The Incredibly Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter will campaign for Hillary if McCain is the Republican nominee?  Hmm, maybe this is her subtle ploy to chase Dems away from Hillary (Coulter's Choice!) and towards Obama, who will be more easily beaten by McCain on national security issues.

It's a thought.  But I don't have any pushback against the notion that she is a whacked-out embarrassment, either.

Comments

[Jinny]

Ann is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. However when I heard her explanation last night I thought she had some good points. I may vote for Hillary myself if McCain is the anointed nominee this year.

Jinny
(Watching the sky for lightning to strike me dead.)

[Ann]

Ann Coulter is right. She doesn't see any difference between Hillary and McCain. And because she is a conservative, she doesn't want conservatives blamed for the next four years.

Closing Gitmo and refusing to pour water down a terrorist nose (her words by the way) are not what we need.

[jimmyk]

If you accept her premise about McCain, it makes sense. Even if he'd be better than Hillary, it's important to teach the Republicans a lesson, so that in the long run they'll nominate more conservative candidates. A friend of mine voted for Clinton in '92 because of this--he wanted to punish the Republicans for Bush's tax increase.

On the other hand, Ann puts a lot of weight on the immigration issue, where she virulently disagrees with McCain. I do not, so I don't find her argument for Hillary compelling even if it is logical.

[viva ron paul]

It's the very fact that this skank is a conservative heroine that has put the Republicans in the position they are today.

[Louie]

Anybody looked at McC's record on Second Amendment issues? This alone, without the lies about his liberal record, are enough to get me to vote Dem.

[davod]

I agree that MCain Is our worst choice based upon his Senate record and his attitude.

However, if you decide to sit out the election, just look at what those qho sat out the last Congessional elections got us.

McCain is the worst of a bad bunch, but even his worst pick for the courts would probably be better (even if marginally) than a Democrats picks.

I also dread to think waht he would do with executive orders. I could just see him ordering all Federal staff to catch public transport, for the good of the planet.

[PeterUK]

You have only to look at the former country of Britain to realise that letting in the left,ostensibly to punish the right,or by sitting out the election will simply deliver your nation into the hands of the destroyers.Bill Clinton light,AKA Tony Blair broke everything he touched,his party ZanuLabour have decimations our institutions.Gordon Brown,the Igor of the Dark Prince has now sold a thousand years of history down the river.
The left are in a hurry,waterboard all your candidates before voting for them.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I expect she'll change her mind when it actually comes to having to accept Hillary appointing the replacements for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.

However, McCain asked for it:

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards today quit the race for the Democrat presidential nomination, and immediately endorsed Republican frontrunner Sen. John McCain.

“As the presidential field narrows,” Sen. Edwards will reportedly say at an afternoon news conference, “I just didn’t feel there would be room in the race for two white males who favor leniency for illegal aliens, who opposed Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, who fight man-made global warming, who support limits on so-called free speech in political campaigns, who have worked to hinder approval of conservative judicial nominees, and who stand against the Bush administration’s desire to torture terror suspects with waterboarding.”

[Terrie]

I think Republicans will vote for John McCain if he runs against Hillary because we don't want " Control us all with Hillary's forced mandated socialist Healthcare" but if Obama is elected as the Democrat frontrunner I think then alot of conservative Republicans just might not vote at all, sad to say. McCain is a poor choice for the republican party and honestly he calls himself a republican but I see him as a independent leaning democrat. I am having a hard time even thinking about voting for this man. I so wish people would look at his record and realize Romney is sooo much of a better choice.

[Paul]

From where I'm sitting it looks like Obamamania will sweep the nation this November and America is headed down a slippery slope to catstrophe. It's already too late.

[Cory]

I don’t always agree with Ann, but she’s absolutely correct on this. Al Qaeda can’t destroy America. They can only launch terrorist attacks that we will always overcome. McCain sought amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. His actions very well could destroy America. The only way America will ever cease being the most powerful nation on Earth and a fighter for personal liberty of every person on the planet is if it is destroyed from the inside. Likewise, the GOP is helping to kill conservatism. They supported Bush’s amnesty plan. Strike one. The are pushing a McCain nomination. Strike two. I predict that this year conservatives will leave the GOP in droves…and possible never come back. It amazes me how AP and others in the media think that conservatives will eventually come around. Many of us won’t. The best way in my opinion to get some attention is to take some drastic measures. If McCain is the nominee, I hope all conservatives will get behind the Dem nominee (but Republicans in Congress). I want the Republican elite who shoved McCain down our throats to have a very rude awakening. They cannot get away with spiting in our faces over and over again. I will laugh when million and millions of conservatives don’t get behind McCain and all the pundits wonder why their plan didn’t work. McCain is not a hero in any way. He is a disgrace to this nation! And before you fake conservatives get all worked up, I served in OIF. I say again, McCain is a disgrace to our nation!

