How about an open thread.

By Erick Posted in Comments (154) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Have at it. Super Duper Tuesday is less than a day away.

By the way, I'm thinking Romney wins California tomorrow and I suspect he'll win more states, if not more delegates, than McCain. I don't think McCain's team has reacted with serious aggression to the trend of conservatives rallying to Romney.

The trend is real -- conservatives are rallying to him.

« Today is worthy of celebrationComments (7) | Manning v. BradyComments (57) »
How about an open thread. 154 Comments (0 topical, 154 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

that the turnout from Independents and Democrats for him is substantial (just like in supposedly GOP-only Florida). Unfortunately for him, Obama will grab most of those.

Here is to hoping that the Conservative trends and turnout are real.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

From a Romney persepective, it can't hurt that the Dems, unlike in Florida, will also be having elections on Tuesday. Maybe all those independants will vote for BO.

The one thing that gives me hope is the giant levels of undecideds. I am also happy the Romney has decided to run against Hillary. It shows an admirable level of party spirit.
"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

voting for Romney tomorrow in Arkansas. My mother and several others that I know are voting for Obama to try and keep Hillary out. Several groups in Arkansas are endorsing Romney. I am surprised at the polls showing Huckabee with such a great advantage here. I guess only time will tell.

It was the first vote for my 20 year old. He really took his vote seriously and I didn't try to influence him. I thought he was going to go for Obama but when he asked for a GOP ballot I was very proud.

Rush is trashing McCain big time today. He also sorta said the reason Romney won so big in Maine was because of Talk Rado. I think he may very well be right.

It looks to me its almost the establishment Republicans versus Talk radio, and if Maine is any indication, we may have some big surprises tommorrow.

MSM and the Establishment needs some serious shaking up.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

Who do you consider to be among the GOP establishment? Because the people I consider to be the "establishment" of the party tend to support Romney (Limbaugh/Ingraham/Hannity, as well as Sen. Hatch, fmr. Sen. Santorum, et al) whereas maverick/liberal Republicans like Gov. Crist, Gov. Schwarzenegger, Gov. Rell, and Mayor Giuliani are McCain's prominent endorsers.

No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain

Every Republican Senator and every Republican Governor, no matter how liberal, is an important member of "the establishment." That includes guys like Ahhhnold. It is a much more moderate group than the activist base.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Senators Lott, Stevens, Graham, Dole, Specter, etc. are good examples of the Republican Establishment.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"Backbenchers, RSC types (with a couple of exceptions), Liberty Caucus types, and others that do not control the "levers of power," are not part of the establishment.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

How is it that everyone appears to be practically worshiping Romney as a conservative, while at the same time they crucify McCain. Romney passed universal health care, wants to provide corporate welfare for the auto industry, and only recently became a conservative. I can't vote for him, because he has not been tested on his conservative principles yet. We're taking a risk of pulling another Souter with him.
McCain is much more reliable. I know where he stands, and I know what he'll do. I may not agree with all of it, but I think he's more conservative than he gets credit for. The problem for most is that he's willing to make compromises to get things done. I don't view that as a bad trait. I'm voting for McCain, and not taking my marching orders from Limbaugh, Hewitt, etc.

If you haven't gotten it by now, you probably never will. Romney didn't pass Universal Health care. And yes, he ran as a moderate in Liberal Mass, but he governed as a conservative.

As far as McCain being reliable. He hasn't in the past been Reliable, and there is nothing that suggest he will be in the future. But you can believe what you want.

I wrote a piece on this as well. The reason is that most of the conservative establishmen has no problem with pandering as long as you pander to them. They like to be told what they want to hear. The same is true of the auto industry in Michigan. It cost McCain in Michigan and it cost him with the conservative establishment.

I don't know you and I don't know your political ideology but if you really believe this way you are likely not an ideologue. I have lost a great deal of respect for most of the folks that lead our political ideals like Rush, Hannity, talk radio, et al.

Not only have they decided to oppose McCain, which is fine, they have decided to destroy him, and that destruction has filtered down to other folks like many here. Most of those same folks buy hook, line and sinker Romney sudden transformation to most of the conservative principles they expouse even though most of the transformations came right before the election. It is the height of political pandering and they are rewarding it.

That is one of many reasons why the whole fiasco has turned me off...Here is the piece

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

i also have lost much respect for the radio hosts

Is it better to vote for someone that you know will not be conservative or someone that may not be conservative. McCain is consistent alright - consistently not conservative - and he has shown no propensity to change now. Romney is inconsistent, but he is at least trending toward being conservative. I would take my chances with the latter any day.

he is pandering and you are rewarding the lowest and most debased form of politicking.

He suddenly stopped being a conservative just in time to promise a nanny state in Michigan but that seems to slip your mind.

Romney knew there wasn't a moderate place for him in the primary so he started campaigning as a conservative even though the bulk of his career was nowhere near there. This was nothing more than a campaign strategy.

The reality is that McCain is plenty conservative, just not down the line conservative. I frankly am much less concerned with ideology than with integrity, character, and courage.

On those issues McCain wins hands down. McCain stood up for a surge that every true blue conservative once thought was the most important issue. Boy, back in May, judges, taxes and social issues weren't so important. That's because the surge was in doubt. All you conservatives were quite concerned with the direction of the IRaq war. It wasnt' Mitt Romney that stood up alone for the surge, but John McCain. As a result of his political courage, the surge was allowed to continue and is now succeeding. (no he wasn't the only one to show political courage, but Mitt Romney wasn't one that did) Now, that little issue that once dominated conservative debate is not so important because we have won it. All you true blue conservative seem to forget that the man you now demonize lead the charge to win it politically.

You all gravitate toward Romney who only tells you what you want to hear. Romney is no more a true conservative than I am a fashion expert. You just buy his new conversion hook, line and sinker.

There are plenty of great reasons to vote for Romney. He has been successful at every endeavor he has tried. That is a great indicator of success in the WH, however his being a real conservative is not one of those reasons.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

He suddenly stopped being a conservative just in time to promise a nanny state in Michigan but that seems to slip your mind.

What about the program to send government paychecks to laid off autoworkers who take lower paying jobs? That's not pandering, right? That's just conservatism at work, I guess. If I had to choose between the two, I much prefer Romney's pander to McCain's.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

McCain's record is about forty years old. If you really think that McCain is someone that panders and tells people what they want to hear you just don't know his record.

McCain has a long history of doing things that were politically dicey because he thought they were right, like illegal immigration reform in the middle of a primary campaign, like supporting the surge when no one else would.

If you really believe that Romney has more character than McCain then you believe it, but that is absurd. If you believe that Romney is some sort of real conservative you just ignore the facts.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

So McCain was only doing what was right when he opposed Bush Tax Cuts because they went disproportionately to the wealthy (classic class warfare garbage) but now he is only doing what is right by supporting extending those same Bush Tax Cuts because they are suddenly great. No pandering at all of course. I must not be looking at his record closely enough.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

mostly because they were not combined with spending cuts which he thought was fiscally irresponsible. What a novel fiscal idea to try and cut spending if you are going to cut taxes. I can see why all of you crucify him for that.

To support tax increases when the economy is softening and possibly going into a recession is the exact opposite of what you are supposed to do in a recession.

McCain is pragmatic above all else. The fact is that McCain is right when he said that had the tax cuts been combined with spending cuts, we could cut taxes again now.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Why did McCain use the same class warfare garbage that Dems use all the time, and were using it then as the reason to oppose Bush Tax Cuts?

