Michelle Malkin » Reagan vs. McCain on profits, business, and the free market

Reagan vs. McCain on profits, business, and the free market

By Michelle Malkin • January 31, 2008 09:11 AM

Compare and contrast.

Class warrior John McCain Edwards at last night’s GOP debate held at the Reagan Library (transcript):

I think that we’ve got to return to the principle that you don’t lend money that can’t pay it back. I think that there’s some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished.

HOOK: I want to start with Senator McCain.

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the importance of leadership and management experience. What makes you more qualified than Mitt Romney, a successful CEO and businessman, to manage our economy?

MCCAIN: Because I know how to lead. I know how to lead.

I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit.

COOPER: I’m going to ask you all for follow-ups on this, but, Senator McCain, I just want to give you an opportunity to follow up on that. Is Governor Romney ready to be a military commander?

MCCAIN: Oh, I’m sure that, as I say, he’s a fine man. And I think he managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That’s the nature of that business.

Ronald Reagan, “What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise,” Ludwig Von Mises Memorial Lecture at Hillsdale College, November 1977:

Political demagogues aided by spokesmen for a variety of causes, some worthy in themselves but questionable as to whether they’re a proper concern of government, have created a political and economic mythology widely believed by too many people. This is why we need the communications. This, more than anything else, has increased government’s ability to interfere, as it does, in the marketplace. “Profit” is a dirty word, blamed for most of our social ills. In the interest of something called “consumerism,” free enterprise is becoming far less free. Property rights are being reduced and even eliminated in the name of environmental protection. It is time that a voice be raised on behalf of the 73 million, pointing out that profit, property rights, and freedom are inseparable and you cannot have the third unless you continue to be entitled to have the first two.

Ronald Reagan, radio address, April 1979, via the Acton Institute:

Our free mkt. system is usually termed capitalism and by that definition capitalism has hardly been around long enough to deserve all the evil for which it is being held responsible.

Most of us aren’t really conscious of how recently the capitalist system came into being. Possibly we look back & think of the extravagant luxury of kings & emperors & see that as capitalism. We have a modern counterpart today in the rulers of Marxist nations. The ruling hierarchy of the Soviet U. live on a scale more akin to royalty than do the heads of capitalist countries.

Maybe our trouble is caused by the term capitalist itself. Actually all systems are capitalist. It’s just a matter of who owns & controls the capital–ancient king, dictator or private individual. We should properly be looking at the contrast between a free mkt. system where individuals have the right to live like kings if they have the ability to earn that right and govt. control of the mkt. system such as we find today in socialist nations.

We have a very visible example of the contrast between the free mkt. & govt. ownership in a household necessity we take for granted. The invention of Alexander Graham Bell–the telephone offers us irrefutable proof of the superiority of the free mkt.

As recently as 1880 there were only 34,000 miles of telephone wires on the whole N. American Continent. There were dozens & dozens of small telephone companies using several different kinds of equipment and there was no inter-connection between these different companies. The same situation prevailed in all the other so called advanced nations.

If someone had openly advanced a plan to put a phone in every home, on every farm, in every hamlet & city and hook them all together I’m sure someone would have said, “only govt. has the resources to do that.”

Now strangely enough in most other countries govt. did take over the telephone system and to this very day the telephones in a great many countries are part of the postal system. In America the govt. wasn’t bulldozing it’s way into the free mkt. place as it is today. For that we can be grateful. The scattered, competing phone companies were left to the magic of the mkt. place. And that magic worked as it always does.

We take the phone so much for granted it’s hard to realize things weren’t always this way. We can dial directly to any point in the country and to a great many outside the country.

With no intention of insulting anyone it I have to say it only takes a few days trip in many of those other countries to where the telephone is a govt. service to realize there is a difference. A long distance call there can be quite an adventure–so can getting a phone installed.

But here we have them in our cars if we like, in private or corporation owned executive planes & on boats. We bounce long distance calls off privately owned satellites and use telephone lines for network radio & remote broadcasts of sporting & special events.

And all of this came about because private individuals wanting to make a profit for themselves kept thinking of better services to offer, confident that we’d want that better service.

This is RR Thanks for listening.

Reagan in His own Hand, The Free Press p. 228,229.

And attributed to Reagan:

“The best minds are not in government; if they were, business would steal them away.”

