Ann Coulter Says She Would Campaign for Hillary If McCain Were the GOP Nominee
Via Hot Air, Ann Coulter says that if McCain is the nominee, she’ll campaign for Hillary.
Really?
The thing is, judges aside, she almost has a point.
Good judges are just about the only reason to vote for McCain, because I think supporters of the war may have a better chance with Hillary than with McCain. Yes, McCain will fight to stay in Iraq until he keels over. But he needs support for that. And I’m an adherent of the Armed Liberal position that if Hillary wins, the Democrats will own the war the day she takes the oath of office. That makes it harder for a Democrat-led Congress to fight the President on the war with the same intensity they would use against a Republican like McCain. (The argument doesn’t work as to Obama, who is just crazy enough to actually pull all the troops home precipitously.)
Illegal immigration? Hillary and McCain are both terrible on that issue.
I don’t trust any of these parties any more on spending. We did better on that under Bill Clinton than we did under any Republican president in decades.
Taxes? You know, if you’re going to spend money without regard to how much money the Government actually has, maybe we need to pay for that somehow. I’d prefer less spending and lower taxes, but if we’re going to have higher spending anyway, maybe we need higher taxes to keep from passing the bill on to our children.
Even Hillary’s shrill personality wouldn’t be much harder to take than McCain’s arrogance, temper, and stubbornness. I dislike them both strongly.
Judges are the only thing that makes McCain any better than Hillary, in my view. And he’s losing credibility on that issue too. If I completely lose faith in him on judges, I’ll sit out this election. Tell me why I shouldn’t.
I won’t go so far as to say I’d campaign for Hillary. But, judges aside, why should I care?
P.S. While we’re praising Clintons, Bill really let a Truther have it. Good for him.
The problem is with his flippant view of the first amendment, this is where he could do the most harm.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 1/31/2008 @ 9:36 pmCoulter would campaign for Hilary? Wow, she must really want McCain to win.
ras (fc54bb) — 1/31/2008 @ 9:38 pmBoy, you know the war has gone to shit when our main concern isn’t that the war is prosecuted successfuly, but that we can leave the opposition party holding the bag so that they can take the blame for fucking it all up.
While it’s cute to say that McCain is such a RINO that we should go for Hillary, stories like the massive one in the NYT about Bill and Borat’s countrymen should drive home the consequences of a dual-Clinton presidency.
Mike (bfd9f4) — 1/31/2008 @ 9:39 pmYou may be right but when it comes to judges at all levels, I still trust the GOP (even McCain) more than Democrats, if only because a Republican President selects from a completely different group of candidates than a Democratic President. In addition, federal district judges are selected with significant local input from the President’s party. Do you want those selections to be made by Democrats or Republicans?
DRJ (517d26) — 1/31/2008 @ 9:40 pmMike,
Huh? She said that a Dem pres would have to “own the war” … as in support it. She made no comment about it going “to shit.” To the contrary, in the last few months in particular it has done just the opposite.
We can’t lower the “confirmation bias” bar any further for you without striking oil.
ras (fc54bb) — 1/31/2008 @ 9:46 pmThe link doesn’t work but here is Victor Davis Hanson’s take from NRO’s Corner:
(You can find it at 01/31 10:21 PM.)
DRJ (517d26) — 1/31/2008 @ 10:28 pmIf this doesn’t prove — once and for all — how completely batshit she is, nothing will.
As for why you should NOT sit out the election:
If you believe in basic conservative principles,
If you don’t want higher taxes (as opposed to Patterico’s “maybe we need higher taxes” quote from Bush 41’s Greatest Misses),
If you want to see the economy recover sooner,
If you want a chance at lower government spending — as opposed to the Democrat’s guarantee of higher spending,
If you don’t want to spend the next 4, 8, or even 12 years of your life mentally kicking yourself in the ass for making so huge of a mistake by not voting for the conservative candidate,
If you are capable of overlooking all of the bullshit talking points — determining for yourself where each of the candidates REALLY stand on the issues — and you believe that electing a candidate who believes in taking the country down the path to socialism is absolutely the LAST thing we need . . .
If these qualities apply to you, you should vote — and vote for the conservative candidate, regardless (that’s right, I said regardless) of who it is.
Missed It By THAT Much (f54eb3) — 1/31/2008 @ 10:35 pmThe narrower your definition of a “true conservative”, the fewer elections conservatives will win.
Ah….Clinton II will need a lot of the progressive vote to win. And they are firmly in the pocket of the “bug-out wing” of the Democratic Party. Remember her brigade(s) withdrawal promise within 60 days of her election?