There was no difference between McCain and the Dems on the issue.

McCain deserves Huckabee. The two Dem pandering anti-conservatives.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

So your strategy is to pretend it never happened? Cover up your ears and go la-la-la-la? He has a history in MI of saying what he thought it would take to win... the same as Romney. Romney was just better at it. If you are going to throw stones at Romney for pandering in MI, you might want to have a look at McCain's glass house first.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

that the reality is that most of the jobs are likely to not come back is telling them what they want to hear?

Give me a break.

I don't address it because it is beside the point.

McCain has a forty year career and your entire body of evidence of his pandering is one thing he did in Michigan. If that is all you have, he isn't much of a panderer. You have a forty year record and apparently you can cite one example of pandering and now label him as such. That is what you aren't addressing.

Again, one thing that McCain won't be accused of is lacking political courage. That he has in spades. He was willing to go on a limb on illegal immigration in the middle of a primary because he thought a flawed bill was better than no bill at all. You can debate the merits of the action, but not the courage. He was willing to go on a limb and stand up for the surge when no one else would.

He was willing to address money in politics with McCain/Feingold. Now, again, the merits are one thing, but his courage on the matter is undeniable.

Against, that backdrop you present me with something he once said in Michigan. Now, who has the better evidence?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

To send out paychecks to laid off autoworkers in MI is besides the point? I guess anything that isn't convenient is "besides the point?" He sure spend a lot of time talking about retraining autoworkers to be stockbrokers, too. I guess that was just "the hard truth."

Keep bringing up immigration because he caved on that for political expediency, too. Now he's willing to do enforcement first... something that was flatly unacceptable to him before primary season. Now he supports renewal of the same tax cuts he voted against and said he would still vote against. Oh yea, and now he only voted against those because of the deficit (which didn't even exist when he first started opposing them), and not because they were giveaways to the rich (as he was saying at the time).

It must be primary season. Yea, thats really courageous stuff there.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You obviously don't read what I write because you don't address what I write, either that or you aren't sophisticated enough to understand it.

we have a forty year career, and you have one incident of pandering. I have shown you several positions that he took that took all sorts of political courage and you seem to think that you pointing out one incident means he is the panderer and not Romney who found an entire new ideology just in time to run for office.

I could care less what McCain said in Michigan, because when the chips were down on Iraq, he was the only one that stood up for the surge. That is when we needed someone with political courage, and it wasn't Mitt Romney out front saying that surge will succeed if we give it time, but John McCain. That is political courage.

It is also political courage to work with the other side on illegal immigration reform during the middle of a primary. That is political courage.

Against that backdrop, you give me some incident in Michigan. Again, who has the better evidence?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

The reality is that McCain is plenty conservative, just not down the line conservative. I frankly am much less concerned with ideology than with integrity, character, and courage.

emphasis mine.

Do you think the democrats and MSM are going to leave the Keating episode alone if McCain wins the primary?

Yes Democrats will leave the Keating episode alone, Hillary and Bill have far more problems and they really don't want a fight about Clinton ethics vers anyone else's.

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Our side is going to be throwing ever form of bile at them if she's the nominee. That will give her free reign to attempt the "so are you" defense. Let's not send someone who's vulnerable on that line of attack to fight her.

The only place this would make any sense is in some alternate reality where there's never been a 60 Minutes hit piece on a Republican running for office. The Democrats are alway dirty. That is irrelevant. The MSM still does what it can to hype alleged Republican misdeeds. And they got more to go on this time than a 20-year-old DUI or some crudely forged National Guard documents from 30 years ago.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Most conservatives I know, already had an intense dislike of McCain. He is inconsistent and prides himself on attacking the hand that feeds him. That is why independents like him. He attacks the perceived leadership of the Republican party to the detriment of conservatives like me.

I do not agree with Rush. He agrees with me. Most of the anti-McCain redstaters were anti-McCain before Rush came out against McCain. Rush just does a fantastic job of articulating our beef with him.

Romney is saying the right things to win conservatives. We know he didn't always make the right decision as governor of Massachusetts. However, McCain is currently running against conservatives. His record of dissing conservatives is real and painful.

Our choice is between a not so conservative governer who is now saying he is conservative (we hope his conversion is honest), or a relatively conservative US senator, who is now campaigning against us (we have to believe he is lying to vote for him).

The democrats / MSM talking heads have always used the term that Rush's fans where "mind numbed robots."

Rush has always said that he is only saying what a lot of people where already thinking.

Now that McCain is on the receiving end of the ire of Rush, his supporters are using the same line of attack.

Please stop using Democrat tactics!

I always say you can tell a lot about the audience by the advertisers that pay for the show. The ads do not strike me as appealing to a very educated crowd. I think for the foreseeable future, I'll get my economic commentary from economists, military strategy from generals, and morality from Priests. I just have no use for Rush. Is it too much to wish that no one else did either?


Molon Labe!

off the charts

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

I know I have a really hard time following those union, fair trade coffee shop, and Indian tribe advertisements on Air America. I guess I'm not educated enough to get it.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

McCain. It is not something we should take into our own hearts. I will never believe those that "hate McCain" have not been affected by 9 years of vitriol from Rush. Sorry, I dont' buy it.

I supported McCain in 2000 when he was in single digits. Very few outside of the political junkie class knew much about him. He almost toppled Bush, and then he really had to go against the entire party. From that point on, Rush has trashed him, mocked him, and reviled him. Rush is now scared because it is REPUBLICANS who have put McCain into the lead.

In the end, McCain does not have to make up with anyone. Self described "conservatives" (ignoring all the conservatives who are voting for McCain) need to make up with him or simply get out of the way. What it comes down to is the fact that Rush has no leg to stand on, Romney is not noticeably better than McCain, he is just not McCain, that is why Rush supports him, no more, and there really could not be any less.


Molon Labe!

that conservatives that sre not voting for him NOW need to get out of the way because you don't need us?

Be careful what you wish for.

If you think you can beat Hill/bama without the millions that are not supporting McCain now have at it.

Good luck with that fundraiser thing too. He is going to be out raised 2 to 1. 3 to 1 if his people have your attitude.

Someone has serious problems with a man's politics doesn't mean he hates the man. The McCain apologists always seem to latch onto this as an excuse... just as the Clinton apologists tried to make opposition to Clinton all about irrational hate for the man. I have no hate for either of them. That doesn't mean I agree with them on the issues or I'd ever want to have to vote for either one of them.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

but i do think most of limbaugh's attacks on mccain are unfounded or misleading

I want McCain destroyed. I despise him as much as I despise the Dems.

McCain reserves his deepest, most vile attacks for the right. Sneering and ridiculing the base isn't a way to earn their loyalty.

"[Romney] has not been tested on his conservative principles yet."

This is why Romney has a lot of upside potential. He is saying that he will govern conservatively, and in the past he has kept his word when he made a campaign promise.

"I know where McCain stands, and I know what he'll do."

This is the problem with McCain. There is very little upside potential. We know that he is not conservative on a host of issues and he is unlikely to become more conservative. In fact, it seems that there is a high likelihood that he will become less conservative given his trend over the last eight years or so.

you are a prime example of someone that is perfectly all right with pandering as long as you are the target of the pandering. You are probably easy to sell because a salesperson only needs to tell you what you want to hear.

