Race at McCain from the Right

[Pure]

RAGE AT MCCAIN FROM THE RIGHT

Anyone a bit surprised at its intensity? Is Mc Cain really as liberal as Hillary or Obama?

There are several frothings out there, from Limbaugh, to Coulter, to Novak. I picked Coulter, since she's more fun than our local
sham-cussing, "libertarian" Guantanamo supporter: not only more hate, but more facility with use of the English language, paragraphing, etc.

Feel free to post other urls for Anti McCain material from Republicans.


Ann Coulter:

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.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

 

[Pure]

Limbaugh on McCain

numerous times, e.g.,

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/2537.html

Here’s what Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast program this week:

“So we are nearly two days into the latest regurgitation of the National Guard flap and CBS hatchet job on George W. Bush, and McCain is nowhere to be seen. Where is he? Where is he condemning this exposé into George Bush’s “honorable service,” quote, unquote? He hasn’t been seen since that Monday at the convention. I’m wondering if McCain’s been taken prisoner and being held as a POW by the Kerry camp, in the Kerry Hilton, somewhere in the basement of the DNC. The McAwful Hilton [an apparent reference to DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe]. I mean, where is McCain? Really. I mean, the question is — to me — is serious.”
===

the hatred of McC extends a couple years back, at least. in 2005, Limbaugh repeated the assertion that torture "worked" on McCain; Rush apparently intended to raise the question why McCain would oppose the "torture lite," of the Bush administration.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090006




===

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/200...-gets-the-nomination-it-will-destroy-the-gop/
CALLER: Hello, Rush.

RUSH: Hi.

CALLER: Sorry to deviate from your monologue for just a minute, but you had a woman call yesterday that just frosted me to no end that if either Huckabee or McCain won the nomination she was going to sit the election out.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: People like her, I coined a term, a call them TV Republicans, and it doesn't stand for television, it stands for tunnel vision, because they need to take the blinders off and see the bigger picture. If they sit out the general election, the Democrat wins it by default, whichever one of the Three Stooges wins it. Guess what? In the next four years, there's going to be probably one, maybe two Supreme Court vacancies come up. Do they really want one of the three bozos over there appointing the next two Supreme Court justices? Is Clinton gonna appoint another Ginsburg, or is she going to do another Scalia? Is Obama going to appoint another Justice Thomas or is he going to do somebody like Breyer or Stevens? Do they really want a liberal appointing the next two Supreme Court justices? They need to take the blinders off, Rush. They need to look at the bigger vision and quit being tunnel vision Republicans.

RUSH: I understand what you're saying. I hate to tell you this, but she's not alone. I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Huckabee, McCain] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party, it's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

McCain is an ass-clown. If he thought being a goddamned Nazi would get him elected, he'd be gassing people. He has no core convictions, which means he has no philosophy and hasnt given much thought to anything. McCain's name is attached to all the weird laws of this generation.

With Hillary you know she's gonna loot and plunder the federal treasury because she thinks enough money will make her an Elite like the Kennedys and the Bush's. But the Clinton's came from Arkansas just like the Clampett's. Conservatives trust Hillary to be the carpetbagger she is. If we give her enough money she'll say and do anything we want, then lie about it.

 

[Cyberpawz]

Let me put it to you this way, I am starting a letter proposal to work with a Congressman to help with the energy crisis we are going to be finding ourselves in soon...

I am stuck between two politicians, but the problem here is that Rush is right. If McCain becomes the Republican candidate and wins it will officially be the end of the party, and what is true about people saying the only difference between the two parties was their spending will be gone.

As sadistic as this is, I would rather let the US fall a bit more under a Democratic controlled White House and Congress because it will re-invigorate the Republican party. The problem is unless we get new blood in the running it will be same shit different pile.

The only true republican running is Romney, the rest are RINOS or Socialist Democrats.

 

[rgraham666]

Shrugs.

A major psychological component of the people currently grouped under the sobriquet of 'The Right' is anger. And generally an unfocused anger.

Not surprising that anger falls on McCain.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Shrugs.

A major psychological component of the people currently grouped under the sobriquet of 'The Right' is anger.

Unlike the calm, deliberative sorts that hang out on the Daily Kos.

