Redstate

Remember how we elected Ahnold to change Caleefornia, but he became closer to libs than us. Shows how much we know.

I believe McCain moves right in the white house.

By the way, everyone here and in other places assumes hillary's the nominee. I've been saying since 04 that Obama was it. They didn't troll him out there at the Dem convention for nothing. And check out the NBC video of that where Russert gleefully sings "this guy could be president!!!" Its been staged 4 years in the making.

That should have been our concern all along, not Billary.

A-freaking-men!

It'll be a great day when she's as big of an outcast as Pat Buchannan. Because she's an even bigger idiot.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

She occasionally makes sense, but in general she's only trying to get attention. If I could make it to CPAC, I'd walk out on her speech (she should not be invited in the first place).

and sell them. She is just like Malkin and Ingraham, who almost relish a Hillary! White House, so that they can have motivation for a new set of book contracts.

I also am starting to get the feeling that Limbaugh wants to resurrect the Clintons so that he can feel motivated to go on the air again.

But I do find it weird in one regard. Many on this site seemed less than upset with the 2006 results, because they advocated sitting out in 2006 to "send a message". Well, now some are back saying the same thing, whil some are urging party loyalty to prevent The Pantsuit from winning.

Which is it?

Anyone who "sent a message" in '06 or sent a message by voting for Fred Thompson after SC (yes all 22,286 of you in Florida) has little room to criticize Ann Coulter. She has just as much (nearly as much?) right/reason to want to send a message to the Republican party that she will not tolerate what the party is doing.

If you want to make the argument that the country would be worse off under Hillary, then fine. I can respect that argument.

If you want to make the argument that you'd rather purge the party of its anti-conservatives (like Jumpin' Jim Jeffords. He's the perfect argument why we as a party should not channel money to those who won't toe the party line), then fine. I can respect that.

But if you want to make the argument that Hillary will be some kind of nuclear holocaust to this country and that no amount of party cleansing could possibly be worth it, then you have no perspective on history. We survived Clinton I.

I'm willing to go either way on it. I'm waiting to see how McCain might court conservatives in the general. If he tells us to get lost, I'm sitting at home.

In summary: I don't care which side you pick, unless you were one of those "message senders". If you were one of them, Ann is doing the exact same thing so you have no room to criticize.

Oh, and eb1, I disagree with your assessment of Anne. I think she is a fantastic woman and I would love to bear her children.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

with her personally. It's just that her desire for attention makes her somebody I have trouble taking at face value.

I always wonder if people such as her, Malkin and Ingraham are combining heart felt beliefs with a schtick to get their names out there for publicity.

her book on impeachment, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," was a fantastic book, but then again she wasn't in her full-throttle demagougery mode then, either.

Saying that Coulter is a silly self aggrandizing witch.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

conservative. McCain is not and when he has the power of the Prsidency, he's not going to suddenly become a friend to conservatives. He will stop waterboarding, close Guantanamo, pass an amnesty bill and worst of all pass McCain Lieberman and our party will get stuck with owning these disastrous bills.

*I will never surrender to John McCain*

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

neither is McCain. A McCain presidency has the potential to be worse than Hillary or Obama because he can reach across the aisle and get things done - horrible, horrible, things.

*I will never surrender to John McCain*

He made deals wherever he could. Sure he vetoed some things. And frequently the vetoes were overridden, because Mitt accomplished nothing insofar as rebuilding the MA GOP.

Romney made deals with a hostile SUPRAMAJORITY because he HAD to.

McCain made deals with the hostile MINORITY against his own party because he WANTS to.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Sorry, but even if McCain is willing to "reach across the aisle," so will HRC. It's not like her husband didn't reach across the aisle to get things done (remember welfare reform?). After '94 there wasn't anywhere else to reach if Clinton I wanted to get anything accomplished (skip the Monica jokes).

Every new presidency has the "potential" to be disastrous. Coulter's argument that Clinton is more conservative than McCain is an incredibly stupid thing to say -- we have to take her at her word, after all she's a serious (gag) commentator and how many times did she say she was serious?