What you have just done is the ultimate rationalization that I have heard in a while. The reality is that Romney is no more conservative than McCain is however he suddenly found conservative religion just in time to campaign as such. He lost all that conservative religion when he promised a nanny state that would bring jobs back to Michigan just in time to win there, but of course folks like disregard that little bit of pandering because the overwhelming majority of the pandering is directed at you.

The reality is that you are an ideologue. You don't want someone with an independent voice. You want someone that will walk in lock step with you. You treat any stray from such a line as blasphemy and you are willing to believe anything if that means someone is toeing the conservative line.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

but not the personal attacks. (my friendly advice, volpe: tone it down - your points will come across better.)

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

You sound the same as you complained about earlier when some attacked John McCain.

an ideologue is an observation. Maybe my observations are harsh but frankly, I can't help that. That is how I see that person.

A personal attack is John McCain is a trecherous fool who wants to open the borders wide so he can take care of his new best friend Ted Kennedy and they can both get their lawns manicured by illegals who they can pay 20 cents under the table.

The way I see it is this. If you believe that Romney is a great manager and he has been successful in all endeavors, that is one thing, and a great reason to vote for him, and frankly something that Romney has in much greater number than McCain. If you believe that Romney is a conservative, then you don't mind if someone panders as long as they pander to you. That is an observation. There is a huge difference.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

First, he's an ideologue that is only interested in someone who will "walk in lock step" with him. But then he's willing to overlook the pandering when it's about wasting taxpayer funds on the auto industry. That's not conservative ideology. You contradict yourself.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

While Romney strayed from his conservative pandering just in time to win in Michigan, his pandering is almost exclusive to conservatives. Romney has overwhelmingly told ideologues exactly what they want to hear. McCain hasn't even come close, and thus ideologues see Romney as a true blue conservative because the alternative is so much worse.

Even though it is obviously pandering and that is proven by his actions in Michigan, ideologues overlook it because of the alternative.

Look most of these Romney supporters were likely supporters of FDT, the real conservative, before he dropped out. Now they support Romney because they see him as the only true conservative left, even though his conservative evolution is brand new.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

No by zuiko

Look most of these Romney supporters were likely supporters of FDT, the real conservative, before he dropped out. Now they support Romney because they see him as the only true conservative left, even though his conservative evolution is brand new.

Maybe they just aren't interested in the guy who has spent the past decade actively stabbing conservatives in the back and trying to minimize their influence in the party... something he tried and failed at in 2000 and something he has been successful at in 2008. There are no "true conservatives" left to choose from. Both of the final choices suck. I'll still take Romney over McCain.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I don't care who you support. I don't care who you campaign for. I do care when you make it your mission in life to destroy a good and courageous person because you oppose them.

Was McCain stabbing conservatives in the back when he went to VMI and delivered the pinnacle address of the Iraq war...the speech that began to turn the tide in favor of the surge here at home. Who was he stabbing in the back when he did that?

Was he stabbing conservatives in the back when he created CAGW to be a watchdog group against wasteful spending? Was he stabbing conservatives in the back then?

What you see as "stabbing conservatives in the back" I see as someone who doesn't toe the line as an ideologue. Someone who does what he thinks is right not what his ideology tells him.

The irony is that you and most like you adore Joe Lieberman for the very same independence that you despise McCain for, because he showed independence that gravitated toward your position, even though on the whole Lieberman is a lot more liberal than McCain.

No, McCain isn't a conservative on all issues. He is conservative on a lot more than he isnt', but that isn't enough. What makes it worse, for folks like you, is that he doesn't merely oppose conservatives when he disagrees but he leads the opposition. That really burns you up. He doesn't merely not toe the line but he even is vocal about it.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

He wants smaller government, less spending, lower taxes. He's on the right side of the war, and I believe we'd be in a better position in Iraq if we would have listened to him sooner about troop levels. And that's not conservative? Can you explain how Romney has proven to be more conservative. Did you listen to his Michigan speech? Medved did a good job of disecting it, and it you read it without knowing who delivered it, you would swear it came from Clinton or Obama. McCain just plain has a more conservative record. Does that mean I agree with him every time? No, but he's on the right side more often than not.

The big objections that I hear to McCain are:
1. "Gang of 14". I'll probably not make any friends here, but I think this was a good thing. McCain was looking at the long term interests of the party, and not the short term win. If/When the Dems get someone in the White House, and control of both houses of congress, we'll sure be glad that we didn't eliminate the filibusterer when they trot up some ultra-liberal judge. He made a compromise. We got a little of what we wanted, and they got a little of what they wanted. In the long run we retained a tool that my save our hides someday.
2. McCain-Feingold. I have problems with this one as well. But there was a problem. The special interest groups,etc were pumping way too much money into smear campaigns. Something needed to be done.
3. McCain-Kennedy. This didn't pass, because the country said no. Let's remember that this is what Bush wanted as a plan. So if McCain becomes POTUS and presses for the same things that Bush did, he'll get about as far as Bush got. As far as Romney's plan goes, let's be real here. There is no way the congress will pass his plan. As long as they secure the border, which McCain says he'll do now, we can worry about amnesty/no amnesty later.

McCain's contempt for the base is because of their complete unwillingness to compromise. We may be right, but we're not going to get everything we want all at once. It's better to get a whole bunch of small victories, than fight for one big one an lose. We're going to have to give some things up to get others that we want. This is what I feel is one of McCain's strengths.

And what of the 'upside potential' of Romney? Are you really willing to risk the POTUS on that potential? He may be a great business man, and has done some great things in turning around companies. But the government is not a company, and does not operate like one. McCain has a record of being on the conservative side of issues more often than Romney. He may compromise and give up something that many will hate him for, but he's looking at the long term goals, not the short term victories, and in the end we'll find that we're further along in our goals.

If/When the Dems get someone in the White House, and control of both houses of congress, we'll sure be glad that we didn't eliminate the filibusterer when they trot up some ultra-liberal judge.

First off, senate republicans won't filibuster a judge if history is any guide. If they do, the Dems can go nuclear at any time. What is to stop them if they have the senate majority?

Honor? ***snickering***

I'm not a member of the NRA, so I don't know the ranking, but given McCain's record it can't be too high.

McCain and/or the Republicans have ever filibustered.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

What is bigger government that a BTU energy tax that is designed to slow the growth of the economy? When Clinton tried to pass this, Republicans stopped him. Now, McCain wants to do it?

Sorry--McCain-Lieberman is a BIG defeat

A report by the National Taxpayers Union projects McCain will increase spending, just like Romney and Huckabee. The only one who is projected to actually decrease spending is the one guy who's not allowed to be talked about.

It's a sad state that our party is in.

when you say RON PAUL is "not allowed to be talked about," do you realize that he was invited to the final gop debate, despite the fact that he received only 3.2% of the vote in the florida primary?

i would say he's getting talked about a lot more than he deserves

I actually meant on this site, bud.

But if you want to talk about the debates, maybe he was invited to the final gop debate because he came in second place in Nevada and Louisiana, and possibly Maine as well? Or it might be because his fundraising outpaced all other Republican candidates in the fourth quarter?

I'm not saying that you should vote for him, but I would love for some of his positions to be adopted by the front-runner candidates. Actually reducing spending would be one of them.

we don't agree that coming in second in two (maybe three) small primary states, and raising a lot of money, is enough to justify participation in a debate.

but we can agree to disagree on that.

i do agree that it would be nice if some of the front-runners adopted certain Paul positions. spending is a good example.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

You are right, McCain is much more reliable. Dennis Hastert told us that yesterday. He is "Always a Democrat Ally," and he is always an "undependable Republican vote."

