|
|
February 5, 2008Ahem - Don’t. Doubt. Me.Heh. If Rush can say it, I can too, and it will sound prettier. John Stephenson at STACLU has an open thread going and they’re watching the returns and speculating: could it be? Brokered convention? The WaPo blog asked a similar question this morning. Ahem. I predicted the very real possibility of a brokered convention right after Florida, and was laughed at. I suggested this was going to happen when Rush Limbaugh and the far right went Figured many (particularly in the South) would heed Rush and leave McCain, but that they wouldn’t rush to Romney if they had a choice. No matter how much they tell you they don’t mind that he’s a Mormon…that might not be quite the reality. Elsewhere I have written:, I’m not much of a joiner, and I prefer not to get entangled in the mob. That doesn’t make me smart or in any way special - the truth is I am a social freakazoid - but it does make me observant. Hence, when John Hawkins asked bloggers to name President Bush’s next SCOTUS pick, I alone pronounced: Harriet Miers. I recently told you Hillary would cry before New Hampshire. Suggested that Bill Clinton would soon be too under the weather to campaign much. No timetable on that, although I did say “soon.” That might still happen. And the other day I wrote:
As we all know, he had been curiously silent on Romney until there was, really, no one left to love except John McCain. Hence, Mitt Romney has become “the boy who can do no wrong, for now.” Watching the far right fall into fervent and shrill love with Mitt, I observed that there is a passionate, rigid determination behind some of this Mittmania that is entirely inappropriate to the relative newness of his support. Sort of like a whirlwind romance you get into on a cruise…because you’re alone and you want so badly to have a romance with someone. And yeah, that all means something. So, the other day I wrote:
Taking all of this into consideration, and understanding there is a game in play, what I think will happen next, is… …check back a little later. http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/05/ahem-dont-doubt-me/trackback/ 36 Responses to “Ahem - Don’t. Doubt. Me.” |
February 5th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Depressing…Not you…just the thought of the cackler in the White House for 4 (or 8 years).
February 5th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Don’t get depressed, this is just getting fun.
Really fun. Keep watching. I told you - this is VERY fluid.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I don’t wanna brokered convention! I just want this to be OVER so Zombie Reagan can go back to resting in peace!
Off topic, but hilarious: How can Hugh Hewitt write stuff like this without a /sarcasm tag? How does he sleep at night knowing he writes that silliness?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
February 6th, 2008 at 12:10 am
“Rush Limbaugh and the far right”
“Watching the far right”
“The hard-right conservatives”
Anchoress,
Those are slurs that the MSM and liberal/moderate/progressive ideologues use to describe people who think a lot like I do. I understand that they are simply trying to marginalize all opinion on the right of center;I don’t understand what you are doing.
Perhaps we all need to start defining our terms more clearly.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I listened to McCain’s speech tonight. I hope he and the Huckster don’t cut a deal like in WV before the convention. If McCain does earn the nomination he needs to take Romney as Vice.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:21 am
mrmurph, those are not SLURS - they are the only means I have - currently - to differentiate between people who hold “rightwing” opinions like me, and people who are even more rightwing than me - like you!
I’d be DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY if you could find the language and labels that accurately reflect all the little splinters and differentials between parties and within parties. Let me know what you come up with. “Rush Limbaugh and the far right” cannot possibly be a slur…his most loyal listeners are the far right!
I would actually call myself a “classical liberal” except saying that all the time is a bit much. So, I’m a “conservative.” You are a “hard-right” conservative.
How else should I describe us?
There is no reason to get touchy about a problem with language; you should know me well enough by now to know I’m not using “slurs” against anyone.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:25 am
I don’t think at this point we’re going to have to worry about a brokered convention, THANK GOD. They just called California for Mac.
Bad night for Romney, good night for Huck, great night for McCain. It’s kinda nice to see a nice guy (Huck) do okay, although I’d never vote for him (unless he was the nominee, of course).
February 6th, 2008 at 12:44 am
[...] all this. Michelle’s up first. A Divided GOP. Fun Trivia. Super Tuesday Results: The West. Don’t. Doubt. Me. Super Tuesday Update - Time To Pack It In Mitt. Huckabee: This is a two-man race — and [...]
