Posted on 12/27/2007 4:33:16 AM PST by 7thson
I'm watching the news last night - Special Report w/Brit Hume - except Brit's on vacation. I forget the name of the guy hosting for him but the panel includes Fred Barnes, Mort Konracke, and Charles Krauthammer. They are disussing the latest Fox Opinion poll and it shows McCain surging. It makes me think - who are these Republicans who think McCain is okay? In the past 8 years he has voted against President Bush's tax cuts, started the gang of 14 that circumvented the Republicans getting conservative judges to the bench, and basically wanted to hand out amnesty to illegals. After 8 years, are there actually Republicans who cannot see this John McCain?
Another thing I noticed watching television yesterday. One item of discussion was Rush Limbaugh's remarks from last week concerning the Huckster. I remember listening to Rush last week and hearing his comments. However, Rush also made important comments concerning Bill Clinton and his being out on the campgain trail for Hillary. No mention of that from any of the news sources. Don't you just love it when the media - FNC included - cherry-picks their news?
You are wrong on one point. It was not east coast types. It was northeast primarily and somewhat northern.
Fred (or Mort), in their comments about Rush, mentioned his huge ego. There seems to be a green-eyed monster at work.
Even if the polls were legitimate and on the up and up I still find them a great source of aggravation and frustration. Especially when they are being done over a year before the election itself and they always seem to back up the side of the group that is publishing, read that ‘paying’ for them!
The emergence of hundreds, if not thousands, of polls starting two years before the election is a relatively new phenomenon and it would not surprise be one bit to learn in years to come that they were anything but an honest attempt to measure and report on people’s opinions and intentions, but rather blatant attempts by the media to take part in the process.
I believe the ‘nuke’ option had never been used on JUDGES before. That is how it was different.
Keating 5 comes to mind.
Who cares what Rush has to say about McCain?
Don’t forget that Rush is a great entertainer.
About Clinton - is that he has never won an election for anyone other than himself. And that he thinks Billy Jeff does not want Hillary to get in because it would tarnish his legacy of being the only elected two-term Dem president since FDR.
Exactly!
Why do you trust McCain? Of the four you mentioned, I would trust Rudy the most. Why? Because he went up against the mob and didn’t back down. Because he went against the naysayers in NYC and cleaned the place up. Because he would not be afraid to fire someone if they are not doing their job. That is my impression of Rudy. But don’t mistake me for a Rudy supporter. I’m not. I am supporting Fred in the primaries. Rudy is just the one I would trust the most as CINC from the four your mentioned.
Total Beltway losers and ones who believe open borders is "good for America" or "their only doing jobs the American people won't do" crap!
This should make believers of everyone once and for all that there is a "Beltway" mentality and that they talk to one another - and have absolutely NO IDEA what the rest of the country desire.
They are also the one who attempted to shove Guiliani down our throats at first and when we refused to swallow, then harped on other candidates and have kept the McCain card til now.
Keating 5 comes to mind.That sounds like a leftwing Democrat smear to me.
Ok. Thanks.
Does the truth hurt?
I didn’t say I trust McCain the most (of the four). I said I trust McCain the most (of the four) to be commander-in-chief. Nothing you mention in your post has anything to do with the presidential role as commander-in-chief. (I too am a Fred supporter. Member of Vets4Fred.org)
I did not come off correctly. What Rush stated about BillyJeff was not a complement. It was damaging analysis against the Clintons. That is what I meant by cherry picking. The media reports what they see as bickering between the Republicans but do not report damaging analysis of the Dems.
You're insane
I don’t use Rockefeller Republican much because it only encapsulated a small period of his political relevance, namely between 1958-1977. It is part of a larger problem of elitist liberalism that has killed the Republican party wherever it has been in power. Huckster may be pro-life, but he’s an elitist liberal exactly in synch with the establishment. Ditto virtually every other RINO running save Fred Thompson.
His medicore record as a Anapolis student and naval officer will come out. Any thing he did wrong in the military will come out. The way he treated his first wife when he returned home will come out. His sweetheart deal with Southwest airlines will come out - making him the hypocrite concerning Campaign Finance Reform. It's already started the NYT.
We complain we could not see John Kerry's military record. There will not be any complaints about that concerning McCainiac. The media will print his record for all to see - including any less-than-stellar fitness reports.
I just cannot understand why people are so stupid and get taken in so easily. A rule of thumb to follow - if the media is for a Republican, than Republicans should stay away from that person.
so “pretty boy” is better huh?
Huckabee is a conservative Democrat/populist. Definately not the Rockefeller type.
McCain is more of a Nixonian. Which would be a good thing on foreign policy (we need more realism), although his support for the war in Kosovo makes me suspect.
Mitt is an odd case. Don't know if I could really classify him as a classic Rockefeller/Scranton Republican, but him and Rudy are the closest to the mold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.