Friday, February 08, 2008

The tantrum

Dinesh D'Souza says what I think are some very truthful words about those throwing a tantrum over the probable nomination of John McCain:

Now that John McCain seems assured of being the Republican nominee for president, will I join Ann Coulter in campaigning for Hillary Clinton? Only if I've completely lost my marbles, as Coulter seems to have in this case.

Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes. She wants the government to take over one-sixth of the economy in the form of the health care sector. She wants to retreat in Iraq. She wants abortion on demand, however "safe" and "rare.' She wants more social liberals of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg stripe on the Supreme Court. She loathes conservatives who represent to her a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

I am no more thrilled about McCain's nomination than Coulter or Rush Limbaugh happen to be. I fully understand how it feels to work and vote for the conservative movement for years and then be presented with John McCain. We should be reminded, however, that when we say that at least McCain is not Hillary Clinton, there are still great differences between the two.

As D'Souza pointed out, Rudy Giuliani got far better treatment from Rush Limbaugh, and unlike McCain, Rudy is a dyed-in-the-wool social (and sometimes fiscal) liberal. If Rush and Ann had been on top of Rudy as fast as they were all over John McCain when he became a real threat, Giuliani would have been out before Iowa.



At Saturday, February 09, 2008 3:00:00 AM, Blogger Sharon Cobb said...

Well gee, when you put it like that, Hillary doesn't look so bad to me.

At Saturday, February 09, 2008 12:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Rudy support was all based on 911 hysteria and hero worship. Rudy was a media darling nad by the time people started to see thru that the Rightwing Media Elite was too far invested in him to back off without looking WRONG. Coulter, Hannity, Rush, et. al., are never wrong - you should know that.
The truth of the matter is that ALL of the Republican candidates this time around were/are very flawed, by either conservative (social or financial) or Liberal standards.
They are/wre what you got. Who da'ya got?


At Saturday, February 09, 2008 12:45:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

You need to think of some new one-liners my friend. Your current crop are rather tired/

At Saturday, February 09, 2008 1:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then answer the question.

You're stuck with McCain. There it is - that's who you got. Like it or not, right or wrong, he's who you got.

Will he triumph over the liberal hordes? The American people fed up with W and seven, going on eight, years of buffoonish incompetence?

Your party, your party's rules, your patry's primaries, your party's syncopathic radio spin monkeys, your party's social leaders/gurus so on and so forth and the logical conclusion of the Conservative Movement is McCain???
He's all you got.



At Saturday, February 09, 2008 2:42:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You also have to consider the dark side of Reagan's 11th Commandment. Consider, well, actually you're living it, that no one, up until recently, really examined the GOP candidates in time for an alternate(s) to be found.
Everyone was so enthralled with Rudy for so long that, well, you know what happpend. Tancredo was a one trick pony (immigration) nut case. Hunter was ... what was Hunter? I've forgotten, oh well it/he wasn't important. Paul was an idiot from the start and everyone but his supporters knew that. Fred finally showed up then went home. Huckabee has Jesus and visions of VP. Romney had whatever position was prudent and the ingrating grace of Eddie Haskell. So ... basically, nut cases, flip-floppers, forked-tounge straight talker's and ... the GOP just shot itself in the foot ... to great cheering and applause.



Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map