***

Related…

Daniel Casse: Romney blew it.

Posted in: John McCain, Ronald Reagan

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (134)

trackbacks (31)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

#101

On January 31st, 2008 at 3:45 pm, purplepeep said:

jrlingreenbay said:
If you can manage a rational thought and achieve maturity for a few moments

Heh, jrl.

please tell me who YOU think someone should vote for, if they are not pleased with either Presidential candidate’s positions?

The whole either-or, stinking hold yer noses candidates meme is a desperately bizarre one.

And it illustrates another reason why if McCain were the nominee that he’d go down in a major flaming defeat; there are those within the party who will go for the meme, but I don’t believe “Hold Your Nose And Vote McCain” is a cry the general populace will rally ’round.
#102

On January 31st, 2008 at 3:47 pm, orlandocajun said:

MCCAIN: Oh, I’m sure that, as I say, he’s a fine man. And I think he managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That’s the nature of that business.

To McCain: I think you’ve been in the Senate for 25 years. You crossed the isle more than you stayed on your own side. Sometimes Americans lost their right to free speech. Sometimes you wanted Americans to pay more taxes than your Republican colleages. Sometimes you wanted to legalize 20 million illegal invaders. Most times you voted for the entitlements that have bankrupted this country. You know about securing a border, but you represent a state with one of the most pourous borders.

I guess that’s the nature of being a liberal Senator.
#103

On January 31st, 2008 at 3:50 pm, Regulus said:

The math is pretty simple, really; people are simply choosing to ignore where it leads.

1. Michelle starts this thread by comparing McCain vs. Reagan. So what? Reagan is dead. Why not compare McCain to Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln while we’re at it? I’m sure he’d come up short against them, too. And? Other than letting the “MDS” sufferers feel good about their loathing for the man, what does any of this accomplish?

2. In the absence of an inspiring GOP nominee in 2008, the focus shifts to “damage control”: which GOP candidate will prevent Hillary from capturing the White House? Here’s an analysis put together by John Hawkins at http://www.rightwingnews.com which lays it out:

What you are about to see is the number of electoral votes each candidate would capture, based on that SurveyUSA data, and the 2004 states that they would flip from 2004 (270 electoral votes are required to win):

John McCain: 324 electoral votes
McCain flips: Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Washington (11), Wisconsin (10)
Hillary Clinton: 214 electoral votes
Hillary flips: None

Mike Huckabee: 248
Mike Huckabee flips: No states
Hillary Clinton: 290
Hillary Flips: Iowa (7), Kansas (6), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20)

Mitt Romney: 229
Mitt Romney flips: No states
Hillary Clinton: 309
Hillary Flips: Iowa (7), Kansas (6), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), Kentucky (8), Missouri (11)

3. There is one - count ‘em, one Republican candidate who can prevent Hillary’s coronation in January of 2009. And it ain’t Romney or Huckabee.

4. So if you want to be saying “Madame President” for the next four years, fine: indulge your self-pity, wallow in your hatred, toss away your vote and congratulate yourselves on how you stuck it to ol’ John McCain. Bravo!

5. There are two choices coming up in November: “Bad” or “Worse.” There is no third possibility, and no room for intellectually cowardly moral equivalence exercises like falsely claiming that McCain and Hillary are the same.

They’re not.

Choose.

Just remember that if “good” isn’t available, then if by act or omission you enable “worse” to prevail over “bad” you share in responsibility for all the consequences that flow from your decision.

Learn to know what a victory is. Sometimes, avoiding catastrophe is a “win” in itself, even if you don’t get what you hoped for in the exchange. It’s not a matter of demanding “blind party loyalty.” It’s a matter of doing what you’ve gotta do, even if you have to “hold your nose” while you’re at it.

Suck. It. Up.
#104

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:03 pm, orlandocajun said:

Regulus, as Ann Coulter said, “if a liberal democrat screws up the country for the next four years, at least Republicans don’t have to take the responsibility”.

You’re underestimating the American people and you must referencing a poll if you don’t think that Romney can beat Hillary. Given 7 or 8 months to compare Romney to whichever Democrat gets elected, the American people will pick Romney. If they don’t, then we all will have to live with the Democrat for four years. Some of think that there’s no excuse not to put our best guy in the race and it ain’t McCain! Some of us also think that McCain would be a catastrophe.

