Coulter: I'll campaign for Hillary if McCain is the nominee

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2008-02-01 07:12am

Youtube video here

Yes. Ann Coulter said that if McCain is the nominee she'll campaign for Hillary.

Hell freezes over, rain of blood appears, pigs grow wings, seas boil, ....

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-02-01 07:33am

Wait, what?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-02-01 07:52am

What exactly do Republitards have against McCain?

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2008-02-01 07:54am

Surely he's just engaging in hyperbole.

As much as the right wing outright hates Clinton I can not see any of them actually supporting her. Even if McCain get's the nomination.

Hell, there was an editorial in the paper, yesterday I think, that was howling about how we can't vote for Clinton because of her husband being back in the White House and that as a result of her candidacy a new word had entered American politics: co-presidency. Now, I've not been following the coverage much at all, I've tried to ignore it, in fact, prefering to wait for the primaries to sort themselves out, but I have never heard that term used, so I have no idea where they were getting that from.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-01 07:54am

Elfdart wrote:What exactly do Republitards have against McCain?

He's against torture.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2008-02-01 08:05am

Somehow I don't think Hillary wants Ann Coulter on her side.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-02-01 08:39am

Elfdart wrote:What exactly do Republitards have against McCain?

Where have you been, sir? He's also pro environment.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2008-02-01 08:39am

co-presidency

I thought that term came in with Dick Cheney. :P

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-01 09:06am

VT-16 wrote:
co-presidency
I thought that term came in with Dick Cheney.

The first time I heard it was during the 1992 campaign and it was used to describe Bill & Hillary Clinton.

Either way, there are Republicans who like McCain, but an awful lot of conservatives of varying stripes despise him.

Some of them dislike him, as Mike said, because of his anti torture stance.
To me, this is one of his few positives, but I'm no neocon.

Others (and I'm one of them) dislike him because of the McCain-Kennedy 'shamnesty' immigration bill that went down in flames last year.

Then you have the ad limitation restrictions in McCain-Feingold.
I have no problem with the contribution restrictions, but I have real First Amendment problems with limiting political ads before an election.

Let's not forget the 'Bush Tax Cut' opposition.
This is another of his few positives to me, because his stated motive is that they needed to be offset by spending cuts.

There's more, but the above illustrates why conservatives distrust McCain.

In the end, my dislike of 'Keating Five' McCain has more to do with his shady past not living up to his self proclaimed 'straight talk' persona and his advocacy of policies I find personally odious than it does with any liking (Romney is a flip-flopper and Huckabee is repellent) for the opposition.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2008-02-01 09:24am

Because it just had to be said: The only good thing I can see from this is the possibility of Hillary-Coulter lesbian sex. There I got that off my chest.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-01 09:25am

Stravo wrote:Because it just had to be said: The only good thing I can see from this is the possibility of Hillary-Coulter lesbian sex. There I got that off my chest.

Seek help.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-02-01 09:28am

Man, this will make a girl I know explode. She loves Coulter but despises Clinton.

I look forward to the backpedaling.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2008-02-01 09:41am

It's been a long time coming, but we may just be seeing the last throes of God's Own Party. As much as the Democrats are a marriage of convenience, the Republicans are even worse. A McCain nomination has the potential to tear the party in two (or maybe even three). The conventional wisdom is that it would take the threat of another Clinton presidency to keep this absurd chimera alive, but even that's doubtful.

The idea that the Republican party has a "liberal" wing of any consequence is laughable in the extreme, let alone the idea that it's *running things*. Liberal Democrats are few in number and mostly irrelevant. If not being a xenophobic dominionist is what qualifies you as "liberal" then that's bad news for the talk radio crowd.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-02-01 09:44am

Darth Wong wrote:
Elfdart wrote:What exactly do Republitards have against McCain?
He's against torture.

No he isn't. He voted for the Military Commissions Act, which grants retroactive immunity to torturers, except if they are military personnel. So CIA agents can thumbscrew, waterboard and cornhole as they please. But for the Torture Twats, I suppose he might not be pro-torture enough.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-01 09:45am

Here in Canada, our conservatives are more liberal than your liberals. But our Bible thumpers still side with our conservatives anyway, because they aren't going to flock to a fringe party that has no chance of winning. I can't see this really tearing up the Republican party; the fact is that as long as they are perceived to be the party which is less tolerant of alien people and ideas, they will be the party of God.

American Christianity is Calvinist and Puritan in nature, which is why the "help the poor" subset of Christians in the US has been desperately trying to turn the country around to its way of thinking for my entire adult life without success. As long as Republicans keep pushing their "no help for the poor" and "stop all sexual deviance" platforms, they will be the party of God. In fact, on every issue, all they have to do is be marginally right of the Democrats and they will lock up the fundie vote.

