Coulter on McCain ...

ViRedd · #1 02-09-2008, 05:10 PM

FROM GOLDWATER GIRL TO HILLARY GIRL
by Ann Coulter
February 6, 2008

Nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party.

Republicans are so shell-shocked and demoralized by the success of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, they think they can fool the voters by nominating an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation "Republican." Which is to say, a Democrat.

As the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, voters will always choose the Democrat. The only question remaining is: Hillary or Obama?

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Can I take a breath now?

-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.

Although McCain has the minimum pro-life record demanded by the voters of Arizona, in 2006, McCain voted in favor of using taxpayer funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos. He opposes a constitutional amendment to protect human life. And he frets that if Roe v. Wade were overruled, women's lives would be "endangered." This is the same John McCain who chides Mitt Romney today for "flip-flopping" on abortion. At least Romney flips and stays there.

Of course the most important issue for pro-lifers is the Supreme Court. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it doesn't matter how many hearts and minds we've changed. So it's not insignificant that McCain has called Justice Samuel Alito too conservative.

We ended up with David Hackett Souter when a Republican president was actually looking for an Alito. Imagine how bad it will be when the "Republican" president isn't even trying.

McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying he will appoint "strict constructionists." This is supposed to end all discussion of the courts. But if he's picking strict constructionists, he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning McCain-Feingold.

That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain's signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional?

In 2004, McCain criticized the federal marriage amendment, saying, it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." Really? Preventing the redefinition of a 10,000-year-old institution -- marriage, that is, not John McCain -- is part of the core philosophy of being a Republican? I had no idea.

I'm not a lawyer -- oh wait, yes, I am -- but Republicans were proposing to amend the Constitution, a process the Constitution specifically describes.

It's like saying it's antithetical to the core philosophy of Republicans to require presidents to be at least 35 years old. It's in the Constitution! And Republicans -- other than the ones who voted for McCain-Feingold -- support the Constitution. You might say it's part of our core philosophy.

Of course, back in 2004, McCain was considering running on a presidential ticket with John Kerry. Realizing that this would not help his chances to run as a Republican in 2008, when he would be a mere 120 years old, McCain quickly withdrew his interest in being on Kerry's ticket.

But he defended Kerry from the Bush campaign's suggestion that Kerry was not tip-top on national security, saying on the "Today" show: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense." So that was helpful.

McCain also explained to an admiring press corps why he wouldn't want to be anyone's vice president, not even a national defense champion like Kerry, citing the meager constitutional duties of the vice president as: (1) to assume the presidency if the president is incapacitated and (2) "to break a tie vote in the Senate." (At which point several members of the fawning horde were heard to remark, "What is this 'Constitution' you speak of, Senator?")

But McCain conveniently forgot the second of these constitutional duties just a year later when Vice President Cheney was required "to break a tie vote in the Senate" on a matter of utmost importance to liberals: federal judges.

Just one year after McCain had correctly identified one of two jobs of the vice president, he was indignant that a Republican vice president might actually exercise one of them. Better to let a gaggle of 14 Senate malcontents pick the president's judges for him.

As part of the "Gang of 14," McCain hysterically opposed allowing the vice president to break a tie on judicial nominations. Following the Constitution with regard to the role of the vice president, McCain said, "would be a terrible precedent." Yes, if members of Congress actually read the Constitution, they might realize McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

There's your choice, America.

ccodiane · #2 02-09-2008, 05:19 PM

I saw a speech she gave Wed or Thurs, after CPAC, which I was lucky enough to catch on C-SPAN last night. Made me rethink my position, maybe considerably. In summary, just as in this piece, Hillary might be the best option. Her argument was complete ,and, quite convincing. She has a powerful sense of persuasion, based entirely by historical fact. The only way she would vote McCain is with Romney as veep. Period. Otherwise Hillary gets her vote, and I think she is very serious!!

ViRedd · #3 02-09-2008, 05:39 PM

Well, Coulter isn't the only one thinking like this, that's for sure. Again, the power of the conservative/libertarian movement is very strong right now. The Internet and conservative talk radio is just getting started. Just look at all the young people who are supporting Ron Paul and his ideas. The old battle-tanks like McCain and Hillary are becoming passe' ... Look at the support Obama is getting from the young people as well ... although he is of no substance, he represents a fresh look and unbound energy. Now then, set the principles of liberty in front of this new generation of voters and the old Washington power brokers will be history.