There's no point in letting dislike for McCain become a substitute for rational thought.

... signing of it after vetoing it two times and realizing that he was losing his re-election bid if he didn't sign it when it came to his desk the third time.

The credit for Welfare Reform belongs entirely to the GOP class of 1994.

Romney/Pace 2008

I don't blame you for not liking Clinton, and you can criticize his motives all you want (although similar calculations are common in politics at all levels and across the political spectrum), but if he hadn't signed it it wouldn't have become law.

You can argue that he wouldn't have won re-election, but you don't actually know that (and neither does anyone else), because voters are remarkably fickle and categorical statements about what would have been are a waste of time.

There is a notable tendency among some in this neck of the woods to award credit as follows:

1) Republican president/Democratic Congress
The president is responsible for all the good things; the Congress is responsible for all the bad things.

2) Democratic president/Republican Congress
The president is responsible for all the bad things; the Congress for all the good things.

3) Republican president/Republican Congress
Republicans are responsible for all the good things; Bill Clinton is responsible for all the bad things.

Sorry, but the world is a little more complicated than that, and I'm never going to buy into such silliness.

You're entitled to your personal brand of ideological purity, but I find it unhelpful and boring.

Note: Yes, I used the grammatically correct "Democratic," since it's always seemed rather childish to me to sacrifice language on the altar of political correctness just to show contempt for political opponents.

I do have a problem with people saying that Clinton had any responsibility for the legislation and its passage. In fact, he opposed it, attacked it and vetoed it twice.

But now, because it has been proven to be successful, the New York Times for example, which denounced it, questioned the humanity of the Gingrich-led Congress, attacked Clinton for being scared into signing it, now calls it Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform.

When people call the Civil Rights Acts, LBJ's Civil Rights Acts, I have no problem with it because LBJ fought for it, negotiated, cajoled, pushed, threatened until he got the bill on his desk. If he had done what Clinton did vis-a-vis Welfare Reform I'd be just as irked to see the Civil Rights Acts referred to as LBJ's work.

Romney/Pace 2008

and I want waterboarding stopped (it already has been though, in case you missed that) and Guantanamo shut down.

Who says you get to decide what "Conservative" means?

how John McCain is a conservative. There are multiple people who have already made the case that he isn't. If you can make the case that he is then you might just be the first.

*I will never surrender to John McCain*

your "list" of conservative values, but you are not willing to grant me mine.

You see, that is exactly what has gone wrong with the Republican party over the last several years.

Why is torture a Republican or even Conservative value? Do you know how silly that sounds?

Something that you consider highly important may not be on my list at all. No one person, not Rush, not Hannity, not Coulter gets to decide what "Conservative" means.

All of you whiners who want to take your ball and go home if the game is not played exactly to your specs.. just go.

...at the very conservative and very well-attended debating society of the University of Chicago Law School, the "Torture Terrorists" resolution (which basically meant "waterboard 'em") was voted down by a surprisingly large margin.

Which is my way of saying that opposing torture is not a "liberal" or "Democratic" issue. It's one thing to wince and look the other way in a 'ticking time bomb' situation, it's another thing entirely to formally institutionalize torture and abuse, even if it's directed against the worst people in the world.

You're not alone.

But it's hard to debate people who strap explosives to mentally retarded people and send them into oblivion. This squeamishness on waterboarding is a weakness that has to be stamped out or we are doomed. I'm tired of innocents being slaughtered while we debate whether we are being too mean.

What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi

Where exactly is your list? Where are you touting McCain's conservative credentials? I don't see it.

*I will never surrender to John McCain*

so that we can eschew waterboarding?

You want waterboarding stopped? So do I? And, I doubt the men in CIA who did waterboard did it because they took pleasure in it. (If you're implying that they did, I don't think you're much of an adult).

But, are you willing to risk NOT stopping a terrorist attack, in order to give up waterboarding? If so, say so. Place yourself on record.