You sound like a McCain campaign operative. That’s OK, but please take your Sanctimonious and condescending attitude somewhere else.
#105

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:03 pm, purplepeep said:

Regulus said:
There is one - count ‘em, one Republican candidate who can prevent Hillarys coronation

Reg, you should share this fantasy with Hillary - seeing as how it’s a slam dunk she’ll surely demand we get right on to the coronation of St.John instead of going through that whole silly campaign thingee.

(And just to get you up to speed, there’s a guy named Obama you might wanna do a fantasy run against too.)

But thanks for the crystal ball fantasy preview. Now we don’t need to bother watching the election returns! :: eyes rollin’ here ::
#106

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:08 pm, purplepeep said:

orlandocajun said:
please take your Sanctimonious and condescending attitude somewhere else.

Actually, I think the fantasies are kind of amusing, though the humor wasn’t intended. Do you suppose it’s a “whistling past the graveyard”-type phenom?
#107

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

I understand the ‘do what you gotta do’ viewpoint - and it’s a valid argument - even swaying….

But for the moment, I have to admit that, with a prospective McCain GOP nomination, I’m left with a paraphrased quote: “I didn’t leave the party - the party left me”.

As for what will be on election day - who truly knows until they actually step foot into that booth.

Consequences flow from any decision. A no-vote surely could catapult Clinton into the White House - but would still allow a more conservative GOP candidate to emerge for 2012 ( and don’t forget the rarely mentioned efforts we can put forth in the house and senate elections before then ).

A McCain vote and a McCain win would possibly push another RINO into the White House and most likely eliminate any chance of having a true conservative take that position for another 8 years.

It’s not the fact that McCain reaches across the aisle - that’s not a bad thing… but when has he ever pulled anyone from the other side over to the right when doing so? THAT is what turns so many conservatives away from him.

A uniter? Hardly - more like a concession-maker.
#108

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm, SHoward said:

Hey, xblade, are you telling me that I have no choice but to choose?

Are you saying that an adult is not free not to choose?

Would you care to attempt to force me to choose if I do not wish to?

Choosing not to decide is still a choice.
#109

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:13 pm, SHoward said:

jrl, you’ve got a good point about McCain. Whenever he reaches out, it seems to be to pull himself over to the other side.

Some choice.
#110

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pm, MrVIBEMAN said:

I’ve just got 2 questions.

1) How is it ‘political suicide’ to give a speech about Military Defense at the Virginia Military Institute? They were probably eating it up.

2) I wonder what Nancy Reagan was thinking as he called himself a ‘Reagan Republican’. My guess is she had the urge to vomit in her mouth just a little bit.

McCain tries to work with the other side, it’s true, but he’s doing it to pass legislation that is bad for the country. What good is bi-partisanship when it’s hurting America? Better to stand your ground and let nothing through.
#111

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

2) I wonder what Nancy Reagan was thinking as he called himself a ‘Reagan Republican’.

According to Drudge, here’s your answer:

EXCLUSIVE: NANCY REAGAN FOR MCCAIN, TOP SOURCE TELLS DRUDGE: ‘SHE ADORES HIM, AND IS FULLY SUPPORTING HIM IN HER PRIVATE LIFE. SHE WILL NOT PUBLICLY ENDORSE’…
#112

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pm, Ombre Rose said:

On January 31st, 2008 at 10:31 am, TXMarko said:
Also, a lot of folks on this board and others are afraid to call McCain’s service (and particularly his POW experience) into question.

IMHO, if McCain insists on bringing up his service record, then his service record is fair game for scrutiny. I am sure he received preferential treatment during his entire career because of his daddy being a Senator. I do know he lost more than a few planes (NON combat losses), and your average Navy pilot loses zero aircraft in their career.
Time for the gloves to come off.

I’ve searched through the internet and I cannot find any official accounts of him being tortured as a POW, I remember someon pinning him down a year or two ago and him answering on TV that he was not tortured, that he buckled to the pain of his crash injuries and h is desperation to have medical attention for broken bones, and gave up everything he knew about his home ship and crew.
Only defenders I found of him ONLINE were accounts from Hanoi John, Ted Kennedy, the daughter of the Keating from The Keating Five…

I remember some biographies of Hanoi Hilton POWS from the 1970’s before anyone ever heard of McCain or Hanoi John, and had gone back and checked and seen that some of those guys would never speak to McCain, the rest of their lives.

