Patterico's Pontifications

2/6/2008

Ace Explains Why Maverick Will Continue to [Expletive Deleted] Republicans Up the [Expletive Deleted]

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 10:27 pm

Ace has some lengthy and thoughtful comments on why McCain will indeed continue to screw conservatives from here on out. Read it all, and tell me it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Yeah, I’ll still vote for the little [expletive deleted]er in the general election. But you know what? I’m going to keep bashing him anyway. And I’m going to make especially sure I bash him, by name, within 60 days of the election — in honor of his past assaults on free speech.

I love the Republican party — but I love irony more.

UPDATE: By contrast, Beldar says that you should vote for McCain if you truly believe we’re at war. And he loathes McCain.

I’m not sure I agree with Beldar — mostly because, as I have argued here, I subscribe to the Armed Liberal view that war supporters might actually be better off with Hillary, because she (and more importantly her party) will own the war when she takes the oath of office.

But Beldar’s argument is worth considering — as his arguments generally are.

P.S. And just because I feel I need to repeat this in every post in which I criticize McCain — I still plan to vote for him in the general election. Holding my nose every second of the way.

62 Responses to “Ace Explains Why Maverick Will Continue to [Expletive Deleted] Republicans Up the [Expletive Deleted]”

  1. The Democrats “owning” the war is a ridiculous concept not based on historical events. Did the Cold War do well when “owned” by Carter? Should we bother considering Vietnam under Johnson?
    “Owned”- more like pwn3d.

    Demetri (c3f397)

  2. Yes, if winning the war is so important, then we should not be content with handing it over to an incompetent for FOUR FUCKING YEARS just so we can score points in the history books. Get some sense, for Christ’s sake.

    Mike (8e0e3b)

  3. “Yeah, I’ll still vote for the little [expletive deleted]er in the general election”

    You wouldn’t make a pimple on the little expletive deleted’s ass, Patterico.

    craig mclaughlin (f2d0b1)

  4. Did the Cold War do well when “owned” by Carter?

    The answer is no, Demetri. Carter alsmost lost it and we are still paying for the mistakes he made while in office. That’s why Carter ranks as one of the worst presidents of all time and also as one of the worst former presidents.

    The democrats also refuse to take any politically risky votes on the Iraq war, so apparently the concept of owning the war is very much alive and well. Pity that you can’t see it.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  5. oh good grief, as barry goldwater said back in 1960, “Let’s grow up, conservatives!”

    james conrad (7cd809)

  6. I was listening to npr yesterday. They are excited by the low republican turn out for the primaries, our fighting over McCain, and the upcoming United Socialist States 2009. Frankly, as much as I detest mccain, it has scared me into voting for him if he is the nominee.

    tired (dde076)

  7. Speaking of irony…

    When McCain-Lieberman’s .50 gas tax hits and people get angry about how high is the price of a tank of gas the liberals will blame Big Oil.

    I can’t wait until the price of paying for that stupid mercury bulb hits the people over the head.

    In any case I’ll vote McCain, I won’t be happy however I love our troops and support their mission more than I detest the absurd Global Greenie madness.

    syn (95c574)

  8. Ace, face it. You know as well as the rest of us that you and other misguided bloggers, entertainers, and pundits like you have brought the GOP to a McCain nomination.

    Just admit you’ve F’d us up the a, apologize for your small part, and get on with your life. You might want to think about giving up your opinion-making, however. It sure as hell hasn’t been accurate or helpful.

    Al-Ozarka (18c0f3)

  9. That speech you refer to is by no means “free” in any connotation. Try Expen$ive $peech. How much does it cost to buy a congressman these days, by the way? Our lawmakers are bought and sold like cattle at an auction. But somehow that’s all good to you.

    I salute McCain for standing up to this pandering which denigrates public service into the world’s oldest profession.

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  10. You might want to think about giving up your opinion-making, however. It sure as hell hasn’t been accurate or helpful.