And, please don't tell me that we have other techniques available to us. NO ONE is saying that we should waterboard if we have other, less offensive interrogation techniques available to us.

The real question comes when our interrogators determine that waterboarding is the only option left. I.e., the choice is to waterboard, OR to not waterboard and suffer whatever consequences arrive from not getting the information.

In that case, what do you choose? To spare the terrorist a brief period of great discomfort, or to risk the life of the Girl Scout selling cookies in the mall.

That's the choice. Don't insult us by pretending it's anything else.

Time to step up. Where do you stand?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Dead girl scouts? You've got to be kidding, right?

Who will you torture to save your mythical girl scout? Shall we just round up the usual suspects? Maybe do a sweep on all the rag-heads huh?

As for going on the record, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I categorically denounce torture as a means to an end. We Americans are better than that. Once you start down that slippery slope you become no better than those you despise.

And as for Guantanamo.. If we have people there in custody who have broken US laws, then they need to be tried and punished. Do you really think they have any useful intelligence after being incarcerated for 5 years? We are a nation of laws, not a nation that condones government run gulags.

Hi there. If I ever catch you making an explicit comparison of the United States to Stalinist Russia again you will be removed from this website until we're in receipt of a 1,500 word essay from you, subject: the Soviet Gulag system. Do we understand each other, or do I need to use smaller words?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

is an extreme term..

So give me a term to describe what's being done down at Guantanamo.. Concentration camp? No.. that has some negative connotations associated with it..

Long-term detention facility?

Whatever you call it, it stinks in my book. Kick me off the site if you like. If that's what conservatism has become.. if we cannot have a dialog about what is acceptable to each of us and what is not, then we are dead as a party and a movement.

IMHO, our facility in Guantanamo makes us look like a third rate dictatorship in the eyes of the world. A world that we are at the same time trying to convince that we have moral righteousness on our side enough to spread freedom throughout the world. It makes us look pathetic, in my opinion.

If we have no standards.. if we follow no rules.. how can we lead the world?

scooped up on a battlefield. Under the "rules" of war they are called spies -- and by rights, the US could have simply shot them as such.

Instead, we have humanely fed and housed them -- in better housing conditions than most of them have ever known -- and provided for the physical and spiritual needs.

kwitcherbitchin

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

Please provide me with links as to these "rules".. and please provide me with links stating we are at war with all of the states whose residents we are housing in Guantanamo.

Thanks.. awaiting your reply..

It's yours, after all. 1,500 words. Write it up, send it in and we'll think about turning your account back on.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Apparently being a conservative is an all or nothing proposition. Disagree on any issue that every self-described "conservative" considers the conservative position and kaboom, you're no conservative. By that standard conservatives in this country are in danger of extinction.

McCain may not be your ideal conservative, but he is definitely conservative and a conservative.

for providing some sense to this. Most of the people here seem to forget that there are very few people who agree on every single issue. Many Republicans do not see the most conservative position to always be the right one on every issue. The Republican Party itself is not a perfectly conservative entity, otherwise there wouldn't be enough support for it to exist as a major party. That's the whole point of being a big tent party. Social conservatives don't always share the same views on economic and foreign policy as economic conservations and foreign policy hawks. The same is true for all of those groups.

The truth is that McCain is still conservative on the vast majority of issues, and is not far removed from the party line. No, he's not the "perfect conservative," and neither is Romney, but the American people don't want a "perfect conservative" either.

They'll point to his lifetime ACU rating and ignore the fact that the last seven years of his career have signifcantly pulled it down. We've done this before and it goes nowhere.

"Uncompromising" Conservative = Opposite of Ronald Reagan.

So yes, I agree, she's a joke who's not really conservative.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

That they would rather have a Clinton presidency than candidate x.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Conservatives aren't just a herd of cattle that will vote straight Republican without fail no matter how much that supposedly Republican candidate likes to trash us to the liberal MSM.