Blah blah blah.

~~~~~

I don't think anger at McCain from the right is very surprising. Note that the rage is not coming from the religious right. The issues are McCain's long record of selling out on core limited government issues like lower taxes, subverting 1st Amendment prohibitions on infringing political speech, etc. This is aggravated by the suspicion that those actions were cynically calculated to suck up to the establishment MSM media by catering to its anti-conservative biases.

~~~~

Edited to add: Before someone makes a snarky comment pointing out the right's hypocritical desire to infringe other kinds of speech - save it. I agree. The right wants to infringe some kinds of speech, and the left want to infringe others. A pox on both.

 

[Pure]

//core limited government issues like lower taxes,//

that's a good one, rox.

the far right has no trouble selling bonds to the chinese and spending like crazy so long as the 'low tax'/limited government mantra can be repeated..... which is, of course, an utter lie.
---

i think they're mad about the military 'service' issue, and the torture issue. there he differs from bush. OTOH, they're mad at him for *agreeing* with Bush on semi open borders, eventual amnesty.

===
here is rush on torture, btw. sounding like our resident sham-cussing libertarian

http://infidelsarecool.com/2007/10/11/rush-limbaugh-on-torture

i think it's pure authority. who kow tows and who doesn't.

oddly enough, from the left, McCain looks kinda authoritarian, himself! in a military sense; Rush is, in the fascistic-chickenhawk sense.

 

[sr71plt]

McCain is an ass-clown. If he thought being a goddamned Nazi would get him elected, he'd be gassing people. He has no core convictions, which means he has no philosophy and hasnt given much thought to anything. McCain's name is attached to all the weird laws of this generation.

With Hillary you know she's gonna loot and plunder the federal treasury because she thinks enough money will make her an Elite like the Kennedys and the Bush's. But the Clinton's came from Arkansas just like the Clampett's. Conservatives trust Hillary to be the carpetbagger she is. If we give her enough money she'll say and do anything we want, then lie about it.

Hillary came from Chicago - - and will there be anything left in the federal treasury to plunder after Bush the Lesser is gone? Other then bills? Who was the last president to stay inside budget? Hmmm. seems to have been a Clinton.

 

[rgraham666]

Roxanne, was there some reason you got so personal? I stated my opinion, as I have the right to do. If you disagreed you could have said so rather than engage in insults.

But if you want to get personal, I shall for once myself.

Every time you open your mouth, Roxanne, you illustrate my premise that neo-conservatives are really neo-marxists. As Vaclav Havel once said, "They treat any dissent as naked terrorism."

You do provide one useful service though. You are an object lesson that intelligence and education unleavened with empathy and wisdom can't help but be a force for evil of the darkest sort.

Personal enough?

 

[Pure]

i love the utter slime of this: (repeated by rush).

On November 29, NewsMax published an article headlined "John McCain: Torture Worked on Me," which claimed that McCain's experiences as a victim of torture as he has described them contradict his oft-repeated assertion that torture fails to produce actionable intelligence:

Nearly forty years ago, however -- when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp -- some of the same techniques were used on him. And -- as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice -- the torture worked!

[...]

That McCain broke under torture doesn't make him any less of an American hero.** But it does prove he's wrong to claim that harsh interrogation techniques simply don't work.

** i love the utter hypocrisy of this innuendo.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Non-personal comment: Those who make hostile assertions that "anger" is a "major psychological component" of anyone considered to be of the "right" - which means anyone who favors reducing the size, scope and exactions of welfare state governments - appear to have a blind eye for the seething rage that characterizes large segments of the left, as seen in the vitriol that pours from places like the Daily Kos. It's not just about the war, either: The same acid is flung regardless of the issue.

Oddly, those who make such hostile comments are then surprised when one of the targets takes umbrage. Should said target challenge the hostile assertion with a bit of sarcasm, the acid really pours forth.

 

[cloudy]

Oddly, those who make such hostile comments are then surprised when one of the targets takes umbrage. Should said target challenge the hostile assertion with a bit of sarcasm, the acid really pours forth.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Pure]

note to rg.

A major psychological component of the people currently grouped under the sobriquet of 'The Right' is anger. And generally an unfocused anger.

