Ultra conservatives - from Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh - can't stand John McCain. Some, like Coulter, are even threatening to vote for Hillary Clinton over McCain.
Is it a lot of talk or are Republicans really going to vote for a Democrat, or worse, not vote at all.
Matt Towery at the Southern Political Report doesn't think so, not when it comes down to the wire.
Money quote: "Maybe a good number of Republicans will vote for Clinton or Obama if McCain is their opponent, but I doubt it. Once Republicans started comparing the Democratic policy agenda with that of that devilish rebel McCain, they'd pause in their thinking. McCain would start to look to conservatives as the last roadblock on the way to massive tax increases, universal health care, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and heaven knows what other "progressive" fantasies"
Ann Coulter's thoughts on McCain (the great white satin).
"Nominating McCain is the gesture of a desperate party.
Republicans are so shell-shocked and demoralized by the success of
the Bush Derangement Syndrome, they think they can fool the voters by
nominating an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech,
global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation "Republican." Which
is to say, a Democrat.
As the expression goes, given a choice between a Democrat and a
Democrat, voters will always choose the Democrat. The only question
remaining is: Hillary or Obama?
On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.
-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."
-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.
-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.
-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.
Can I take a breath now?
-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even
posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of
solar panels.
The only site that would have been more appropriate for
Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an
abortion clinic.
Although McCain has the minimum pro-life record demanded by the
voters of Arizona, in 2006, McCain voted in favor of using taxpayer
funds to harvest stem cells from human embryos. He opposes a
constitutional amendment to protect human life. And he frets that if
Roe v. Wade were overruled, women's lives would be "endangered." This
is the same John McCain who chides Mitt Romney today for
"flip-flopping" on abortion. At least Romney flips and stays there.
Of course the most important issue for pro-lifers is the Supreme
Court. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it doesn't matter
how many hearts and minds we've changed. So it's not insignificant that
McCain has called Justice Samuel Alito too conservative.
We ended up with David Hackett Souter when a Republican president
was actually looking for an Alito. Imagine how bad it will be when the
"Republican" president isn't even trying.
McCain uses the boilerplate language of all Republicans in saying
he will appoint "strict constructionists." This is supposed to end all
discussion of the courts. But if he's picking strict constructionists,
he will have to appoint judges who will commit to overturning
McCain-Feingold.
That could be our litmus test: Will you hold President McCain's signature legislation restricting speech unconstitutional?
In 2004, McCain criticized the federal marriage amendment, saying,
it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of
Republicans." Really? Preventing the redefinition of a 10,000-year-old
institution -- marriage, that is, not John McCain -- is part of the
core philosophy of being a Republican? I had no idea.
I'm not a lawyer -- oh wait, yes, I am -- but Republicans were
proposing to amend the Constitution, a process the Constitution
specifically describes.
It's like saying it's antithetical to the core philosophy of
Republicans to require presidents to be at least 35 years old. It's in
the Constitution! And Republicans -- other than the ones who voted for
McCain-Feingold -- support the Constitution. You might say it's part of
our core philosophy.
Of course, back in 2004, McCain was considering running on a
presidential ticket with John Kerry. Realizing that this would not help
his chances to run as a Republican in 2008, when he would be a mere 120
years old, McCain quickly withdrew his interest in being on Kerry's
ticket.
But he defended Kerry from the Bush campaign's suggestion that
Kerry was not tip-top on national security, saying on the "Today" show:
"No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense." So that was
helpful.
McCain also explained to an admiring press corps why he wouldn't
want to be anyone's vice president, not even a national defense
champion like Kerry, citing the meager constitutional duties of the
vice president as: (1) to assume the presidency if the president is
incapacitated and (2) "to break a tie vote in the Senate." (At which
point several members of the fawning horde were heard to remark, "What
is this 'Constitution' you speak of, Senator?")
But McCain conveniently forgot the second of these constitutional
duties just a year later when Vice President Cheney was required "to
break a tie vote in the Senate" on a matter of utmost importance to
liberals: federal judges.
Just one year after McCain had correctly identified one of two
jobs of the vice president, he was indignant that a Republican vice
president might actually exercise one of them. Better to let a gaggle
of 14 Senate malcontents pick the president's judges for him.
As part of the "Gang of 14," McCain hysterically opposed allowing
the vice president to break a tie on judicial nominations. Following
the Constitution with regard to the role of the vice president, McCain
said, "would be a terrible precedent." Yes, if members of Congress
actually read the Constitution, they might realize McCain-Feingold is
unconstitutional.
If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster,
with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans
zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also
predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)
If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster,
with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed
by 30 years of Democratic rule.
There's your choice, America."
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
i couldnt have said it better!!
Really? Ann Coulter?
I didn't think anyone even quoted her as a joke anymore. But her reputation aside, I'd like to counter some of her "points".
Supreme Court - Since McCain disagreed with a particular judge, she is willing to hand either Clinton or Obama the opportunity to nominate up to three judges during their term. Conservatives are one judge away from achieving a majority on the court, which is something that has taken nearly 2 decades to achieve. Ms. Coulter seems to be missing the big picture on this issue.
Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants - Ms. Coulter seems to feel that it would be an easy task to simply round up 12 - 20 million people and toss them back across the border. Take a moment to imagine how many people that is and what an impossible task that would be. That is the equivalent of the city of Los Angeles that is spread across the entire country. The cost alone makes this unachievabe, nevermind the social backlash as you try to drag people from their homes at gun point.
So McCain proposes a pragmatic solution that includes penalties, naturalization processes, and targets the businesses that allow illegal aliens to sneak past working through the proper channels. He supports a realistic solution for a realistic problem. Again Ms. Coulter is not seeing the forest for the trees.
McCain-Feingold - Who said, "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns"? Answer: George W. Bush. This affects both sides of the aisle and is a good thing for our political process. Surely, Ms. Coulter would be in favor of restricting MoveOn.org?
Waterboarding - Torture is wrong. Are we really debating this? The man "hysterically" opposes it? I can imagine why someone who had been tortured himself might feel a little more strongly about this particular issue.
Tax Cuts - The last $300 refund has led to a $400 billion budget deficit. So now we get $600 and the new budget is for $3 trillion? Rather than buy myself an Xbox, I'd rather have a government that isn't completely bankrupt in the next ten years. We simply cannot spend more money while not taking any in. Taxes suck. But we have to pay them. I suppose Ms. Coulter would like us to continue borrowing money from the Chinese?
I could go on, but here's something to keep in mind. Schwarzenegger frequently breaks ranks with the far right on issues such as stem cells and global warming, and what does he have to show for it? 2 successful statewide elections and a 60% approval rating. Ms. Coulter is clearly missing the big picture: Realistic solutions do not always fall within her very narrow field of vision.