Poor Sean Hannity. He’s gone so far out on a limb with his McCain Derangement Syndrome he doesn’t know how to climb back. Even after McCain’s speech yesterday, he was going on about how Romney could have won if not for the Huckafella… as if none of us had read his own company’s Fox News Poll a few days ago showing more Huck voters with McCain as a second choice than Mitt. Sean was joined the night before in the cognitive dissonance derby by none other than Newt Gingrich who informed us that Romney would have won California had it not been for early voting. [That's a lot of early voting when McCain won 50 of 53 districts.-ed. Hey, you know us Californians. Anything to get a little extra beach time, even in February.]
The best analysis of all this venom comes from Clint Eastwood – who says all Hollywood people are dumb? – on the Neil Cavuto Show: “Conservatives, often times, are very masochistic. They say, ‘I’d rather not show up than have so-and-so. If it’s not my guy then I won’t show up’. You can’t be that way.”
He was referring most specifically to Coulter who said on her part: “If McCain weren’t a dunce, what he would do is take Mitt Romney as his vice president. That’s the only way, I think, you could get me to vote for him and that’s my final offer.”
Her final offer? Poor John McCain. Now if he picks Romney for his running mate people will say he’s kowtowing to Coulter.
I have a suggestion – why don’t we just take Ann Coulter and Howard Dean and lock them up in a room together until this election is over? Meanwhile, McCain and Romney acquitted themselves well. Both of them, at least, are concerned that we are at war. Evidently, not Miss Ann. She’d prefer to call everybody a “dunce.” Projection, anyone? I’ll be a grownup and pretend to ignore her preening if McCain does choose Romney. I think we can assume he’s thought of the idea for himself. But then – wouldn’t Romney be too liberal given his record? (Evidently not for Miss Ann)
IMPORTANT NOTE: Don’t miss frequent RLS commenter and YARGB stalwart Charlie Martin’s column on PJM.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
32 Comments
1. dclydew:I think its pretty clear that Hannity and Coulter and Rush and the rest are far more concerned about what will happen to their audience should we return to the era of Rockefeller Republicans. If the GOP isn’t playing “My Way or I nuke Everything” and if the Dems have to deal with a popular, moderate President, those poor pundits may find themselves out of a job.
It’s hard to turn brother against brother, when most of them are trying to work together. Ann Coulter is just trying for Job Security.
I hope to see her in the Unemployment Line soon.
Feb 8, 2008 - 8:17 am 2. Lem:Masochistic?
People – all the scars are from McCain! after dems get done with us they ussually hand us over to Mac.
McCain makes Hedda Nussbaum look like Carol Lombard.
We taken so many beatings at the hands of big Mac some are ready to go kamikaze.
Feb 8, 2008 - 8:21 am 3. Lem:Quite the contrary dclydew.
They do better when they don’t have to carry water for an administration.
The nature of what they do favors attack mode.
Thats why I take much of what they say with grains of salt.
Feb 8, 2008 - 8:26 am 4. Andy Freeman:> we return to the era of Rockefeller Republicans
How many presidents did the Rockefeller Republicans elect? How many years did they hold one or more houses of Congress?
Feb 8, 2008 - 9:00 am 5. Godzilla:We all knew Hewitt was immediately going to support McCain. What is a little surprising was the speed with which Michael Savage turned a 180. I’ll be surprised if Limbaugh and Hannity don’t also change their tune before long. To rant and rave against one’s own party candidate makes sense only so long as that candidate stood a chance of being defeated. That is no longer the case here. And there is a stark difference between Clinton/Obama and McCain. With all the ranting that’s been going on, it is McCain who has shown the best judgment when responding to questions about his loudest critics. Living sound bite to sound bite is primitive and emotional. McCain is going to need all the help he can get. People will come around and support him. Let’s start attacking the opposition instead of people who will most likely be late-coming supporters, once reality sinks in.
Feb 8, 2008 - 9:06 am 6. dclydew:How many presidents did the Rockefeller Republicans elect?
Well, they gave us Eisenhower directly and GHWB is pretty close to their positions… so I would say that out of the past several Presidents, they gave us two of the three good Republican presidents (the non-Rockefeller being the Gipper). I think another Eisenhower would be a great idea right now.
As for congress, I don’t know how long Moderate Republicans held either side (before my time). However, I would much prefer Republicans not hold Congress if the past several years are any indication of how well that works out.
Feb 8, 2008 - 9:14 am 7. Lem:> And there is a stark difference between Clinton/Obama and McCain. Says Godzilla.
Coulter repeated an old adage recently that says “when people are given the choice btw a democrat and a democrat they will vote for the democrat every time.”
Look I may still vote for Mac.
I don’t like to send back food at the restaurant and for that reason I like the ones that have pictures on the menu.