    Says the Huckabee supporter.

    tired (dde076)

  11. How come GOP voters are so overwhelmingly rejecting the candidates that right wing bloggers like and picking the ones that they hate? Are these bloggers and commentators really that out of touch with even the GOP? wow.

    stef (d46171)

  12. The Hillary will own the war argument falls flat. I thought that of the 110th Congress, but as it turns out they would have gladly accepted credit for a defeat.

    No, Hillary would be elected in order to get us out ASAP, and she would do exactly that. It is unreasonable to assume she will grow up. And it will work for her, because the media will not report any news out of Iraq once our last soldier leaves. Remember – the world is what people are told it is.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  13. How come people vote democrat? Are they so overwhelmingly out of touch with reality? wow.

    tired (dde076)

  14. I respect the heck out of Patterico, but I do not see the validity of the argument that Hillary Clinton will really pursue the war in the Middle East if she is elected President, because then it will be her war, and her legacy.

    It’s not in HRC’s personality. Look at the antics of the person she married, and how she handled that situation over literally decades.

    Remember, if elected, HRC will change any strategy put into play by GWB. After all, she wouldn’t want GW Bush to get any credit for anything working….

    The Carter-Cold War analogy is apt. And Democrats in Congress, and the press, ate it up. A HRC Presidency will be much the same.

    Besides, she knows what is best for everyone. She has a plan, after all.

    Eric Blair (ffccf7)

  15. Psyberian,

    That speech you refer to is by no means “free” in any connotation.

    It is if it isn’t regulated or restricted by law. That’s free as in “freedom” not free as in “handout.”

    Try Expen$ive $peech. How much does it cost to buy a congressman these days, by the way? Our lawmakers are bought and sold like cattle at an auction. But somehow that’s all good to you.

    What does bribery have to do with political speech? And where did you get the idea that anyone supports it?

    Pablo (99243e)

  16. If I sold John McCain clothespins for conservatives who want to hold their noses while voting for the man come November, I could probably get rich.

    But I probably couldn’t sell any within 60 days of the election.

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (b6cc49)

  17. Hillary will own the war?
    So, besides pissing in her pants, what do you think Hillary will do when China makes a move on Taiwan? Well, all you McCain haters, screw Taiwan, screw Iraq and screw the GWOT.
    Hillary “I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them all.” will make sure she takes care of you.

    tmac (f985e6)

  18. You wouldn’t make a pimple on the little expletive deleted’s ass, Patterico.

    Absolutely. He’s a war hero and I’m not. I’ve disparaged his courage and his service!

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  19. If I sold John McCain clothespins for conservatives who want to hold their noses while voting for the man come November, I could probably get rich.

    Not from me. I do not want a democrat in the Whitehouse. Comments like “I will hold my nose and vote for . . .” (which I have been known to utter in the past)will only help the donks.

    tired (dde076)

  20. As between Hillary or Obama and McCain, the choice is easy based on one word: JUDGES.

    Justice Stevens is pushing ninety.

    Ruth Ginsburg is 75 and frail.

    Whom do you prefer choosing the next justice? Would you rather have a Stephen Reinhardt clone on the court, or someone more like Frank Easterbrook?

    Stuart (262695)

  21. Well, at least you will vote for McCain. I agree with what most other posts said: I don’t want anyone even concievably nominatable by the dems anywhere near the Iraq War, the rest of the WOT, or any other war for that matter. That is why, despite many misgivings, I actively supported GWBush in ’04, and have from the beginning supported McCain this time. BTW, the increase of 50c/gal of gas would take place over 50 years! that’s won’t even keep pace with inflation! McCain ’08!

    Corey Cronrath (df953b)

  22. Ace also explained why you should pick up your wiener poopies. Answer: Otherwise, you’ll never see Jesus again1

    tired (dde076)

  23. McCain does not have the temperament, nor the leadership qualities, to be a good CiC.

    And he is blind to the fact that this war isn’t just about Iraq, it’s global, and we need to secure our boarders as well.

    That alone is enough, I’d rather have a Democrat in the White House that I can oppose without reservation, than a nearly as bad Republican that I’m supposed to support.

    And McCain is not going to appoint a strict constructionist to the bench, not only would it aggrieve his liberal friends, it would endanger the BCRA (AKA McCain-Fiengold).