If that is what you want by reliable, go ahead and vote for him and see an exodus of conservatives voting Republican for President this fall.

1. McCain twice voted against the Bush tax cuts.
2. McCain voted against an Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage.
3. McCain voted against energy sufficiency, voting not to drill in Alaska.
4. McCain organized the Gany of 14, which denied us further advancement in getting the judiciary under control.
5. McCain gave us McCain-Feingold, which is a huge infringement on the First Amendment and has hurt the Republican party hugely in fundraising.
6. McCain gave us McCain/Kennedy which is amnesty. And he will do it again as President.
7. McCain lied about Romney and the surge.
8. McCain filed an amicus brief in Wisconsin against a parental notification law. And, this is prolife?
9. McCain thinks Christians are the devil. I wonder why James Dobson said he could "never" vote for him?
10. McCain defended John Kerry in the last election.
11. McCain considered running with Kerry for VP on the Democrat ticket in 2004, and met with them to discuss it.
12. McCain's Reform Institute is funded, at least in part, by George Soros. Do I need say more on that?
13. McCain has been in office almost forever. Yet, he still does not understand the economy. Is that really what we need right now with the recession hitting?

Etc., etc., etc.

1. He voted against them because there were no cuts in spending. Hindsight what it is, we would have done well to listen to him. Look at what kind of stupid spending went on with a president who was all to happy to approve anything coming from the repub congress. Sometimes we need to kick our own back in line. Explain how you would take a cut in pay without cutting expenses. Is that really wise?
2. I wrote McCain about this, and actually he gave me a pretty conservative response: This is not a federal issue, but a state issue. Let the states pass amendments to their constitutions, and if the fed courts start jumping in, then congress should act. But from a federalist standpoint, it is not a federal issue.
3. I'll agree with you here. I don't always agree with McCain.
4. I addressed this earlier, but the short answer is this was done to serve the long term interest not the short term gain.
5. Again, portions of the law are problematic, but overall something needed to be done. McCain made a compromise to get progress.
6. Exactly how will he give it to us as POTUS? Wasn't this bill heavilly backed by Bush as well? And it failed. Romney's plan will fail as well, congress will not pass what he is calling for. There will have to be something in the middle.
7. McCain has been calling for more Troops from the beginning of the war. If we had listened to him then, we might be better off now.
8. Link? I'm not familiar with this one.
9. McCain grows tired of the 'my way or the highway' mentality. I'm a very devout Christian. I don't expect the government to advance my ideals, especially not the fed government.
10., 11. You know, the Dems are not the devil. It is possible that having a Dem Pres and Rep VP could be interesting and produce some results that we've not seen before. Results that would break a lot of the stalemate in D.C.. Besides, I think they both knew this wasn't going to happen.
12. "In Part". Look, I can find questionable funding for almost any organization. "In Part" is pretty generic. And if Soros is dumb enough to funnel money to the right, I say take it and run.
13. Oh please. Like Romney is an expert on the War and Foreign Policy? They both have weak spots that they're going to have to fill with either the VP and/or good advisors.

Should the Republican nominee push for a stimulus package targeted at Michigan?

Assume the following three facts are true:
1. the stimulus package violates fiscal conservative principles.
2. With the stimulus package, the Republican candidate will carry Michigan; without it the Dem will carry Michigan
3. Even with the stimulus package, the Republican is overall much more fiscally conservative than the Dem candidate.

a piece on McCain, and it is quite interesting how most of what I now call conservative ideologues treat him. Anyone who has read my comments or my pieces knows that I have grown quite sour on many folks like those here. I have watched ideologues batter and bruise good and decent candidates because they didn't match their ideological agenda.

I don't care who you support, vote for, or help. I do care when you turn vicious on those you don't support and don't merely oppose them but try and destroy them. Case number one is thunder who sees McCain opposition like some addicts see crack. He doesn't merely want to oppose McCain but feels it is his (hopefully thunder is male) duty to destroy McCain. That is when political discourse goes from healthy to destructive.

What I have found is that ideologues have short memories on some issues and long memories on other issues and the memory choice really depends on whether or not a candidate was with you on something. For instance, all of the ideologues conveniently forget that it was John McCain that lead the effort to stop the Democrats from setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. Most of these same ideologues forget that Iraq is and was the most important issue to Conservatives. Most ideologues forget that losing in Iraq is a disaster worse than any other, and they conveniently forget that without John McCain that would have happened.

These same ideologues won't forgive and forget on something fairly trivial, in my opinion, like the gang of 14, and something less trivial on immigration. Ideologues don't want someone that has an independent voice but rather a voice that mirrors their view of the world. McCain for the most part is a conservative individual. He just isn't a down the line conservative. That, ideologues simply won't forgive. That said, it isn't merely enough to oppose him because of his less than perfect conservative record. They have to destroy him. Michelle Malkin has spent the better part of two months doing nothing, almost, but destroy McCain. Today, she is calling McCain supporters "hysterical" which is of course the ultimate pot calling the kettle black since she has become obsessed with pointing out every possible problem in his record. She has created zero context because the negative attacks on McCain aren't balanced at all with anything positive. In Michelle's world, McCain is one step above the devil.

Michelle's views are mirrored by many here. You all simply cannot accept that someone stray from your belief system on anything. Whatever you think of McCain's position on illegal immigration, he did it because he thought it was in the best interest of the nation. He has done nothing his entire career but fight for what he thought was in the best interest of the nation. Even when I supported Rudy, the thing I admired about McCain is his colossal political courage. It takes a lot of courage politically to in the middle of a primary get into bed with Ted Kennedy. That would turn off many primary voters. He did it because he felt a flawed bill was better than no bill at all. He may have been wrong, but his intentions were pure.

Many here question his motivations and the whole thing is nonsense. He has never taken the easy route politically. He has in his entire career almost always taken the route that he felt was best no matter the political conseqeunces.

For this principle, many on here will never forgive him.

I find his political courage to be his greatest trait. I also find his political courage to not only be his greatest political asset but his biggest liability. Here is the piece

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

How intriguing that the same guy who wrote this:

"you are a prime example of someone that is perfectly all right with pandering as long as you are the target of the pandering. You are probably easy to sell because a salesperson only needs to tell you what you want to hear."

and this:

"You don't want someone with an independent voice. You want someone that will walk in lock step with you. You treat any stray from such a line as blasphemy and you are willing to believe anything if that means someone is toeing the conservative line."

and this:

"You all gravitate toward Romney who only tells you what you want to hear. Romney is no more a true conservative than I am a fashion expert."

then wrote this:

"I do care when you turn vicious on those you don't support and don't merely oppose them but try and destroy them"

Project much?


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


but if you take what I said as vicious then that just makes it true. There is nothing vicious about pointing out the absurdity of considering Romney a conservative when his conservative record is two years old and his non conservative record is twenty plus years old. There is nothing vicious in pointing that those that suddenly believe that someone who's conservative record is two years old is a real conservative is gullible and wants to be told what they want to hear, that is the truth.

The fact is that if you read any of my pieces I point out the positive aspects of Romney's credentials. There is no denying his long and distinguished history as an effective manager and leader. That is beyond debate, and a great reason to support him. There is no denying that if you support him because you see him as a conservative then you are just gullible.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Yeah... well, have a nice day. Me, I just thought we were both fighting honorably for the outcome we each want. I guess I didn't realize that those on the other side from yourself are ipso facto wrong down to the molecular level, whether it's me or a talk show host. Our intentions are dishonorable by definition, it would seem. Well, if we oppose McCain, anyway.

