Cynical Nation

Whether he would admit it or not, I think Rush Limbaugh would rather have Hillary Clinton than John McCain. (He might've even admitted it.)

I'm with ya, brother brethren!

While I have my issues with John McCain, I can't imagine they are the same as the ones Rush Limbaugh has. What is it about McCain that causes Limbaugh and his ilk such convulsions?

McCain is not electable for multiple reasons:

1. Age (and he looks even older).
2. The religious right will simply not get out to vote for him.
3. The Iraq war will hurt him in the general election.
4. He will lose his temper and his campaign will implode.

Despite the current spin, he will be defeated relatively easily by any democrat.

That screaming liberal McCain had the temerity to work with such America-haters as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold and Joe Lieberman on major legislation, and he dared criticize the great Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq and didn't choose to fellate the great Bush 24 hours a day on things like immigration or judges or tax cuts or spending or stem cells. At least these are some of his sins according to gasbags like Limbaugh and his putrid ilk.

Fred, the McCain-Feingold Bill is a major violation of free speech rights....all those "special interests," are really "the American people's interests (NARAL, the NRA, Handgun Control, the Club for Growth, etc)....all those groups are comprised of American citizens, which that Bill seeks to silence, in violation of their First Amendment rights.

And McCain DIDN'T oppose Bush on ILLEGAL immigration, in fact, McCain was a "johnny-come-lately" to the pro-ILLEGAL immigration side, as he initially claimed to oppose it in order to get elected in Arizona (a State that passed the first "English ONLY" referendum in the nation, back in 2006, when it also voted to deny ILLEGAL immigrants any state benefits, as well as the ability to collect punitive damages on Civil suits in that state). The Arizona people are very much on the right side of the ILLEGAL immigration debate.

That's because the people of Arizona are RIGHT and "fair-minded" on ILLEGAL immigration, while G W Bush & John McCain have not been!

I've directly challenged any and every one I've ever met to give me even a single argument in favor of the status quo on ILLEGAL immigration, or even an argument in favor of "amnesty for those illegal immigrants already here."

Not one person, to date ever has....and that's because there are no rational pro-arguments.

(1) ILLEGL immigration puts a persistent downward pressure on ALL prevailing US wage rates.

(2) There would be no need to "deport 12 million illegal aliens." Merely fine, for first offenses, and jail for second offenses, the illicit employers (those who hire "undocumented"/ILLEGAL workers and hire them "off-the-books) and 98% of those 12 million ILLEGALS will self-deport! The rest are criminals and wouldn't "come out of the shadows" for ANY inducements.

The question most often asked of those who support my viewpoint is, "Who'll do all those jobs?"

Well, that's another WIN-WIN!!! Poor Americans will, once we cut public assistance and make it much harder to qualify for.

McCain is WRONG on ILLEGAL immigration, McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy, but his "Gang of Fourteen" was USED to get Conservative judges ONTO the High Court, not keep them off! It was that strategy that got Alito and Roberts confirmed to the SC, and BOTH those appointments have been GREAT for America.

I'd doubt that a Limbaugh, or anyone else, on the Right would claim that G W Bush opposed ILLEGAL immigration, or that McCain worked AGAINST his "Shamnesty Bill," as McCain worked with Bush, Reid and Pelosi to get that Bill passed.

THANKFULLY, Congress was swamped with emails and phone calls from thousands of well- informed, concerned Americans and that "Shamnesty Bill" was voted down in Congress thanks largely to that pressure.

I'd also doubt that any such people ("the Limbaugh ilk") would make the claim that McCain opposed appointing Conservative judges to the SC, as he helped engineer the confirmations of Roberts & Alito.

I can't confirm that those folks you mention ("the Limbaugh ilk") never said what you claimed, but I'm almost certain that that's the case.

JMK, I agree with you (and disagree with McCain) on CFR. Also on immigration, but, as you noted, Bush is no better, and I put zero stock in whatever Romney says on the matter, because he'll say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

I also agree with you about the Gang of 14. McCain has repeatedly used this "rope-a-dope" strategy to co-opt Dems who held McCain up as an example of a "Republican we can work with." The Dems were too stupid to realize what was going on, but, unfortunately, so was Rush Limbaugh.

Didn't the Gang of 14 keep the filibuster in place? And isn't the GOP now benefiting from the filibuster staying in place?

Yes, they successfully negotiated a compromise (in the spring of 2005) to avoid the deployment of the so-called "nuclear option," over an organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by President George W. Bush.

That compromise was successful in precluding further judicial filibusters or the use of the nuclear option during the rest of the 109th Congress.