[Pat Curley]

Ann's a nut and has been for awhile. I love the comment about how McCain's not good enough on the 2nd Amendment. So Louie, Hillary's better with her "F" rating than John McCain's "C+"? Brilliant!

I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Republican.

[PaulL]

The GOP didn't shove McCain down anyone's throat. It's uninformed, fairly ignorant primary voters who are choosing him. And without a miracle coming about, he's going to be the Republican nominee.

I hate McCain and I considered voting for a Dem in protest, or not voting at all. But I am going to vote for McCain if he gets the nomination, and the reason is, he'll name about 200 federal judges, and 1, 2, 3, maybe 4 Supreme Court Justices. Even if some of his picks are bad, hell, even if HALF of his picks are bad, that's still better than what a Democrat would do, with 100% of the choices being bad.

The courts are too important to waste your vote protesting. Plus, McCain is getting some good people to advise him on judges, like Olson and Estrada. They'll recommend good people to McCain.

[PeterUK]

"And before you fake conservatives get all worked up, I served in OIF. I say again, McCain is a disgrace to our nation!"

Other than sounding like a sighting of the Port bow,who are you going to vote for.

[SunnyDay]

I think I'll join her. If the country is going to go left, I want a D behind the president's name, not an R.

[Semanticleo]

What concerns me most about McCain is not so much his populist evolution (necessary vanilla
flavor to mollify the voting public), but rather, his prickly demeanor which is fine for a maverick, but dangerous for a Prez.

He seems to miss the quantity of testosterone available to a young Phantom pilot, and seeks to fill the void with bluster. Combining his history of womanizing (which seems to attend the culture of pilots) and the need to exhibit youthful vigor does not bode well for those conjoined (us) to a Prez who tends to think with the 'little' head.

OTOH it is better to stay with the devil you know.

[rplat]

I've always believed that Coulter only had one oar in the water, but now I'm convinced that she has no oars at all and is hopelessly adrift.

[SunnyDay]

She's brilliant.

[Other Tom]

Many of the McCain-supporting Republicans who would be "taught a lesson" by having Hillary win in November would have long since forgotten it, and indeed many of them would be long dead, while Madame Justice Marian Wright Edelman and Mr. Justice Laurence Tribe were still dispensing their social prescriptions from the bench.

Here are the tates head-to-heads from Fox News:

Clinton 44 - McCain 45
Clinton 50 - Romney 36

Obama 44 - McCain 43
Obama 51 - Romney 33

Clinton 41 - McCain 41 - Bloomberg 6
Clinton 46 - Romney 30 - Bloomberg 8

So, exactly who would be taught exactly what lesson if, instead of McCain, the GOP were to nominate Romney?

[Other Tom]

McCain was never a Phantom pilot.

[MayBee]

Hey, JMH-- remember when you said it was the McCain supporters that were criticizing their fellow voters:

The GOP didn't shove McCain down anyone's throat. It's uninformed, fairly ignorant primary voters who are choosing him.
-Paul L, 6:47pm

[anduril]

Ann: "Hillary lies less than McCain." OUCH!!

[lurker]

Exactly why I would vote for McCain. I know that I will not be happy with him but I will be far less happy with Hillary and Barack.

The GOP didn't shove McCain down anyone's throat. It's uninformed, fairly ignorant primary voters who are choosing him. And without a miracle coming about, he's going to be the Republican nominee.

I hate McCain and I considered voting for a Dem in protest, or not voting at all. But I am going to vote for McCain if he gets the nomination, and the reason is, he'll name about 200 federal judges, and 1, 2, 3, maybe 4 Supreme Court Justices. Even if some of his picks are bad, hell, even if HALF of his picks are bad, that's still better than what a Democrat would do, with 100% of the choices being bad.

The courts are too important to waste your vote protesting. Plus, McCain is getting some good people to advise him on judges, like Olson and Estrada. They'll recommend good people to McCain.

[Semanticleo]

McCains website says he was a phantom pilot.

Is he lying?

http://www.johnmccain.com/STE/Supporter.aspx?GUID=0aa6a95c-168d-44b9-a2bc-b2bae01f6043

[[email protected]]

i agree with ann.

mccain is a lib.

why should conservatives vote for a lib?

it makes no sense.

if mccain is the nominee then conservatives should stay home or vote for hillary.

at least if hill or obama is potus the GOP in Congress will, fight back.

with mccain in the WH there won't be divided govt. mccain is "mr dem lib" and will sign all major dem-lib legislation and tarnish the GOP for decades.

[[email protected]]

look at it this way way, tom -

mccain fought harder against rumsfeld than teddy opr feingold or lieberman.

[lurker]

Another reason to vote for McCain over Hillary:

One small reason

[Porchlight]

Ann cracks me up. She sure has a way of clarifying the issues.

[Soylent Red]

I'm getting really tired of people defining "conservativism" for me. I like Ann Coulter and Rush, but they are out of their lane on this one.