Not surprising that anger falls on McCain.

i agree rg. watch rush in the torture clip. it is NOT, contrary to rox, like 'daily kos; michael kinsley is not rush, nor even is michael moore like rush or coulter.

one simply has to watch hitler or rush. the most passionate lefty is NOT (usually) into that hateful anger-- e.g. trotsky speaking to the crowds. (this is not to deny a left dictator can be coldly cruel; e.g. mao. but he doesn't publically froth, usually).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Bill Clinton didnt stay within any budget, ever.

You dont understand how government works. The President submits a budget to the House of Representatives, which creates all spending bills. Congress does what it wants, then sends the bills to the President.

In Clinton's case the federal government estimated that deficit spending, that is spending more than the government was making, would be less than previously estimated. But the National Debt never decreased while Clinton was President.

The Republicans controlled Congress (and spending) while Clinton was in office; so whatever did or didnt happen was their doing, not his.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

//core limited government issues like lower taxes,//

that's a good one, rox.

the far right has no trouble selling bonds to the chinese and spending like crazy so long as the 'low tax'/limited government mantra can be repeated..... which is, of course, an utter lie.
---

Say what? Lets back up here: Higher marginal tax rates on activities that create wealth and economic growth mean we get less of those things, and vice versa. That's not an "anti-tax" statement, but a simple observation on the relative efficiency and destructiveness of various types of taxes.

Related, wealth and economic growth are generated by the private sector; the outcome of assigning a greater margin of a nation's resources to the public sector and less to the private sector is less economic growth and wealth creation. That's not a anarchist argument that the "best" solution is no government; it's an observation that governments at all levels absorbing more than 40 percent of GDP in the US and other western welfare states is excessive.

McCain voted against reducing tax rates on wealth-producing activities. I'm told he's has made some good votes on limiting earmarks, but overall his career is best characterized by that "tax collector for the welfare state" label - something repugnant to supporters of the limited government message that Reagan proclaimed.

You asked why the anger on the right, I'm telling you.

I agree that nativist anti-immigrant crap is also contributing to it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sorry Pure is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

I've said many times, that I don't think this is fair.

I've gotten better at ignoring your political threads-- and I don't see many threads from you that aren't political-- but at this time, you look to me like the only political dogmatist on an erotica board.

Just saying.

 

[sr71plt]

Bill Clinton didnt stay within any budget, ever.

You dont understand how government works. The President submits a budget to the House of Representatives, which creates all spending bills. Congress does what it wants, then sends the bills to the President.

In Clinton's case the federal government estimated that deficit spending, that is spending more than the government was making, would be less than previously estimated. But the National Debt never decreased while Clinton was President.

The Republicans controlled Congress (and spending) while Clinton was in office; so whatever did or didnt happen was their doing, not his.

What's the use with you? You are such an old blinders-on drone sourpuss. The president has veto powers--and the budget that is submitted is done so by the administration. You are not so cleverly avoiding the fact that the budget was balanced under the Clinton administration--with a hefty surplus--and that the budget has been busted big time with a gigantic deficit under the Bush administration--and that the Republics controlled Congress during most of the entire period. The difference was in who was in the White House, not who was in Congress.

Talking about Democrats being spenders and Republicans being savers has been one big snort for decades. Take your head out of the mud and look around.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pot, meet kettle.

Gee Cloudy, my sarcasm may irritate the crap out of people at times and is probably a bad habit I should restrain, but I don't recall ever launching a deeply personal vitriolic attack on the character and humanity of another litizen.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

A major psychological component of the people currently grouped under the sobriquet of 'The Right' is anger. And generally an unfocused anger.

Not surprising that anger falls on McCain.

i agree rg. watch rush in the torture clip. it is NOT, contrary to rox, like 'daily kos; michael kinsley is not rush, nor even is michael moore like rush or coulter.

one simply has to watch hitler or rush. the most passionate lefty is NOT (usually) into that hateful anger-- e.g. trotsky speaking to the crowds. (this is not to deny a left dictator can be coldly cruel; e.g. mao. but he doesn't publically froth, usually).

