Watching the implosion of the GOP. Coulter's worst enemy turns out to be GOP voters
I love posting this. Coulter now uses the same types of distortions, hyperbole and ridiculous assertions she used on Democrats on the probable nominee of her own party. The real truth is, the Republican Party is trying desparately to expel her and her fellow ultra-rightwingers like John Hurt did the fetus in the movie "Alien". With them on board, the GOP has no future. Coulter (and most of the other Talk Radio Fascists) seems to be utterly unaware that it is Republican voters who have created this situation. Rank and file Republicans are moving to the left. Ah, Ann, sweet Ann, don't ever stop:
FROM GOLDWATER GIRL TO HILLARY GIRL
February 6, 2008
Ann Coulter
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
I have no argument here. You'll have a choice of which Democrat to vote for in November. I have to admit it was quite crafty how the Democratic party managed to infiltrate the Republican Party with a faux Republican. But, Bush isn't a true conservative, either.
__________________ Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.- Mark Twain
As a poster child for ultra right wing radical hysteria, her divisive rants will indeed help doom the hijacking of the Republican party by the neo-con fascist wing.
This will then help serve to hand to the election over to Hillary or Obama, either of whom will be far better than anything that benighted (Republican) party can, or will offer the American public.
All the Republicans can offer is the promise is to make these two things permanent:
1. the war with Iraq
2. tax cuts for the rich
It's way past time for a change, and to sweep these gibbering clowns into oblivion and irrelevance. They have far too much damage already....
__________________ "I think God is black. What's the matter, you have a problem with that? Are you afraid He is going to steal the moon or something?"
~~~Sarah Silverman
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative"
~~~Oscar Wilde
I love posting this. Coulter now uses the same types of distortions, hyperbole and ridiculous assertions she used on Democrats on the probable nominee of her own party. The real truth is, the Republican Party is trying desparately to expel her and her fellow ultra-rightwingers like John Hurt did the fetus in the movie "Alien". With them on board, the GOP has no future. Coulter (and most of the other Talk Radio Fascists) seems to be utterly unaware that it is Republican voters who have created this situation. Rank and file Republicans are moving to the left. Ah, Ann, sweet Ann, don't ever stop:
FROM GOLDWATER GIRL TO HILLARY GIRL
February 6, 2008
Ann Coulter
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
You have to remember. 4 years of Carter brought on 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush Sr. Bush Sr. brought on 8 years of Clinton and 8 Years of Clinton brought on 8 years of Bush Jr. Keeping that in mind, as inept as Bush Jr. has been in his last 4 years, one has to wonder what is really going to happen when voters are faced with a choice between Hillary or Obama against John McCain. That can go either way, being they're all liberals.
You have to remember. 4 years of Carter brought on 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush Sr. Bush Sr. brought on 8 years of Clinton and 8 Years of Clinton brought on 8 years of Bush Jr. Keeping that in mind, as inept as Bush Jr. has been in his last 4 years, one has to wonder what is really going to happen when voters are faced with a choice between Hillary or Obama against John McCain. That can go either way, being they're all liberals.
I don't think it will be an issue at all. Folks on the left don't see McCain as liberal at all. The only ones who are trying to stir that pot are the Mighty28 who bet their "talent on loan from God" on the wrong horse. Take the NeoCon Fundies out of the formula and everyone else sees this as a normal Left vs Right contest, sans the fading NeoCon fringe.
Listening to the apoplectic Hannity and Rush with the Ann lap dog is some of the best entertainment around.
I have no argument here. You'll have a choice of which Democrat to vote for in November. I have to admit it was quite crafty how the Democratic party managed to infiltrate the Republican Party with a faux Republican. But, Bush isn't a true conservative, either.
Yes, and those millions of Democrats masquerading as Republican voters, man was that a trick or what? Get real, you just got marginalized in your own party by your own party.
Linear Mode