I'll go hang my head in shame now. My crimes are vast indeed. Thanks for making me aware of my wrongness. It must be awfully hard to have that job.


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


in the thread I pointed this out, and I believe more than once. I don't care who you vote for. I don't care who you support. Who you give money to? Who you campaign for, plug, or talk about. All that I care about is when you decide to destroy a good and honorable man, which is of course what I pointed out and used thunder as the example, in the beginning.

If you are claiming that my position is that opposition to McCain is wrong, then you can't read, or you aren't sophisticated enough to understand what I am saying.

That said, this battle is dying down and I believe I just took on most of red state and got the last word, and anyone that tried to get the last word misrepresented my position, so I will take that is a compliment.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

the class warfare opposition to Bush Tax Cuts, like most other Dems. You did try to misdirect though.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

If it doesn't fit his narrative of a courageous maverick straight-talker who tells it like it is, he ignores it. The conclusion comes first. The justification for that conclusion is simply an afterthought.

He just rails against those stupid ideologues that are trying to destroy McCain (no doubt the same vast right-wing conspiracy that was out to destroy Clinton). Never mind that nobody is trying to destroy the guy... we just don't want to see him in the White House. But I guess denying the guy his rightful place on the throne is now to be considered trying to destroy the man.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You sure do know a lot about my education, as well as my motivation, it seems. And not just mine. Funny, the more fanatical someone gets, the more mind and soul reading he becomes able to perform. You guys must be some sort of superbeing. Did McCain Himself confer that ability upon you?

More seriously, I suppose it depends on what you call destroying, and how badly and urgently you need to label your opponents that way. I haven't heard any talk show conservatives calling for McCain to be keelhauled, or drawn and quartered, or for that matter, even broken on the rack. Maybe I just missed it, or maybe my poor reasoning and listening skills failed me yet again, but I was under the impression that they simply don't want him to be President, because he has been such a staunch opponent of so many conservative causes, like lower taxes, border security, respect for immigration law, free political speech, and so on.

As I said before, I didn't know that those values were now considered dishonorable. I'll try to do better. Honest I will. Enjoy your superiority. Must be nice.

Taniwha [bowing and scraping as he goes]


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

-Taniwha or read anything written by thunder, or when someone says that McCain has made a career of stabbing people in the back. That is just some examples of people trying to destroy McCain. Or even when Ann Coulter comes out and says she would support Hillary over McCain. that is another example. Apparently Rush spent the entire afternoon tearing into Rush. Is that merely opposing him or trying to destroy him? Apparently, you just don't notice when someone is assassinating character when they are assassinating the character of someone you oppose.

I don't know your level of education and I don't care. I was pretty clear in my first comment what the problem was and about forty posts later you proclaimed that I said that if you don't support McCain you are wrong, which of course is a total distortion of what I said. If you can't figure out what I said, then that is your problem whether or not you are high school educated or you have a masters.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Look -- you're a true believer. I get that. You're entitled to it. But if your strategy is to get non-McCain people to feel guilty about 'what they've done to poor John', as it were, [whispers conspiratorially:] I really don't think it'll work, brother.

We think we have the right to not support your candidate, and to support his opponent instead. We think everyone does. And if we are so moved, we think we have the right to do it strenuously. Maybe we're wrong, I suppose, but it will take a lot more than what you've thrown so far to get us to act as if we didn't believe that.

I note with much amusement that you apparently don't feel any need to modulate YOUR OWN force level as regards shilling for your own candidate of choice. I guess that's just for the other guy, eh? Now if you could only get HIM to believe it.

Good luck with that.


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


up until Rudy dropped out I actually supported Rudy. It is also funny because back in the summer I argued the exact same thing when I saw McCain being attacked mercilessly in another thread started by gideon.

Good one, and if you want proof of my support for Rudy, you can look at any thread related to the subject until he bowed out.

Really, you have nothing right. I have no strategy. I am sick of all of the hatred directed at good folks, including McCain. It is one thing to oppose him, but quite another to spew hatred at him. Michelle Malkin is calling McCain La Raza's rep in the Senate. Thunder writes three posts per day blasting him. Rush just spent the entire show blasting him. One poster said he stabs conservatives in the back.

That is what I have a problem with. That is what I have been pointing out throughout the thread. From the beginning, I said it wasn't enough to oppose him, some of you need to destroy him.

Now, tell me about me strategy again.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Your abject emotional involvement is showing. The first clue is how quick you are to call 'spewing hatred', but you don't admit to any of it yourself. I can't imagine disinterested observers would see any difference between what you say and what your opponents say, except for an extra heaping side of sanctimonious self-righteousness on your part.

As to Rush, tell you what: Go to a radio company, and tell them you can do it better, can you please have some mike time. Maybe they'll give you a shot. Alternatively, you can create a web site like Michelle Malkin, try to sell advertising, and see how that goes. Regardless, those people have a right to support who they want, too. Same as everyone.

I don't care who you support, and I certainly don't care who you used to support. But I want McCain even less now that I see how much his own supporters think he can't bear up under serious verbal opposition. Sure, that's the kind of president we need in today's world... I've often heard how brave and manly he is from you people; Why don't you yourself act as if you believe it? Who the hell told him he HAD to run for President, or that he has any business expecting it to be easy?


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


above all else I just love to argue. I almost never get emotional about any debate because I enjoy the sport of it, that's why at the end I complimented everyone on the healthy debate.

Again, equating Michelle Malkin's non stop attacks on McCain, like today calling him La Raza's rep in the Senate, Rush's non stop attacks on him, ann coulter saying she would vote for Hillary, with me calling some of you ideologues is apples and oranges.

If any of you were hurt by the attack it is likely because the label fit, not because I made a personal attack.

Again, I don't care who you support or vote for or give money to or whatever, but trying to destroy an opponent is beyond the pale. That is what the likes of Thunder have done here. I don't know how many diaries there have been proclaiming that McCain's nomination will destroy the party. Those were after just as many attaching the same label to Rudy, Huckabee and to Romney. Every candidate short of FDT, has been villified here, and I stood up against the attacks on every candidate.

Your whole entire comment is beside the point. I never said that Michelle and Rush weren't allowed to do it. I said that their discourse was unnecessary and obscene, and just as they are within their rights to attack a good and honest man, I am within my rights to call them on it.

Even when I didn't support McCain, I stood up against attacks on him. You just finished saying I was a true believer only to find out I have supported him for less than a week. That you conveniently didn't address. Instead, you go on with some nonsense about how everyone has a right to say what they want, which of course isn't the issue.

All of you can say what you want, however when you attack your opponent incessantly it turns the process coarse and it turns almost everyone else off, and it cheapens the entire process. It isn't that McCain can't take it, he took six years of torture. He is a big boy and can handle whatever you dish out at him. I don't believe he deserves your venom. You can oppose someone without villifying them. That was my point from the beginning. Most of you have twisted it and that is also unnecessary and debased.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Look in the mirror. That's all I'm saying. You're the person you're complaining about. I don't see any difference between what Rush and Malkin are saying and what you are saying, except that when they get it back, they don't cry and whine about it like you do.

That's how it goes when the people have free speech. Nobody said it had to be pretty. And if you, McCain, or anyone else doesn't like it, he can get the hell out of politics and go sell pink styrofoam lawn ornaments.


