A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Dick Morris, Washington sleaze

Foxfyre wrote:

Dick Morris, Washington sleaze

Sounds about right...

As Tom Engelhardt points out, "When it comes to the mainstream media, bombing is generally only significant if it's of the roadside or suicide variety; if, that is, the 'bombs' can be produced at approximately the cost of a pizza (as IEDs sometimes are), or if the vehicles delivering them are cars or simply fiendishly well-rigged human bodies. From the air, even 100,000 pounds of bombs just doesn't have the ring of something that matters." ...

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Dick Morris, Washington sleaze

Sounds about right...

Whats funny is that he has gone from one of Bill Clintons advisors to "Washington sleaze" among the left.
How is that possible?

Foxfyre wrote:

Dick Morris, Washington sleaze

Sounds about right...

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Dick Morris, Washington sleaze

Sounds about right...

Whats funny is that he has gone from one of Bill Clintons advisors to "Washington sleaze" among the left.
How is that possible?

Are there not any intellectual who is under 40 years of age
to project and uphold the lofty American views?
why the hell this 71 years old person should get the support ?
I hope many in USA are better qualified to give the patriotic old people to enjoy their life blissfully.
Rama

Haven't heard myself but we've heard from a slew of readers who tell us that on his show today Sean Hannity was majorly getting religion on John McCain.

Limbaugh: "The Base Has Fractured"
Posted by Josh Gerstein
Wed, 30 Jan 2008 at 12:53 PM

A defensive Rush Limbaugh, one of Senator McCain's biggest detractors, just delivered what he called a "non-concession speech" in response to Mr. McCain's win in Florida Tuesday. "Yeah, it looks like McCain's pretty far down the line now to having wrapped this up," he said on his popular conservative radio show today.

At times, the talk host still seemed to have some fight in him. At other times, he seemed ready to move on. "There's going to be another election in 2012," Mr. Limbaugh said at one point.

"There's a lot of anxiety among a lot of conservatives about Senator McCain. It's simply indisputable,but there was no figure in our roster of candidates who rose up to challenge him or to galvanize conservative support. All the candidates on our side, for various reasons, are uninspiring or worse and so just as I predicted the base has fractured. Some going here. Some going there," Mr. Limbaugh said as he explained Mr. McCain's victory in Florida Tuesday night.

"Senator McCain has been able to cobble together enough votes to win in a few states. Fine. He deserves credit for that. But to pretend that Senator McCain is the choice of conservatives when exit poll data from every primary state show just the opposite--he is not the choice of conservatives as opposed to the Republican establishment, and that distinction is key," the conservative talker said. "The Republican establishment, which has long sought to rid the party of conservative influence since Reagan, is feeling a victory today as well as our friends in the media, but both are just far-fetched and wrong."

The talkmaster said Michael Huckabee was partly to blame for Mitt Romney not doing better. Mr. Limbuagh said Mr. Huckabee has "no traction.....He needs to get out."

Mr. Limbaugh warned the mainstream press not to interpret Tuesday's results as the demise of the Reagan movement. " The Reagan coalition is not breaking up," he said defensively. "The Reagan coalition is going in different directions because there isn't anybody from the Reagan coalition in the Republican roster of nominees.....Those of us in the Reagan coalition have not lost anything."

The talk radio host insisted that Mr. McCain is being supported by "a veritable list of the old country club blueblood establishment." That claim is debatable, since only 12 Republican senators have endorsed him and many others nurse grievances against him over his crusades against pork and in favor of tighter campaign finance and ethics laws.

At several points, Mr. Limbaugh said he thought few of his conservative listeners contributed to Mr. McCain's coalition Tuesday, which showed exit polls showed came largely from moderates, independents and even some self-described liberals. However, the talk host also seemed to allow that some listeners may have ignored him. "You still made up your minds yesterday," he said.

GOP TO EDWARDS: HOW MUCH FOR THAT CONCESSION SPEECH?
January 30, 2008


The Democrats are trying to give away an election they should win in a walk by nominating someone with real problems -- like, for example, a first-term senator with a 100 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and whose middle name is "Hussein."

But we won't let them.

The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.

Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats.

Recently, McCain responded to Mitt Romney's statement that he understood the economy based on his many years in the private sector by claiming Romney had said a military career is not a "real job."

McCain's neurotic boast that he is the only Republican who supported the surge is beginning to sound as insane as Bill Clinton's claim to being the "first black president" -- although less insulting to blacks. As with the Clintons, you find yourself looking up such tedious facts as this, which ran a week after Bush announced the surge:

"On the morning of Bush's address, Romney endorsed a troop surge." -- The National Journal, Jan. 13, 2007

And yet for the 4 billionth time, at the Jan. 5, 2008, Republican debate, McCain bragged about his own raw courage in supporting the surge despite (apocryphal) Republican attacks, saying: "I said at the time that Gen. Petraeus and his strategy must be employed, and I was criticized by Republicans at that time. And that was a low point, but I stuck to it. I didn't change."

A review of contemporaneous news stories about the surge clearly demonstrates that the only Republicans who were so much as "skeptical" of the surge consisted of a few oddball liberal Republicans such as Sens. Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Olympia Snowe.

They certainly weren't attacking McCain, their standard-bearer in liberal Republicanism. But even if they were, it was a "low point" for McCain being "criticized" by the likes of Olympia Snowe?

In point of fact, McCain didn't even stand up to the milquetoasts. In April 2007, when Democrats in the Senate passed a bill funding the troops but also requiring a rapid withdrawal, "moderate" Republicans Smith and Chuck Hagel voted with the Democrats. McCain and Lindsey Graham skipped the vote.

But like the Democrats, McCain thinks if he simply says something over and over again, he can make people believe it's true. Thus again at the South Carolina debate on Jan. 10, McCain was proclaiming that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge.

Since he would deny it about two minutes later, here is exactly what Mr. Straight Talk said about the surge: "I supported that; I argued for it. I'm the only one on this stage that did. And I condemn the Rumsfeld strategy before that."

The next question went to Giuliani and -- amid great flattery -- Giuliani noted that he also supported Bush's surge "the night of the president's speech."

Mr. Straight Talk contradicted Giuliani, saying: "Not at the time."

Again, Giuliani said: "The night of the president's speech, I was on television. I supported the surge. I've supported it throughout."

To which McCain finally said he didn't mean that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge. So by "the only one on this stage," McCain really meant, "one of several people on this stage." OK, great. Now tell us your definition of the word "is," Senator.

I know Republicans have been trained not to go prostrate at Ivy League degrees, but do we have to admire stupidity?

Mr. Straight Talk also announced at that same debate: "One of the reasons why I won in New Hampshire is because I went there and told them the truth." That and the fact that Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.

Even in the Florida primary, allegedly limited to Republicans, McCain lost among Republicans. (Seventeen percent of the Republican primary voters in Florida called themselves "Independents.")

That helps, but why would any Republican vote for McCain?

At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.

You need little flags like that for Republicans since, as we know from the recent unpleasantness in Florida, Republicans are unalterably stupid.

Republicans who vote for McCain are trying to be cute, like the Democrats were four years ago by voting for the "pragmatic" candidate, Vietnam vet John Kerry. This will turn out to be precisely as clever a gambit as nominating Kerry was, the brilliance of which was revealed on Election Day 2004.

and what did Ann Coulter have to say today?

blatham wrote:

and what did Ann Coulter have to say today?

Is this a first?