Coulter: Would Vote Clinton Over Mccain

[Alycin]

[quote name='XIX' post='1454188' date='Feb 1 2008, 04:22 PM']Bah. I don't take Ann Coulter seriously.[/quote]


No one should. Ann Coulter is the Michael Moore of the conservative party.

[Justin86]

I didn't believe it until I saw the video. I think the expression on my face looked something like this: .

It would appear that if Ann does this she would risk alienating her fan base, at least according to one poll done in a thread on the chat portion of her official website.

My opinion is we are currently in a time of war. Hillary would make for a terrible Commander-in-Chief, by far worse than McCain(although I don't see him as entirely ideal either). True, Hillary probably isn't going to pull troops out of Iraq, but her style of leadership for the military will be no different then her husbands, and that was an absolute disaster. McCain is by far a more acceptable candidate for the job, and therefore he gets my vote over Hildabeast any day.

On a final note, if Hillary does win against McCain conservatives who campaign for her will later regret their decision after she starts applying the Patriot Act to them. Most specficly:

[quote][The Patriot Act] would allow the government to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; [b]federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought[/b], no matter how long that took; and it would allow Americans to be [b]stripped of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrrorist.[/b][/quote]

[url="http://crime.about.com/od/terrorism/i/partiot_act_2.htm"]http://crime.about.com/od/terrorism/i/partiot_act_2.htm[/url]

Ann and Lounge Daddy should enjoy their freedoms that they so aggressively want to defend while they last, if they choose to go this route.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Justin86

[XIX]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1454431' date='Feb 2 2008, 02:33 AM']No one should. Ann Coulter is the Michael Moore of the conservative party.[/quote]
Her real name should be Bob Loblaw.

[Dismas]

[quote name='nLEyETn' post='1454215' date='Feb 1 2008, 05:06 PM']It is hard to say what he would do if he became president but there is still more hope of him being pro life than there is of Hillary. And I would trust him to handle our national security more than any other candidate. He still isn't the candidate I want but I'd vote for the lesser of two evils if it came down to it. For Coulter to say she'd actually campaign for Hillary is just unbelievable, I'm just hoping she was saying it to try and give a wake up call to Republican voters out there.[/quote]
I'm sure that is what this is about. As for me, I'm going to have to vote Constitution party.

As for McCain's handling national security, bah. What was he doing for the military in the 90's? Oh yeah, dismantling it for Bill Clinton. I sincerely doubt he "got religion" about it, and I doubt he'll nominate any SCOTUS justices more pro-life than or more conservative than Justice Ginsburg. He loves popularity too much.
[quote name='Justin86' post='1454439' date='Feb 2 2008, 02:28 AM']On a final note, if Hillary does win against McCain conservatives who campaign for her will later regret their decision after she starts applying the Patriot Act to them.[/quote]
She won't have my vote.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1454482' date='Feb 2 2008, 10:01 AM']I'm sure that is what this is about. As for me, I'm going to have to vote Constitution party.

As for McCain's handling national security, bah. What was he doing for the military in the 90's? Oh yeah, dismantling it for Bill Clinton. I sincerely doubt he "got religion" about it, and I doubt he'll nominate any SCOTUS justices more pro-life than or more conservative than Justice Ginsburg. He loves popularity too much.

She won't have my vote.[/quote]

Well the Constitution party doesn't seem to have a presidential candidate as of yet. If the candidate holds to the party line, then you would be ok.

While I wish that McCain would drop the abortion exceptions, I think he's awesome.