I'm no McCain supporter (he was not even my #3 pick of all possibles), but I take great umbrage at the (implied) suggestion that people vote for socialists rather than someone who is not as conservative as they would like. Or that they don't vote at all in "protest".

This isn't a damned game we're playing here. We are at war, and whatever else is on the political table, our lives are quite literally on the line. Whatever McCain may be, he is not a danger to the country. I can't say that with any confidence regarding the Democrat field.

Ann Coulter is smart enough to know better. Anyway, I thought she was.

[Other Tom]

McCain's website says that Jack Van Loan was an F-4 Phantom pilot.

McCain was neither a Phantom pilot nor any other kind of fighter pilot. He was an attack pilot, and he was flying an A-4 when he was shot down.

[Ann]

Soylent Red,

I don't think for one minute that Ann would vote for Hillary. As usual, she is trying to wake everyone up and examine their decision in the next couple of crucial days. The media has picked McCain.

We do have another very good choice.

[fifedom]

OtherTom spare me the polls. They couldn't get it right overnight in New Hampshire and you want me to believe they will get it right 10 months away? Right now the polls only indicate name recognition and Romney is much less known than the others. Mitt will blow away either Miss Hillary or Obama in debates and his combination of business/government experience is just what the voters will want as the economy slows down due to the pricking of the housing bubble.

[MayBee]

The media has picked McCain.

Ann is part of "the media".
The voters that have voted for McCain are not "the media".

[windansea]

McCain is the anti christ

but I'll vote for him over Hillary

[Other Tom]

I get it--Mitt's $40 mil out of his onw pocket for ads, and his appearance in umpteen debates and nightly news stories still leaves people generally unaware of who he is.

But if the ecomony really goes in the tank, the situation will be just perfect for him, as the electorate clamors for another Republican president, and a Mormon at that. Why didn't I see that?

[centralcal]

Soylent, I agree with Ann (the commenter here) that Ann Coulter is being as provocative as possible to scream at the conservative electorate to "wake the hell up!"

The media has "framed" the "narrative" in both parties. But never moreso than on our side -- and it has been relentless. They and their flippin polls have herded us like cattle onto the ramp that leads to the semi truck that takes us to the meat packing plant. Sadly, too many voters only know what they see in 3 minute snippets of nightly news, or newspaper headlines. Yeah, a lot more of us (of all ages) are becoming informed on-line or tuning in to talk radio, but it is still a minority.

McCain - war hero! senator! for the surge! That is the sum total of many voter's true knowledge of McCain.

[Other Tom]

I should point out, Cleo, that I have no reason to believe that McCain's website is lying when it says that Jack Van Loan was a Phantom pilot--do you?

Nor do I have any reason to believe that you were lying when you said the website claims that McCain was a Phantom pilot. I just think you frequently don't read very well, and any time you make an assertion vollowed by a citation to a URL, one is very well advised to check the URL.

[MayBee]

Maybe the conservative electorate is woken up, and a great many of them support McCain. Or maybe there aren't that many conservatives that fit her definition.

Nobody has been sadder that a candidate is out of the picture than I am about Rudy. I've waited over a decade to vote for him for President. I can't believe he didn't get every last Republican and every available independent to vote for him in the primaries.
But they didn't.
I don't think they were stupid, or ignorant, or media-fed. I just think they saw things differently than I do.

[Rick Ballard]

Mitt has put up $35 million of money that he earned in the private sector, not $40 million. Perhaps the fact that he is outraising McCain (totally aside from loans) is attributable to the fact that he actually does put his, I repeat, his, money where his mouth is?

Getting name recognition is difficult when you don't spend all your available free time chasing anyone with a microphone.

[centralcal]

MayBee: You are right.

"I don't think they were stupid, or ignorant, or media-fed. I just think they saw things differently than I do."

Other Tom, you are right too. McCain is going to win the nomination. Maybe he will also win the Presidency (but, I don't have as much faith in the national polls as you do).

It is the kind of reality you have stated, I guess, that I am railing against. So, I will stop, for now.

But, I want you both to know, that my opinion of John McCain will not change unless HE changes my opinion - not either of you - by his deeds, by his actions. And, I gotta admit, I really don't foresee that happening. People are who they are. Me included. And, we grow and we change and mature, but our basic personality -- the personality our Moms identified early on -- doesn't really change too much.

Perhaps, winning the "prize" McCain has sought for so long will modify his pettiness, his smallness, his ugliness. One can only hope, I guess. But his behavior at the last debate - as the front runner - was not very promising.

[MayBee]

I don't know that McCain will win the nomination. Super Tuesday could change everything, and all Mitt needs is for people to vote for him.
I understand how you feel about McCain though. Really I do. I mean, I don't feel that way about McCain, but I feel it about Hillary Clinton.
I just wish people like Ann Coulter, if she truly believes Mitt is a good choice, would spend her time explaining why Mitt is a great choice. Scaring people into voting for him seems a bad strategy.