At the time of this interview a couple of years ago, everyone j ust kept rushing to say, oh, gee, I wouldn’t have been able to take the abuse, I would have cracked, too - you cannot blame the guy for that.

Well, whatever - but thousands of American men never did crack - and a whole lot of them died because they wouldn’t.

I’m not saying anything about “judging him” for it - but I do if he has used a FALSE IMPRESSION to the American people for most of his POLITICAL CAREER for POLITICAL GAIN, and uses cheap excuses to get sympathy so that folks will NOT hold him accountable for his POLITICAL actions.

McCain is a DEMOCRAT - a Socialist - ANTI-EVRYTHING it took to make America the great nation it is.

“I did it for patriotism - not for profit.” Well - I doubt it - anything he ever did seems to have been for POLITICAL GLORY - FOR SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT AND PROFIT - KEATING FIVE!

He even brags that he was offered early release from the Hanoi Hilton but refused because as ranking high officer, he “would not leave his men”.
I ran across the code for POWS while searching for a valid account of what he did as a POW - AND IT SAYS THAT A POW SHALL NOT EVER ACCEPT EARLY RELEASE, NO MATTER WHAT, in the CODE.

So if he had taken the opportunity for release without the rest of the men, he would have been suspect for some things that were the specific background foundation of why that rule was in the code.
And when something that stringent is in the Code for POWS, we can know that the military have a very very powerful reason for it - because the military troops approved of the Code.

But McCain doesn’t say that. He acts like he made some grand sacrificial gesture - which he did NOT - he did the LEAST that was expected of him - and it appears to all purposes that I can find that he didn’t come NEAR the bare minimal standards in some regards - not even to protect part of the fleet under his own father’s command.

I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE LIGHT OF BEING A POW AT THE HANOI HILTON.
Jeremiah Denton has an excellent biography of that period of his own life.

I don’t think that McCain Feingold THOMSPON was designed to stop such actions as the Swiftboating of Hanoi John - I think it was to protect himself, as he laid groundwork for the day he himself would run again.
Because Hanoi John wasn’t the first person to interest the Swiftboaters, or Vietnam Vets Against (a politician).

But McCain SLANDEROUSLY smeared THEM and also SLANDEROUSLY smeared Bush, who easily proved he didn’t do the attacks on McCain in 2000 that McCain claimed he did - AND THAT IN FACT NOBODY DID THE ATTACKS HE BLAMED ON BUSH - those phone calls WERE NOT MADE AT ALL, it turned out.

“TRUTH SQUAD”?????????????????

This man is terrifying.
#113

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pm, orlandocajun said:

EXCLUSIVE: NANCY REAGAN FOR MCCAIN, TOP SOURCE TELLS DRUDGE: ‘SHE ADORES HIM, AND IS FULLY SUPPORTING HIM IN HER PRIVATE LIFE. SHE WILL NOT PUBLICLY ENDORSE’…

That sounds just like “we have reports” which is the MSM’s way of making stuff up. It wouldn’t surprise me if McCain’s campaign made that up too. Even if it’s true, the operative words are “private life”. That doesn’t mean she thinks that he would be a good President.
#114

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:41 pm, emjem24 said:

lgm:

Who knew liberals like you were honest? Perhaps those tax cuts take the money that would be put into your teacher’s salary? As to honesty, there really is no such thing on either side. I’m sure liberals such as yourself would freely admit that Dems can be dishonest. No? Well, if the War on Poverty, Vietnam War (which Johnson couldn’t butt out of), and Global Warming are examples of how “honest” Dems are on any issue… you really don’t know the meaning of the word.

I’m sorry but your barometer for truth is as disjointed as your profile. Let’s stop with righteous “insults” and the pretension that Dems really care about you or me. I used to be a substitute teacher… teacher’s unions say they represent subs (only if we pay them a fee) but stab them in the back when they want pay increases to compete with inflation just like other teachers.

Your hypocrisy is astounding but then the logic of most liberals defies reason every time.
#115

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

Ombre Rose -

You make some pretty hard accusations about McCain - not that I am a supporter for his candidacy - but :

#1 - His Father wasn’t a Senator, he was an Admiral, as was his Grandfather.

