LiveWire

Esquier says:

You did great tonight Tammy. What Ann Coulter said last night parallels the point you made in “the New American Revolution” that after 9/11 individuals were no longer voting along party affiliations.

N_Campbell says:

Tammy, I wholeheartedly support Gov. Romney, but if my party decides that they want to put a liberal socialist up as the nominee, then I will vote for the authentic liberal socialist. The illusion that “McCain can win” is based solely on the idea that conservatives will hold their nose with one hand and pull the lever for McCain with the other.

The time has come for conservatives to answer a question. Does this party belong to us, or the elites at the RNC? I for one would rather commit political seppuku before I gave legitimacy to Senator McCain’s claim that he is the heir to Reagan’s legacy.

camperdude says:

Count me also among the people who will vote for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination. It’s no secret why the LA Times, SF Chronicle, and the NY Times are all endorsing McCain. It’s ‘cuz the Democratic nominee – whoever it is – will win easily.

BigRed says:

Your position is wrong and politically dishonest.
Like you, I am an old school democrat except I don’t drink kool-aid and am not swayed by so called pundits. For you to even suggest you would vote Hillary over John is outrageous. Not only is McCain not on the liberal level of Clinton (see the ACU, which has been cited incessantly), but you are suggesting a vote to change the course on the “war on terror” (not Bush’s war on terror – we all know that is bunk – aligning with abu mazen and his ilk, like abdullah and mubarak is proof enough) but a real war against Muslims that will do and have done anything to kill us for sport.
4 years can do a lot of damage.
Rethink your position. As a Jew and hawkish Zionist, it seems Dems seem to get us killed faster than republicans.

TC says:

McCain will adopt Democrat positions but Republicans will be blamed when they fail. Might as well have a real Democrat so Republicans won’t have to take the fall.

Mike says:

There remains the possibility, if McCain is indeed the nominee, that he will move toward the conservative side of the spectrum in a way that might give conservatives a reasonable expectation that he would actually keep his promises to do things such as close the border, appoint strict constructionist judges, etc. Absent that, there are two options: Vote for the democrat or stay home on election day.

I made the supreme mistake of voting for Bill Clinton the first time. I would never compound that mistake by voting for him the third. I suspect that many conservatives feel the same way, and would simply not vote.

I agree wholeheartedly that Hilldabill and McCain would be very harmful, but the Dems would surely be worse (true, it’s a matter of degree), and in their mania to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the war would surely allow terrorists to conduct horrific attacks in America. Should that come to pass, genuine conservatism would be not just possible, but a virtual mandate. It’s tragic that we’ve come to this, but this might well be the only sane strategy in November.

Of course, McCain is so ego-driven, intemperate and nasty he might well sink himself to the point that he makes a Billaray co-presidency a foregone conclusion no matter what anyone says or does.

pat_s says:

The month of January has been a rough one for conservatives. I think we are shell-shocked and starting to say things that don’t make sense.

I hope the Romney Rally is successful. Let’s be honest. He’s the Stop McCain candidate. He’s the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th choice for many of us. McCain is the bane of our existence right now. We thought he was vanquished and now he’s on the brink of triumph. We hate it. That’s the source of our newfound love for Romney. How we expect Romney to be the peoples’ choice in November when it’s taken a rage-based crisis for Republicans to support him is a leap of faith. But I’m all for trying.

Now let’s look ahead and assume the worst. McCain is the nominee running against Hillary. Hillary will not be more conservative than McCain. That is ridiculous. At best she and he will be two stylistically different manifestations of the same liberalism. At worst the Marxist dogma fueling Hillary will ignite. A vote for Hillary is a spiteful vote against McCain. It’s nothing more noble or rational than that.

I disagree with John McCain on almost everything and I personally despise him. I admit it. I may not be emotionally able to vote for him in November but I will NEVER!!!! vote for Hillary Clinton. If the country falls into her clutches, any sweet sense of revenge voting for her against McCain will be fleeting and regretted for a long time after. I will not have an active hand in her success.

If my deep feelings against John McCain are paralytic on Election Day, I believe it is a more forceful rebuke to pass on both presidential candidates, effectively casting a “none of the above” vote, or perhaps write-in a name. Where is the sense in adding to Hillary’s vote count believing some distinction will be made that yours is a protest vote?