[Dismas]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1454498' date='Feb 2 2008, 10:27 AM']Well the Constitution party doesn't seem to have a presidential candidate as of yet. If the candidate holds to the party line, then you would be ok.[/quote]
I believe that the Constitution Party decided to not nominate a candidate yet, in case Ron Paul were to have received the nod. Though it is practically impossible at this point, I think they will wait until he is eliminated.
[quote name='hot stuff' post='1454498' date='Feb 2 2008, 10:27 AM']While I wish that McCain would drop the abortion exceptions, I think he's awesome.[/quote]
He won't nominate another Justice Alito. Based on his judicial rhetoric, I doubt he would sent Congress anyone more pro-life than Justice Kennedy. Of course, for all we know, the two justices that he would likely nominate will turn out like Justice Souter.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/willcarlavi2.gif[/img]

[daytondog]

Wow, I see a lot of suppositions and insinuations from the McCain haters; why don't we look at the facts:

The American Conservative Union, which is the oldest conservative lobbying group in America, puts out an authoritative "Conservative Rating" based upon Congressional voting records. So you McCain haters can quote every liberal media source you want, twist John McCain's words around all you want, but lets look at how he has put his ideas and values into Congressional action by looking at his Conservative voting record:
John McCain lifetime Conservative ranking of 82.3
Rick Santorum, former senator from Penn., staunch Roman Catholic lifetime Conservative ranking of 88.1
Barak Obama lifetime Conservative ranking of 8
Hillary Clinton lifetime Conservative ranking of 9

Clearly, McCain is right (no pun intended) in line with the Santorum wing of the Republican party no matter how you want to slander him as a Clinton liberal.

I can't believe you folks are so foolish and unsophisticated (sorry if I come across as self righteous) to fall for the New York Times editorial board and not see through their shrewd political maneuvers. The NY times is keenly aware that any endorsement they give a Republican candidate can only hurt that candidate in the view of the Republican base. And when they looked across the Republican candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who beats every Democratic candidate in the polls. (Please visit www.realclearpolitics.com for this evidence) So this is the NY Times and their liberal allies only real chance to stopping a Republican victory in November: stop the McCain nomination, and you guarantee Obama or Clinton (or both) in the White House.

Wake up people. Why are you willing to cut off your nose in order to save your face?

Stop Hillary!
Stop Barack Osama bin Laden!



How ACU Determines Its Ratings and Why They Are Significant

As the premier conservative rating listed in all major political almanacs and reference guides, ACU's "Rating" is often quoted by the media and is extensively used by political strategists and candidates running for public office.

As the umbrella grassroots lobbying group of the Conservative Movement, ACU tracks a wide variety of issues before Congress, ranging from taxes to spending and national security to abortion. Accordingly, our ratings encompass three general categories: (1) economic and budget matters; (2) social and cultural issues, and (3) defense and foreign policy. ACU endeavors to analyze votes from each category in order to obtain a balanced, comprehensive picture of an individual member's ideological predisposition based upon recorded records.

Each member of the House and Senate is rated on a scale of 0 to 100.

The purpose of the "Rating" is to inform the public, in as unbiased a method as possible, exactly where individual Senators and Members of the House stand on the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative.

[Justin86]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454528' date='Feb 3 2008, 03:01 AM']Wow, I see a lot of suppositions and insinuations from the McCain haters; why don't we look at the facts:

The American Conservative Union, which is the oldest conservative lobbying group in America, puts out an authoritative "Conservative Rating" based upon Congressional voting records. So you McCain haters can quote every liberal media source you want, twist John McCain's words around all you want, but lets look at how he has put his ideas and values into Congressional action by looking at his Conservative voting record:
John McCain lifetime Conservative ranking of 82.3
Rick Santorum, former senator from Penn., staunch Roman Catholic lifetime Conservative ranking of 88.1
Barak Obama lifetime Conservative ranking of 8
Hillary Clinton lifetime Conservative ranking of 9

Clearly, McCain is right (no pun intended) in line with the Santorum wing of the Republican party no matter how you want to slander him as a Clinton liberal.

I can't believe you folks are so foolish and unsophisticated (sorry if I come across as self righteous) to fall for the New York Times editorial board and not see through their shrewd political maneuvers. The NY times is keenly aware that any endorsement they give a Republican candidate can only hurt that candidate in the view of the Republican base. And when they looked across the Republican candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who beats every Democratic candidate in the polls. (Please visit www.realclearpolitics.com for this evidence) So this is the NY Times and their liberal allies only real chance to stopping a Republican victory in November: stop the McCain nomination, and you guarantee Obama or Clinton (or both) in the White House.