As for the comments about him not being tortured - I’d think you need to cite any evidence you have, rather than “I heard that…”
#116

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:43 pm, purplepeep said:

orlandocajun said:

EXCLUSIVE: NANCY REAGAN FOR MCCAIN, TOP SOURCE TELLS DRUDGE: ‘SHE ADORES HIM, AND IS FULLY SUPPORTING HIM IN HER PRIVATE LIFE. SHE WILL NOT PUBLICLY ENDORSE’…

That sounds just like “we have reports” which is the MSM’s way of making stuff up. It wouldn’t surprise me if McCain’s campaign made that up too. Even if it’s true, the operative words are “private life”. That doesn’t mean she thinks that he would be a good President.

OC, I don’t doubt the report.

Nancy is a good woman and was surely a fine wife to our late President. She has made her views on stem cells known, but she is not a “political animal”.

Would that goofballs like Carter could conduct himself in such a dignified and circumspect manner as Nancy Reagan has since the end of the Reagan presidency.

I think you’re right to note that this is a private, personal level thing. She has more ties over the years to McCain than to the other candidates, so this doesn’t really surprise me at all.
#117

On January 31st, 2008 at 4:48 pm, purplepeep said:

jrlingreenbay said:
Ombre Rose -

You make some pretty hard accusations about McCain - not that I am a supporter for his candidacy - but

Yup, jrl, to wrongly take anything away from his service is not right. I believe he, as did many others - including members of my own family, served with honor during Vietnam.

It is unseemly when he tries to “Kerry” that service, criticism on that aspect is valid.
#118

On January 31st, 2008 at 5:02 pm, SHoward said:

Alright, lgm, we’ve been down this road before. I’ll only take issue at this time with one thing:

Where is your doumentation that tax cuts did not increase revenue?

They did it in the ’80s and the early 2000’s. Prove it did not happen.

And don’t even think about claiming it didn’t because deficits went up. Deficits are a result of spending (outflow) not tax policy (inflow.)

Put up or shut up.
#119

On January 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pm, purplepeep said:

SHoward said:
Alright, lgm, we’ve been down this road before. I’ll only take issue at this time with one thing

Methinks my earlier link to a video sent the poor lad scurrying for shelter, SHoward.
#120

On January 31st, 2008 at 5:16 pm, SHoward said:

That teaches me not to comment before reading thouroughly!

If I were a leftie that just couldn’t help myself but beat the drum like lgm has, I’d run and hide if I found my icon saying exactly the oppossite!

Thanks, purplepeep, you’ve made my day. I can go back to work now…….

well….
#121

On January 31st, 2008 at 5:19 pm, graysonret said:

I had the chance once to have lunch with Mrs. Reagan. In fact, I got a hug from her (having to do with work some of us were doing for drugs and the homeless). She is a marvelous woman and a great conversationist. I have nothing but admiration for her.
#122

On January 31st, 2008 at 5:26 pm, orlandocajun said:

Purplepeep, I would never doubt the word of Nancy Reagan. I’m doubting that she ever said it since she wasn’t quoted.
#123

On January 31st, 2008 at 5:32 pm, jeanie said:

McCain is just a different kind of “catastrophe”.
#124

On January 31st, 2008 at 5:53 pm, purplepeep said:

orlandocajun said:
Purplepeep, I would never doubt the word of Nancy Reagan. I’m doubting that she ever said it since she wasn’t quoted.

I undertood, OC. It’s just that I’m not surprised at people’s personal views on others, so this wouldn’t faze me if it’s so.

(I’m even less surprised on these things after recent endorsements by folks like Duncan Hunter!)
#125

On January 31st, 2008 at 7:15 pm, tgusa said:

If Romney loses I will be happy to vote for McCain, as soon as he pulls his head out. I’m not holding my breath. However, a vote for the dems is a vote for islamists. Remember my friend Dr. abu jihad sharia? Well I hate to be right in this case but how about abu malik mujahid, translated = king holy warrior, yes the dem national committee has this fellow on board. How stupid can one be, well not as dumb as Obama and his jihadist outreach program.
#126

On January 31st, 2008 at 7:43 pm, reutersrutter said:

Romney will win in the next round of who is the most capable. How do I know? A mad Canadian Liberal family member was very impressed by the last debate. McCain, to him came across like one of our, say anything, Lieberal political hacks that finally went down to defeat. I must give him a Rush membership before he weakens!
#127

On January 31st, 2008 at 10:41 pm, Ombre Rose said:

Did anybody see Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes, on Thursday night, Jan31′08???