    LarryD (feb78b)

  24. I realize that “VOR2 said it” carries little weight in these hallowed threads but consider
    Michael Steele’s oped in TH today.

    An excerpt:

    “The Republican Party is the party of ideas and leadership that have made and will continue to make this nation great. Republicans must now gather strength from within as we enter a critical period in America’s history. We must work to restore faith in our party by standing on those principles that not only unite us as Republicans, but as Americans. Republicans need to stop looking for Reagan and start acting like Republicans.”

    voiceofreason2 (590c85)

  25. Pure speculation: Ruth Ginsburg has been ready to retire for some time(poor health), but has been holding out for a liberal democrat to be elected as POTUS. She will retire early in 2009 if either Hillery or Obama is elected. You read it first here.

    Bar Sinister (eb65fa)

  26. Geez, VOR, you think there’s any room for a guy like that on the ticket?

    Pablo (99243e)

  27. I’m sure LarryD is a fine person, and I don’t want to battle with anyone, but this is what I don’t understand:


    That alone is enough, I’d rather have a Democrat in the White House that I can oppose without reservation, than a nearly as bad Republican that I’m supposed to support.

    And McCain is not going to appoint a strict constructionist to the bench, not only would it aggrieve his liberal friends, it would endanger the BCRA (AKA McCain-Fiengold).

    So the War on Terror doesn’t really matter, even if many innocent people die? Just so you can oppose someone totally? McCain has many faults—Patterico should indeed sell nose-pins for election day—but he is demonstrably NOT as eeeevvvviiiil and bad as many “purity” conservatives are claiming. HRC and BO are worse on the War and on judges. That isn’t truly debatable, except for conservatives in the throes of the mirror image of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    So McCain will not appoint strict constructionist judges? Maybe yes, maybe no. But you KNOW what HRC or BO will do on judges. That isn’t up for debate. More importantly, just look at how McCain voted on judges. Not the rhetoric. Now look at how HRC and BO voted. Not the rhetoric.

    So on the one hand, the “Purity Wing” of the conservative movement just knows what McCain will do. But they think that HRC might not be as bad as we think?

    Or if she is that bad—it’s okay to risk decades of Ginsberg-style judges on the bench and a Middle East explosion—just so you can oppose someone totally? Heck of a cost for ideological purity—especially for anyone who has strong convictions on, say, Roe v. Wade.

    Again, your vote, your business.

    But this is very similar to General Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove.” It’s all in the pursuit of “purity of essence.”

    Sorry to rant, but this is such risky thinking.

    Patterico, can we get Patterico autographed nose-pins for the election? I’ll buy some for me, my wife, my brother and his wife, and my parents.

    Eric Blair (d57d58)

  28. Sorry. Still won’t vote for McCain. I refuse to vote for the pile of crap.

    He wasn’t ALWAYS a pile of crap, just since about 1999…

    Scott Jacobs (3c07ad)

  29. Unless you really like incompetently fought wars, massive deficits, and executive power without any limits, Bush has been screwing conservatives for seven years now, but not a word out of you about him.

    Mike (27956a)

  30. How come GOP voters are so overwhelmingly rejecting the candidates that right wing bloggers like and picking the ones that they hate? Are these bloggers and commentators really that out of touch with even the GOP? wow.

    Comment by stef — 2/7/2008 @ 5:14 am

    What kind of won/lost record are Kos and Firedoglake sporting these days stef?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  31. Unless you really like incompetently fought wars, massive deficits, and executive power without any limits, Bush has been screwing conservatives for seven years now, but not a word out of you about him.

    Comment by Mike — 2/7/2008 @ 8:44 am

    You obviously haven’t been paying attention Mike.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  32. Pablo,
    Re #26. Not at this point. Make him the featured speaker at the convention ala Reagan in 64. To throw him on the ticket in 08 is transparent and will be perceived as a desperation move. He has to establish some credibility first.

    voiceofreason2 (10af7e)

  33. “What kind of won/lost record are Kos and Firedoglake sporting these days stef?”