Voting for Hillary as some master plan to get the Democrats blamed for a liberal wreck and then expect the country will turn back to Republicans in 2012 is adopting the Giuliani strategy of leaving the battlefield to skip ahead and benefit from the failure of others. There’s no reason to believe it will be more successful for Republicans in 2012 than it was for Rudy last week.

From The Headless Horseman to The Bride of Frankenstein to The Night of The Living Dead it’s been one horror after another for conservatives. Keep a clear head. Let’s avoid Invasion of The Body Snatchers.

jerocat says:

ALMOST APOPLECTIC HERE.

Tammy and all,

There are three socialist senators and one conservative governor running. The most hawkish senator happens to be in the “R” party. He is a Trojian horse. Two are brazen liars. One is a naive gentleman who belongs to and attends a racist church in Chicago.

Looking at myself in the mirror, the president of the USA does not have to look like me, a white man. I adored Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meyer and BEFORE she became Secretary of State I adored tough minded Condie Rice (no longer.) I see many capable black men in business and industry and, a few in politics. I hope one day one of them rises up as leader of us all. I don’t care how they look. I care how they think, talk and act. The best candidate happens to be a white man from Massachusettes. NONE is more wise, has more breadth or is BETTER SUITED to become Cammander in Chief than Mitt Romney.

Tammy, I hope that was only a threat your voiced to vote for Hillary, a verbal hyperbole. If she is elected I hope it’s on extremely slim margins with record low voter turn out. Sick of GHW Bush’s mealy mouthed talk, I voted for Bill. Big mistake. Never again.

Based on his current run sooner or later Mitt will be president. Sooner is better. I am for Mitt on most things of consequence, things which affect our existance as a strong and vibrant nation. The little things will sort themselves out in our democracy.

Dave J says:

“Hillary v. McCain = Hillary in a landslide”

How do you figure that? Where is the electoral college math that could produce a Hillary landslide, when 40-45% of people polled consistently say they would never vote for her under any circumstances? This statement seems some kind of modern analogue to Pauline Kael’s notorious quote about how Nixon couldn’t have won in 1968 because she didn’t know a single person who voted for him.

As much as I’ve long disliked John McCain’s positions on a host of issues, the apoplectic hysteria against him among the rightwing intelligenstia in the past couple of weeks has me completely baffled. They (and this unfortunately includes you, Tammy) seem maniacally desperate to lose at all costs.

Ever since 9/11, I’ve been a single-issue voter. The issue is the war (of which Iraq is but one small though important front). To vote on ANYTHING else is a deluded luxury we can ill afford. On that ONE issue, McCain is a solid leader, Romney is a marginal follower, and both the Dems are indistinguishably a catastrophic danger.

To vote for Hillary against McCain in the hopes of “bad stuff” being tagged on her over the course of four years, after which someone on a white horse will sweep in as the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan, is just recklessly irresponsible. Four years of the Dems in complete control in Washington right now is something I do not know if the country would survive, and that is not hyperbole: four years of Hillary or Obama in the White House, and I fully EXPECT an Iranian nuke to go off in at least one US city.

“The best candidate happens to be a white man from Massachusettes.”

Who, me? That does after all, describe me but it doesn’t describe any of the actual candidates, since I’m not running. But since I’m from Massachusetts, I actually have experience with Mitt Romney (who’s from Michigan), and I despise him to the core of my being. He did little as governor, other than create a massive new health care entitlement. How that supposedly makes him a triumphant conservative flag-bearer I can’t even begin to understand. He was Bill Weld, Part II: another blue blooded flake parachuted onto Beacon Hill for the sake of his own ego who couldn’t have been more harmful to the anemic Massachusetts GOP if he’d tried. If only GWB hadn’t made Paul Celucci his ambassador to Canada: now THERE was someone who was a real conservative and who actually worked to build the party against all odds. Celucci, of course, supports McCain, because in the real world, where politics is the art of the possible, Mitt Romney is just the Republican version of Walter Mondale and would go to down to a comparable annihilation versus either Hillary or Obama. That, again, is something we simply cannot afford.