNeoConNazi.

    Voice of Reason

    I have spent tens of thousands of my own dollars and sent several hundred care packages over the last six years supporting our military men and women; Conservatives well know that support comes naturally from our hearts and is something we cannot possibly abandon, this has nothing to do with politicians running for President.

    syn (95c574)

  52. voiceofreason,

    Not to impugn on your sentiments toward the US Military, but are you starting to voice a certain belief that will set a lot of things on its head? Namely, that the Right will have a chance, with Hillary as president, to show the world how “Support the Troops, but not the Mission.” gets done?

    Bonafides can do that for you. Ask any Democrat if they are truly worried that blacks will not vote for them if Bill Clinton’s race-baiting works out.

    Brad S (f4a3ad)

  53. Brad S and Syn,
    To say it has nothing to do with politicians running for the office is not accurate in my view.

    It is a pretty simple outlook in my opinion:

    One of the most important roles of a president is that of Commmander in Chief. The decisions they make in how to utilize, arm, equip and train the troops are of utmost importance.
    That said, in a presidential election pitting Hillary against McCain the question is “Which will fill this responsibility better?”

    If the answer is McCain and you choose to not vote or vote for Hillary then your actions show that troop support as I described it is a low priority. You have in effect let internal partisan politics of your party take precedence.

    It is great that people spend their own money to do things for the troops. But giving them a leader who is less than competent in that role is far more damaging than a few care packages not being sent.

    If you recall from the 2004 election much was made about Kerry’s fitness for command as a reason to vote for Bush instead. Why is that now different?

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  54. I guess that no one noticed that I endorsed Governor Romney rather a while ago. I feel so D-list. :(

    In my view, all of the Republican candidates — except Ron Paul, of course — are reading, if not from the same page, at least the same chapter in the same book. The difference that I saw is that while Senator McCain and (at the time) Senator Thompson and Mayor Giuliani said what they were going to do if elected President, Governor Romney had a solid record for actually having done what he had promised.

    None of our candidates is perfect, but, then again, Ronald Reagan wasn’t perfect, either, as a candidate or a president.

    Dana (556f76)

  55. VOR2 wrote:

    One of the most important roles of a president is that of Commmander in Chief. The decisions they make in how to utilize, arm, equip and train the troops are of utmost importance. That said, in a presidential election pitting Hillary against McCain the question is “Which will fill this responsibility better?”

    The next question to ask is: will the electorate see that question as an important one? If the mood is to just get out of Iraq, then the voters won’t be terribly concerned about who can better “utilize, arm, equip and train the troops.”

    Dana (556f76)

  56. “If the mood is to just get out of Iraq, then the voters won’t be terribly concerned about who can better “utilize, arm, equip and train the troops.”

    Dana,

    McCain is right that there will be other wars.
    Not sure whether you remember or not but the “Peace Dividend” of the 90’s had long reaching effects on the military we are still feeling today in terms of overtaxed reserves and a high rate of deployments for active duty.

    McCain wouldn’t be my first pick but I would never sit out an election because my choice didn’t get the nomination.

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  57. Wow, I just discovered that McCain supports the US joining the International Criminal Court; putting our military men and women in the hands of an International Tribune, some Commander-in-Chief he’ll turn out to be.

    syn (95c574)

  58. “I guess that no one noticed that I endorsed Governor Romney rather a while ago. I feel so D-list.”

    No one with that good name could be overlooked!

    “The next question to ask is: will the electorate see that question as an important one? If the mood is to just get out of Iraq, then the voters won’t be terribly concerned about who can better “utilize, arm, equip and train the troops.”

    At this point in time, it appears the situation in Iraq is secondary to the economy and the ‘R’ word (which is media driven).

    Unfortunately Iraq and the Big Picture is being pushed to the side – and we really can’t afford to lose sight of whats at stake there.

    Dana (b4a26c)

  59. TC #34 wrote: “…he will direct to other mormans for enrichment from public funds…”

    I would beg to disagree.
    If that were a problem, we would be seeing the State of Utah awash in public corruption, which is not the case.
    If anything, I believe (and Howard Hughes did too) that Morman’s are extremely trustworthy, and honest (all things being equal, etc.).

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  60. CAPTIAN DUNZEL SELLECTS A LIBERAL

    krazy kagu (a97175)

  61. Not sure whether you remember or not but the “Peace Dividend” of the 90’s had long reaching effects on the military we are still feeling today in terms of overtaxed reserves and a high rate of deployments for active duty.

    And here’s the part that I don’t understand: People claim that Hillary would be a good wartime President when she’s claiming eight years of experience doing all that damage to our nation’s military.

    (Yes, I’m oversimplifying)

    Darkmage (be2d37)

  62. And here’s the part that I don’t understand: People claim that Hillary would be a good wartime President when she’s claiming eight years of experience doing all that damage to our nation’s military.

    I am not sure I’ve seen those kind of claims anywhere – more a tendency to avoid the CINC abilities discussion if anything, in my view.

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3187 secs.