    In general elections or primaries? But its not just a question of one’s preferred candidate failing to win in primary elections. Its the intense discontent with the winner. I see nowhere near the discontent with their own primary field on the left that I see on the right.

    stef (1c3d01)

  34. and we need to secure our boarders as well.

    Still trying to figure out if this is a typo, or an unusually subtle (but accurate) bit of humor.

    No need to hold my nose. My preferred candidate dropped out, and I’m cranky about that, but there is no need to apologize for voting for the best candidate available, even if he has acted in ways that I strongly disapprove of. Security and SCOTUS are huge factors, other things can be temporarily ameliorated with (mostly) state and local workarounds. So maybe we don’t get a first down on this election. I’ll take any positive yardage rather than a turn-over.

    Uncle Pinky (c3d832)

  35. Security and SCOTUS are huge factors

    Sadly, McCain botches both of those.

    Scott Jacobs (3c07ad)

  36. Sadly, McCain botches both of those.

    As badly as the current options?

    Uncle Pinky (c3d832)

  37. I’m sorry to have to tell you, but the current option isn’t running this time. He’s kind of not allowed.

    Scott Jacobs (3c07ad)

  38. And McCain is not going to appoint a strict constructionist to the bench, not only would it aggrieve his liberal friends, it would endanger the BCRA (AKA McCain-Fiengold).

    This is what kills me. My impression is that should he win, McCain will view his victory as being not out of Hillaphobia, but out of his successfully remaking the GOP in his image. With a head full of hubris after having gotten to the White House on his own terms, he will continue to dare conservatives to stop him from nominating who dahell he wants, and who he will want is someone who will preserve the laws that bear his name. If he is opposed by the left, there is no history to suggest he would resist its pull more than the right’s. In such a scenario, David Souter may be the BEST we could hope for.

    The most depressing thing about this campaign is that we are faced with a choice between someone whose misguided policies will threaten the nation’s existence, or another who might keep the country, but whose misguided, contradictory philosophies could erode fundamental principles such as freedom of speech.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  39. Scott, you do what you feel you have to do, and more power to you. I simply can not play dog in the manger just because my guy isn’t in it. Hope that you can understand my reasoning here but if you can’t, that’s not really going to keep me awake at night. Your decision is entirely your own.

    Kind of curious how the current option who is not allowed to run is a current option. Elucidate, please.

    Uncle Pinky (c3d832)

  40. If Romney can put aside his disappointment and support McCain for the good of the country, so can I.

    DRJ (517d26)

  41. If Romney can put aside his disappointment and support McCain for the good of the country, so can I.

    That’s the spirit!

    tired (dde076)

  42. If Romney can put aside his disappointment and support McCain for the good of the country, so can I.

    Sorry DRJ, but I can’t.

    If Jesus was backing Satan for office, it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s still Satan…

    Scott Jacobs (3c07ad)

  43. I think Mr. Jacob’s metaphor is strained at best. Let me as extreme as he was: what if Jesus was backing Stalin for office, but Satan himself was the opponent?

    This hatred of McCain is counterproductive, given at least 50% of the country does not agree. And, no matter what the Purity of Essence Conservatives seem to think, McCain will pursue the War on Terror better than Clinton or Obama. And McCain will nominate Supreme Court justices closer to conservative ideals than Clinton or Obama ever would….and that latter is based on confirmation votes.

    It isn’t McCain in a vacuum. It’s McCain against Clinton or Obama.

    I hope that this is just anger working its way out. We will need every freaking vote come November. And every person who sits it out is actively working toward making Clinton or Obama President.

    So why not just change registration and vote Democrat?

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  44. I don’t understand a single one of you that so greatly disagrees with McCain, but will still vote for him simply because he’s “not a democrat”.

    You vote for him. Go ahead. Should he by some miracle win, I’ll be sure to remind you all about this day when you find out he’s not nearly as conservative as you seem to hope he is.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  45. Scott,

    No problem here. I voted for Perot and I’m still glad I did.

    [EDIT: ... but that was then. I'm voting for McCain now. Outlooks change and I guess mine has, too.]