February 6th, 2008 at 1:09 am
I was laughed at
OK, I hereby give you an un-ha and withdraw my prior doubts, which were based on the understanding that Huckabee was dead, and with only a two-person race, a brokered convention is unlikely.
If it stays a three-person race throughout, it could very well deny the leader a majority of delegates. Huckabee’s wins tonight demonstrate that he will not be dropping out soon (McCain’s people may be regretting their collusion with him in West Virginia and elsewhere). And Romney has plenty of incentive to stay in as well, if only to deny McCain a majority (also so that he can continue to raise money in order to pay himself back for the many millions he has loaned himself). If it does go all the way down to the convention, a lot could happen. The convention is still many, many months away — plenty of time for frontrunners to have a meltdown and lose their previously-gained support.
Also, because McCain has already chosen to accept public financing for his campaign, which imposes spending limits on him, and because the FEC lacks enough commissioners to make a quorum that would authorize McCain to withdraw his prior acceptance of public money, McCain could very well run out of money or otherwise be prohibited by law from spending anymore money until the convention because he has reached his spending limits (thank you McCain-Feingold).
Meanwhile, I thought Obama gave a rousing, inspirational speech — at least up until he started getting into issues. But that is his strength, talking about broad inspirational values, vision, and themes, while every other candidate is pimping his or her resume.
As for TV commentary — Glenn Beck seems to be his usual commonsensical self. That, and I’ve always been impressed by his guest Michael Reagan.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:13 am
You know, a pal of mine, strict conservative who has never voted outside the party, called me after Obama’s speech. She voted for McCain and had no problem with either Mitt or McCain, but she said, “I will have to seriously look at Obama. He is remarkable.”
So…if SHE is thinking that way - and not out of dissatisfaction but out of sheer admiration…lots to think about.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:38 am
[...] The Anchoress predicts a brokered GOP convention. This has been talked about in the blogosphere for some time now - a true, electable conservative on a shiny white stallion galloping in and rescuing the GOP - but considering the Anchoress’ astounding crystal ball prediction abilities one just has to give it serious consideration. I wouldn’t bet against her, anyway. Published in: [...]
February 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Mike Huckabee and a Brokered Convention…
Mike Huckabee is staying in the race because he hates Mitt Romney. Rudy endorsed McCain for the same reason. Small wonder after Mittens burned through tens of millions of dollars sliming everyone else…
February 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I see some serious cow-pie-throwing at the GOP Convention before a brokered deal.
Too bad my state’s primary (TX) is on March 4th. Too late for me. But, as I said before, I am very willing to give Romney a chance. I don’t give a rat if he’s a Mormon. In fact, I have known several in my life.
Unfortunately, I predicted this outcome many months ago. And I was given a lot of grief because of it, not the least by a few Mormons.
As I said before, I will say it again: I wonder how many Mormons are looking at all of it with sadness… and not very little disgust. The word “bigotry” is floating all over this, silently.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Right now, the delegate count does not justify a brokered convention. Unless this changes, a brokered convention would probably be the most destructive thing the party could do.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:19 am
[...] it out. The crypto-theocrat is enjoying it. Why not? Huckabee now probably doesn’t need a brokered convention to get himself on the ticket by throwing his delegates to McCain. If the party structure has [...]