What about Hillary Clinton makes you think she believes in anything, other than her right to be President? Do you honestly believe that she would go back on a campaign promise to get out of Iraq, ASAP? Like her husband before her, she really likes polls.
You don’t like McCain. Okay, I get it. There is a lot not to like. But this is getting unreasonable. DRJ hit the judge issue on the head. McCain hatred is so extreme that folks aren’t even looking at the Democratic candidates carefully anymore:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html?#/context=detail/issue=iraq/candidateA=clinton/candidateB=allDem
And this is a much needed reminder on the subject of Supreme Court appointments, in Clinton II’s own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8rPo5kkeAA&feature=related
Please watch the video above again.
You genuinely think that Hillary would be “as bad” as McCain, not any better?
Then go ahead and pull the lever and hang some chad for Hillary.
It’s your right. But let me quote Ronald Reagan: “Would you rather have 50% of something than 100% of nothing?” Heck, I would take 25% of something than 100% of nothing. But that’s me.
I’ll make no treadway with the McCain haters. As I say, he isn’t particularly likable. But I urge even those folks to watch that video again. That is the future you think wouldn’t be so bad, in terms of the Supremes.
Again, we all get to vote our conscience. And that will be different for all of us.
Eric Blair (22c1e6) — 1/31/2008 @ 10:42 pmThe courts are the big deciding influence for me, but even if they weren’t I’d still vote. Might be a write in for the Daffy Duck with Clint Eastwood as vice. The way I was taught, voting was a privilege, a duty and an honor. Folks died to make it a right, so by voting I fulfill my part of a compact.
I’m not happy with the choices I’ve got but I owe it to past and future generations to make the best choice I can. For me, that is emphatically not being a sulky stay at home. Demographically it may make no difference at all, but that is no reason not to do it.
Uncle Pinky (c3d832) — 1/31/2008 @ 11:10 pmVDH also posted a column late last night/early this morning w/ the line
A little straight talk from the straight talk supporters instead of spin would be nice. But let’s all go and support this guy because he’s not Hillary?
Eric – the “MDS” aint going anywhere. Trying to undermine McCain opposition’s credibility by turning them into irrational haters? C’mon, address the myriad of reasons conservatives have listed why they can’t vote for McCain. You can’t because they are valid. So keep up trying to drum up support because Hillary is so bad.
I’m a republican, a conservative republican. I vote for conservative candidates. If one isn’t on the ballot I will write the name of one in. it’s that simple. If I roll over and vote for anyone the republicans put on the ticket then they have no reason to care about my political beliefs. The only influence I have is to withhold money and my vote unless it is an acceptable candidate. And I encourage all conservative republicans to NOT vote for McCain if he is the nominee. Let the national party know our support is contingent on conservative candidates.
chas (fb7ad4) — 1/31/2008 @ 11:17 pmIf one isn’t on the ballot I will write the name of one in. it’s that simple.
Right with you on that. I’m just saying that by staying home and not voting people tacitly endorse the people they theoretically are voting against. They also remove themselves from the process and legitimize the write-off status that they complain about. It’s a juvenile response.
Uncle Pinky (c3d832) — 1/31/2008 @ 11:26 pmUncle Pinky,
Putting a name on the ballot gets it on record that a conservative was desired. The political parties will see that and possibly act accordingly. I’d much rather stay at home but as you pointed out voting is a privilege, duty and honor so I’ll drag my lazy arse to the polling place and lose w/ some dignity.
chas (fb7ad4) — 1/31/2008 @ 11:34 pmThe war is going well, yet the Democrats are pandering to their base by (an ever shifting public opinion) pretending we’re pinned down like the true hell days of Vietnam. Coulter uses her trademark twist-wording to illustrate that eventually, whether Obama or Hillary likes it, they will have to admit the war is going well or quite literally cause it to ‘go to’… well, you know.
Personally, my hand would fall off if I pulled the lever for Hillary.
NeoconNews.com (2a37f8) — 1/31/2008 @ 11:43 pmGood on you chas. Good night to you as well. It’s getting kind of late on my coast.
Uncle Pinky (c3d832) — 1/31/2008 @ 11:43 pmI’m with Ann. People don’t seem to realize that despite the style of delivery, McCain=Hillary.
Kevin (4890ef) — 1/31/2008 @ 11:53 pmChas, I think you misunderstand me. I saw a post here on Patterico that just raged about all the “bad” things McCain had done, how he couldn’t be trusted with national defense, that he would appoint awful judges…and then it occurred to me, the poster isn’t really comparing McCain to Clinton. It’s just judging McCain in a vacuum.