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  46. A hundred million eligible voters will not vote at all in the general election, and they probably never have nor ever will. Gee, your non-vote will surely scare the powers-that-be, you “principled conservatives”.

    nk (4ebdf4)

  47. “It isn’t McCain in a vacuum. It’s McCain against Clinton or Obama”

    Good point. If there were another to choose from it would be different but there isn’t and its time to move on.

    Picture it like three Dems running and you want to choose the one that is the most conservative of the lot. McCain wins.

    I am willing to move on and support McCain. Of course when Fred bowed out, that was the big disappointment.

    Dana (681a56)

  48. Some of the more extreme right pundits (Anne Coulter, et al) seem to be recommending sitting out the election in view of McCain’s now almost certain candidacy–or voting for Obama or Clinton. The theory appears to be to lose the election this time, regroup and elect a “true” conservative next time–four, more likely eight, years from now. The Carter interlude before the election of a “true” conservative (Reagan) is cited as an appropriate example. That may be one historical precedent, but I think there is another historical precedent suggesting that such people are taking more of a chance than they anticipate.

    Remember that in 1933 the Nazi’s did NOT have a majority in the Reichstag thus could not insist that its leader, Hitler, be appointed chancellor by Hindenberg. The other leading candidate was Von Papen, but he too had difficulty in mustering majority support. So Hindenberg and Von Papen, convinced that Hitler would foul up if he were chancellor and thus quickly lose support and be out of office in a short time, agreed to allow Hitler to become Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history.

    I don’t for a moment suggest that either Clinton or Obama are in any respect equivalent to Hitler, but I do suggest the arch conservatives proposal to sit out (or vote for Clinton or Obama) the next election might have considerable negative and irreversible consequences to positions they hold dear. I don’t think Clinton is nearly as politically dumb as Carter was. I don’t know about Obama but he does have much more charisma than Carter and that may prevent a short-term disaster for him. Thus either might well be in office for eight long years.

    The consequence in eight years time may well be a national health service just like Canada’s or Great Britain’s (impossible to dismantle–look at Thatcher’s inability to do so); substantially higher taxes (perhaps with gimmicks for the favored friends); much higher budget (things funded are almost impossible to dismantle); a weakened foreign policy; more threats from Jihadists; a permanent liberal majority on the Supreme Court (if any one of the five most conservative were to retire in the next eight years–and Kennedy is over 70 and Scalia is, or is close to, 70).

    Can the new conservative savior (who hasn’t been identified as yet) reverse all of these possible outcomes. Reagan didn’t dismantle very much government even though he wanted to. Nor did Thatcher!

    PLM (8a4b7e)

  49. Scott- Somehow I get a faint sense that you do not like McCain. If I’ve interpreted your subtle cues incorrectly, please don’t hesitate to disabuse me of this (perhaps unfounded) notion. What next?

    Vote for Hillary or Obama? Vote for Huckabee? Vote for Ron Paul? Write in Batman for POTUS and Tinkerbell for Vice? Vote for no one at all? The last seems to be the way you’re leaning, and if that’s what you feel you have to do than go right ahead; but lighten up on the kvetching, if you please. You are the one choosing to remove yourself from the process, so take your ball and go home. It’s the height of bad form to take your ball, sit on the sidelines and whine at the people still playing.

    I’m not enamored of McCain myself, but there are ways to make lemonade instead of complaining about the lemons. McCain is a deep cut, but the bleeding can be stanched. Obama or Hillary would be severed arteries in the body politic. I’m going to do my bit to see that they do not get elected. Why don’t you try to do something constructive like pick out a good, solid vice candidate? Or, if you’re feeling surly, why not do oppo on the Dems? Or figure out a way to short leash McCain? Or don’t. No skin off anyone else’s nose.

    Should he by some miracle win, I’ll be sure to remind you all about this day when you find out he’s not nearly as conservative as you seem to hope he is.

    And no matter who wins, be sure to remind yourself that you didn’t pull the lever so you can feel real mature while saying “Not my president! I didn’t vote for him/her!”

    Uncle Pinky (c3d832)

  50. I hope that this is just anger working its way out. We will need every freaking vote come November. And every person who sits it out is actively working toward making Clinton or Obama President.