If McCain really wanted our votes, he wouldn't be doing things like shilling for the global warming hoax on Leno.

and if it is one between conservatives and non-conservatives, why was there only one conservative in this years Republican field, and why did it take him so long to enter the race and then to even act like he wanted to win? By your reasoning, rainbow, the conservatives have already lost.

McCain has admitted that he might be wrong about anthrogenic global warming, saying at the debate at Ronald Reagan's library that even if he's wrong about this matter, we will get great, new tech out of it.

Conservatives can and will win this battle, but only if we contribute to the effort, not if we hold our collective breath and stamp our feet.

Why not elect a conservative Congress to help McCain stay on the right track?

Calling a rose by another name does not mean it ceases being a rose. You can argue you character assassination tactic against Romney, but that in the end does not make him any less a conservative. He is the only Conservative left running; he gained that honorary by beating out Fred. Now, we can be fickle, which is your approach, or we can be real about the situation and decide if we want a conservative Republican Party or a moderate Republican Party. That is exactly the import of our decision this election cycle.

Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.

-White Goodman

McCain has admitted that he might be wrong about anthrogenic global warming, saying at the debate at Ronald Reagan's library that even if he's wrong about this matter, we will get great, new tech out of it.

How exactly does this differ from Romney saying that he will invest $20 billion in research (which does not mean dumping it into the R & D coffers of the Big Three) into fuel technology, materials science, etc. to not only push the American auto industry ahead of the competition but also to reduce the impact on the environment?

I know Romney said it so it may be that it inherently makes it somehow "worse."

But I still don't see it.

Romney/Pace 2008

I like the childish insistence that only there was only one conservative in this race.

I'm waiting until things calm down here a bit to write a blog entry titled "Forget the presidency, let's win the House and Senate". (Though if someone else were to write one with the same idea, I'd happily recommend it instead.)

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Hmm. Name calling. How mature.

Well, instead of trying to shout them down like a Hollywood liberal, maybe you'd be better served by asking yourself how many of them there are, and how likely it is that saying things like that will change their minds.

Then ask yourself how likely your guy is to win without that many of what was the bedrock of Bush supporters, and who even then only barely got him over the line both times. After that, you can ask how likely it is that you'll make up the difference among people who after all, voted for John Kerry last time.

There's still time to draw back from the abyss. And calling names that anger an already disenchanted half of your own party will not help you when you go into the general with only half of your own half of the public.

For someone to whom the only thing that matters is winning, I'd have thought you'd at least be a little better at crunching the numbers. And the more you call enemies, the more numbers you lose.

------------------------

"Put your faith in God. I know *I'm* going to..."

-Taniwha

This has nothing to do with their being traitors. They may not be thinking clearly, but most will probably reconsider before the election, swallow hard, and choose ultra-liberal John McCain over genuine conservative Hillary Clinton. Then, they'll return here to BlueState, sit back and relax, and watch McCain turn the US into the USSA (United Socialist States of America). Cool.

...looking for a job, I find Ted Olson's endorsement to be very noteworthy.

Alan Colmes was the one who said that people who are suddenly endorsing McCain are all "ho's looking for a job." Ann didn't say it, although it does sound like something she might say.

*I will never surrender to John McCain*

is more apparent than real. He will nominate people whom his pal Arlen is comfortable with, so we get a Souter or at best a Kennedy instead of a Ginsburg, Granted it is a little better, but only a little.
Of course there is no telling if he even gets a chance, true there are a lot of old guys on the bench, but they have a knack for hanging on.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Hmm, let's see, what Judge is Specter most associated with?

Clarance Thomas.

I can live with that.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

he makes lots of noise about nominees that sounds liberal, but he always supports the scotus nominees from republican presidents

and the noise he makes can be very useful for calming the democrats by making them feel that their concerns are being heard and understood

i say we keep him around

a Party follower rather than believe in and pursue a conservative philosophy.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

She can sell more books insulting President Clinton than President McCain.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Hitting Democrats attracts a great many Republicans. McCain is too popular among Republicans for that to work as well. Especially when you factor in the War Hero angle.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Has made no effort to pull any punches against anyone if she thinks it will make a headline.

