So says Ann Coulter, whose site, along with Michelle Malkin's, is like right wing porn. I'm always looking over my shoulder whenever I visit these sites and I read their prose, wide eyed, thinking, "that's sick, there's no way someone can think like that."
But sure enough, Coulter makes an interesting point in this week's rant against the left. The Dems have long been chipping away at the pedestal they hoisted Bill Clinton on to back in 1992: there was Monica-gate, then his VP got shafted in the 2000 election, and now Hillary has been snubbed by the super delegates.
What happened to the Bill Clinton halo effect? Here's what Ann has to say:
"Ronald Reagan was so popular, he not only won a 49-state landslide re-election for himself, but he also won a symbolic third term for his boob of a vice president, George Herbert Walker Bush (who immediately blew it by breaking his own "no new taxes" pledge).
By contrast, in addition to not being able to get half the country to vote for him in two tries, Clinton's connection to any other presidential candidate spells utter doom. Both his vice president and his wife have been defeated in elections they should have won, but lost because of their unfortunate association with him. The country has spoken. It wants to be rid of the Clintons."
Argh. I hate it when that skinny wench is right.
I can't speak for the backstabbing and intrigue that inform the Democratic Party's decisions, but I'm very disappointed with their presumptive choice for President. In short, I've lost faith in the party who for the past 8 years hasn't been able to get its act together. What happened to Howard Dean? Why are we railroading Hillary? We're giving the show over to B. Hussein Obama because that's EXACTLY what those on-the-fence voters in those red states are looking for in an alternative to the Republican candidate.
While I have no qualms with McCain, I can't (contrary to what I've said in the past) bring myself to vote for a Republican President. If Obama is on the ticket, I'm going to sit this election out.
6 comments:
So you're really one of those people who needs to call him "B. Hussein Obama", huh? And to not vote, apparently. That's disheartening, even now.
Don't panic GCL. A vote for Obama is not a vote for Obama. It's a vote for the democratic machine that raised him up at the last convention and will use him as the vehicle to get the party back in the White House.
Obama is too inexperienced to do this all on his own. He will be surrounded with people who share your views and will push the democratic agenda. And I can assure you that Hillary will have some kind of prominent role in his administration (not VP, but maybe Secy of State of Attorney General).
In short,
A vote for Obama is a vote for the Democratic Party. No vote is a vote for McCain and all the wretched people that will attach themselves to him, including whatever wack ass running mate he chooses, who will be the next President in 2012.
Think carefully......Four more years of getting deeper into the hole is really going to suck.
Don't not vote. You don't have to vote Obama, you certainly don't have to vote McCain. But don't not vote. Vote Jimmy Buffet or Jed Bartlett if you must. It's not a democracy if people 'choose' not to vote.
Clinton: It'd be 'terrible mistake' to pick McCain over Obama
There are parties other than Democratic and Republican, contrary to what most Americans seem to believe... I second clive, don't sit it out.
I really don't get Clinton supporters who absolutely won't vote for Obama. Is he really soooo terrible. It's not like he's a warmonger or a rabid mysogynist, for Christ sake. There will be a possible three or four Supreme Court vacancy coming up in the next four years. That's reason enough to vote democrat whoever gets the nomination. Grow the fuck up, already!
Hydrino
Post a Comment