    Eric – Because you come in good faith, this does not bother me quite as much as it would coming from others. The simple fact is that it is difficult to put party ahead of principle for someone that routinely puts himself ahead of the party, for the other side’s principles.

    I am beginning to come around to casting a begrudging vote for McCain. But, if he picks Fuckabee as VP, my head will explode.

    JD (db086b)

  51. You see, I do not believe it is childish, petulent, foolish, stupid, or any of those other things … to not vote. Period. Calling people names in order to bring them around to your way of thinking seems to be … counterproductive, at best. Not voting is a legitimate expression. Sen. McCain and the Republicans are not entitled to anyone’s vote. They have to earn it.

    JD (db086b)

  52. The Beldar link in your update is thought-provoking and very good.

    DRJ (517d26)

  53. Pablo (15), my grandfather was in politics and got out saying that you can’t be honest and a politician at the same time. What he meant was, you have to lie to this constituency to get money, then lie to another constituency to get money ad nauseum.

    Money makes the process a joke. The golden rule is: “whoever has the gold, makes the rules.” It is not a democracy system, but a kangaroo aristocracy. Now that’s elite.

    Why do most of you republicans hate democracy?

    Psyberian (d18acc)

  54. Not voting is a legitimate expression

    Absolutely. It also can be expressed very simply, without being “childish, petulent, foolish, stupid, or any of those other things” or it can be expressed in a sneering petulant manner that “(c)all(s) people names in order to bring them around to your way of thinking (and)seems to be … counterproductive, at best.” If one does not wish to vote, or honestly feels that one can not in good conscience, then don’t. I believe my take on the situation was “you do what you feel you have to do, and more power to you”, and that was before bilge like “If Jesus was backing Satan for office, it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s still Satan…”

    After that particular little craptastic hissy fit, I may have modified my tone somewhat. It was not directed towards you, so I hope you didn’t take any offense. I’m just weary of soi dissant conservatives gleefully pissing on the best option currently available. Reminds me of the Hollywood types who were all going to leave the country because their guy didn’t get elected and does seem … juvenile, at best.

    Uncle Pinky (c3d832)

  55. “A hundred million eligible voters will not vote at all in the general election, and they probably never have nor ever will. Gee, your non-vote will surely scare the powers-that-be, you “principled conservatives”.

    - nk

    On the other hand, a hundred million elibible voters will vote, making your individual vote equally meaningless. I think Scott’s line of thinking is that he’d rather feel meaningless and principled than meaningless and whorish (as he’d feel casting a ballot for McCain).

    I dunno. I have mixed feelings on this one…

    … But while I’m sorting them out, I’ll vote.

    Leviticus (14329b)

  56. “Why do most of you republicans hate democracy?”

    - Psyberian

    A lot of people hate “democracy”… James Madison and Alexander Hamilton weren’t too fond of it, as I recall.

    That’s why the United States are a republic.

    Leviticus (14329b)

  57. JD, I don’t know anyone who is happy at this situation. Hillary Clinton is speaking in my hometown tomorrow, so maybe I am particularly exercised.

    But thank you for your politeness. Of course people can disagree with me—I am a college prof, and many, many students do! You should see my evaluations…..

    I just wish things were different on the political front.

    But I am really, really worried about November. Maybe I just need to see how things sort out.

    Again, this is a polite crew, even when folks disagree—and I appreciate that.

    Eric Blair (d57d58)

  58. Gee, your non-vote will surely scare the powers-that-be, you “principled conservatives”.

    At least I will have managed to retain some amount of my principles…

    Levi nailed it.

    That he got me so perfectly bothers me to no end… I’m not sure they make water hot enough… ;)

    And Levi’s answer to Psy was dead on, as well…

    When McCain turns out to be at least as bad as Hillary, I want you all to remember these words:

    “Better the devil you know”

    At least Hillary is honest in her populism…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  59. Why do most of you republicans hate democracy?

    I’m not a Republican, Psyberian. I’m more of an anti-Democrat, given what they’ve been offering for the last decade or so. And I love the idea of democracy. I just wish it worked better.