For the record, I think he'd be a very good president. He just isn't my guy right now.

[Ann]

If I were in the military, I would be a little upset that I risked my life to capture terrorists and jail them in Gitmo, only to see McCain close the place and transfer them to my beloved country; on top of that, see my tax dollars defending them.

I think his temper would put the military in harm's way, too.

[Jane]

Well I for one am looking forward to the Superbowl to take all this election stuff off of my mind.

They are worried in MA that if the Pats win, Super Tuesday will not be well attended since that will be the day we flood the streets in celebration. Not me. I'll be celebrating from my desk, and at the voting booth. If only one vote is cast, you will know that it's mine.

[Pat Curley]

Can she really be so deluded as to think that the "conservatives" haven't woken up? That somehow there are Republicans who don't know that the yakkers are pulling out all the stops for Romney?

I also love the assumptions in the comments that the voters are stupid. That's an elitist and liberal notion, and you should be ashamed of yourself for it. The voters do know the candidates quite well. They've seen right through Mitt Romney.

The best way to view this is that the anti-McCain forces are going through the five states of grief:

1. Denial. Remember all the people claiming that McCain wasn't winning because Mitt had more delegates? One of my commenters actually suggested that McCain's delegates might actually revolt at the convention.

2. Anger. Certainly plenty of that visible.

3. Bargaining. Note Patrick Ruffini and Hugh Hewitt trying to convince the Huckabees and Paulbots to all drop their guys and save Romney.

4. Depression. Starting to set in for many; these are the "I'd rather vote for Hillary" drama queens.

Next Up?

5. Acceptance. It'll probably be another week or two before we start to see this stage.

[Ann]

Let me preface my remarks here by saying that I campaigned for McCain in 2000. I love his patriotism and his service to this country. God Love Him.

But the John McCain I campaigned for has disappointed me on every level since he lost to Bush. His petty character has showed up so many times. He slams Rumsfield every chance he gets in the middle of a war. He panders to the Hispanics and could care less if our border is secure. Well, I could go on but I will spare all of you here. I appreciate that we can discuss this without calling anyone any names. I love JOM for that reason.

[centralcal]

Thanks, Ann, you always say the right thing. And, you too, Jane. I only have one vote too. It is going for Romney.

[Jinny]

Pat, I'm in the 4th stage. Depression. I fear for my country no matter who "wins" this time.

Jinny

[Porchlight]

Okay, Pat, but after the 5 stages of grief are over, the person's still dead. I'm having trouble seeing death=McCain nomination as a positive comparison.

[Pat Curley]

Eh, no, it's the other candidates who have "died".

[centralcal]

The California ads have started. I am not an ad person. I am not sure how much sway they have, because I read blogs, etc. But, McCain's are pathetic.

[Ann]

Pat, are you the brainster guy that posts here? If so, why are you changing your name now?

[TexasIsHeaven]

I'll be writing in my own name
Cause I ain't going to be voting for McCain.

[Brainster]

Ann, yes, not sure why the name changed from my nick. I've switched it back.

[JM Hanes]

Jane:

I'm counting on you to stem the tide!

[Other Tom]

OK, so it's only $35 million he's spent, not $40 million. But $35 million buys a lot of name recognition, and at this point if I were a Romney supporter I'd be entertaining the notion that people recognize his name just fine, thank you, and that they don't want him to be president.

As for his earning tens of millions in the private sector, I don't begrudge him that at all, and applaud him for it. McCain himself has never been in the private sector, but then Romney has never worn the uniform of his country. Different career paths, both entitled to respect, and neither man should be evaluated by the money he's made--otherwise Bill Clinton in the past five years would be one of the most admired men in America.

The Republicans have this system of primaries and caucuses, see, that's all set up by their national and state committees, and under that system what McCain has been doing is winning, and what Romney has been doing is losing. At some point we would expect that a certain message would get through: one of these guys is a dead-bang loser. I report, you decide.

[Porchlight]

Eh, no, it's the other candidates who have "died".

Fair enough. Still not a positive result in my book, though.

[bgates]

Here are the tates head-to-heads from Fox News:
Here's a CNN poll from 3 weeks closer to the election:
Kerry 55-Bush 43
Edwards 53-Bush 44

So, let's all get together and nominate the veteran, because he's electable. As a Congressional Republican who's earned bipartisan respect, he's sure to keep getting good press as he tries to move to the Executive Branch - just ask Dick Cheney - so his poll numbers will stay up without question. Besides, we need a Republican to nominate SC Justices, because otherwise we end up with guys like Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy.

[JM Hanes]

"The Republicans have this system of primaries and caucuses, see, that's all set up by their national and state committees, and under that system what McCain has been doing is winning, and what Romney has been doing is losing."

Pretty funny coming from the guy who has been forthrightly basing his support for McCain on the opinion polls.

[clarice]

JMH--Hitting below the belt. %^)

[bgates]

The Republicans have this system of primaries and caucuses, see...
I haven't seen this combination of invincible arrogance and ignorance since the last time John McCain had a debate question about economics.