February 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Dear Anchoress: Your friend is not the only GOPer admiring Obama. I do, tremendously. He is inspirational, even if his resume is thin. Should McCain select Huckabee for VP, and Obama be the choice, I will be voting Democratic this November. I stand with McCain on a number of issues, but for a variety of reasons, I do not want Huckabee as VP and am very, very tempted by Obama. I wish Obama tons of good luck over the next few weeks. I look foward, eagerly, to more of your prognostications.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The reason this race is so interesting is the very fact that the candidates are all standing on the firm foundation of W’s shoulders. They’ve all got their footing. The reason Obama is so electrifying is that he is appealing to the wild blue yonder of possibilities that he can see from the vantage point of W’s shoulders. It’s when Obama starts getting specific about things that his message loses it’s luster.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Web Reconnaissance for 02/06/2008…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
February 6th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I disagree about the possibility of a brokered convention. McCain is the genuine frontrunner, with more delegates than Romney and Huckabee combined. To strangle the voice of the people who voted for him would be a huge mistake for the Republicans. At the very least, a brokered convention would send the party out into the political wilderness for decades, turning it into the “Angry White Southern Xenophobe” party. (And when I say ‘xenophobe’, I’m not talking about immigration either. Being a northerner, I’m starting to appreciate the fact the a lot of the people on what you call the ‘hard right’ don’t like me very much. For years, people on the Left tried to tell me that the base of the party I was flirting with was filled with hatred and bile toward me, and I refused to believe it. Now that I see the party faithful’s response to McCain, and many of the arguments they’re trotting out, I can’t deny it anymore.)
A brokered convention would downgrade the Republican party to a minority party, and would serve only to strengthen the Democrats (both in the general election and after, as right-leaning independents like me, and moderate Republicans like my parents realize that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze anymore and defect. (Well, it would be tough for an independent to ‘defect’ in a literal sense, but I’d happily vote for more moderate Dems over harder right Republicans.)
February 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
rightwingprof - yes…that’s the whole point.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I do not think we will see a brokered GOP convention.
What we may see however, is both Obama and Clinton walking into the convention with neither having a majority of elected delegates. The issue will then come down to (i) the unelected super delegates and (ii) the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
[...] While enjoying my daily read of Instapundit, I followed a link to an article by “The Anchoress”. [...]
February 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
[...] Quote I’m not much of a joiner, and I prefer not to get entangled in the mob. That doesn’t make me smart or in any way special — the truth is I am a social freakazoid — but it does make me observant. — The Anchoress [...]
February 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Anchoress,
I feel set up - not that being set up is a huge deal or anything, b/c it’s not. It’s a completely tiny deal, worth no more than a rueful, passing smile. Still, you ask us to “convince” you why Romney is the best candidate, then you write “[Mitt is] the boy who can do no wrong”, “shrill love”, and “Mittmania”. In a friendly way, with a suspicious smile on my face, I’m calling shenanigans.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
G, no shenanigans. I am simply trying to give an accurate reflection of what happened with Romney once it became clear that McCain was gaining momentum. Did you not read the forums and the people carrying on about Romney at that point?
One of the things that was bothering me so much about the whole debacle was that the “new” Romney lovers (not his base supporters who’d wanted him all along)who loved him simply because he was NOT McCain were completely overboard in the tenacity of their support - as I said, completely inappropriate to the newness of their appreciation.
There was indeed, “Mittmania,” on those boards and in my email. And as with mrmurphy’s objection, I’m just using the language to relate what I see. People were willing to overlook things they hadn’t liked before to make him their “golden not mccain.”
It was that reaction that made me kneejerk against Mitt, and that was why I specifically asked for people to TELL ME THE GOOD THINGS about him, which they did, and which I appreciated very much and found exceedingly helpful in formulating my own vote.
That thread garnered over 100 comments - huge for this site - and 99% of it was positive for Romney; if I was manipulating or trying to run a game why would I do that? Why would I allow Romney supporters and open forum to promote their candidate?
No shenanigans. But if you want to be suspicious, I can’t help that. I learned long ago that people will believe what they want to, so I don’t fight it.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Anchoress,
I know you well enough to make you one of a few bloggers I visit every time I open the Internet. I hold you in such esteem that I feel a sense of regret whenever we disagree. However, my sense of affection requires that I disagree with you directly instead of muttering behind your back.
I too could describe myself as a classical liberal, admittedly with some neocon tendencies.
What I was reacting to was the insertion of “far right”, “hard right” descriptive phrases. I know when liberals, or whatever they prefer to call themselves, use those words they assume we all understand that everyone to the right of dead center is a drooling, bigoted, ignorant person whose knuckles usually drag along as he walks.