McCain still has to make nice with people like her if he wishes to win.

"When someone preaches disunity, tries to pit us against each other through class warfare, race hatred or religious intolerance, that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives. And, we know what to do about it..."

Nail meet hammer.

I think you're spot on there.
The only thing that AC has EVER truly cared about is her bank account.

This is just another turn at the trough before her irrelevancy becomes common knowledge.

But you have to ask yourself, how we as conservatives, could not produce, in 8 yres, a better candidate than John McCain? We rejected Romney because he flipped flopped, like none of us never changed our minds on anything in our lives; Rudy ran the most bizaar campaign known to man; Fred Thompson never engineered enough excitement for himself, never mind the electorate; and I don't even want to ventur a thought about Huckabee. So now we're left with an unquestionably brave but very old John McCain, whose done nothing but create angst for conservatives for the past seven years, but now everyone needs to forget that stuff because only John can save us from Hillary. To think we knew for eight years this was lying in the weeds waiting to happen, and effectively sat back and let it happen is nothing short complete unadulterated capitulation.

It's 30 years of bigger government regardless of whether the R or the D wins the general.

McCain's nefound enthusiasm for tax cuts will evaporate more quickly than a mid-afternoon drizzle in the Sahara after he is elected.

The only thing McCain is right on is the GWoT. He can do that as Sec Def, Sec State, or yes, even as one of two Senators from Arizona.

And no, I'm not a fan of Romney's either, but IF I'm choosing the lesser of two evils, he is it.

I don't understand how a guy who supported Rudy, a true social liberal, can then turn around and support Mitt because he thinks McCain is too liberal. Plus, doesn't Rudy support McCain now?

.

think about the motivation you just ascribed to them...if McCain wins, and then governs true to form, they get at least four years of "see, I told you so"...your dismissal of any possibility of principled (albeit ridiculous, in Ann's case) motivation is way overblown...

"Life IS pain, Highness...anyone who says different is selling something..."

If McCain does win they will take this approach. They'll have no other choice but to use the "I told you so" line.

But I don't see how anyone can argue that they want McCain to win. And this does not require speculation. This is what they are telling us.

I think Rush et al's priciples are to fight for conservative causes and issues and if that doesn't work then their ego kicks in and it becomes more about their own reputations then anything else.

you argued that their motivation for taking that stance was to sell more books and preserve their reputations as influence peddlers (my term, not yours)...I'm saying that they ARE opposing McCain on principle (though I don't agree with voting for Hillary) and that their income potential and credibility only rise when he gets in office and perpetuates the positions that have alienated conservatives...

I agree about their position...I take issue with your cynical interpretation...you can disagree with their position without denouncing them as unprincipled egomaniacs...

"Life IS pain, Highness...anyone who says different is selling something..."

They are not opposing McCain on principle.

Because if McCain loses that means the Dems control everything, will tilt the court left for another generation, will pass universal health care etc...etc...etc...

I simply cannot believe that they oppose McCain on principle when so much they despise will come to pass if he loses.

And I don't buy that McCain is so close to Hillary or Obama that it doesn't make a difference who wins. Given their voting records across the board that argument just does not wash. There is a definitive and substantial difference between McCain and the two Dems. Its just that on a number of hot button issues he is just not conservative. And it is the smoke of those issues that has clouded conservatives long term vision and are leading them into the wilderness for this election.

Therefore, I am left to conclude that Rush et al. are being so hostile to McCain to protect their own interests in being influential pundits that can shape public opinion. And I also believe they are protecting themselves from being laughed at by the MSM and accused of being clowns people tune into for entertainment value. Their egos simply cannot handle that.

As far as I know, Ann is the only one making the outrageous statement that she will vote for Hillary...Rush has said he MAY not vote in the general...and he has said for some time that he is through with "carrying the water" for a Republican party that has abandoned true conservatism...I think he is being true to his declaration, which was born out of frustration that supporting GHWB/Dole/GWB did NOT produce a rightward drift in the party, but rather resulted in the opposite...

think what you will, but there are those of us who are (finally) questioning just how much principle we should feed the GOP beast on the promise that they will embrace Reaganesque conservatism "someday"...