Romney is behind 97-74 in a contest of first guy to 1191. It's not exactly "Dewey defeats Truman" territory.

[Pofarmer]

Whatever McCain may be, he is not a danger to the country.M

I'm afraid I'd have to respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Moving the Gitmo Detainees to Ft Leavenworth and giving them access to the Federal court system is destructive, dangerous, and stupid, and it's one of the first things McCain will do as CIC.

[BD]

Ann the attention whore strikes again ...

she'll sell some books, get some speaking engagements ...

and change zero minds.

[MayBee]

The thing is, I wouldn't have a problem with Ann Coulter if she truly preferred Hillary to McCain. If she thought Hillary was a good choice for president. I'd rather have Obama than Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee, to be honest.
It's the fit of pique that I don't like. The attempt at lesson teaching. And the tinge of dishonesty.

[Ann]

The Republican Candidates must have decided that this race will not be over on Tuesday because they have run ads all day here in Ohio. I think that is good news.

Maybe, we should look down the road to our guy debating their gal/guy:

Hillary vs. McCain: McCain will get clobbered because he can't talk policy or economics as seen in his debate with Romney. Hillary will sound so much smarter, no matter, what she lies about and McCain will be standing there smirking.

Obama vs. McCain: McCain's mean petty character will all but put a halo on Obama.

And his strength, the war, will not even be mentioned. Count on the media for that one.

It will be all "my friends" and a petty smirk.

Someone help me out here, I don't want my bias to color what those debates might look like. We better figure this out soon.

[Rick Ballard]

bgates,

Here is a good look at Gallup polling over the decades. Carter-Reagan was actually worse than Dewey-Truman. Note the situation on August 14, 2004.

[MayBee]

We better figure this out soon.

This might sound crazy, but I'm all for waiting until after the debates to evaluate their performance.
You never know when someone might spend the evening sighing, or stupidly bring up someone's gay child.

[Ann]

"Ann the attention whore strikes again ..."

I think I might change my screen name, so I don't have a heart attack everytime I read a post! ::wink::

[narciso]

Well, Ted Olson and the entire Federalist crew (Calabresi, Estrada, et al) seem to have endorsed him, so that's a little more
conforting; but as Ann puts it, why didn't
they endorse him, six monthes ago. McCain
seems to be the reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt, as far as analogies go; I fear
he's actually closer to Taft; although his
age and temperament make me think William
'Tippecanoe' Harrison, and Zachary Taylor.
Historically, not reassuring parallels. I
can just see the 'pet bazaar' bombings, as
one more nail in the coffin, the media will
use to challenge the surge. The one point where he has been resolute. All the cool
metrosex publications, Esquire, G.Q, Robert Draper, the semiofficial Bush biographer among them,had written off McCain for his support of the surge; along with their championing of the Gitmo ambulance chaser lobbyists claims. so there's a little filip of satisfaction of them being proved wrong on this point.
Abu Laith al Libbi's passing went by so quickly as to drop down the memory hole. Obama will ignore it as it argues against his 'neglect of the pursuit of AQ theory'
On the ground, though, maybe the US liason with the Frontier Corps seems to be finally
yielding some fruits. Indiscriminate terror
in the end wins you few friends, and many enemies. As It seems like Abu Hamza Rabia, Anas al Libbi, Mansoor Dadullah, Musab al Zarquawi,yesterday, and Beitullah Mehsud will find out tomorrow, they just bit off more than they could chew; Bill Maher's wishes about Dick Cheney notwithstanding.
One recalls that the NY Times, proudly put Mr. al Libbi's promotion to the head of the
AQ hierachy as proof of the 'revitalized AQ; part of the talking points along with
the accusations against the Iraq Inteligence
Archive that drove the '06 election.

[hit and run]

Well, we've noted that Ted Olson, Steven Calebresi (co-founder of the Federalist Society) and Miguel Estrada endorsed McCain.

Estrada is interesting as someone who might be an interested party in the gang of 14 compromise (though he had many months before already withdrawn).

Olson definitely moved from Rudy to McCain (not sure of the others)

But let it be known that Andy McCarthy has endorsed Mitt Romney, after being a Rudy guy before.

(and a Fitzgerald guy before that --no! unfair! especially on JOM of all places! hitting below the belt as Clarice might say)

[Walter]

Moving the Gitmo Detainees to Ft Leavenworth and giving them access to the Federal court system . . .

You know, the two are not equivalent. One of the reasons that Gitmo is no longer as attractive option for a prison is that the Supremes have decided that US law applies in most, if not all circumstances. (Stay tuned for the decision this summer!)

If they're brought back, they'll stay in the military system, be tried under the same procedures, by the same people, and have no more or less ability to file habeas petitions. (Again, that's a quick summary of the detainee cases already decided. Habeas alone is pending--we'll know a bit more in a few months.)