When you use the words I don’t know what image you think I get when I read them. Is the image related to people who read and generally agree with Thomas Sowell, Mark Styne, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Captain Ed, Bill Bennett, Richard John Neuhaus, Michelle Malkin, Tony Blankley, Brent Bozell,III, the Power Line guys, Betsy’s Page, LaShawn Barber, etc, etc, and Rush?
Or, do those far and hard right people read, listen to and agree with some other people–the names and faces of whom I do not know.
I suspect that I am not the only person of the right who feels that my friends are slapping me in the face instead of chiding me for my mistakes when they use those often used but undefined phrases while discussing contentious issues.
But even then, my love and affection remains strong.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
mrmurph, thanks for the kind words. I have always enjoyed our tussles - it would be a dead bore around here if everyone agreed all the time.
You wrote:
When you use the words I don’t know what image you think I get when I read them. Is the image related to people who read and generally agree with Thomas Sowell, Mark Styne, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Captain Ed, Bill Bennett, Richard John Neuhaus, Michelle Malkin, Tony Blankley, Brent Bozell,III, the Power Line guys, Betsy’s Page, LaShawn Barber, etc, etc, and Rush?
Or, do those far and hard right people read, listen to and agree with some other people–the names and faces of whom I do not know.
Hmmmm, that’s interesting. I read and generally agree with many - not all - of those people myself. I don’t consider all of them “far right” though.
I guess I would say that the people I call “far right” are the ones who caricature the left and center to the same sort of degree as those groups would caricature us. I’m listening to Rush in the background right now and he’s yelling about how we “do not want to work with Democrats, we want to DEFEAT them.” That I might call “far right.”
Reagan wanted what he wanted, but at the end of the day he treated Tip O’ Neill like a real person, sat back and had a drink with him and they worked together. Reagan assumed that his opponents - much as they might be wrong on some issues - wanted the best for the nation. Reagan would never call a Republican president Jorge Arbushto because he disagreed with him on illegal immigration (actually, Reagan and Bush are similar there, but let’ not get off point.)
I guess I call “far right” the folks who get hyperventilatingly frantic, call names and start getting too damned emotional when things get sticky. And I definitely call “far right” anyone who tells me they are going to “sit out” an election to teach the nation they presumably love a lesson.
If I could think of another, less verbose thing to call them than “the emotional angry right who will not compromise on anything because of their principles” I’d be happy to use it to make the clarifying distinction. The problem one of language; I am constrained by it. I have no idea what else to call the rootin’ tootin’ “come ‘ere, you moderate varmit, yer no true conservative an’ ah’m gonna box yer ears for it” folks on the right who routinely tell me to get the hell out of their party!
I suspect that I am not the only person of the right who feels that my friends are slapping me in the face instead of chiding me for my mistakes when they use those often used but undefined phrases while discussing contentious issues.
I am very sorry that you feel slapped in the face when I use those words. There is no slap intended. I simply have no other words to use. I can say “moderate” and “right-leaning,” and “right,” and “republican” and “moderate conservatives” and “conservative conservatives” but…do you see how nuts this gets?
The balkanization and over-identification that has occured in America, where everyone is a “something-American” instead of an American has spilled over into the political parties. Now everyone is a “something Republican” or a ’something Democrat” That’s actually a much bigger problem, I think, than whether I say “far right.” Should I use “hard right?” “Right Right?” “Correct Right?” “Rush Right?” If you and I disagree on immigration, and I know that I’m pretty much a moderate, what do I call you? My not “far right” in a bad way, but “far right in a good way” friend?
As I said, I’m open for suggestions!
February 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Anchoress,
Thanks for responding! I take you at your word. I had thought you were passing a “Mittmania” judgement upon your own commenters from yesterday.
I do think many Mitt supporters are not “recent converts” in the traditional sense. I was not a new Romney supporter. I have liked Romney all along. I just liked Giuliani and Thompson equally as well. It’s a credit to Giuliani and Thompson that I have not explicitly endorsed Romney until now.