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


first, and you all make it too easy, here is a snippet from another diary,

The reasons so many conservatives can't stand McCain is his poke you in the eye and leave you with a wedgy attitude. At a time that McCain is supposed to be rallying conservatives, and being a gracious competitor, he instead takes the opportunity to play head games and take an ego trip. Good, let him. Because apparently while so many McCainiacs think it's cool, enough American's are asking why in the world would we want someone as vindictive and ego driven as McCain making trade deals and controlling our nuclear arsenal.

Now, is it really necesary to attack McCain this viciously? Is that really what we should be all about?

You don't see the difference. You think Michelle spending the last month doing nothing but attacking McCain is the same as me pointing that anyone that votes for Romney because they see him as a real conservative is an ideologue. You don't see any difference. Read that quote again and compare it to what I say.

You don't see the difference? You really think that me calling someone an ideologue is no different than an out of control rant where he is referred to as an ego maniac and not stable enough to control nuclear weapons is the same level of discourse.

You don't see it or you don't want to see it.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Oh, brother.

Look, tell you what: cry all you want. It's your time. McCain doesn't want his opponents to have free speech, either, so I guess it fits.

Talk to you later.


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


Weak. That's all you got. Listen if you are going to debate me you better do it all the way, don't stop when I have pointed to something you can't counter.

You just spent the better part of a debate saying you didn't see any difference between the so called attacks on McCain and me calling someone like you an ideologue.

I just gave you a vicious example of an attack and rather than acknowledging it you do some song and dance with some cute words hoping no one will notice that I just destroyed your entire arguement and then say you are done. I noticed, and the only reason you are now done is because I just destroyed your entire arguement.

I will take your white flag as acknowledgement that deep down you finally understand and agree with my position.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

if all of you merely oppose him, why is this poster saying that you can't stand him? Boy, it sounds like it is personal, which of course was my point from the beginning. Are you saying this one poster is an anomoly that I couldn't find anywhere else at Red State, or maybe just maybe, he is the standard here at Red State.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

and again, at the time, I supported Rudy. You will see that I make the exact same arguement. It is the exact same arguement that I make in the piece I referenced. So, again, what is my strategy?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

I'll take as my nominee someone who once espoused more liberal positions but has governed as a conservative and has a record that shows it, over someone who once espoused more conservative positions but now pushes more liberal ones. I want the candidate who is running towards conservatism, not running away from it.

Shorter version: Surge, surge, party before principles.

We're not voting for courage against the Republicans we are voting for a LEADER of the Republicans. Big difference.

we are voting for the leader of the nation not the Republican party. The RNC chair is most responsible for that. If you think that the President is first and foremost the leader of his party then that is further evidence of your being an ideologue.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

voting for the leader of the Republican party. That's what the primary is about. We will vote on the leader of the nation in November.

I hold no special allegiance to the Republican party and will not vote for McCain just because he is the 'leader' of the Republican party. I will vote based on my principles and if the nominee of the party doesn't represent those (as McCain does not), then I will not vote for them.

Overall, I think Romney is better than McCain on the issues. But McCain is far, far better on the issues than Obama and Clinton. It is much better when people point out the good points of the candidate they favor than when they go negative on other patriotic candidates.

GWOT/Iraq isn't just the most important issue for conservatives - it is the most important issue for all Americans, and probably all civilized people everywhere.

reminds me too much of Bill Clinton in 1992. Bill changed his rhetoric to run as a conservative Democrat. He promised a middle class tax cut. This was very appealing coming after Bush I's betrayal of his "no new taxes" pledge. Clinton knew a Dukakis Democrat couldn't win, so he ran as a conservative, except for toeing the abortion line. Even there, he ran as wanting to keep abortion rare. It didn't take long after he was in office for the real agenda to be revealed.

If I believed everything Mitt said about his conservative principles, I would definitely support him. But, I don't. So, I don't.

You can't afford the price of free corn.

The reason why conservatives are flocking to Mitt is that people are looking beyond McCain's heroic military service and they don't like what they see.

I also think that all those endorsements make him look too establishment, although Arnie's wife endorsing OBama is another story.

Again I think the early mailed ballots and Military vets in California have probably sealed the deal for McCain. I think Romney would have needed to have a substantial lead in early CA Polls.

Usually those who vote early are those who wouldn't change their minds anyways. So, I don't think the early vote will make much of a difference.

Also, the polls take that into account. In Florida, we had the same thing, and Zogby, who hit it almost on the nose in Florida, is now projecting Romney up by 8.

Romney could get more votes and still loose to McCain in California. The state has a delegate rule that provides 3 Republican delegates for each congressional district.

This means the districts with a density of conservatives may be outweighed by the overall moderate Republicans throughout the rest of California.

I don't think there are many moderate left in California. You are either a conservative in California our a Democrat. Only 30% of voters in California is now Republican. The rest is either Democrats or Independents. Unlike Florida, where many moderates and democrats changed parties to vote in the Primary, the fight between Obama and Hillary is going to make California Republican contest predomately conservative. IMHO.

1) McCain does not suck as badly as he is getting credit for.

2) McCain is far from inevitable. Anyone buying that should purchase that 19-0 trademark from the NE Patriots.

3) If the Dems nominate Barack, they do not automatically win. Eventually someone will demand a detailed, intelligent answer from him and he's not getting any practice at delivering those so far.

4) Hillary .DNE. GOP win. Don't root for the Queen of Elemental Evil and Demon Spider of Chappaqua just for the sake of electoral calculus that may not be correct.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

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

-White Goodman

Huckabee will win Arkansas and like McCain or not, he will win Arizona, Illinois, New Jersey, Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri and most others. Romney winning more delegates than Mccain is a pipe-dream.

Go Dawgs, Sic em' Woof Woof

Assuming that the Talk Radio group doesn't change the results (which is very possible). The big issue is does McCain get a an over welming lead, or does it remain close.

Also, I am willing to be that one of the winner take all states that everyone is thinking McCain will win, goes to Romney. If I am right, you will see an upset come Wednessday morning.

I know it's old, but it's the first time I saw it:

Personally I find personal stories like this more enlightening than the MSM or paid advertisements.

Your predictions thus far have been pretty accurate, so I hope the trend continues.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I was listening to Rush when a Ron Paul commericial came on, So I got to thinking about what should happen afte Super Tuesday.

After Super Tuesday, anyone without a realistic chance to win the nomination should get out and not allowed to participate in the Debates.

This will likely mostly effect Ron Paul and Huckabee. If they are behind more than 50% behind the leaders, they should get out, and let the leaders fight it out. On the other hand, if any candidate is less than 50% behind the leaders, they have every right to stay in.

Why should they cease campaigning? The more delegates they can win, the greater a voice they would have at the convention, especially if no one has 50% +1 of the delegates.

I like them in the debates - they raise issues (when allowed) that need to be raised.

Too much speach never hurt the political process. I think we have too few and too short debates.

"I love my country, it's my government I fear."

First, he claimed there was a vast right wing conspiracy against him (

Then yesterday he claimed Hannity and Rush were propping up Romney because Bain Capital owns a chunk of Clear Channel communications (

Actually, Bain Capital does NOT own Clear Channel (they are in talks to take it private in the future, though), and Romney is not even involved in the company anymore.

This man is a moron.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I've seen a lot of speculation about this, but has McCain ever indicated that he would only serve one term? Or is it purely speculation based on his age?
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

... as long as McCain still has a possibility of winning. Remember, Huck wants that VP spot.