Vi

undertheice · #4 02-09-2008, 07:28 PM

a vote for either clinton or obama is a vote to condemn the us to decades of paying for their mistakes. dismantling the massive socialist bureaucracies they would construct with the help of a dem controlled congress would be next to impossible and we would never get rid of the tens of millions of new citizens they would probably make out of our immense illegal alien population. the cult of entitlement would grow to incredible proportions without some conservative balance and what few liberties remain to us would be pissed away for the sake of the illusion of a caring government. to believe we can easily undo such folly a few years down the road is underestimating the damage that can be done by uncountered extremism.

at least with mccain there is a chance that the conservative elements of the gop might put a check on some of his more socialist leanings. he has already at least paid lip-service to popular demands that we stem the tide of border hoppers and with a conservative vp he might be considered electable to the right wing nut jobs.

as a life-long communalist the very idea of these socialist fools controlling the country scares the shit out of me, but as an anarchist it seems hypocritical of me to cast a ballot. so i will sit here underground and watch what you all do, hoping you aren't fooled into giving away what little remains of the freedoms so hard won over two-hundred years ago.

twostarhotel · #5 02-09-2008, 08:28 PM

its sad how unaware people are, hillary, obama, and mcain are on the same team, just intruments for the same people who believe in denomination. eigther way our country is screwd unless the people say no were not complying, but looks like the people are supporting this cause so believed by our elites. but the medias infulence is too strong
better move out before they decide to declare martial law on us

The CFR controls American media

Don't vote CFR

Barack Obama has a plan. CFR info

mockingbird131313 · #6 02-10-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViRedd

Well, Coulter isn't the only one thinking like this, that's for sure. Again, the power of the conservative/libertarian movement is very strong right now. The Internet and conservative talk radio is just getting started. Just look at all the young people who are supporting Ron Paul and his ideas. The old battle-tanks like McCain and Hillary are becoming passe' ... Look at the support Obama is getting from the young people as well ... although he is of no substance, he represents a fresh look and unbound energy. Now then, set the principles of liberty in front of this new generation of voters and the old Washington power brokers will be history.

Vi

John McCain is the bravest man in Congress, but he's wacky. Our history has had several brave solders who went on to become wacky presidents. So it looks like we have 50-50 odds of repeating an often failed history.

Obama, hillary, and McCain are all the same person in differant life stages. They went into politics with drive and determination, but no ideas. They "find" themselves with "new" ideas. Then eventually they appeal to voters for their "experience".

Unfortunately, people fail to understand that what works best is the Constitution, which is NOT a living document. Only Dr. Paul addressed the Constitution. Huckabee is much more Constitutional than the rest of the deep thinker crowd.

The prospect for the next four years stink.

medicineman · #7 02-10-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undertheice

a vote for either clinton or obama is a vote to condemn the us to decades of paying for their mistakes. dismantling the massive socialist bureaucracies they would construct with the help of a dem controlled congress would be next to impossible and we would never get rid of the tens of millions of new citizens they would probably make out of our immense illegal alien population. the cult of entitlement would grow to incredible proportions without some conservative balance and what few liberties remain to us would be pissed away for the sake of the illusion of a caring government. to believe we can easily undo such folly a few years down the road is underestimating the damage that can be done by uncountered extremism.

at least with mccain there is a chance that the conservative elements of the gop might put a check on some of his more socialist leanings. he has already at least paid lip-service to popular demands that we stem the tide of border hoppers and with a conservative vp he might be considered electable to the right wing nut jobs.

as a life-long communalist the very idea of these socialist fools controlling the country scares the shit out of me, but as an anarchist it seems hypocritical of me to cast a ballot. so i will sit here underground and watch what you all do, hoping you aren't fooled into giving away what little remains of the freedoms so hard won over two-hundred years ago.

No vote, no voice!

medicineman · #8 02-10-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mockingbird131313

John McCain is the bravest man in Congress, but he's wacky. Our history has had several brave solders who went on to become wacky presidents. So it looks like we have 50-50 odds of repeating an often failed history.

Obama, hillary, and McCain are all the same person in differant life stages. They went into politics with drive and determination, but no ideas. They "find" themselves with "new" ideas. Then eventually they appeal to voters for their "experience".

Unfortunately, people fail to understand that what works best is the Constitution, which is NOT a living document. Only Dr. Paul addressed the Constitution. Huckabee is much more Constitutional than the rest of the deep thinker crowd.

The prospect for the next four years stink.

Prospects stink no matter whom is elected, some are a little less smelly than others. My choice is Obama. He offers hope, and a change from the Bush politics of terror and abridgement of freedoms. McCain is Bush on steroids, 100 years in Iraq, WTF. The oil companies own him just as they own Bush.

mockingbird131313 · #9 02-10-2008, 10:10 AM

<quote = medicinman> McCain is Bush on steroids, 100 years in Iraq, WTF. The oil companies own him just as they own Bush.

I hope you are wrong. But the odds are 50-50 we will find out if that statement you made is true.

medicineman · #10 02-10-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mockingbird131313

<quote = medicinman> McCain is Bush on steroids, 100 years in Iraq, WTF. The oil companies own him just as they own Bush.

I hope you are wrong. But the odds are 50-50 we will find out if that statement you made is true.

Like I said earlier, My brother was a POW in Nam, so I respect McCain for his sacrifice, but for president, No fucking way. I would seriously consider looking for a new country of residence if McCain wins. I am of the age that I will not see that many presidential terms in the future, so another 4-8 years of Bush politics would leave me extremely exhausted and frustrated. Better to re-locate and mellow out than to have to say I'm from the USA, that terrorist state. At least McCain would detest torture.