Re: [cerebus] OT, was Re: (not really) policy: Rick has Coulter on his elbow
>> I had already made a committment to support the candidate
>> who had these two main qualifications:
>> 1) Whichever candidate that Ann Coulter supports
>> 2) Whichever candidate(s) that John McCain DOES NOT support
>You abdicate your decision to someone else?
>And that "someone else" isn't Dave Sim?
No, not seriously. But it told a good tale.
The decision is easy for any person who isn't blinded by MSM journalism. If you want the economy to be sound again, you have to get conservatives in control of taxing/spending policies.
For the bazillionth time, budgets come from the Congress, not the President. When Obama whines about Bush putting us in this mess, he is actually blaming the Democratic party, who has controlled Congress since 2007, coincidentally taking power right at the time when the economy started heading south. That's right, with Bush as President from 2000-2006, the economy was great, and *I* wrote MANY times (during that period) "it's the economy, stupid" (mimicking the cries when Bush Sr was President, also with a Democrat Congress who was wrecking our economy) , but saying that to rub it in that the economy was great, isn't that all that mattered to you guys, so lay off Bush (who again, had little to do with the great economy). I probably even said that here, in this forum...and I said it because the economy WAS Good during that time, with conservatives in control of Congress.
And oh by the way, Obama was a member of the Congress that passed massive spending bills right up until he became Prez. So the blame is on his own ass for 2007-2008.
>> Of course, both Coulter and McCain vociferously support Romney.
>An analyst on the radio made a point that I'm ashamed to admit had not occured to me. He suggested that the right-wing talk radio folks (which
>would definitely include Ann Coulter) will never admit the dirty little secret that they WANT President Obama to be re-elected. Their shows all
>do much, MUCH better when there's an "enemy" in the White House to froth at (Clinton, Obama) than when they have to be supportive of a
>GOP President (Bush).
That has a touch of truth and a million pounds of phoniness to it...I might even believe that except for the fact that an Obama administration is trying to take their money and take them off the air. I highly doubt that they're for that.
>I'm not suggesting you should want a Dem president for that same reason, but I am suggesting that you be careful what you believe that comes
>out of those mouths. They have an agenda, and it's different from yours.
Over on this side of the Party Aisle, we actually weigh what our "voices" say and then make the best decision available. We don't elect someone just because they are a particular minority, nor do we attack them just because they are a minority on the Wrong Side.
>> Well, I left the Republican party *long* ago, about the time that they left Conservatives. But at least I can see the demons in *both* parties.
>You say that, but I have a hard time believing it. But ok. I guess we are in the same camp: we are sticking with each party because we see them
> as the lesser of two evils. (Mike Kitchen is probably right that they are one and the same:))
Now I agree more with that statement than I disagree.
>If nothing else I'd say there is no Republican Party anymore just FOX -and who said it (Larry?) they might not want a Republican President for the
>sake of ratings. lol
I'll do you one better...maybe they don't want a Republican President because they are unbiased?