I want to see Mac take back at least some of the things he has said over the years. I would love to hear who in his kitchen cabinet.
BTW – That CPAC speech was flat.
Feb 8, 2008 - 9:34 am 8. scott:“In your heart you know he’s right”
Feb 8, 2008 - 9:48 am 9. Godzilla:Lem, here are four big differences:
McCain: win the war in Iraq.
Obama/Clinton: get out of Iraq, period.
McCain: secure the border, figure out what to do with the illegal immigrants.
Obama/Clinton: give them driver’s licenses
McCain: conservative rating in the 80’s.
Obama/Clinton: conservative rating in single digits.
McCain: says he will not raise taxes and will make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Obama/Clinton: will raise taxes.
Do you dispute any of this? My pick would have been Rommney, one reason being that I hate class warfare that dumps on successful business men as they were a source of evil. While the truth is exactly the opposite, in that we would still be in caves without the producers that build and create.
But in politics, when no one politician stands for all your principles, you have to pick the one who is the closest fit. I can’t even imagine picking Clinton or Obama, or even sitting this one out. It would be too masochistic and sick. I’d probably need a shrink to figure out what was wrong with my psychologically. This according to my thinking processes, not yours. But I’m willint to extend the benefit of rationality to you, and urge you to apply it in deciding what you will do in this upcoming election.
Feb 8, 2008 - 9:51 am 10. Charlie (Colorado):Thanks for the plug, Roger!
DD, the answer is “pretty much from Lincoln to FDR”, but what counted as a “moderate Republican” mutated a good bit.
Feb 8, 2008 - 9:53 am 11. madawaskan:Can we please send them to the cry room?
They can watch, they can listen-but they can’t participate.
Man if somehow McCain can jettison “the uglies” well that would make my decade.
The enemies McCain has aquired has made me one of his most ardent supporters and I’m an AF & Rumsfeld fan-still. That takes some doing.
Someone should start a National Security party and we won’t have to be handicapped with whatever they thought was so important that they want Hillary now, because damn it they are really mad and they were against Hillary before they were for her.
I can’t even remember what it is this month-um..Miers?
Dubai? wait somethin’ else….
Hmmm whatever “it” is must be that Hillary’s all about “it”..
Feb 8, 2008 - 10:07 am 12. Lem:My dear monster of monsters
McCain was in the Keating Five.
McCain was in the gang of 14
McCain Feingold (need I say more?)
McCain thinks Alito is “too conservative”
McCain would not water-board Osama himself.
McCain would shutdown Guantanamo ñ got something against guantanameras
McCain has a nitroglycerin temper, and to tell you the truh, I think his Vietnam accaunt is overdrawn.
There is more… but I have to make a living.
Feb 8, 2008 - 11:03 am 13. CT Tom:Ann Coulter hasn’t been this upset since she broke up with Bob Guccione jr. It’s tough being a 46 year old “Palm Beach” conservative holding out for the right one.
Feb 8, 2008 - 11:05 am 14. Roger:In all seriousness McCain wins over Clinton, and if Obama doesn’t put some real policy on the table his contingent of “mean people suck”, “moonie” followers might start rubbing some people the wrong way.
Hey, Lem, you sure you’re not working for Clint Eastwood? You’re sure doing a great job of proving him right.
Feb 8, 2008 - 11:13 am 15. Peter Boston:Non reelection presidential primary season, once every four or eight years, is the only time that the rank and file get an opportunity to make an unfiltered input into the platforms of the two parties. They do it by vote and through talk radio and the internet. It’s the only time there is any possibility at all that their collective voice could be heard.
It seems that some are not so comfortable with the unwashed participating in the conversation.
Feb 8, 2008 - 11:33 am 16. Steven Mitchell:‘McCain thinks Alito is “too conservative”‘
What McCain said was that Alito wore his conservatism on his sleeve. Several people immediately took this to mean that McCain was unhappy with the conservatism. Others (including me), read it that McCain thought that this would be a tactical problem–i.e. getting Alito confirmed. Since McCain not only voted for Alito, but worked pretty darn hard to get him through, I think the tactical reading of that quote is the more reasonable.
And judges is the other big area where we can expect a lot better results out of McCain than any Dem. Yeah, I don’t really expect him to nominate a pure slate of Thomas/Scalia kindred spirits. If Reagan couldn’t do it, no way McCain can, even if he really wanted to. I expect him to shoot for “Roberts” every time, and end up with a range somewhere between Souter and Roberts.
The *only* way that this is not a net positive result is if Scalia croaks, and the rest of the older judges hold out. Trade Scalia, Ginsburg, Stevens for clones of Roberts, Souter, and Kennedy. For those of you keeping score at home, that’s small negative (at worst, and probably neutral), modest positive, and big positive. But even if you got nothing but Souters, this is *still* a big improvement over nothing but Ginsburg and Breyer clones.