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2008-02-01 10:00am

Darth Raptor wrote:It's been a long time coming, but we may just be seeing the last throes of God's Own Party. As much as the Democrats are a marriage of convenience, the Republicans are even worse. A McCain nomination has the potential to tear the party in two (or maybe even three). The conventional wisdom is that it would take the threat of another Clinton presidency to keep this absurd chimera alive, but even that's doubtful.

Wait a moment, I thought it was Huckabee that would tear the GOP apart if he won. Or was it Romney? Is the GOP fronting any candidate anymore that won't tear it apart if they win the nomination?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-02-01 10:05am

Elfdart wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Elfdart wrote:What exactly do Republitards have against McCain?
He's against torture.
No he isn't. He voted for the Military Commissions Act, which grants retroactive immunity to torturers, except if they are military personnel. So CIA agents can thumbscrew, waterboard and cornhole as they please. But for the Torture Twats, I suppose he might not be pro-torture enough.

Part of his contribution to the Military Commissions Act was that coercion of the prisoner would have to fall short of "serious" bodily or psychological injury." Now what that really means is probably a different story, but that supposedly was his contribution. He signed that bill after actively negotiating on the conditions that prisoners wouldn't suffer permanent damage. He put those conditions in himself.

McCain also introduced the McCaine Detainee Amendment in 2005, which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. I imagine these are reasons why he has the reputation he has.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-02-01 10:08am

There are a lot of factions that make up the modern GOP, and frankly this small 'c' conservative has had it up to here with the Fundamentalist wing, the 'Rockefeller Republican' wing, and the Neocon wing of the party.

As far as I can see, there's no room for someone who wants balanced budgets, national health care, a non-interventionist foreign policy, expanded personal liberty, and a curtailment of the national security state in either party.

IOW, this three winged bird probably won't fly this year.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-01 10:08am

Elfdart wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Elfdart wrote:What exactly do Republitards have against McCain?
He's against torture.
No he isn't. He voted for the Military Commissions Act, which grants retroactive immunity to torturers, except if they are military personnel. So CIA agents can thumbscrew, waterboard and cornhole as they please. But for the Torture Twats, I suppose he might not be pro-torture enough.

OK, he's more against torture than the rest of the Republicans, most of whom seem to view torture the way children view candy.

Abraham Lincoln signed compromises on slavery too, out of necessity, but he was still an enemy of slavery.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-02-01 10:09am

Darth Wong wrote:Abraham Lincoln signed compromises on slavery too, out of necessity, but he was still an enemy of slavery.

Right, it's not an "all or nothing" issue. His signing of that bill represented the compromise he worked for.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-01 10:11am

Glocksman wrote:As far as I can see, there's no room for someone who wants balanced budgets, national health care, a non-interventionist foreign policy, expanded personal liberty, and a curtailment of the national security state in either party.

Dennis Kucinich sounds like your man. Of course, he's obviously not going to be president because the Democrats are only marginally better than the Republicans. But at least the Democratic party has room for such a man in it, while he wouldn't even be allowed to sweep floors at the Republican party.

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2008-02-01 10:14am

I've heard that McCain is a "traitor to the uniform." Where did this come from, then?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2008-02-01 10:14am

Seems that the party leadership wanted/wants Romney. The people are speaking and it looks like they want McCain - a moderate Republican. In other words any sort of right winged adherence is being rejected by the Republican voters in favor of moderate/centrist views. Bush's presidency, it seems, has killed any appetite for true right wing policies and views in national candidates this year.

This puts them in an uncomfortable position of having to support a candidate they don't really want. They certainly didn't want Huckabee either. Their chosen one, unlike when Bush dirty tricked his way past McCain last time, has been rejected by the people and now they have to swallow that bitter pill and it shows in a lot of dissatisfaction among the elite and faithful.

Ironically enough it seems that while Bush came in as a great uniter he has managed to drive wedges into the great wings of the party big tent and this might result in a great realignment of the party after this national election and presumed loss.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-02-01 10:15am

Phantasee wrote:I've heard that McCain is a "traitor to the uniform." Where did this come from, then?

Uhhh... People who don't like McCaine?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-01 10:22am

Stravo wrote:Ironically enough it seems that while Bush came in as a great uniter he has managed to drive wedges into the great wings of the party big tent and this might result in a great realignment of the party after this national election and presumed loss.

Hillary Clinton has the same ability. Don't count out the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.