Did the poster trust Clinton more on any of those topics? Histrionics aside, that just doesn’t match the records of the two people. You can dislike McCain, you can (rightfully) call him an unreliable conservative—but Hillary Clinton is much worse on any of these issues.
Look at Supreme Court nominees. McCain voted for both Alito and Roberts. Clinton II and Obama voted “no” on both. That is pretty clear cut.
And while you can say that Republicans might be getting more liberal, it is clear that the Democrats are moving farther to Left. Look at the Ginsberg vote for confirmation: 96 to 3. Even though Ginsberg was and is darned liberal, Republicans let Clinton have that appointment.
Now let’s look to Roberts, who was head and shoulders better qualified for the high court: 77 – 22. All Republicans and Jeffords voted for him, the Democrats split 22 – 22. Very different. Heck, it was worse for the Alito nomination.
So having HRC nominating justices, with a Democrat controlled Congress is pretty scary to me. The current Republican leadership in the Senate isn’t impressing me with its resolve, so it isn’t a matter of checks and balances. The Democrats are going to the run the table if they get in.
I absolutely understand disliking McCain. Vote for Romney in the primaries, then. If McCain get the nomination, put his feet to the fire and make him earn your vote. If he can’t do it, then vote for HRC.
But she WILL nominate Leftist justices. She WILL start moving us out of Iraq immediately. McCain might not. It’s thin gruel, but it is better than the bitter meal HRC leaves us. But saying that she would appoint the same kind of justices that McCain would is just plain untrue, based on what he has done in the past, and says now…compared to HRC.
I don’t mean to fight. I just want the same level of attention to voting records, public statements, and so forth applied to HRC as to McCain. So far, the anger and resentment toward the latter sure seems to be inhibiting the former. If you are weighing voting for one or the other, you should be using the same level of criticism. Or so it seems to me.
But as I say, I cannot change anyone’s mind. I just listened to HRC’s speech about the High Court again, and I shuddered.
Eric Blair (22c1e6) — 2/1/2008 @ 1:24 amJohn McC is a brave man, but….
I think his years as a POW scrambled his brains. Remember another Navy POW Adm Stockwell? “What am I dong here?” As a child in I lived in the Philly Shipyard and close naeighbor was a China Marine Cptb who had lived through “the March” (one of the 8% who did so BTW! The Japs killed 92% in the 2 years after the fall of Corrigador!@) Even at thew age of 6 I knew this poor man had lost his mind. It is a reason I swore whin I was a 5th Marine in Nam I would never be taken a live.
McC says one thing and then does the opposite! I think he really, truely does not realize he is telling lies. I think the trauma of POW has destroyed his brain. I admire his courage and respect the things he did for my country. But. What is he doing there?
an old exJarhead
Rod Stanton (b7febc) — 2/1/2008 @ 4:12 amNam 67 + 68
In the fall, if McCain is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him.
tired (6ae407) — 2/1/2008 @ 4:22 amI’m just relieved that Zell Miller’s not the leading candidate for the Democrats!
As for McCain, I worry that he’ll have us killing Iranians. Good ol’ republican values: got a problem with somebody? Kill ‘em. It’s that simple. And noble.
Psyberian (d18acc) — 2/1/2008 @ 4:50 amAnn Coulter is a media w___e. She simply got jealous that the candidates have been getting all the publicity and nobody’s talking about her. So she went and got herself some attention. I mean, like there’s any chance that she’ll bring in even one vote for Hillary even from the far-right crazies who are her cult. Or that Hillary’s campaign would not immediately repudiate her.
She does make me feel better about McCain, though. Now if Pat Buchanan were also to come out against him, I’d be a hundred percent sure of my support for McCain.
nk (398aa2) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:22 amUm, Psyby, hate to break it to you but Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot weren’t Republicans.
Oh, you were making a joke. I get it now. Ha ha. It is to laugh.
I'm Geekier (25af5f) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:24 amJohn McCain has done more to undermine the Republican party than any Democrat or MSM outlet. I believe that if elected, within 100 days of his inaugural, John McCain will fully implement the Democrat’s party platform.
Perfect Sense (72ae8f) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:27 amI think we should elect HiLIARy. That way not only can she be the first woman president, she can be the first wife elected to the office of President, and most importantly of all, the SECOND CLINTON IMPEACHED! lol
veritas (75ee03) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:34 amCoulters statement is silly. While McCain may be lean left on many issues , he is still much more conservative than Hillary.
Dennis D (aacd7f) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:35 amAll citizens will be required to change their underwear every half hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check.
President McCain — January 20, 2009
tired (6ae407) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:38 amNow I’m Geekier, where did I imply that only republicans could be guilty of killing? Thank you for illustrating a perfect non-sequitur.