"Life IS pain, Highness...anyone who says different is selling something..."

Coulter et al simply cannot stomach having to face those lines of attack that the MSM will pound them with.

Whereas the rest of us can cheer wildly that conservatives are marginal in their own party.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

After Reagan:

Bush Sr.
Dole
Bush Jr.
McCain

A majority of Congress for 6 years under a GOP president and no conservative movement. In fact, they acted like liberals on many issues - and were as corrupt as we ascribe to liberals.

Face it. We are marginal in our party and have been since Reagan. Nothing will change on election day. We won't be less marginal if McCain wins or loses.

Perhaps, if conservatives really do sit out en masse, McCain loses, and the polls show it was stay at home consevatives that cost him the race - that that will be proof that we can NO LONGER be marginalized.

Perhaps. But the more time goes by the more skeptical I get that voters and politicians who call themselves conservative really are.

I agree with you Werewolf.

If you go back to Reagan's time, conservatives were even marginal then. Reagan embraced the conservative agenda, but did not have a majority in Congress to really be effective.

Newt et. al., in '94, rode in to power on a wave of fear from the electorate after two years of Clinton. But even though conservatives held major positions, their ability to move anything forward depended, not on the majority of Congress, but the emotions of the electorate to influence Congress to grudgingly pass conservative legislation.

The electorate is fickle. It rides on the emotions of the time. The MSM plays it like a fiddle. The MSM was caught flat footed in 1994. It learned from that election and has been aggressively on the attack ever since.

Just like kids who don't listen to their parents until they get themselves in trouble, the electorate does not listen to conservatives until it gets itself into trouble.

You forgot Thomas Sowell and Mark Levin. Sowell is a giant. He's not doing this for any other reason than conservative conscience.

Ann's column suggests that President McCain would raise taxes. She concludes that his original opposition to the Bush tax cuts makes him pro-Taxes.

Using equally specious argument, I can conclude that Ann voting for Hillary indicates that she is pro-Abortion.

Furthermore, as it is apparent that she is using the narrow to determine the broad, I must therefore conclude that, being pro-abortion, she is a liberal and Democrat.

Further to that and still using her methodology for McCain, I must conclude that she has been lying all along about being a conservative Republican.

So by her evidentiary standards, Ann Coulter is a lying, pro-abortion, liberal democrat.

Stand to reason? Well neither does her position regarding Hillary. It's fine though, I don't believe for one second that she'd vote for, much less campaign for, Hillary Clinton. She is doing her thing. Reductio ad absurdum. That is Ann for better or for worse.

She is still hilarious and I still like her. But like George Will a few weeks ago, and Senator McCain many times, Ann is merely wrong. She's fallible like the rest of us.

absentee

I like Ann. But, this strikes me as pure publicity. This is shock-jock-schlock. I now ask if she has a new book coming out (didn't she just have one?) or some other venture she is trying to stump for.
Which is all well and good for her, but this is one of those moments where you have to stop and think and ask yourself, is this the best thing to say at this point in time?
R.J.

With Libs and wonks the only people endorsing McCain and a fawning MSM you think he moves RIGHT in the White House????

You must live inside the beltway where logic is irrelevant and perception is reality.

Man, I sure wish it was that easy for me to predict the future with 100% certainty. If you have any information about the NYSE or this year's Triple Crown races that you're willing to share, please let me know.

Then again, maybe you should consider the Democrats' uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

"and a possible electoral realignment in favor of socialists."

Now, you've convinced me. It is futile to vote against Obama -- obviously he's superhuman. In a country pretty evenly split between left and right he's going to engineer an electoral realignment making us a country of Stepford socialists.

Amazing. I may have to vote for him (not that my vote will matter since he's going to get 99.9% of the vote anyway) just to watch the show.

