McCain is Nuts

......... and that just about sums it up. In a nutshell. It is only a matter if time before he goes off  like a ticking time bomb. I can't wait for him to blow like the Dean scream or insane Perot - as long as he reveals himself before super Tuesday.

The leftarded media is dying for a McCain win - that way its a Dem vs. a Dem.

Watching the Republic debate tonight, the differences could not be more stark. Mitt was Presidential. Really magnificent. And why is Huckabee still in there? It's to take the air out of Romney because those evangelicals would be his. It's an important 10%.

Comments

[1389]

He's nuts all right. Not only that, but he's an enemy of free speech - guess what'll happen to the blogosphere if he gets his way.

He's also buddy-buddy with the Albanian narcoterrorist/jihadist emigre community - those heroin dollars can sure buy up a lot of politicians. No doubt he would hate the Serbs anyway, just because he's a nasty person - but he hates them all the more because he's being paid to hate them.

If it's between McCain and Billary, or McCain and Hussein, we will most likely have no alternative but to emigrate. And I don't expect that there will be anything here to come back to in the future.

[Francis W. Porretto]

If McCain is to have a visible blowup, it has to happen very soon to affect the nomination. Once he wins the nomination, it won't matter at all.

McCain cannot prevail in the general election. His strength is in states that would vote Democrat if the Democrats nominated Hitler.

This man has been avid for the presidency for a very long time. This is his big chance; I predict that he'll control himself better than he ever has before.

[Jane]

1389 - immigrate where? There isn't a western democracy that isn't plagued with the same problems. Every country is filled with politicians that are suffering from acute greed and/or stupidity. There is absolutely no place on earth to go where one won't experience the same risks. I know because I've looked everywhere.

Check out the demographics in all western nations - it will be an eye opener. Policies of appeasment are not just in the U.S. It is a disease that all western nations have been infected with. There is no where to run to.

A lot of people from the UK & Europe are immigrating to Australia, Canada, and the U.S. What they don't realize is that they haven't escaped the problems - but rather have just bought a little more time. The end result will be the same throughout the west - unless of course we scream loud enough to shame the political and corporate bastards into doing what is right for their countries instead of their pocket books.

[jjmurphy]

Seriuos question. If McCain or another Dem is elected this Fall, is there a way to "emigrate-in-place"? Not sure how else to put it. I agree with Jane in that there is no place else to go.

[Harcourt Fenton]

I don't agree with you that McCain IS nuts, but, unlike Romney, he HAS nuts.

Romney - Draft dodging, job cutting, money-first-service-when-comfortable, Massachusetts-liberal-turned conservative. Didn't support the surge until the surge looked like it was working. Brutal negative campaign ads that make Billary Clinton look like a patsy - against Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani and Paul.

McCain - Consistently conservative on all of the major issues; served his country continuously from age 17 onwards (didn't go on a proselytising jaunt to Europe while others of his age went to war in Vietnam), not just a prisoner-of-war, but a commander of the largest squadron in the Navy - served over 20 years until 1981. Then served in congress and in the senate. All the while, our friend Romney was making money - which is fine - but the only real "jobs" he was creating was for people in his office - a huge number of the companies he bought and sold went bankrupt from Bain's fees and/or fired huge numbers of workers. Again, I admire the business - but it's "nuts" to say that he's a net job creator.

McCain's youngest sons serve in the military - one in Iraq and one in the Navy. Where are Romney's sons? Serving their country by getting their father elected is their answer. You're right - McCain is nuts to let his sons serve - but at least he puts his money where his mouth is. Romney - you don't know where his money's been, but most of it has been used in Clintonista tactics against his fellow Republicans.

McCain earned the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart (for injuries that are quite apparent today - perhaps Romney should also attack Bob Dole for holding a pen in one hand). What has Romney earned? A lot of money - good for him - but how does that qualify him to lead this country in the War Against Terror? Who did Romney turn to when he was waffling on whether to support the surge for a few months? He turned to General Zinni!!!! He might as well have turned to Zbigniew or Jimmy Carter.

Also, just so it is clear that McCain's only leadership was not prior to being a prisoner of war (where the strength he used to defy torture will make Ahmadikkewad's taunts seem like paper cuts), he was Executive Officer and Commanding Officer of the Navy's largest attack squadron during the mid-70's until his retirement from the Navy. He was a true leader - not just a paper pusher.

Pamela - I don't understand why you continue to excoriate McCain because he is not so far to the right that he is unelectable. Giuliani supports him - is Giuliani also a crackpot? Schwartzenegger? He's a crackpot? Why do you want him to blow up?? Do you want Hillary in McCain's place?

[1389]

If McCain, Billary, or Hussein get elected, I predict we will see conservative Americans fleeing to .... Russia.

Never thought I'd vote for Ron Paul, but if he's on the ballot against the above, that's what I'll end up doing. At least I have no reason to believe that Ron Paul is a criminal. I am one hundred percent certain that the other three are.

[Razdan]

As far as I am concerned, McCain's strong stance against water-boarding as a legitimate method of gleaning information from terrorists, completely disqualifies him as a legitimate leader who can win the war we are currently in, i.e. Islamo-fascism. And yes, I would prefer a Billary Clinton or even an Obama instead of McCain. At least that way the country can put the blame clearly on our liberal policies when it eventually goes downhill (as it surely will with any one of these jokers in power), rather than on a pretend-to-be-conservative policy (like the one we have had under Bush Jr.). As someone so aptly put it, a McCain victory would be a pyrrhic one for the conservatives.