Psyberian (d18acc) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:45 amAnn Coulter on H&C made the point that John McCain makes more untrue statements than Mrs. Clinton. That is hard to do. The Clintons are chronic liars. Coulter said that while the Clinton tell knowing lies, McCain simply can not remember what he said. As in point, he denied not knowwing economics when admits as much to the Wall Street Journal. Further, it now appears that remark about Sam Alito is true, even if McCain appears to have forgotten it.
McCain appears to be having trouble with his memory and he has always had trouble with his temper. The thought of either Mrs. Clinton or McCain in the White House with their finger on the nuclear button ought to give any sane person pause.
DavidL (8a783f) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:46 amIf McCain is so Conservative why then has the NY Times endorsed him?
I simply cannot vote for any of the current members of the worst Congress in the history of the United States, voting for any of the three will be more Establishment misery; more bashing of troops, more anti-American hatred, more accusations of torture-gulags-nazism, more caps and regulations, more snobbery about how Americans are lazy bigots and nativists, more rebates for people who never paid into the system, more Go Green speak, more taxation, more ‘freebie’ speak, more brie and pate for the queens of the hill, simply more misery from the Establishment.
Romney is not my first choice or my second however he isn’t a cureent member of the worst COngress in the history of the United States so until I have no choice I will support the anti-Establishment candidate.
I don’t have it in me to vote for more of the same misery produced by the worst Congress in the history of the United States.
syn (95c574) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:48 amIf McCain is so Conservative why then has the NY Times endorsed him?
Well, duh! The NYT is liberal and believes McCain is divisive in his own party and can be beat by a young Obamama.
tired (6ae407) — 2/1/2008 @ 5:50 amComment by Eric Blair — 1/31/2008 @ 10:42 pm
Now that is one scary video by Hillary. She spends so much time talking about “a broader experience of American life” being a big requirement for the Supreme Court, and implying that conservative judges have “a very narrow life experience” that it seems legal training and experience is kind of an afterthought for her.
What really matters is their view on “privacy” (aka killing unborn children) and feminism and all the other liberal views. Right?
OK, just for fun, pop quiz: who do you think had a “broader experience of American life” over his or her lifetime:
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 2/1/2008 @ 6:16 ama. Clarence Thomas
b. Hillary Clinton
Yeah. I, uh (pun semi-intended) rest my case.
Voting for McAmnesty will destroy the Reagan coalition. Can you imagine the NYT endorsing Reagan? Can you imagine Reagan-Feingold, aka (censorship of political speech)? Can you imagine Reagan voting against tax cuts (twice, and vowing to vote against it later in an interview, and then under pressure claiming he wants to extend)? Can you imagine Reagan imposing caps and 50 cent tax on gasoline? Can you imagine Reagan giving enemy combatants constitutional rights? Can you imagine Reagan repeating his mistake re amnesty to illegals?
Vote for your friend, the right-wing, conservative, free-market, stronger-America newspaper of record (and lies) the New York Times and its liberal candidate the good (hehe) senator from Arizona, Sen. McKennedy, aka McFeingold, aka McACLU, aka McLieberman_Edwards!
Pete (a4614a) — 2/1/2008 @ 6:30 amthis is bushs folly. period.
norm (4d1f3b) — 2/1/2008 @ 7:06 amVoting for McCain in the primary sends the signal that the Republicans no longer care about their platform.
Voting for Hillary in the general election shows that you have lost your minds. While a non-vote for McCain essentially gives a vote to Hillary, at least it’s not direct support. It’s passive support, sure. And sure as sunrise in Scranton, we’re doomed to the American version of the War of the Roses, except this time they’re Blue and Red. Hillary’s election will ensure the corrosive split in American polity will deepen and fester.
However, what I think will actually happen is that (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) Ron Paul will get much more support from conservatives who despair for their party. (But these conservatives will have lost their minds if they consider voting for a third party candidate, which will actively hand the election to Shrillary, in the same way Perot handed the election to Willard, a President who never achieved more than reaching his party’s base.)
The Republican party has largely been about certain central themes and party loyalty: vote for whom you want in the primary, but vote for the (R) in November.
McCain will sorely test both of these.
Reagan wasn’t as conservative as people make him out to be. Remember who signed California’s liberal abortion law? Remember who authorized payroll withholding of taxes? Remember TEFRA?
But Ronnie did come from the conservative wing, did hold largely conservative values, and did come across as sharing and sympathizing with conservative values and voters. While he was not a perfect conservative, he appeared to really be conservative and even like conservatives.