    Pablo (99243e)

  60. How come GOP voters are so overwhelmingly rejecting the candidates that right wing bloggers like and picking the ones that they hate? Are these bloggers and commentators really that out of touch with even the GOP? wow.

    Yep, they are. The vast majority of the conservative blogosphere has been engaged in an orgy of wild exaggeration, fatuous nitpicking, and malignant road-rage two-minute hatefests for the past seven years. And this is what it comes to, as it always does: self-destruction. John McCain doesn’t suck up to them, tickle their egos, or follow their twisted priorities in entirety, so he might as well be the AntiChrist. Hey, conservative bloggers! The evidence is staring you in the face. Not even Republican voters have any faith in your baloney. They don’t like immigration hardliners. They don’t like the Bush tax cuts. They don’t consider Justices Clarence Thomas and Mssr. Scalia to be good models. They think holding down massive donations to candidates is anti-bribery, not anti-’free-speech’. John McCain’s popularity, even among Republicans, is that he’s not a wild-eyed, spiteful, fulminating malcontent like yourselves.

    John McCain thinks you’re a bunch of morons, and republican voters agree with him. Go take ten years in the woods and come to the understanding that tax cuts and guerrilla wars are not ruby slippers that you can close your eyes, tap together three times, and solve the problems of your nation.

    glasnost (153d44)

  61. malignant road-rage two-minute hatefests for the past seven years

    Because DKos and FDL are bastions of calm, rational thought…

    Pfft. Please.

    They don’t like immigration hardliners.

    And they outright hated Amnesty, so why they are going for McCain I dunno…

    They don’t consider Justices Clarence Thomas and Mssr. Scalia to be good models.

    You’re starting to confuse “People to the right of you” with “People on the right”…

    They think holding down massive donations to candidates is anti-bribery, not anti-’free-speech’.

    That would be because hey don’t understand the bill, which allows those exact same ads so long as they are PAC-funded, not GENERAL funded…

    Go take ten years in the woods and come to the understanding that tax cuts and guerrilla wars are not ruby slippers that you can close your eyes, tap together three times, and solve the problems of your nation.

    But massive tax-hikes, free social programs for people who A) don’t pay into them and B)shouldn’t be here in the first place, coddling people who actively want to kill you, and who wants to give people not unlike AlGore massive say over our economy to stop “global warming”, THAT is the answer?

    I’m not entirely sure, but I really don’t think that sounded like republicans, do you?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  62. glasnost wrote: The vast majority of the conservative blogosphere has been engaged in an orgy of wild exaggeration, fatuous nitpicking, and malignant road-rage two-minute hatefests for the past seven years. And this is what it comes to, as it always does: self-destruction. John McCain doesn’t suck up to them, tickle their egos, or follow their twisted priorities in entirety, so he might as well be the AntiChrist. Hey, conservative bloggers! The evidence is staring you in the face. Not even Republican voters have any faith in your baloney. They don’t like immigration hardliners. They don’t like the Bush tax cuts. They don’t consider Justices Clarence Thomas and Mssr. Scalia to be good models. They think holding down massive donations to candidates is anti-bribery, not anti-’free-speech’. John McCain’s popularity, even among Republicans, is that he’s not a wild-eyed, spiteful, fulminating malcontent like yourselves.

    Interesting perspective from a Republican who supports John McCain. After all, the voices of those Republicans who support McCain have been few and far between, and when they do make themselves known, they usually don’t express any enthusiasm for his candidacy as much as they concede that he is the only candidate who could save the USA from a Clinton or Obama-led America.

    …..Hey, wait a minute…let me read this again…

    Not even Republican voters have any faith in your baloney. They don’t like immigration hardliners. They don’t like the Bush tax cuts. They don’t consider Justices Clarence Thomas and Mssr. Scalia to be good models. They think holding down massive donations to candidates is anti-bribery, not anti-’free-speech’…

    Whatever do you mean by “they?” And what’s with referring to Antonin Scalia as “Master”?

    Ohhhh…YOU’RE NEITHER A CONSERVATIVE OR A REPUBLICAN!

    Well, who gives a rat’s what YOU think?

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5936 secs.