FDR had no problem hanging illegal combatants who were caught and tried in military tribunals in the US, and some were US citizens to boot. The Supremes upheld that procedure and I see little chance of them overturning that precedent.

I suspect that's why Bush has said that he'd like to close the place. He's not much of a pushover in this area, but he seems to believe that we get little legal advantage while taking a big PR hit.

Mind you, had some of the earlier cases come down differently, the Gitmo strategy would be immensely valuable. But if US law applies the same in Gitmo and Leavenworth, why exactly should we be attached to the idea of keeping them in paradise?*

I have personally advocated that we keep them (under contract) in, say, Mississippi or Alabama jails. In the general population. After all, if those conditions are good enough for US citizens, who could complain that they were being mistreated?

To bring this back on topic, things would be quite a bit worse were there three more Stevens on the Court. To me, that matters. (& I trust Ted Olson much, much more in this area than I do Ms. Coulter. Even if she is easier on the eyes.)

--------

*My uncle was stationed there during Vietnam. Apparently it was even more pleasant than his time on a destroyer tender in the Mediterranean Sea.

[Brainster]

Porchlight, I never said it was a good thing, just explaining the otherwise irrational-appearing behavior.

Talking about the current delegate count is denial. Look at the Super Duper Tuesday states, and you'll pretty quickly see that McCain's going to take New York and New Jersey, the two big winner-take all prizes with 1/8th of the total needed for the nomination by themselves. California is by congressional district, so he won't get all of their delegates, but he was up by 8 in the polls before Arnold's endorsement.

Look at it state by state, and by polling data. Note that the RCP average has correctly picked the winner of every race so far, with the exception of South Carolina, where a narrow Huckabee projected win turned into a narrow McCain actual win. Even there, it was one late poll that skewed things to the Huckster; the seven prior polls had McCain either winning or tied.

Work it all out and you'll see that McCain will be much farther ahead than he is now, come Wednesday morning.

[Rick Ballard]

That would certainly fit the Red Witch's original plan - get an early bullseye painted and start shooting. We're just darn fortunate to have such a wonderfully warm and noticeably thick skinned candidate who is able to draw such clearly evident support so quickly. Why, he's already come darn close to taking almost 40% of the vote in his own party. Once or twice, anyway.

[hit and run]

Walter - I owe you an email...I have to go look it up ... but I'm on it!

[Other Tom]

I don't know why I would ask Dick Cheney anything at all if the validity of his answer were determined by the extent to which he was a "Congressional Republican with bipartisan respect." And say what you will about the delegate count to this point, the polls I've seen of the Republicans' views of Romney vs. McCain since Rudy dropped out are quite devastating for the Mormon--he's going to lose. Chalk that bad news up to those nasty and unreliable opinion polls if it makes you feel any better. It'll all be over before you know it.

JMH, as among Thompson, Rudy and McCain, I't have taken them in that order of preference, but neither of the first two had what it took to win the nomination. As among McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul, it's been a no-brainer from the moment it became apparent that Thompson and Giuliani weren't going to make it. Huckabee and Paul are nuts, and Romney just doesn't have it. We judges know these things...

[Ann]

Rick, can you research what McCain said during the General Patraeus hearing and the MoveOn.org ad. I don't remember him being very vocal but I could be wrong. I also don't remember him going after Hillary's outrageous statements.

I only ask, because you seem to have a good grasp of researching the internet.

[Rick Ballard]

Ann,

That's Rich's line of research. Or Tops.

I can do the number stuff OK but every time I try the "X said Y" stuff I wind up pulling my hair out. I'm working on the 4Q raise and burn rate for the Dems and wondering how much dough Red Witch and BHO are sucking out of the legislative side.

Kind of a fall back in case Big John gets minced as badly as I believe he will as soon as the MSM starts running oppo research items instead of patting his head.

[hit and run]

Ann:
Rick, can you research what McCain said during the General Patraeus hearing and the MoveOn.org ad

I'm no Rick. And I would never even try to play one on tv. Even though I DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express on New Year's Day (for the second year in a row in the same city!)

Sen. John McCain continued to voice strong support for Gen. David Petraeus Wednesday, saying he is "respected and admired by literally everybody that serves under him." As for Sen. Hillary Clinton, well, he had other thoughts on his mind.

At a campaign stop in Des Moines, the Arizona Republican said the general is an "honorable and decent man who spent his entire life in the service of his nation."

But McCain, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, chose different words to describe Clinton, a New York Democrat who is seeking her party's presidential nomination.

"Senator Clinton said that General Petraeus in his presentation was… I quote a 'willing suspension of disbelief," McCain said. "First of all, it's a willing suspension of disbelief that Senator Clinton thinks she knows more than General Petraeus does about events on the ground in Iraq."

The Arizona senator also issued a sharply worded statement directed at Clinton for not renouncing a critical print ad of Petraeus that was paid for by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org.