I think Romney is authentic, yet it’s hard for many observers to trust what they see. People who have worked with him, such as Dean Barnett, say he’s exactly what he appears to be: a man trying to do his best, and to contribute in the best way he can. Romney is a throwback hero. He’s kind of a Christy Matthewson All-American type of man. These days, we look upon such men with suspicion. I do the same! I watched Romney a long time before I was comfortable that he was authentic. Sadly, imo, Romney hasn’t been able to reach the rest of the electorate in time.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Anchoress,
Fortunately, as usual we agree on almost everything we are arguing/having a discussion about.
Our main point of contention–other than immigration–is about semantics. And here we can certainly blame the liberals and their friends in Communications, going all the way back to 1964 when they introduced the word Moderate as a synonym for the word Liberal in political discourse.
There is no answer to your question about when to use far right, hard right, ultra-conservative, etc. You and I might come to an agreement about when such words are appropriate, but liberals already have devalued the words by making them code words for everyone on the right. Then, when someone on the right uses them, we get to arguing. And, I’m not sure that you and I can reach an agreement because I wonder who on my list of what I think are rational conservative voices you think are worthy of the label “far right”.
I disagree with each of the persons I listed, on occasion. I even disagree with you, on occasion. But at least we can discuss, and then agree to disagree.
God Bless.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“And I definitely call “far right” anyone who tells me they are going to “sit out” an election to teach the nation they presumably love a lesson.”
Being a voter of conscience isn’t necessarily being in far right John Bircher Society territory. Ugh.
It’s such a horribly negative thing for one to vote AGAINST a candidate. And at this point, if McCain gets the nod, I feel in conscience I can only vote AGAINST one of the Dems. There’s too much baggage for me to overlook. So that conscientiousness bears derisive statements when you yourself are going to just be an independent after primary season? At least I and people like me still believe in the vast majority of Rs. We just are very represented by our party symbol. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 10 times, I’m just simply not going to be able to vote for you anymore.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
If McCain can win states like California, New York, Oklahoma, New Jersey and Missouri without any help from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, I am not sure a brokered convention will be necessary.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Ferrous, that’s interesting. You seem to be castigating me for not being a loyal Republican when I wrote as far back as 2005 that I only became a Republican in 2002, so that I could vote for in the primaries, and I would remain until I voted in the ‘08 primaries, at which time I would probably go back to being an Indy. I am merely being consistent, there. The R party is not a comfortable fit. It actually was, for a while. It stopped being so when I began to get emails and comments from “true” and “real” people who told me I wasn’t true enough or real enough and I began to feel like ideological purity was becoming the defining characteristic of the GOP. As I wrote recently, this felt like a much bigger tent when I entered it!
At least I and people like me still believe in the vast majority of Rs. I think this is the crux of the difficulties with the GOP right now, and it’s an ironic one. On one hand, I got emails decrying me as a “RoboRepublican” when I dared to disagree with Rush and Hannity, etc, and was told that I didn’t understand the “free thinking” people following their leads (I use the words I got in the emails). I was told that I was putting “party over principle.” Now, when I say I will leave the party - partly because I always planned to and partly because I won’t stand for being told how I have to think in order to be “real” or “true” (and that was why I left the Dems) I’m told, “well, at least we’re being loyal to the party!”
I’m not saying you wrote those emails, btw…I’m sure you didn’t. It’s just funny, that’s all.
And yes, I would call those “purists” the “far right.” So, maybe that’s the problem. Some feel that the purity brigade are merely loyal and principled. They strike me as rigid.
But here is what is NOT funny in all this: I read - over and over - “I will not vote for McCain. I will sit it out.”
Well, that’s fine - it’s your choice, but it seems like a weird patriotism to me. And when I tell that to people they say, “It’s because I love my country so much that I will not surrender my principles and watch it get destroyed from the inside.”
Which, I am sorry, I do not mean to give offense, reminds me of nothing so much as a Fundamentalist Muslim father who will kill his daughter for having a boyfriend.
Honor and principle are very fine and valuable things. But when you know damn well that the SCOTUS is going to give the next president anywhere from 3 to possibly 6 justice appointments, and when you know those justices will hold sway for decades, then…well, I find it perverse. It’s an honor killing. I cannot support that thinking.
