« Ronaldus Magnus and the Anti-Reagan | Main | Socialism Renamed as Sustainable Capitalism »

Use this photo for todays Open Thread.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/17823/

Those weren't all of Maverick McAmnesty's Problems.

Everything with (McCain) is just his personal gut, principle-free, just an instinct, an impulse, which often takes him in wildly contradictory places (but he's always haughty about the moral superiority of his decisions).For example, he's pro-drilling... but not in ANWR. Um, why? He's forever undercutting himself with unexplained hedges and caveats.He's pro-business... Kinda. Except when he's making his distaste for anyone working in the private sector "for profit not patriotism" so glaringly evident.He wants to lower taxes. Sorta. Sometimes. Maybe. In election years.
We must regard Obama as suspect because of his association with the terrorist Bill Ayers... but it's racist to mention his membership in Jeremiah Wright's Church of Hate.

Ann Coulter also lays into Maverick McAmnesty.

How could Republicans go after B. Hussein Obama (as he is now known) on planning to bankrupt the coal companies when McCain supports the exact same cap and trade policies and earnestly believes in global warming?

How could we go after Obama for his illegal alien aunt and for supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens when McCain fanatically pushed amnesty along with his good friend Teddy Kennedy?

How could we go after Obama for Jeremiah Wright when McCain denounced any Republicans who did so?

How could we go after Obama for planning to hike taxes on the "rich," when McCain was the only Republican to vote against both of Bush's tax cuts on the grounds that they were tax cuts for the rich?

Something I just noticed, VtK... when conservatives lose an election, the majority of the discussions amongst them are in the vein of "where did we go wrong? what mistakes did we make?". Contrast this with what is said among Democrats when THEY lose an election: "It was stolen! We were disenfranchised! Travesty of Justice! Karl Rove!", etc.

Seems like another example of the fundamental difference in mind-sets to me. Libs, unlike conservatives, are simply incapable of accepting any responsibility for their own failures.

I was never a fan of McCain, not even the last time he ran. I voted for him as a vote against idiocy and socialism. However, a true conservative he is not. Neither fiscally nor socially.

It seems so odd to me that, although such a large percentage of people in this country claim to have conservative values, we can't seem to come up with a conservative candidate. What's the deal?

If the Republicans continue to morph into Democrats, will there eventually be a new conservative party?

Having parties come and go isn't a new thing in history. The Democratic-Republican party split before Lincoln, and the Liberal party in the UK was displaced by Labour towards the end of the 19th century. We could be facing a new time in politics. I'm not worried, though, about having enough people for a new party. Polling has consistantly shown that the vast majority of people disagree with Obama on nearly every issue. But people often vote Dem as a vote against what they've been led to believe about Republicans by the media, the entertainment industry, and the state run education system, all of which are now offshoots of the cultural revolution of the 1960s.

we can't seem to come up with a conservative candidate. What's the deal?

We did come up with a conservative candidate. Several of them, in fact: Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo. But with a liberal-dominated news media, they didn't have a chance. In the whole time that Thompson was running, I don't think there was a single article about him in my local paper (the same paper that ran a multi-day, multi-full-page gushfest about our Messiah, the Chairman O -- I'm from Illinois).

The good candidates were under a defacto media blackout. The news media picked our candidate for us. Why McCain? Because he was the most liberal Republican in the race, hence he was most likely to lose, but if he did win, he would be the best of the bunch from their perspective.

McCain couldn't see failure in courting the Hispanic vote by advocating massive illegal immigration, or any of the other points succinctly made by Coulter's article this week, simply because he is in fact, a liberal. And like a liberal, he is not fully capable of reality assessment.

I don't imagine that McCain or any of his illegal alien advocates on the left-wing of congress or in the senate have ever posed the question about the relative Carrying Capacity of the U.S., i.e., Just exactly how much of Mexico can be absorbed here? All of it? Everyone who wants to come? With their exponential birth rate, what percentage of Mexican immigrants should we allow before state bankruptcy occurs? Is there even a cap to immigration contemplated by these congressional and senatorial traitors?

The job of the Commander-in-Chief is to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. Bush did as well as he could I suppose against further terrorism committed in the U.S., but failed dismally in regard to Mexican immigration, a slower but insidious economic threat to the U.S.

But at least we didn't get another Republican to lead the charge of illegal aliens across the border like some kind of deranged Teddy Rosevelt; that would have spelled disaster for the Republican party for an another 20 years.

DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE COMMING ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE COMMING

That's "COMING" to you, SP.
You know from your posts, anyone can see that you're one of the more thoughtful individuals on this site.

So perhaps you can take some time to explain a few economic concepts involved in transforming the U.S. with millions of uneducated, nonprofessional, non-English-speaking, noncitizens.

Please use your best obscenities and don't bother editing: any attempt would be best in pure liberalese.