Wake up people. Why are you willing to cut off your nose in order to save your face?

Stop Hillary!
Stop Barack Osama bin Laden!
How ACU Determines Its Ratings and Why They Are Significant

As the premier conservative rating listed in all major political almanacs and reference guides, ACU's "Rating" is often quoted by the media and is extensively used by political strategists and candidates running for public office.

As the umbrella grassroots lobbying group of the Conservative Movement, ACU tracks a wide variety of issues before Congress, ranging from taxes to spending and national security to abortion. Accordingly, our ratings encompass three general categories: (1) economic and budget matters; (2) social and cultural issues, and (3) defense and foreign policy. ACU endeavors to analyze votes from each category in order to obtain a balanced, comprehensive picture of an individual member's ideological predisposition based upon recorded records.

Each member of the House and Senate is rated on a scale of 0 to 100.

The purpose of the "Rating" is to inform the public, in as unbiased a method as possible, exactly where individual Senators and Members of the House stand on the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative.[/quote]
Notice how you didn't name a single piece of legislation that he voted for to demonstrate this conservativeness you attribute to him. I'm actually rather surprised by that. I thought for sure you were going to put "he voted for the surge" in there, which while true, is but one issue.

In either case, I'm no McCain hater, but lets show some intellectual honesty: one simply can not describe themselves as conservative when they are pro-amnesty, and when one's very name is the title of a bill that restricts free-speech! Of course, he's really no different then Romney, which is why I'm rather surprised by Ann's venom against him, but none of this changes the reality that we won't be getting a conservative president this fall no matter what.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1454482' date='Feb 3 2008, 01:01 AM']As for McCain's handling national security, bah. What was he doing for the military in the 90's? Oh yeah, dismantling it for Bill Clinton.[/quote]
Being for the surge and downsizing the military aren't two issues that go hand-in-hand easily. If anything, he'd probably at least maintain the current plan to up-size the Army and the half-assed up-sizing the Marine Corp has been doing.

Of course its true that McCain didn't invent the surge, as he currently likes to spin it, but it is true that he was one of its strongest proponents.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Justin86

[daytondog]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1454532' date='Feb 2 2008, 01:29 PM']Notice how you didn't name a single piece of legislation that he voted for to demonstrate this conservativeness you attribute to him. I'm actually rather surprised by that. I thought for sure you were going to put "he voted for the surge" in there, which while true, is but one issue.

In either case, I'm no McCain hater, but lets show some intellectual honesty: one simply can not describe themselves as conservative when they are pro-amnesty, and when one's very name is the title of a bill that restricts free-speech! Of course, he's really no different then Romney, which is why I'm rather surprised by Ann's venom against him, but none of this changes the reality that we won't be getting a conservative president this fall no matter what. [/quote]

Having served in both houses of Congress for over 25 years, and accumulating a lifetime conservative rating of 82.3 while doing it, there just isn't enough room or time to enumerate each and every piece of legislation he voted for over the last two and half decades, get real. The number 82.3 speaks for itself. But, at your instance of "intellectual honesty" here is the anecdotal proof you demand:

John McCain voted to convict Bill Clinton on both impeachment counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. The conservative stalwarts Senators Fred Thompson, John Warner, Richard Shelby, or Ted Stevens did not even had the conservative fortitude to do this.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/mccain/2008/01/25/67382.html"]McCain Does Not Fit 'Conservative' Definition[/url]

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:01 AM

By: David Limbaugh

Many conservatives have said Sen. John McCain is not conservative enough to suit them. Some of McCain's defenders have not only disagreed but have impugned his critics, hypocritically blaming them for divisiveness. But intramural bickering isn't the issue.

What's important is that conservatives have an intellectually honest and open discussion about GOP presidential contenders.

It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain — overnight — into a Reagan conservative.

McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back — not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, said, "I don't agree with (McCain) on hardly any issues." Santorum told radio host Mark Levin, "I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the senator from Arizona."