Feb 8, 2008 - 12:05 pm 17. dclydew:DD, the answer is “pretty much from Lincoln to FDR”, but what counted as a “moderate Republican” mutated a good bit.
Heya Charlie, thanks for getting my back there. Seeing as I was born under Ford and my first memory of a President was Carter and something about hostages and pink ribbons on the door of my kindergarten class… I think (was it pink ribbons?).
Feb 8, 2008 - 12:28 pm 18. dclydew:It seems that some are not so comfortable with the unwashed participating in the conversation.
When they talk in nonsense and emotion rather than any sort of rational dialog… you’re right, I’m not comfortable with them ‘participating’ in the conversation. If people would at least try to keep their heads, listen and pay attention to all the facts, rather than participating by spewing whatever the pundits just said… I’d probably feel differently.
Last night a friend of mine came over. I have great respect for him. Then he ‘participated’ in the political process by telling me how John McCain wants to give ALL terrorists the exact same rights (Trial by Jury, Lawyer, Miranda Rights) that American citizens have… Then he said, that if that happened We would have to let the all go, because the Marines don’t read Miranda rights.
Who, in their right mind would think that a patriotic, loyal citizen of the US would want to let all of the terrorists go? There’s no logic, no sense, no thought… he heard something he repeated it as true and believed it, until I drug him onto the Net and showed him every McCain quote relating to the topic that we could find.
The same thing is happening all over the Right… 80% of the accusations against McCain are not only false, they are completely ludicrous. Participating in a democracy is a great power and with that power comes great responsibility. Instead, here in America we all thing we’re entitled to have our Political voice heard, even if its off key, off pitch and the wrong lyrics. Look at the loonies on the left if you have any questions as the the validity of this statement… then compare it to what’s happening on the right. 10-20% honest issues and criticisms and 80% BS.
Feb 8, 2008 - 12:40 pm 19. Godzilla:Lem, I’ll argue that McCain’s stance on the war on terror trumps his other miscues. The difference between him and Obama/Clinton is real stark there. McCain would also uphold FISA, while the opposition wants to nix it. Now Limbaugh thinks that no matter what democrat is elected, they won’t pull out of Iraq. I think Limbaugh is guilty here of trying to apply reason to unreasonable, poll-driven people who see the U.S. as the cause of all problems. Do you really think McCain has the same sick kind of hatred for America that the Dems do? Those crazies are willing and eager to destroy the economy just so that they can “soak the rich”, which is a self-defeating policy (for all execpt democrats) that will only put more people out of work and generate more human parasites with their hands out … i.e. more “victims” for the democrats to “care about”. McCain is the only way to avoid that, as bitter a pill as that might be for you.
It just makes no sense anymore to rail against McCain, as the railing can have no good effect. The primary process is over, for all practical purposes. Railing now only gives the oposition more ammo to use against McCain. In fact, if Limbaugh and Hannity don’t wise up, ther’re going to end up being tools of the democrats. It’s okay for a man to have principles. Hell I have a quite a few of my own. If I could just fly to some other country, and say screw it I’m outta here, well then maybe there would be some justification for taking a Coulter stance. But that isn’t the case, and I bet that’s not the case for just about anybody else in this country either.
If Limbaugh and Hannity don’t wise up, and Obama or Clinton becomes president, then I don’t want to hear a shitting thing out of them for the next four years. Personally, I think they’ll wise up. Even Coulter.
Feb 8, 2008 - 12:40 pm 20. Charlie (Colorado):It seems that some are not so comfortable with the unwashed participating in the conversation.
No, we’re happy as could be about the “great unwashed” — do you really think of yourself that way, Peter? — participating. But when they’re being idiots, I’m going to point it out.
The notion that Limbaugh and Coulter will realize anything they purport to want, and that the cost won’t be more than they’re prepared to pay, by electing Hillary over McCain, is dumb. If Hillary wins and “conservatives” sit out, the reason will in part be Limbaugh and Coulter, and they and the other conservatives who follow them will be, in part, responsible. But they won’t say “mea culpa”.
They’re certainly free to make their own choices. I’m just saying that consequences follow choices.
Feb 8, 2008 - 1:11 pm 21. dclydew:If Hillary wins and “conservatives” sit out, the reason will in part be Limbaugh and Coulter, and they and the other conservatives who follow them will be, in part, responsible. But they won’t say “mea culpa”.
I wonder if they’ve considered the possibilities…. Iraq may look pretty darn good over the next few years and troops over there could be greatly reduced. (Due to time and circumstance, not Hillary). If Iraq settles, there’s a decent chance for a boom on the market, stabilization of oil and with current safeguards in place, maybe no more terrorists over the next four years.
Now, if that happens, who does Ann and Rush think will win the next four years?