What I would really love to see is that when Romney wins in November, that anyone who prematurely backed McCain gets no job in his administration whatsoever. We can use those endorsements to see who is really a GOP and who is just in it for their own power and prestige.

If any of you think McCain is viable, just imagine him on the debate stage with Obama giving that cheesy grin and crazy arm thing he does versus Obama's incredible gift of gab. Yeah. No contest, no matter what either of them says. Presidents are not elected on substance, but on likeability and style. That's always true and that will always be true. If politicians were elected on qualifications, Bill Richardson would be the front-runner of the Democrats right now and the GOP would likely be Romney versus Rudy right now.

The thing we have to do now is look forward to 2012 and determine what we can do differently than what we did this time around. How can we blunt the MSM's incrediblly dangerous influence over this process? How can we keep Democrats/Independents/"Moderates" from choosing our candidates, while the true conservatives and really viable candidates get knocked out the race?

If Huckabee really wants to be McCain's VP then Huckabee should get out of the race immediately. You probably do not want to hear this but EVERY exit poll taken has shown that Huckabee supporters prefer John McCain to Mitt Romney.

If Huckabee gets out of the race, McCain would be winning in more places and by even larger margins.

I can understand what you are saying. It makes perfect sense, too. And by now, basically the only people that seem to be staying with the Huckster are the strong evangelicals and some of the more "moderate" GOPers. I would also imagine that a decent percentage of the Huck's supporters are also anti-Mormon (and very likely far right Christians) and would probably vote for McCain because he's not a Mormon.

I had a thought today that maybe Huck is attacking only Romney because up until a day or so ago, Romney had a pretty weak showing all around and Huck thought he had a better chance of unseating Romney than he did with McCain. It's an interesting race, I think.

But, like I said, if it's McCain and Obama, it'll be the most lopsided Democratic victory in politics... well, maybe except for Reagan/Mondale.

If it's Romney/Obama (which I think it will be), I think it will be a very fun, very substantial campaign.

How are you so easily duped?

This is his latest lie, where he repeated his false claim that the NRA endorsed him in an interview with Glenn and Helen Reynolds of Instapundit. Funny thing is that Glenn was hoping to support him. He also said in the interview he would veto an assault weapons ban, while he said he was for the assault weapons ban on Meet the Press in December of 07.

He does have an interesting appeal to young people. I have one in college and two in HS and they have shared with me that many kids they know like Ron Paul quite a bit. From what they have told me, it seems to go beyond just his anti-war isolationism. I think they also like his anti-government Libertarianism.

I have always thought that a fusion of Libertarian views with a more mainstream world view would have alot of appeal. It gives me some hope for the future that conservative ideals will make a comeback. Maybe the next wave of new voters will be more conservative.

Once you get passed the Iraq war opponents, 9/11 conspiracy believers and downright kooks, there are a lot of younger people that are libertarian, weary of the federal government and respect the constitution.

They're too young to remember Reagan, and some are too young to remember the Republican Revolution in 1994. Their knowledge of republican principles is based on the Republican congress of the last 7 years and George Bush.

I can understand their support. We just have more work to do to convince them they belong in our party. The candidates we have running now aren't helping.

I hope we see more of this on Red State.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Tomorrow or Wednesday there is a potentially crucial vote in the Senate on the Feingold amendment stripping Telecom immunity out of the FISA bill. Will Sen McCain make it to the Senate for crucial vote, considering it takes a simple majority to adopt this amendment?

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

because generally Thursday is my day to watch him. Ask someone that knows his schedule.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

We will be needing to put the "conservative" Romney supporters on here and talk radio on suicide watch tomorrow evening.

Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes!

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The original post was about conservatives flocking to Romney and Romney beating McCain. Where in the post is Huckabee discussed? I am in touch with the reality of my candidate's situation. By tonight the Romney people will be too.

Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes!


As a former non-Mormon long time resident of Utah I really hope Romney stays in it so that more scrutiny of the theocratic State of Utah is undertaken and the bizarre LDS Church and its beliefs are made known not only to people outside of Utah but to the poor ignorant Mormons as well.

The ability of Mr. Romney to be whatever he has to be to get what he wants is understandable, his Church and Utah have one heck of good Madison Avenue image--below the surface its another matter. Mormonism takes hypocrisy to levels its almost impossible to relate to anyone who has never lived in Utah.


I could not agree more. All those people in Washington should go to the Mormon temple of of 260 and find out even an every day Mormon cannot get inside. McCain would not be my choice but conservatives are crazy if they think they know this guy.

If you were the long time resident of the theocratic and hypocritic state of Utah that you claim then your choice to remain in such agony for so long brings me to this conclusion.

You are stupid.

Romney ends doing better than expected states-wise but is still at a delegate disadvantage?

Romney loses most states but comes close enough in non-WTA states that he's not at a delegate disadvantage?

Huckabee pulls out some surprising victories?

How badly does Romney have to do to drop out tomorrow? How well does Huckabee have to do to keep going?

These are the questions your loyal liberal Redstate reader has on this Mediocre Monday (stuck between Super Sunday and Super Tuesday).

My off the cuff take on your questions:

1. Romney: If he does better than expected (wins most of the caucus states, California and maybe even Georgia) and is within, say, 150 delegates by the end of Tuesday, he'll stay in the race. A big loss (loses California and down by 250+ delegates overall), he will drop out "for the good of the party."

2. Huckabee: I'm really not sure what his motivation is. Is he auditioning for a VP slot? Just wants to win a lot of delegates to have influence at the convention and promote socon issues? Probably a combinaiton of the two. I'd guess he stays in past Super Tuesday no matter the results.

I'll keep 'em in mind tonight at my Super Tuesday party.

Y'know, I had thought that Edwards was going to pull the strategy you suggest for Huck - accumulate delegates and push on issues - but once people know you don't really have a path to victory, I think the votes, money and media attention dry up so fast that you can't really carry on. I'd look for Huck to drop out midweek.

Criticisms of the Mormon church are not permitted on this siet, and people who choose to do so are quickly banned. Feel free to cease and desist before the mods come to blam you for it.

"You're with me? To the Death. For Narnia!!!!!!"(and Mitt)

How ya doin? Thank you for that.

BTW looks like there may be a few bright spots for mitt tommorow.

I'm doing ok, going to catch some sleep before I wake up early to go vote for Mitt!

"You're with me? To the Death. For Narnia!!!!!!"(and Mitt)

It's Fat Tuesday.

Laissez les bon temps roulez.

Let's keep our priorities in order!

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

Re: (knocking Romney) " McCain would not be my choice but conservatives are crazy if they think they know this guy."
- It is not odd to know somebody, where they stand, what they've done, and what is considered to be future actions - and choose someone more unknown whose words have not been mitigated by his actions. Many, obviously, think it crazy to just jump on the straight talk express holding their nose. Is it straight talk to say you have heard the people's backlash to shamnasty - while you have open border activists helping your campaign, as well as the Gramnasty gang of the party backing you? Or, you continue touting your conservativeness, while being backed by (and not rejecting) the most liberal papers, networks, pundits, ect.. who "despise" conservatives and Republicans in general. - "they fear him (McCain) the most" but, they endorse him as the opposition candidate - (to repeat) - they pick the most feared by them, and tell us to choose him to go against them. Anyone buying that kind of mularky - is crazy - more straight talk there? It has been revealed time and again that when it comes to advice/supposition given to Republicans from liberals like this, the odds greatly favor NOT accepting it.