Now Pure, aren't you just making a - what's it called - a 'global fallacy" error of logic? You know, taking a characteristic that you (rightly or wrongly) perceive in one individual of a class and applying it to the entire class? When someone highly trained in philosophy like yourself makes such an "error" I can't help thinking that you're being, um - political.

~~~~

OK seriously: Claiming that "anger" is a characteristic intrinsic to those who hold one or another political philosophy is insulting, silly, and unflattering to the perpetrator. Anger is a human characteristic common to people of all politics. It can be appropriate in some circumstances, such as when we see what we perceive to be an injustice, or inappropriate in other circumstances. It needs to be controlled and not allowed to cloud our thinking.

 

[Cyberpawz]

Shrugs.

A major psychological component of the people currently grouped under the sobriquet of 'The Right' is anger. And generally an unfocused anger.

Not surprising that anger falls on McCain.

The issue I think isn't that the "right-leaning uber-conservatives" are the issue, they have every right to be pissed off at McCain for he hasn't been honest in a lot of his bills or voting record.

The issue I have with him is that his age and long term of service in congress is counterproductive to the message and code word that all politicans are using now which is "change". Which any canidate that conciders themself a politician instead of a civil servant is incapable of doing. For they owe too many favors to groups, and no longer is in office for the public that elected them, but for themselves.

That is why I am pissed off at McCain. I am not a right-wing nutjob but I do respect the seat of the president, and seeing anyone like Hillary, Obama or McCain well destroy the two party system as we know it.

 

[Pure]

rox McCain voted against reducing tax rates on wealth-producing activities.

i just don't buy this. too abstract. mccain's voting record is rated at 70% by conservative groups.

it's impossible to believe that 'big governement' or 'taxes' is the issue.

no, it's loyalty to the Commander.

==
PS. anger of the right is not the thread topic. why it's spewing at McCain, is.

i almost think Rush etc are feeling loss of influence, and are fulminating over it.

 

[cantdog]

The issue I think isn't that the "right-leaning uber-conservatives" are the issue, they have every right to be pissed off at McCain for he hasn't been honest in a lot of his bills or voting record.

The issue I have with him is that his age and long term of service in congress is counterproductive to the message and code word that all politicans are using now which is "change". Which any canidate that conciders themself a politician instead of a civil servant is incapable of doing. For they owe too many favors to groups, and no longer is in office for the public that elected them, but for themselves.

That is why I am pissed off at McCain. I am not a right-wing nutjob but I do respect the seat of the president, and seeing anyone like Hillary, Obama or McCain well destroy the two party system as we know it.

I think he didn't sufficiently respect the seat of the prexy, nor kiss it much.

He used to be much more independent than he is talking now, which is why he's the front runner. Someone whom no one but a Republican's Republican would ever vote for? That fellow will lose. Republican's Republicans are a minority, pal.

The complaints of the hatchet queen, what's her name, were that he was getting voters from other parties to vote for him. She doesn't like that, but it is called 'electibility." Anyone who is going to win will have the ability to pull votes from both camps.

The party needs distance from Cheney and Bush and all those goons, and they need someone who can get the odd Dem voter to pull the lever. For those reasons, they're chumps not to run McCain, but they are still trying to whip him into line. I don't think these people want to kick him off the ticket so much as bring his maverick nature under control.

If they really do hate him, then they can go ahead and run one of the others, and lose big. Even Hillary can beat those yahoos. McCain can beat Hillary.

 

[Pure]

seeing anyone like Hillary, Obama or McCain well destroy the two party system as we know it.

looks like it's done for, then. was pretty fucked, anyway, wouldn't you say? who IS the party of big government?

 

[cantdog]

anyone like Hillary, Obama or McCain well destroy the two party system as we know it

I do hope it does destroy the two party system as we know it. That shit sucks. If I thought you were correct, I'd relax. Because one of those three is it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SKY PILOT you need to take a moment and read my post.

I didnt fault the Democrats, I faulted the Republicans. The Republicans spend as well or better than Democrats. The budget in this Republican controlled state swelled from 40Billion to 70Billion in about 3 years. The Republicans worked hand-in-glove with loan frauds to inflate the price of homes so the property taxes would soar. And they did.

But Clinton never had a balanced budget. It was all guesstimates about what might happen if things continued great forever. They didnt. NINE ONE ONE fucked everything up.

SKY there aint no point debating with you from now on. You only want an excuse to howl & drool.