Unfortunately, McCain comes across as irritated by the conservative base and deaf to the major issues of the conservatives. His attempts to force shamnesty down the throats of the American people (and even more forcefully down the throats of the conservative Republicans) reminded conservatives again that McCain seems not to understand, let alone share, conservative values.
It will be a conundrum in November. Pull the lever for Shrillary, or abstain and let Shrillary happen?
McCain has to find a way to win back the conservative base. They probably won’t vote for Shrillary, and if they’re intelligent they won’t vote for a third-party candidate, but he’s not giving them many reasons to vote for John McCain.
steve miller (f4b7d8) — 2/1/2008 @ 7:32 amHowever, see John Hawkins on Voting for McCain in November. He argues that conservative might do well to think twice before not voting for McCain.
steve miller (f4b7d8) — 2/1/2008 @ 7:45 amIf you really think John Mcpain will have us killing Iranians, maybe I wont have to hold my nose when I vote for him.
Bar Sinister (eb65fa) — 2/1/2008 @ 7:50 amWhy should we care what Coulter thinks?
Is it just me or is she nothing more than just a grandstanding hot-head attention seeker?
IOM the republicans will vote for McCain once the party and Fox News says it’s ok
YourDecision2008 (adec08) — 2/1/2008 @ 8:26 amOkay, so Hillary’s pres (I can’t believe I just typed that) and gets to nominate a Supreme Court judge, who’s going to retire during her term?
Veeshir (dfa2bf) — 2/1/2008 @ 8:47 amHow serious is it if Hillary replaces Ginsberg. Will the replacement be even more lefty?
Kennedy is the only one that might really matter.
The only reason Stevens has not retired is because he is holding out for a democrat president. But since the appt would only replace a liberal and you can’t get more liberal than Stevens, it’s a wash.
tired (6ae407) — 2/1/2008 @ 8:54 amCankles Vs. McCain
* . Write in Fred (56%, 5 Votes)
Greg (2a1505) — 2/1/2008 @ 10:34 am* . Vote McCain (22%, 2 Votes)
* . Stay Home (22%, 2 Votes)
* . Vote Hillary (0%, 0 Votes)
poll at http://www.thesitrep.compoll
We would be guaranteed 8 years without a conservative in the White House if McCain is elected since 2012 would be McCain vs a Democrat. We could possibly have a conservative president in 4 years if Hillary is elected.
j curtis (133b4a) — 2/1/2008 @ 12:45 pmThere’s a rumor that McCain will pick Huckabeen as veep (as a reward for Huck staying in the race and siphoning off Romney votes).
Considering McCain’s age and how incumbent Veeps do well when running for president I think I would have to vote for Obamillary over a McCain/Huckabee ticket!
Arthur (1fabcd) — 2/1/2008 @ 1:30 pmYou guys are making me smile. GOP circular firing squad FTL!
Ida (7136b2) — 2/1/2008 @ 1:31 pm#40 – If I could digg your post I would! A very good post for those endorsing party loyalty over principles!
chas (fb7ad4) — 2/1/2008 @ 3:45 pmAnn is an attention whore. No more, no less. If you notice on all her TV appearances to pimp this vote/campaign for Hillary, one of her “books” is flashed across the screen first. I’m certain that was a condition of he appearance. help me sell books and I’ll say something outrageous to get you viewers. bah!
BillT (3069e0) — 2/2/2008 @ 3:31 pmConservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what’s really at stake here. This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals.
How is handing the whole country over to far left liberals a suitable alternative to McCain? What principal is that?
There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure-bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values permanently.
Today’s liberal is not like the Bill Clinton’s Presidency. It’s moved radically left… Clinton is now considered a moderated, and loosing it’s power because it’s not radically liberal enough.
The Democratic candidate that is surging now, Obama, is bottom of the barrel liberal. He is about to take power, unless conservatives stop fighting and get serious.
This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left.
Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they will allow our country spiral out of control.
There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of radical liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues?
Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck…. But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government. Our kids deserve better out of us.
I’m not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here that requires that we do everything we can to minimize the damage this election can cause to our society.
I’d rather have 50% of McCains ear, than 0% of a liberals ear.
Give it some thought, friends.
Danny Vice
Danny Vice (3a5f16) — 2/10/2008 @ 6:39 pmhttp://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
http://thalunatic.blogspot.com
The Democrats are drooling at the thought of McCain being the nominee.. He’s NOT electible. The media has forced this loser of a candidate on us Republicans. ugh!! Watch him talk about walking around in Iraq:
ted (680aac) — 2/17/2008 @ 6:13 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E
The Democrats are going to freaking obliterate him and his Keating 5 past.