[TootFan]

Some of you actually believe we have to destroy our country in order to save it. That's nuts.

Some of you remind of the ultra-liberals, like Alex Baldwin, who said he would move to France if Bush is elected.

Are you democratic plants, or just having trouble adjusting your tinfoil hats?

[Pamela Geller]

1. You think Bay Buchanan and Grover Norquist are going to be Mitt Romney's major advisors on Israel? Even if they had any real input, he would do the wrong thing because of them? That's laughable.

2.My problem with MacCain is not that he hasn't been pro-Israel and have fine advisors, I believe he has and does. It's a character issue. He's the media's darling because he's always done things they liked especially betraying Republicans and their core values. Do we need to review the long list of that activity? HE'S MALLEABLE TO MEDIA CRITICISM, Joe and the press is usually pretty hard on Israel. This includes her own liberal media. If they're sympathetic to her enemies in the future as they've often been in the past, I fear he will respond to such pressure. For example, he has been vocal about how our waterboarding is torture even after military testimony was given that we received life saving information from it multiple times (used on radical Islamists, an issue I take very seriously). He wanted Geneva conventions applied to suspected enemy combatants who don't hail from any country that would have been party to them, let alone their having demonstrated a loss of humanity so are human rights even relevant there? We should give classified information to such alleged and not so alleged murderers to enhance their legal defense?

He's not the only one with this exquisite press sensitivity. Newt was once a fearless bombthrower from a safe district in Marietta. He crumbled under all the media scrutiny writing books like "Lessons Learned the Hard Way". He spouts similar positions today on issues of torture, and he's lost so much regard in our party because smart conservatives recognize political posturing. This is one issue we can't afford it with. Say what you want about George W. Bush, but he mostly did what he thought was right no matter what the press threw at him which is why he's so hated, but I believe history will be fairer to him.

Joe, my biggest problem with MacCain is that this is a house of cards. If he gets the nomination, the media love affair that he's had during this whole primary process will vanish. They will get behind the Democratic candidate, their true love, and bury him. It's like despite what all the talking heads think, we won't get a chance with a more conservative candidate that the base feels like showing up to vote for. Republicans, a center right party, almost never win without the strong support of their base...and do you know the pulse of the base right now? Not inside the beltway "conservatives", but the grassroots base. They hate the guy in droves! So with MacCain, it's like we lost already.

[joeblough]

I'm not sure if he's full out nuts or just somewhat weird, but McPain is a threat to the republic.

I just watched a video of Coulter declaring she would vote for Hillary before McPain. I'm pretty sure I couldn't bring myself to do that, but I get her point.

(You can find it at: Not Backing Mac)

Given that their basic positions are pretty similar, Hillary in office would probably feel pressured to play to the right, whereas McPain would be pressured to the left and would accomodate the same way for the same reason.

We could actually be confronted with the irony of Hillary governing further to the right than McPain would or vice versa.

At all events his record and comments bespeak someone who basically doesn't get it about America's founding principles.

The McCain Feingold abortion is, to paraphrase Newt Gingrich, probably the worst anti-freee-speech measure since the Alien and Sedition Act in the early years of the republic.

His comments about "greed" and "big business" are right out of the left liberal, or for that matter the fascist playbook.

His heart is definitely not in the right place.

That he suffered in his country's service is obvious, and much to be appreciated.

But it's not a free pass to undermine its principles and sovereignity.

McPain is very very bad news.

And to be candid, I'm not really sure who would be worse for the country, Barak Hussein Obama, Hillary or McCain.

I'm not a enthusiastic admirer of Romney. But he is clearly the only hope we have for sane governance.

[Lex]

I'm not saying this because I hate Romney (and believe me, I really do), but because it is likely true. Romney can never, barring some kind of unforeseen disaster, beat either Dem in the national election. Never. It won't happen. McCain has a chance with Independents that Romney happily throws away every time he opens his mouth.

To those of you who see McCain as "a liberal" and don't see much difference between him and Hillary or Obama, yes, you're going to have a problem with this election. However, I doubt if too many see McCain as that liberal.

Independents (and possibly even Dems) who are still really concerned about national security would probably go with McCain over either Dem. VERY few would even think about casting that same ballot for Mitt, not in a lifetime. Most moderate-to-libs IMHO would rather leave the country than vote for Romney. Hope for a Mitt ticket at your peril, again not because I have "Mitt Derangement Syndrome" but because so many others do. You don't see that intense hatred towards McCain except by those like 1389 who would throw votes to Ron Paul instead and possibly then skew the results.

I believe it was in another thread, but someone observed that the Dems would have to run Hitler for many at this point to vote GOP at all. I don't think that's too far for the truth. As for "the only candidate to say "Jihad'", be careful of hyperfocusing and missing the forest for the trees.

[joeblough]

The Reagan elections and the Gingrinch congressional elections showed that being "too conservative" is not the problem, on the contrary, holding to principles and clearly distinguishing oneself from the left HELPS.

Unless the GOP base has moved substantially to the left, in which case God help us, moving left is always a bad idea for republicans.

The general principle in human affairs is that when 2 people who fundamentally agree on principle argue, the more committed and consistent party wins.

Faced with a choice of a consistent and committed leftist, and a luke-warm wishy-washy leftist, the leftier leftist wins.

Why would the public vote for a GOP democrat when they can have a real one?

Romney may not get as many left leaning "centrists" and "moderates" and what have you. But he would get far more energetic support from the right.

That means he would have a real chance to pull off a Reagan surprise.

They didn't expect Reagan to win by his margins either.