1.) RiNO is a bad word around here. Not because we don't recognize the type, but because the use of cheap labels and name-calling is the first sign of that the user has ceased to critically think. Who was it who wrote that "cliches are the sentries of ignorance?" Well, what he said.

2.) How on earth would Coulter necessarily "dwarf" anyone? Her legal credentials are adequate, I suppose, but since when does the ability to vomit up slopbuckets of verbal excresence like some right-wing Mr. Creosote mark someone as a "thinker?" She's a gifted, albeit wildly overrated, polemicist. Not a thinker. She shoots for controversy, not for consistency.

Coulter crystallizes the conservative viewpoint better than anyone on this site and way better than McCain. People point to statements that they think are outrageous but if you read her columns and books her logic is devastating and her points are backed up with facts and research.

Ann is a provocateur, she sometimes says things that sound controversial to make a point. Unfortunately we have too many people on the right who just want to be liked. Ann has correctly concluded that no conservative or Republican will ever be accepted by the MSM and the elites. So she says what she thinks and whether we agree or not I give her credit for being willing to say what she thinks and take the heat for it.

And sorry, anyone who supports McCain is a RINO. He meets the definition of that term better than anyone.

And sorry, anyone who supports McCain is a RINO. He meets the definition of that term better than anyone.

Horsefeathers, and you know it. Let's take this preposterous two-pronged accusation in reverse:

FIRST: If JOHN FREAKING MCCAIN meets the definition of RINO "better than anyone," then you were either born into this life 10 days ago or are, as I suspected, merely deploying the "RiNO" cliche as a sentry for your deeper ignorance. Linc Chaffee? He was definitely a RiNO. Jeffords, pre-switch? Textbook. Specter, Snowe, and Collins? You've got really good arguments on these ones, although it utterly ignores the fact that "Republican" =/= "social conservative," either now or in the past.

But John McCain? How on earth could someone with an overall fantastic record on abortion, gay marriage, social policy, war, foreign policy, fiscal policy, taxes, and judges conceivably be a RiNO? Does CFR alone undo all this? Support for immigration reform (in which case Bush is a RiNO too?) Voting against two ill-advised tax cuts in a 28 year legislative history? Criticizing Rumsfeld? Give me a break. If you wanted to make a more just accusation against McCain, you could say that he has "maverick" tendencies and doesn't always agree 100% with us, the base. But for chrissakes, calling McCain a RiNO just suggests that you're tossing around buzzwords without actually thinking too hard about them.

SECOND: For the sake of argument, let us grant the (highly dubious) proposition that McCain is a RiNO. It still doesn't follow that anyone who supports him is a RiNO. Perhaps a solid GOP conservative could think McCain a RiNO and support him nevertheless because he's so overwhelmingly right on the two most important issues of our generation: the war and fiscal conservatism.

Perhaps someone could even disagree with the importance of those two issues and still think he's a damn sight better than letting either of the two very liberal and very strong-willed Democratic candidates take office with a Democratic Congress behind them. The hateful legislation would start rolling off the conveyor belt at lethal speed, and you can't unring those sorts of bells.

Spare me the tosh about how "McCain loves to reach out to the Dems so much that there wouldn't be any difference!" You're being dishonest with everyone (yourself included) if you really think there would be no difference. For one (very important) thing to start, Johnny Mac would fight pork and earmark-laden bills in a way that no Dem would.

THIRD: Coulter is a provocateur, but the analysis stops there. I see no purpose or point which is served by calling Muslims "ragheads." If you can't distinguish between hating radical extremists and using disgusting racial slurs - or if you're the sort of fool who thinks that ANY rhetorical purpose could ever be furthered by a conservative making a racial slur - then we are living on different planets.

Sorry, this has been a very long post.

It is a known fact that McCain avoid voting on social issues, he mouths the words because his constituency in Arizona demands it but what has he really done to advance the cause of social conservatives. When he refers to evangelical leaders as "agents of intolerance" I guess I am not seeing how he is a social con.

As far as his record on fiscal matters, he has been there through all of the spending sprees in the last several years. Wha