And, if things continue to go well… and the Dems can say “Do you want to go back to GWB?” every election… How long do rush and Ann think it would be before the GOP even got a near shot at any power again?
Now that may not happen. Indeed, if Hillary or Obama take the Oval Office, maybe they really will withdraw troops (I don’t think so), maybe they will drive the country straight into a tree.
If they do, how long do Rush and Ann think it will take to repair things? Better yet, do they realize that sometimes, crashing into a tree is fatal?
Feb 8, 2008 - 2:08 pm 22. Barry Dauphin:Gee, and to think that Ann hadn’t been in the news recently until this. Funny how that works.
Feb 8, 2008 - 4:48 pm 23. Mitch:Coulter doesn’t sell any books unless she p***es lots of people off, and Limbaugh operates the same way. It’s like the party fund-raisers, who have to portray the opposition as cannibalistic Neanderthals on one side, smelly Bolsheviks on the other. Give me a break. I like some of the candidates better than others, but none of them very much, and have learned to live with it.
Feb 8, 2008 - 5:32 pm 24. madawaskan:No it’s they-talk radio elitists- that have trouble with the unwashed masses-
You know the bloody electorate that voted for John McCain.
They are trying to “undo” or delegitimize the democracy of that-by divining crafty ways to negate the “judgement” of the unwashed.
When I say they can’t participate-I mean the talk show elitist annointed ones who somehow confuse politics with religion.
They think they know the number one issue and that they are the “annointed’/appointed ones who make the laws or definitions of cosnervatism. That these are inflexable tenets writ in stone-by them and that they alone can divine them.
Guess what?
Talk radio, and the internet are NOT how the people participate.
You participate by voting.
And-it’s not the radio talk show stars, or their “followers” that write the laws.
It’s the candidates that are elected by the people.
The ones the talk show self-annointed hold so much distain towards.
Basically you’ve got it backwards.
Feb 8, 2008 - 6:19 pm 25. zefal:If McCain went out and murdered a 1000 people with a Barbie doll his recompense would be to pass a law outlawing Barbie dolls.
Feb 9, 2008 - 2:05 am 26. zefal:One more thing. After hillary steals the democratic nomination from Obama and it’s McCain vs. mrs. bill clinton the media will do 5,000 stories on the keating five for every 10,000 thousand stories on how great hillary is. Maybe Fox News will mention whitewater/castle grande but that’s about it.
Feb 9, 2008 - 2:15 am 27. TerryeL:People who are trashing McCain seem to be overlooking the fact that he got more votes than the other guys. That means those unwashed masses were going to the polls and voting for him.
The idea that McCain wants to turn terrorists lose, is insane. The idea that McCain is a liberal is insane. The idea that McCain would put more liberal judges on the bench than Obama is insane.
It is as if a large part of the conservative movement just lost their minds.
I hate to be crass or anything, but Snap Out of It!. there is a war on folks.
Feb 9, 2008 - 5:16 am 28. Michael J. Totten:It is as if a large part of the conservative movement just lost their minds.
Did you think Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity were serious people a month ago? I certainly didn’t. The only reason they look nuts to some people all of a sudden is because their usual batshit craziness is now directed against a Republican.
Feb 9, 2008 - 10:30 am 29. TerryeL:Michael:
To be honest, I never thought they were serious people. However, I was not just talking about Rush and Ann. I was talking about all the other people who have started raving like loons.
Feb 9, 2008 - 1:45 pm 30. mythusmage:Howard Dean and Anne Coulter alone in the same room…
Good God man, do you want them to breed!?
Feb 10, 2008 - 3:23 am 31. Ripper:1. Rockefeller Republicans (i.e. Country club Republicans) who have been President – Eisenhower, Jerry Ford, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush.
2. Clint Eastwood is a conservative????? Check out his two pro Japanese movies he made the past year.
3. John McCain -let’s see what he is associated with
a) McCain-Feingold
b) Gang of 14
c) McCain-Kennedy Amnesty (also tells Sen. John Cornyn “F*** you” when Cornyn dared disagree with him on the amnesty bill.)
d) Shut down Gitmo to please the Eurotrash
e) No waterboarding
5) voted twice against theBush tax cuts
McCain is an appalling candidate. (and far from being a hard core ideologue I was a Giuliani supporter)and am pro choice.
Feb 12, 2008 - 5:32 am 32. Ripper:Also Nixon was pretty liberal too. He tlaked like a Cosnervative but actually was the last of the New Deal liberals to become President. His domestic and foreign policies included wage & price controls, the creation of affirmative action, the creation of the EPA, the Clean Air Act, keeping us on the gold standard, and giving us Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court, detente with the Soviet tyranny and the opening to the Maoist tyranny. Just because the Left hates you does not make you a Conservative as Lyndon Johnson could tell you if he were still alive.
Feb 12, 2008 - 5:39 am