Not only is it a national sentiment that we need change in our government. There is great momentum and excitement we are facing from the Democrat party. It seems misguided at best, to presume that a 71 yr old, 25yr entrenched Washintonite, who has been in the house/congress all this time, is a good headliner for providing that change.

It is also sad to see Huckabee continuing to go after Romney. In a winner take all contest (basically) like this, anyone really interested in winning should be focused on winning. Only a moron, or someone with motives would not go after the front runner - but, instead go after the 2nd place candidate?? As Huck is - using his platform much more against Romney than McCain. If Huck wants to win - he has to take down McCain. Huckabee can try to spin that any way he wants - but, he is exposed on this and using slick talk to distract, deny the motives, and yet, keep doing it. As if we are so ignorant to not see this. He should be ashamed of himself, but, he is not.

He's my guy, but at this point, I have to think that a vote for Huckabee tomorrow is a vote for McCain. I've got to pull the lever for Romney. Sorry Mike, but you have no chance.

"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson

The discussion over the McCain-Romney choice is starting to echo the Democratic primary season in 2004.

We had our rock-ribbed conservative candidates: Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson, but (rightly or wrongly) not enough conservatives supported them to keep them in the race. We thus now have to move to candidates with less solid conservative credentials. I personally will go with McCain, but I respect those who, recognizing the imperfect choices we have, would go with Romney.

Where the Kerry analogy comes in is among the many voices I hear who are projecting Romney as the "last hope" of the conservatives and displacing their disappointments in the primary results to date upon McCain.

Folks, vote for the candidate you prefer, but please stop promulgating this absurd Manichean delusion regarding McCain versus Romney. Conservatives are supposed to be the one who keep their heads while others around them are losing theirs. The Democrats will be happy to chop off heads in the upcoming elections; let's not help them out.

And Rightly So!

I think if they really wanted us to take them seriously, they would have endorsed when there were a number of conservatives to choose from. Naturally, I thought Fred was the best choice, and felt all along that some of them did, they just didn't want to say it. Now, with only 2 viable candidates, sorry Huck, left, they are just picking the conservative lesser of two evils. I would have respected them if they had picked their best candidate from a real pool of candidates.

One more consideration. Minus, Huckabee, you could pretty much tell who would be immediate top tier and seond tier. I think Mitt Romney saw a void for an electable conservative and tried to fill it. I think if Fred Thompson was in the race early, we would be seeing a much different Mitt Romney.

I do not vote for a candidate on social issues, for example, I could have voted for Rudy Guiliani despite his pro-choice and gay friendly policy. But I will vote, or not vote for someone who seems to show a propensity to change his position on social issues to suit the mood of an electorate. A la Mass. and now the country. If Fred Thompson did anything well in his campaign it was expose the flip-flops and inconsistencies of Guiliani, Huckabee and especially Mitt Romney. And before someone else comments, yes I'm sure he would have had some harsh words for McCain if they were not friends.

"Now is not time for the philosophical flexibility of our principles." Fred Dalton Thompson

Jason in NorCal

McCain sucks 5X worse.

Any questions?

your eloquence is astonishing. limited vocabulary...but to the point

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

I don't like either of them, and I don't really have much to say that can prop up Romney. Sorry to his fans.

What it comes down to for me is simply that I can vote for Romney in the general. I CAN'T vote for McCain, whoever he runs against. If it looks close *shudder* I will vote against him. Sorry if that offends you. Some may say, ya sure, when faced with hil, they'll come around. Nope, I won't. Don't bother with trying to talk me out of that position, because it's wasted bandwidth.

If it was just me, McCain supporters shouldn't worry too much. But I'm FAR from alone. I don't see how they expect to win with millions of their own base sitting it out.

Hello unlimited baby killings, gay marriages, handguns officially in the hands of only criminals and not law abiding citizens who may use them for self-defense and not random shopping mall "sprees."

I've yet to be upset with anyone against McCain in the primary, but not voting for any Republican in the general, if for no other reason than 30 years of liberal SC judges, just does not make any sense.

I've said it before and will say again, I'm a conservative before I'm a Republican, but I'm an American before I'm a conservative, and I cannot reconcile the idea of sending a message to a party that has ignored us for some time only to send a message. They don't listen anyway. Even Hugh Hewitt, the biggest Mitt pimp of them all is quick to remind us he will work hard to elect McCain should he be the nominee. If anyone has reason to not say this, its him. Even Hugh realizes McCain is infinitely better than Obama or Hillary.

But go ahead and send that message, and just maybe there will be an America (physically and in spirit) to be led by the new GOP that we have all sent "a message to" in 8 years. Well 16 if Obama and Hillary team up... because no way the Dems are letting go of that one.

"Now is not time for the philosophical flexibility of our principles." Fred Dalton Thompson

Jason in NorCal

You're right, a Souter or a Kennedy are so much better.


I was watching a group of porn stars giving their opinion on Super Tuesday and who they might vote for. This is a website that is apparently run or sponsored by Will Ferrell. But in the midst of all the things you are supposed to laugh at (including a leather daddy threatening to spank Hillary Clinton) a woman asks 'Isn't there a mixed black/white guy?' The sound man helpfully says 'Yes, Barack Obama'. She says, "Oh, okay" but then moments later reacts quite strongly - saying "Woah, where's he from? He's not an American!"

Now least anybody misunderstand me, clearly this woman is ignorant in all sorts of ways and is probably not someone who is likely to vote. The whole point of this montage is to make fun of these porn stars' ignorance (which actually seems a bit snobby to me but in the case of this xenophobic woman, I don't have much sympathy) but how many people out there have that same sort of feeling that she does? How many Joe (and Joan) Six-Packs are going to be put off just by his name?

Here's The Link

John S. McCain III

"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy."

John McCain, speaking to left-wing Democrats in 2004.

A vote for McLiar is a vote for a Democrat! :)

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

I read all three Rachel Lucas articles.

Color me unimpressed.


...for the sake of my family's honor I will note that I am in fact a respectably married gentleman.

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

"Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush," Mitt Romney during a debate with Ted Kennedy in 1994. And the answer is no, Mitt, the NRA did NOT endorse you!

So if after a difficult and acrimonious primary John McCain wins by a slim margin, and goes into the GOP Convention with a 15 point poll deficit to the Dem, a scant volunteer network bereft of enthusiastic conservatives and less than $20 Million raised, will voters wish they had made a different decision when they had a chance?


"It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still."

-RWR January 21, 1985

...will voters wish they had made a different decision when they had a chance.

If John McCain wins enough delegates to clinch the nomination, it will not be because he was annointed heir, it will not be because he staged a party coup, it will be because enough voters in the various primaries voted for him.

(The same goes for Mitt Romney.)

As for buyer's remorse, that's a danger no matter who the prospective nominee at the end of this primary process.

And Rightly So!

Gov. Bill Owens? Speaker Newt Gingrich? Sen Rick Santorum? Sec Condi Rice?

This might help Mitt get some media attention and solidify his candidacy; and if nominated, he would be in safe company with any of these people as VP choice...


"It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still."

-RWR January 21, 1985

whom could he get to join him?

I don't ask that as an attack, but as a serious question. He's down in the polls, and unless he does significantly better than expected tomorrow, it's not clear why anyone would agree to join his campaign as vp. the potential benefit would be too low.

but, putting that aside, if he could get a solid and well-known conservative to join his ticket, it would definitely help - maybe even swing states like texas his way.

So, we're all hearing "A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain." How about "A vote for McCain is a vote for Hillary!"

I like it, and it has some truth to it.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service