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

Quote:

Ann Coulter Speaks At CPAC
Posted by: Jonathan Garthwaite at 10:25 PM
Ann Coulter wasn't invited to CPAC this year but she came to CPAC anyway and gave a speech just down the hallway from the ballroom where John McCain spoke Thursday. The speech was only open to 1000 attendees but you can watch it here on Townhall.com.
I guess we'll name this speech, "Ann Coulter's 2008 not-at-CPAC-CPAC speech."

see speech here http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/b9769a28-f1fa-4ee9-af17-c9955af1a2e5

Who then will you vote for okie? Do either Hillary or Obama offer better alternatives for you?

Okie: Point noted. I readily concede that I know little about GOP politics in KS. It just seemed surprising to me. Any predictions on NB?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Closer still - meaning winning more delegates and being closer to the magic number required

"Closer still" by definition implies one is "close" in the first place, hello. Odd thing to say about someone who was trailing by almost 1:3 and had no chance whatsoever anymore of winning the nomination.

But yeah, like you say, whatever...

I applaud your self-criticism and intend to keep it in mind.

Bygones

Then:

Standing on the Senate floor last Oct. 14, [1999,] McCain, the Republican presidential contender known for a hair-trigger temper, was being pummeled with hostile questions by his longtime nemesis, Sen. Mitch McConnell. Everyone in the chamber knew McConnell was trying to goad McCain into losing his temper. McConnell started by reading verbatim quotes from McCain's campaign appearances in which the Arizona senator alleged that members of Congress were being corrupted by large, unregulated campaign contributions. He then called on McCain to name some members who had been corrupted. "I am not in the business of identifying individuals or attacking individuals," McCain sputtered, as he strained to maintain his composure. "I am attacking a system that has to be fixed. . . " McConnell would not let up. "I ask the senator from Arizona, how can it be corruption if no one is corrupt? That is like saying the gang is corrupt, but none of the gangsters are." Again, he demanded: "Who is corrupt?" Suddenly, McCain turned on McConnell, although he did not lose his temper. Instead, he calmly resurrected an incident from the past that was designed to portray his opponent as a lackey of the tobacco industry. He recalled a speech the Republican senator from Kentucky had made in the privacy of a GOP caucus meeting last year. McConnell had assured senators that the tobacco industry would help them in future re-election campaigns if they voted against a popular $1.10-a-pack tobacco tax proposed by McCain. "A certain senator stood up and said it was okay for you not to vote for the tobacco bill because the tobacco companies will run ads in our favor," McCain said. To this day, many senators, lobbyists and journalists remember that as one of the nastiest exchanges witnessed on the Senate floor.

I watched it - it was the longest continuous exposure I have yet had to her. I thought the best line was that Romney is a conservative who had to work to earn votes in a Liberal State, and McCain is a Liberal who had to work to get votes in a Conservative state. Beyond that it was mostly just Ann Coulter doing a parody of Ann Coulter.

georgeob1 wrote:

Who then will you vote for okie? Do either Hillary or Obama offer better alternatives for you?

No, I would never vote for Clinton, and I see Obama as mostly a fad. We know nothing of any accomplishments or track record to indicate he would be any kind of a president, aside from espousing very liberal positions on issues. He seems to be a nice person, and if a gun were held to my head to make me choose between Clinton and Obama, I would vote Obama. McCain is still better than either of them on some issues, but it remains to be seen whether he motivates me to vote for him. I will probably vote for other issues in the general, but might leave president blank, I will just have to wait and see.

realjohnboy wrote:

Okie: Point noted. I readily concede that I know little about GOP politics in KS. It just seemed surprising to me. Any predictions on NB?

Kansas is very balanced hard working citizens, mostly conservative politically at least out of urban areas. The caucus system probably helped Huckabee there. I don't know any more than you do about NB, is it caucus or straight voting? It would seem Huckabee would do okay, but perhaps not as well as in Kansas, so McCain might win there, I'm not sure. I just don't know.

okie wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

Okie: Point noted. I readily concede that I know little about GOP politics in KS. It just seemed surprising to me. Any predictions on NB?

Kansas is very balanced hard working citizens, mostly conservative politically at least out of urban areas. The caucus system probably helped Huckabee there. I don't know any more than you do about NB, is it caucus or straight voting? It would seem Huckabee would do okay, but perhaps not as well as in Kansas, so McCain might win there, I'm not sure. I just don't know.

The Caucus process favors the retail politicans like Huckabee and Obama.

And that will be a vote for the Democrats okie. You know you can't do that to America. I have faith that you'll take one for the team in November.

I agree. She is an entertainer, not a political commentator. A writer & stand up comic whose shtick is parodying & mocking "liberals" (conveniently defined). About as "profoundly insightful" as Bill Maher, but funnier (however, that isn't saying much).

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And that will be a vote for the Democrats okie. You know you can't do that to America. I have faith that you'll take one for the team in November.

McCain has to prove he is a member of the team first, before I can vote for the team, something he hasn't done too well up to now. And I want to see if I think he is going to throw the game before I decide to play or not.

KANSAS....In a way, the fact that Mike Huckabee won the Kansas caucuses isn't all that surprising. It's fertile evangelical territory for him, it's right next door to his home state, and the caucus format probably helps him.

But....still....what a blowout. Usually, even among true believers, you expect a party to rally around its presumptive nominee. Even the hardcore wingers at CPAC, who booed McCain at the beginning of his speech on Thursday, warmed up to him by the end. But Kansas Republicans weren't buying, and they weren't content just to show a pro forma lack of enthusiasm. They crushed McCain like a bug, voting for Huckabee 60%-24%. [..]

There's no point in making too much of this. McCain is going to win the nomination and the party faithful will support him. But it's going to be a fight for McCain to win their love, and that fight might well keep him from broadening his appeal to the middle. Come November, liberals might not be the only ones asking What's the Matter With Kansas?

okie wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And that will be a vote for the Democrats okie. You know you can't do that to America. I have faith that you'll take one for the team in November.

McCain has to prove he is a member of the team first, before I can vote for the team, something he hasn't done too well up to now. And I want to see if I think he is going to throw the game before I decide to play or not.

As I said before, the decision is yours to make. Just keep in mind that there are some very old liberal justices on the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens is 88 and if Clinton or Obama wins, he will almost certainly retire during their term.

Just one more conservative judge will make a huge difference.

Scalia is 72
Kennedy is 72
Ginsberg is 75
Breyer is 70

I wish all of these people continued good health and long life, it would be surprising to see at least two of them needing to be replaced in the next 8 years.

I watched Bill Maher last night and he was Coulteresque as respects the comments he made about conservatives. At one point he made the comment "Why couldn't he (Rush Limbaugh)have died instead of Heath Ledger."