If the Conservatives - the ‘true’ conservatives on the right wanted a great candidate they should have been grooming one for the last four years, when it was plain Bush would have no successor. They didn’t. They didn’t plan ahead. Now…we may or may not be stuck with McCain, who is not - regardless of the hype - Satan Incarnate. He is flawed, though. We might have been able to do better…but…this is it. If you liked Thompson or Giuliani or Hunter better, well…then you should have been vocal about it and sent them money. Instead, the conservatives gnashed their teeth over the unsatisfying selection, and that’s all.
Maybe there will be a third party “great conservative” served up. That would be interesting, but he’d have to be someone pretty special to please the “far” right and the “middle right” and the independents and some crossover Dems. If you look at Reagan’s 1988 SOTU address, he talks about free trade from “del fuego to the arctic circle” - nowadays that’s derided as “Bush’s North American Union.” Reagan met with the Mexican president and said he wanted his opinion about what to do with the border “beyond a 9 foot wall.”
Looking at all that I truly wonder if the conservatives - the far right, the whatever it is I’m supposed or not supposed to call the principled people who brook no compromises - would even find him acceptable.
You don’t want to “vote a negative?” None of us WANTS to do that. But the effect of ’staying home’ will be an act of passive aggression upon the whole nation. A much greater negative than a reluctant flick of a lever.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Bill can’t, he just CAN’T, allow himself to be “under the weather”! He needs to go get some more uranium money from the Ukraine so that Hillary can keep loaning millions of dollars of “their own money” to her campaign.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Let’s see if John McCain — of McCain-Feingold fame — can find it within himself to make a federal case out of the incredible sliminess and sleaziness of Bill taking payoffs to “make a speech” or for “consulting work” for foreign interests and having all those tens of millions of dollars not merely line their pockets, but now end up financing Hillary’s campaign.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Principles are a good thing. I don’t really know what your various stands are, Anchoress. I had a good buddy from SF who is a very devout Catholic and essentially were she deviated strongly from most of her fellow Rs was on the death penalty issue. Personally I’m right with Rudy and probably most Rs on being in favor of the DP. But I do know quite a few evangelicals who are anti-DP just based on their Christian principles. They are also the most vigorously pro-life people I know too.
I’m always saddened to see people leave the party. Sometimes I have to wonder why they do, especially when I see their results of some test like the politicalcompass one online. The Dem voters I come across are so solidly in the lower left corner (I forget the axes). The ones who voted for GWB and any other R are generally either in the cross hairs (I’m just slightly to the right of them) or solidly somewhere on the right side. It just speaks to a crucial difference between how we all think and shows brilliantly (at least to my view) that modern Democrats in this country are not people who think as middle of the road as they’d like us to think. They are actually the ones hard left and we are the ones gradually drifting to the center with every case we come across where maybe a little gun control should apply in mental cases, or maybe some truly hardluck cases can’t just depend on independent charity alone to survive, or maybe we should figure out a way to integrate long existing illegals into our society. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that drift. It’s what the Republican Party has been doing for decades. What makes me sad is to see people like yourself essentially without some kind of comfortable ideological home when in reality it’s only a few loud talkers who are making it seem like you aren’t welcome anymore.
Fact of the matter is the Democrats running are all for socialized healthcare. Unfortunately it looks like the Republicans running aren’t exactly tremendously opposed to that either. It’s the Dems who either haven’t changed their socialist meme or if anything have drifted further left to throw the Moveon crowd a bone from time to time. The Republicans have been moving away from the right for quite some time now. The only real difference that is consistent is the war on terror and even with that Hillary has consistently shown herself to be in favor of it through her actions while maybe just paying lip service against. And yes, I know I just gave what seems like the only reason to vote for John McCain. However, I just can’t ignore his character in nastily sniping at the party faithful like some pit bull. Is that temperament a good thing? People called GWB a cowboy and said he was dangerous, but he’s a mild mannered kitty cat compared to the unpredictable volatility to John McCain.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Indeed. I was agreeing with you.
That is precisely his strongest asset.