WOW! DID SHE HIT IT OUT OF THE BALL PARK!

If Mitt Romney doesn’t get the nomination, I will be writing in Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin - NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!

These two ladies are my biggest heroes.

Newt Gingrich follows and says “HOW SHOCKING OF ANN COULTER”!!!!

Well - NOWHERE NEAR AS SHOCKED AS I WAS IN THE FALL of ‘06 when Newt Gingrich sat there in that same seat SCORNING SEAN HANNITY ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND OPEN BORDERS - telling SEAN to “GET PRAGMATIC” - and laughing it up in his face with ALAN COLMES - and then sitting there tonight CLAIMING HE IS FOR BORDER SECURITY!

He is the SAME as McCAIN - he kept DEADLY SILENT during the Shamnesty debates last Spring - and only popped up and CLAIMED to be for Border Security AFTER he saw how well-skewered McCAIN roasted himself on that issue!

I am with Ann and I think I am with Michelle - if the GOP is STUPID ENOUGH to vote for McCain for the “CAUSE OF ELECTABILITY” with MILLIONS of CONSERVATIVES saying WE WILL NOT VOTE GOP IF THEY NOMINATE McCAIN, and them telling us THEY KNOW we will get over it in the face of Hillary - THEY DO NOT COMPREHEND how thrilling it will be to watch the GOP SINK, after all that the GOP has done to the Conservatives and to the NATION in favor of “sidling up to” the DEMOCRATS.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES on that last QUOTE.

Because at THAT point, NOTHING FURTHER can be done to save the UNION, (anyway).
I think it was Samuel Adams??? at that last convention they held with England trying to come to terms - at which he used a statement to that effect to signal the end of negotiations with the British.

There is nothing left to negotiate with the GOP.

They claim McCain is ELECTABLE while IGNORING how many of us are howling at them in HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED ANGER AND NUMBERS.

Where is the “ELECTABILITY” IN THAT!

If they want “ELECTABILITY”, then it is up to them to come to the table with something VIABLE.

Not voting for any Democrat SKUNK in GOP sheep’s clothing.

Ann is right - Hillary is TO THE RIGHT of McCAIN!

And SHE is offering FREE T-SHIRTS to anyone who will promise to vote for her.

Sean Hannity thinks we Conservatives will NOT go there - HE thinks that we will hold our nose and vote for the #$##$%#@$$$%$#%#$$%#$ anyway.

I do not know how to send Sean a clue, or I would - I know every site for him is stuffed to the gills and he probably doesn’t ever see a smideon of his mail - sheer not enough hours of the day.

Brace yourself, Sean - I didn’t vote for Gerald Ford - I did not vote for Robert Dole - I did not vote for H. Ross Perot — The Bushes ARE AS FAR LEFT AS I WILL GO.

And McCain is NOT AN OPTION.
#128

On January 31st, 2008 at 10:56 pm, Ombre Rose said:

It’s not too late for Mitt yet. His site needs to be bombarded with advice and demands from everyone who still wants a two party country. A lot of good advice from the posters above. Get moving!

AND MONEY, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE IT!

It will take a LOT of money to beat the Old Guard RANKS that have closed against Mitt and joined with RIGHT AND LEFT TV AND NEWPRINT MEDIA.

SHOW MITT SOME LOVE, FOLKS!

BTW, the Frank Lutz focus groups STILL HIGHLY FAVOR MITT, too!
#129

On January 31st, 2008 at 11:01 pm, Ombre Rose said:

On January 31st, 2008 at 11:45 am, mike volpe said:
The idea that McCain isn’t conservative is pure lunacy.

Call him anything you want - HAWKISH DOES NOT TRY TO CLOSE GITMO FOR “TORTURING” THE TERRORISTS, OR LEAD THE CHARGE ON CALLING ABU GHRAIB A SCANDAL OF TOTURE, TOO - OR UNDERMINE RUMSFIELD
WRITE THE MOST POWERFUL ANTI-FIRST AMENDMENT LEGISLATION SINCE 1790
And backstab the CONSERVATIVES in Congress while sucking up to the MOST LIBERAL EXTREMIST DEMOCRATS in Congress.