"Senator Clinton said that believing General Petraeus' testimony requires a 'willing suspension of disbelief,'" McCain said in the statement released by his campaign. "I think it willingly suspends disbelief to not repudiate an advertisement run by a radical left wing organization that impugns and dishonors the integrity of a man who has served his nation with dedication all of his life."

[Porchlight]

Gotcha, Brainster. It's a good explanation. I just don't see the behavior as irrational. We don't know with certainty that the other candidates are "dead." So it can hardly be expected that Romney supporters would just throw in the towel before Super Tuesday, especially given the ups and downs in the race thus far.

Paul and Huckabee supporters OTOH, now there I agree with you.

[Other Tom]

Here's the latest national GOP poll from Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, the first one since Rudy dropped out:

Republicans
McCain 48 (+29 vs. last poll December 18-19)
Romney 20 (+9)
Huckabee 19 (nc)
Paul 5 (+2)
Undecided 5

I don't maintain that a public opinion poll proves anything at all--just that some of them lend a bit of versimilitude to some of my arguments, and so I post them. Others are free to post polls suggesting different outcomes, if they can find them. Besides, Mitt might just have that moment of magical conniectivity with millions of voters some time in the next 96 hours.

[Neo]

A federal grand jury has issued a subpoena to a reporter of The New York Times, apparently to try to force him to reveal his confidential sources for a 2006 book on the Central Intelligence Agency, one of the reporter’s lawyers said Thursday.

The subpoena was delivered last week to the New York law firm that is representing the reporter, James Risen, and ordered him to appear before a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., on Feb. 7.

[Other Tom]

*"connectivity"*--you know, he reaches them on some electifying, mesmerizing level.

[Paul]

Pat, supra:

Acceptance. It'll probably be another week or two before we start to see this stage.

Oh, I have no trouble accepting that McCain will be the nominee. But if you think that means I'm going to vote for him, you're in error. I do know my own mind.

In 1992, when George H.W. Bush ran for re-election, I didn't vote for him either. And I knew I wouldn't the moment he signed the largest tax increase in American history. (Or it was at the time, anyway.) For me, if you cross certain lines, I'm not going to support you, even if you do have an R behind your name.

Are there enough Republicans who feel as I do to cost McCain the election? I have no idea. But I do know that in 1992 there were enough of us to keep Bush's mendacious lips from returning to the White House.

[Other Tom]

"Mr. Risen’s lawyer, David N. Kelley, who was the United States attorney in Manhattan early in the Bush administration, said in an interview that the subpoena sought the source of information for a specific chapter of the book 'State of War.'

"The chapter asserted that the C.I.A. had unsuccessfully tried, beginning in the Clinton administration, to infiltrate Iran’s nuclear program. None of the material in that chapter appeared in The New York Times. . . ."

[Other Tom]

Paul, my reaction to the Bush I tax surrender was similar to yours. I wrote him a letter the following day saying "Dear Mr. President: Read my lips. Go f*** yourself," and then I registered as a Libertarian. There were, indeed, enough Republicans who didn't vote for him that he ended up losing, but remember that there was also the nutball Ross Perot (Clinton didn't quite make 50% of the popular vote).

And there will surely be a number of Repbulicans, like yourself, who will stay home rather than vote for McCain. But he will undoubtedly get the votes of a large number of Independents and (if Hillary is the nominee) even some Democrats who would never, ever vote for Mitt Romney. Which group is the greater in number is hard to say.

I myself would be very surprised if the Republican nominee wins, but I know to a certainty that if the nominee is Romney he cannot possibly win.

[Walter]

Pofarmer,

I didn't mean to take you on--you expressed in a cleaner phrase the sentiment many share. I just haven't seen a legal argument for Gitmo vs., say, Alabama.

Have you had fun with the snow? We supposedly got some 8.4", but it only felt like 6.5 when I shoveled it this morning.

[Walter]

Hit,
Since you brought up Fitz!, I thought I'd drop a link to a recent perjury case.

Seems that the perp got a traffic ticket. He didn't want to pay it, so he went to court. He brought pictures. Unfortunately the pictures showed a different intersection than the one where his incident took place. Not the best idea in a small town.

He lost the case. He paid the ticket.

He has been sentenced to a year in county jail* for trying (and failing) to mislead a traffic commissioner.

I'm starting to think that, while Fitzgerald still seems a bit over the top, he differs not much from the typical prosecutor.

-----

*Actually, a fairly pleasant place. You can see the Stanford campus (& coeds!) from some cells.

[Pofarmer]

Only had a couple inches Walter. Hope there's still a little left in the morning to pull the boys around on the 4 wheeler.

I'm just loving hearing Clair McCaskill and HER FREAKING MOM on the radio ads pushing Obama.

How bout you?

[Soylent Red]

Ann Coulter is being as provocative as possible to scream at the conservative electorate to "wake the hell up!"

Oh no, Centralcal. I don't believe that for a moment.