Santorum said McCain has been damaging to conservative causes and would be no friend to conservatives in the White House.

McCain's defenders — in the McCainian spirit of chilling political speech — forbid us from criticizing him because he is a war hero. That's irresponsible nonsense. Voters and analysts have an obligation to assess McCain's suitability for the presidency. To consider and verbalize the negatives is not to demean his service or sacrifice.

We can recognize and honor McCain's indescribably grueling POW experiences without taking the leap of arguing they automatically qualify him as an ideal commander in chief. His qualifications should be evaluated on the merits, not on sentimental appeals to his service.

Understandably, I suppose, pundits often glibly assert that one of McCain's many advantages is his character, a character that was molded by the hardships he endured. McCain's captivity undeniably involved more character building than anything most of us will ever experience. But to say he is a rugged, battle-tested hero does not mean he is incapable of prevarication, opportunism, demagoguery or other mischief. Nor does it immunize him from scrutiny concerning the credible claim that he lacks the temperament to be president.

I respectfully reject that McCain's honorable and sacrificial character-building experiences or his self-description as a "straight talker" place his veracity above question.

I remember him sidling up to the media by falsely claiming George Bush didn't level with the American people about how long the Iraq war could take.

I remember him blaming dirty campaign tricks on Bush in South Carolina in 2000, when investigations revealed there was no evidence Bush was behind it.

I remember him joining liberals in slandering the truth-telling Swift Boat veterans as "dishonest and dishonorable."

I remember his disingenuous derision of the across-the-board Bush tax cuts as being only for the rich.

I witnessed him changing his position on immigration to shore up support in South Carolina, then after that primary arrogantly denying to Sean Hannity that he'd flip-flopped.

People can assess for themselves whether McCain is always straight, but hopefully they'll base their decision on the evidence and not his hero status. I seriously doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination, precisely because of his infidelity to conservative principles. Consider:

He crusades against Guantanamo, favors constitutional rights for terrorists but opposes tough interrogation techniques, was the ringleader of the Gang of 14, which legitimized the filibustering of judicial nominees, and is the godfather of political speech-suppressing and Democrat-favoring campaign-finance reform legislation.

He has displayed contempt for conservative evangelicals, opposed Bush's pro-growth tax cuts for reasons other than he says (spending), has engaged in other class-warfare rhetoric like demonizing oil and drug companies, co-sponsored the abominable McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant-forgiveness/open-borders/Social Security zapping bill, and even voted for the Specter amendment, which could have conferred consulting rights on Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.

He sold out on global warming, opportunistically opposed drilling in ANWR, favors re-importation of drugs from Canada, and promoted the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards patients bill of rights. Even his pro-life credentials are not as pristine as we're told: He opposes reversal of Roe vs. Wade and sided with anti-political speech zealots in filing an amicus brief against Wisconsin Right to Life.

Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback.

[daytondog]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1454581' date='Feb 2 2008, 03:11 PM'][url="http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/mccain/2008/01/25/67382.html"]McCain Does Not Fit 'Conservative' Definition[/url]

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:01 AM

By: David Limbaugh

Many conservatives have said Sen. John McCain is not conservative enough to suit them. Some of McCain's defenders have not only disagreed but have impugned his critics, hypocritically blaming them for divisiveness. But intramural bickering isn't the issue.

What's important is that conservatives have an intellectually honest and open discussion about GOP presidential contenders.

It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain — overnight — into a Reagan conservative.

McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back — not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, said, "I don't agree with (McCain) on hardly any issues." Santorum told radio host Mark Levin, "I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the senator from Arizona."

Santorum said McCain has been damaging to conservative causes and would be no friend to conservatives in the White House.

McCain's defenders — in the McCainian spirit of chilling political speech — forbid us from criticizing him because he is a war hero. That's irresponsible nonsense. Voters and analysts have an obligation to assess McCain's suitability for the presidency. To consider and verbalize the negatives is not to demean his service or sacrifice.