That "Gang of 14" compromise was instrumental in permitting Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito an up-or-down vote. His confirmation vote (58 to 42) wouldn't have been adequate to overcome a Party-line filibuster by Senate Democrats.

The "gang of fourteen" helped make sure that Sam Alito was confirmed.

That great conservative, Mr. Limbaugh, has announced that he may not vote for the GOP candidate for President this year, that he would rather have Hillary Clinton win than a certain unnamed nominee.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012408/content/01125111.guest.html

"JMK, I agree with you (and disagree with McCain) on CFR. Also on immigration, but, as you noted, Bush is no better, and I put zero stock in whatever Romney says on the matter, because he'll say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear." (bnj)


Barry, I have very little against John McCain, except perhaps a few unfortunate quotes of his over the ILLEGAL immigration issue and McCain-Feingold, which I'd agree was a "good faith" effort, albeit an unfortunate one.

Romney has "Romney-care," which is exactly the same kind of government managed healthcare that Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all promised, going against him. Romney-care has been a bust in MA, just as Wisconsin's attempt at state-managed healthcare has also fallen far short of expectations.

I think you might agree that there is not only "no perfect candiate this year," there aren't even many acceptable ones.

In fact, the major problem I have with the entire GOP field this year is that they're not only so well positioned to move to the Left in a general election, but that they all seem almost eager to do so, at least to varying degrees.

And yes, while that's the way things always go (the leading Democrats are also poised to move Right after the Primaries) because the thinking is that "there are a lot more votes in the center," it's not always the case that so many candidates on both sides are so willing and even eager to do so.

Since I KNOW that no career policians care much at all about voters and their interests, as their concerns are generally (if they have any common sense - and they ALL do) reserved for their DONORS and "their best interests," I won't be disappointed, no matter who the eventual nominee or winner is at the end of this year.

I do feel bad for all those gullible souls who actually believe that an Edwards, Huckabee, Obama or even a Romney, Clinton or McCain is going to "bring about ANY change" that those who bought and paid for those campaigns doesn't approve of.

JMK, yeah I agree about the current crop of candidates, and what to expect in November. I think Romney's campaign against Ted Kennedy, when he tried to run to Kennedy's left on a number of issues, may be a preview for what's in store.

PE, I didn't hear Rush's statement, but I hope he's talking about Huckabee! I have a feeling he may not be, however. Rush's hatred of McCain is just completely irrational. I'd respect him a lot more if he'd just say "I hate McCain because I hate him," and leave it at that. Instead, he tries to justify his own personal prejudices with absurd reasoning and breathless hyperbole ("Nominating McCain will destroy the Republican Party!") It's hard to see how anyone can take him seriously at this point, but sadly, I'm sure some still do.

All the talk show hosts are now lining up behind Romney. Before Thompson dropped out, there was kind of an indecision, but now there are entire segments mocking the other challengers. I don't think it is coincidental that both Levin and Ingraham ran segments on how the other candidates hate Romney because they are jealous of him.

Hell, I'm even jealous of Romney. How does he get his hair to do that?

I voted for Romney in our primary, because he is so vacant, stupid, and radiates corruption like JMK radiates bullshit.

That's the great thing about being a registered Republican.

I would really prefer Hillary to be president, but Barack will do.

McCain is fine with me as well.

Romney? LOL!

You know anonymouse, I see you as a David Dukes kind of Republican - racist and xenophobic, vehemently anti-Israel....oddly enough, Dukes started out as a Democrat (most early KKK members were also Democrats). There's nothing innately wrong with being a bigot, it's just creepy, that's all.

At least you, like Dukes, are upfront and honest about it.

As to ideology and defining it, well, there are dolts who still believe, "I can call myself a Conservative even if I believe in things like more social spending, less military intervention around the world on our part, etc."

Those folks are mistaken.

Conservatism hasn't been REDEFINED. Conservatism has ALWAYS been pro-business (on the presumption that greater profits = greater prosperity all around), just as its always been rooted in the principles of LESS GOVERNMNET, LOWER taxes, and a strong Military defense abroad and a powerful police presence at home, to secure that prosperity for the most productive among us.

Can a Conservative favor anti-business policies and pro-big government policies?

Absolutely NOT.

Can a Conservative become a Liberal and change his/her mind on the above issues, favoring more government regulation and social services, higher taxes, etc?

Yes. That's commonly called "going off the deep end," or in medical parlance, having a "conscious break with reality."

American Liberalism/Euro-socialism is a verfiable neurosis.