Even though Coulter frequently says provocative things, this is not to rattle conservatives into action. This is about book sales.

I have no doubt she wouldn't actually campaign for Hillary. But through her need for attention and marketable notoriety (which is really what all politico-tainment is about in the end)she is going to induce a certain number of voters to do exactly the wrong thing in the name of "conservatism".

The amount of damage that could be done by McCain in four or eight years is negligible, and reversible.

But the amount of damage done by a Dem? Well, let's start with nominating at least two Supremes, then work our way upward to a smoking hole where an American city used to be.

[Elliott]

One of my ardent desires is that we not repeat the experience of having the FBI and the IRS under Clinton control.

Whatever McCain's shortcomings, I am as committed now as I was eight years ago to voting against Hillary Clinton.

[davod]

"I get it--Mitt's $40 mil out of his onw pocket for ads, and his appearance in umpteen debates and nightly news stories still leaves people generally unaware of who he is."

What it shows is the MSM is still pretty good at shaping the message. Couple their message with the polls (someone has already commented on how applicable the polls are at this stage)and you have what most people base their opinions on.

I do wonder just what effect Arnold's endorsement will have on California Republicans. After all, he has screwed the Republicans on a lot of issues.

[Syl]

I predict it's going to be Obama and not Hillary. How does that change the dynamic?

The prima donna hand sitter anti-McCain demographic will have no chance of being offset by the nose-holder vote against Hillary.

Welcome to our new Move On and Teddy Kennedy endorsed overlord.

thank you. And you know who you are.

[syn]

I don't know what will be worse, living under 'socialized medicine' or living under 'backward Environmentalism' so in this case I see Hillary and McCain as basically the same.

That said, Coulter getting out the vote for Hillary won't matter much since the media will kill of McCain once he gets the nomination.

Being a media maverick might have help MCCain run against Republicans and against Bush, but it won't help him run against a Democrat.

And since he won't have a base of supporters fighting his battle to get past the media, it's going to be tough job for him to keep alive in the race. Plus he is $4 million in debt.

At least, Romney has the money and has a base who will GOTV for him.

[syn]

Obama's big problem is that he cannot bring in the AARP voter, they're the most powerful voting block in America.

Everyone's been talking up race and gender but the real block needed to win is the elder vote.

Obama's a young whipper-snapper and won't be taken seriously by people who have lived long enough to know this.

[centralcal]

Soylent: You say...

"The amount of damage that could be done by McCain in four or eight years is negligible, and reversible."

I simply don't share your certitude in that. Not at all. Actually, I think he can do more damage - being a semi-insider. My point is not to argue with you or anyone about it. I will vote my vote today (gonna finally complete my absentee ballot), mail it off, and wait.

If John McCain is the nominee on our side, then he is. But, he is not my candidate and never will be.

[R. Flanagan]

At least as concerns this particular lefty ,no need for you to feel embarrassed about Ann. I don't do guilt by association whether it's AC or Obama's minister.

Conservatives like you and David Brooks seem like people I wouldn't mind sitting next to on a 5 hour flight. Which is not true of Dennis Kucinich. Or , to choose one from your side , of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor who wrote a day after Vince Forster killed himself that the WSJ saw no need to apologize for its previous coverage . Whatever he might have said or written a week later ,on that particular day the editorial should have been three words: nil nisi bonum .

[PeterUK]

"It takes a village to raise a child",but first you have to become a village.
McCain is old enough to stall,Hillary is a woman with an agenda,and she is in a hurry.A two term presidency would see the US in hock for billions on Universal Healthcare.

[Pofarmer]

The amount of damage that could be done by McCain in four or eight years is negligible, and reversible.
I agree with Centracal. I'm also not confident, given that McCain might well be working with a Dim congress, that his Judicial pics would be anything to write home about. In short, I won't vote for McCain. Can't. I'll vote for Thompson twice. If that puts Hillary or Obama in the Whitehouse, so be it.

Can you imagine ROE's under McCain? I can, and it ain't pretty.

[sbw]

Courtesy of the Adam Smith Blog, The CBO reports that health care costs went from 5% of GDP to over 15% since 1960 and look to double again by 2035.

Billions and billions it is. Which is why the market place is the only way to hold costs in check. Take that, Hillary!

[clarice]

Pofarmer,
Why not just assume he's been lying for press adulation and that once in power he'll be less of a maverick? Or, alternatively, that with a Dem Congress the only natural outlet for his maverickness is to beccome a Republican?

[Walter]

Clair McCaskill and HER FREAKING MOM

Oddly enough, Obama doesn't seem to advertise much on the Missouri Synod station here. As that classical station is the only one on which I regularly hear commercials, I've missed out on much of the fun.

Rumors in the local (& gullible national!) press push McCaskill as a possible VP for Obama. While she is a former prosecutor and auditor, I cannot help but drool at the thought of either Romney or McCain facing off against two first-term Senators.

(It's not very becoming, so I'll stop now.)