We can recognize and honor McCain's indescribably grueling POW experiences without taking the leap of arguing they automatically qualify him as an ideal commander in chief. His qualifications should be evaluated on the merits, not on sentimental appeals to his service.

Understandably, I suppose, pundits often glibly assert that one of McCain's many advantages is his character, a character that was molded by the hardships he endured. McCain's captivity undeniably involved more character building than anything most of us will ever experience. But to say he is a rugged, battle-tested hero does not mean he is incapable of prevarication, opportunism, demagoguery or other mischief. Nor does it immunize him from scrutiny concerning the credible claim that he lacks the temperament to be president.

I respectfully reject that McCain's honorable and sacrificial character-building experiences or his self-description as a "straight talker" place his veracity above question.

I remember him sidling up to the media by falsely claiming George Bush didn't level with the American people about how long the Iraq war could take.

I remember him blaming dirty campaign tricks on Bush in South Carolina in 2000, when investigations revealed there was no evidence Bush was behind it.

I remember him joining liberals in slandering the truth-telling Swift Boat veterans as "dishonest and dishonorable."

I remember his disingenuous derision of the across-the-board Bush tax cuts as being only for the rich.

I witnessed him changing his position on immigration to shore up support in South Carolina, then after that primary arrogantly denying to Sean Hannity that he'd flip-flopped.

People can assess for themselves whether McCain is always straight, but hopefully they'll base their decision on the evidence and not his hero status. I seriously doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination, precisely because of his infidelity to conservative principles. Consider:

He crusades against Guantanamo, favors constitutional rights for terrorists but opposes tough interrogation techniques, was the ringleader of the Gang of 14, which legitimized the filibustering of judicial nominees, and is the godfather of political speech-suppressing and Democrat-favoring campaign-finance reform legislation.

He has displayed contempt for conservative evangelicals, opposed Bush's pro-growth tax cuts for reasons other than he says (spending), has engaged in other class-warfare rhetoric like demonizing oil and drug companies, co-sponsored the abominable McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant-forgiveness/open-borders/Social Security zapping bill, and even voted for the Specter amendment, which could have conferred consulting rights on Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.

He sold out on global warming, opportunistically opposed drilling in ANWR, favors re-importation of drugs from Canada, and promoted the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards patients bill of rights. Even his pro-life credentials are not as pristine as we're told: He opposes reversal of Roe vs. Wade and sided with anti-political speech zealots in filing an amicus brief against Wisconsin Right to Life.

Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback.[/quote]

Wow, more fallacies of argumentation. Limbaugh thinks a laundry list of anecdotes some how outweighs 82.3 conservative rating. How does someone receive a conservative rating of 82.3 by being liberal, please explain? That's right, this whole McCain thing has degenerated into an anecdotal battle between one side listing all these examples of him being a liberal, and the other side listing all these examples of him being conservative. That is why the American Conservative Union puts out its conservative ranking, in order to avoid this kind of childish bickering. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454600' date='Feb 2 2008, 04:26 PM']Wow, more fallacies of argumentation. Limbaugh thinks a laundry list of anecdotes some how outweighs 82.3 conservative rating. How does someone receive a conservative rating of 82.3 by being liberal, please explain? That's right, this whole McCain thing has degenerated into an anecdotal battle between one side listing all these examples of him being a liberal, and the other side listing all these examples of him being conservative. That is why the American Conservative Union puts out its conservative ranking, in order to avoid this kind of childish bickering. Let the numbers speak for themselves.[/quote]


82.3 rating? Ha! I would never eat at a restaurant that had a 82.3 sanitary rating. If we are to look at the numbers by the year many of them are in the 70's and 60's. Also this overall rating of Mccain is from 2006. Two year old news. And to add its but one rating, from one group. 82.3 so what...

Edited February 2, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Alycin]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454528' date='Feb 2 2008, 12:01 PM']Stop Barack Osama bin Laden![/quote]


You have GOT to be kidding me.

You actually expect people to take you seriously now?