If UNITY is so important to you, THEN VOTE WITH YOUR PARTY BASE.

If LIBERALISM is THIS important to you - JOIN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.

McCAIN: “WALLSTREET NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED!”
#130

On January 31st, 2008 at 11:37 pm, Ombre Rose said:

Ann Coulter looked it up before she went on Hannity and Colmes tonight - remember all the times lately that McCain says ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICANS were beating up on him for advocating The SURGE???

TURNS OUT EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN WAS SUPPORTING THE SURGE FULLY - only McCain’s DIM FRIENDS were beating up on him for advocating WHAT ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICANS WERE ALREADY ADVOCATING.

Yes, I am mad.

If we cannot LOCK CAPS over a McCain - what is the key there for???

So wake up you GOP Moderates - DECIDE what you want worst - to hold out for McCain til the BITTER END? or to beat Hillary.

Because we will guarantee a McCain defeat - same as we did Robert Dole and Gerald Ford.

And I will sleep easy for the first time in a long long time, when I see McCain the Backstabber go down in flames.

GO ANN COULTER AND MICHELLE MALKIN AND RUSH LIMBAUGH AND PATRIOTS.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!
#131

On January 31st, 2008 at 11:46 pm, Ombre Rose said:

On January 31st, 2008 at 7:15 pm, tgusa said:

Yeah, the DIMS support the terrorists.

SO DOES McCAIN - “WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE” “GITMO IS TORTURE” “ABU GHRAIB IS TORTURE” - WRITES AND PUSHES THROUGH McCAIN ANIT-TORTURE BILL at height of Abus Ghraib scandal WHICH HE LED THE CHARGE OF SCANDALIZING - “PANTIES ON THE HEAD IS TORTURE” - TO TERRORISTIS so therefore McCain opposes all that torture.

If you want to know how he deals with TORTURES of the ISLAMIC AND COMMUNIST NORTH VIETCONG VARIETY - look up his MEET AND GREET of the VIETCONG in CONGRESS in the 1990’s while HE was negotiating a PERSONALLY LUCRATIVE TREATY AND BUSINESS CONTRACTS with the North Vietnamese WHO HELD HIM AT HANOI HILTON, ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.
He was the FIRST to go and greet the Vietcong leader who was most directly over his prisonership - AND GAVE THE MAN A HUGE BIG WARM HUG!

ON THE SENATE FLOOR!

Is THAT the actions of a HAWK????

Or something else, again!!!

John McSanta Anna
#132

On January 31st, 2008 at 11:54 pm, Ombre Rose said:

On January 31st, 2008 at 5:26 pm, orlandocajun said:
Purplepeep, I would never doubt the word of Nancy Reagan. I’m doubting that she ever said it since she wasn’t quoted.

She is a gracious lady and I would never besmirch her.

But I was shocked that she supported EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH since by the time she did, tons was known about the CANCERS in that research and lack of success - while tons of success was KNOWN AND BURIED about the other types of stem cells, such as umbilical cords and adult, and skin, etc….
Deeply shocked.

I wrote that off to her isolation and her desperate situation.

Whether she does in fact personally and not publicly endorse McCain doesn’t change the fact - as Ann said, we love her because she devotedly loves Ronald Reagan, and he, her - but NOT because of HER political views.

If the GOP chooses to go down with McSanta Anna, then good riddance.

It is time they made a clear and definitive choice.

As they say, cut bait or fish.
#133

On February 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am, Ombre Rose said:

McCain has shown his ~~tolerance~~ - rabid compulsive obsession - for amnesty - and that is strike #1 in conservative minds.

There, fixed.

Please don’t keep on forgetting Juan Hernandez, Jerry Perenchio, Huckleberry, Dah Ahnold Man, Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy, Hanoi John, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lindsey Graham, and all McSanta Anna’s OTHER ALLIES in the desperate bit to shove McSHAMNESTY down our throats.

THAT is NOT “TOLERANCE” by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

That is like calling Katrina a nice summer breeze, suitable for sipping mint juleps on the veranda.
#134

On February 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am, tgusa said:

Its torture for the islamists to live in a world of as they say, unbelievers. So what does McCain propose we do, commit suicide? I know Obama wants us to understand them. Over here wife beating and child abuse are illegal, over there it’s a requirement. Does he expect us to become more like them or the other way round? Just askin.