Coulter Will Campaign for Hillary over McCain

Click her: Clinton/Coulter 2008

Does anybody consider Ann Coulter relevant?

All I can say is if it comes down to a choice between McCain and Hillary I'm getting everyone's passports in order.

Tonight, on Cavuto's show, Coulter made a new offer: “If McCain weren’t a dunce, what he would do is take Mitt Romney as his vice president,'' she said on FOX. "That’s the only way, I think, you could get me to vote for him and that’s my final offer.”

I happen to like Ann Coulter but I realize she isn't everyobdy's cup of tea. I don't have any ultimata for McCain. I'm not sure but what I'm going to become a libertarian. Or maybe change my party based on the election... I'd change now to vote for any democrat willing to challenge Darrell McGraw except that I'm still a candidate and would like to vote for myself.

Ann Coulter was on the Today show this morning and the woman has 2 adam's apples.

I'm still a little nauseous.

I have a question for you Jimmy.

I read Ann's reason for not supporting McCain and while there are many, the biggest one I get (not only from her but others as well) is the opposition to McCain-Fiengold. (Maybe I shouldn't say opposition becasue what I take from it is outright hatred over that one bill.)

I'm curious as to what your opposition to Sen. McCain is?

You like Ann Coulter? Do you like her the way I like O'Reilly (he's sometimes mildly amusing) or do you really admire her?

Aaron wrote:I have a question for you Jimmy.

I read Ann's reason for not supporting McCain and while there are many, the biggest one I get is the opposition to McCain-Fiengold.

The McCain-Fiengold Bill should be all the reason any "fair & balanced" voter needs to oppose McCain. That Bill "muffled and muzzled the voice" of the Free Speech Rights of the private citizen.

McCain kept pushing amnesty even when it was pretty clear nobody outside of Congress supported amnesty. And he rubbed it in my face when he crossed the aisle and teamed up with Ted Kennedy to push amnesty. When many of us complained he replied that we were "nativist and racist". I'm thinking since he makes the law I'd like to see some respect for it out of him. This is my principal complaint but there are others...

McCain would rather hundreds of Americans die than to inconvenience Sheik Mohammed Khalid by running a little water up his nose. I'm having a little problem with that.

McCain would rather try Muslims found with Khalishnikov high-powered rifles and communications equipment in Afghanistan and Iraq in domestic courts and respresented by the ACLU than to segregate them in Guantanamo Bay.

He voted against Bush's tax cuts twice. Bush hasn't done much right but he did cut taxes. McCain doesn't support tax cuts. He's on record. He says he wants to make them permanent now. What's changed?

In trying to keep so much money out of politics McCain-Feingold put restrictions on political speech - exactly the kind of free speech most highly prized by the Framers. Russ Feingold himself was involved in the one and only test to McCain-Feingold and I need to look up the details before I show my ignorance.

There were threats a while back to invoke the "nuclear solution" on judicial appointments. Judicial appointments were backing up and not getting approved. They had a simple majority but the threat of a filibuster was bottling them up. The so-called nuclear solution would have invoked cloture and forced the appointments out on a simple majority vote as opposed to the two thirds vote historically required. McCain and his little toady, Lindsey Graham, were part of a cabal that fostered a compromise solution which maintained the filibuster as an effective weapon. Given the fact that majority control is a sort of a whimsical thing and in retrospect, maybe he did the right thing.

He's strong on spending. I can support him there...

Stephanie wrote:You like Ann Coulter? Do you like her the way I like O'Reilly (he's sometimes mildly amusing) or do you really admire her?

I think Ann Coulter is great. She is one of the very few whose majority of statements and accusations are based on "sound reasoning and logical deductions". But a lot of people "don't get them" (understand them) because they are expressed in a satirical way. (the same as most of Terry Hagdorn's comments/posts).

I also like Glen Beck for similar reasons.

O'Reilly, ..... I use to watch every day, ..... but in the past 12 months he has "gone to hell in the proverbial hand basket" and started catering to the simple minded lefty liberals and the "don't have a clue" moderates.

Playing ...... Trivial Pursuit, ..... Celebrity News Flash, ...... Good Girl - Bad Boy, ...... Read Their Reactions, ...... etc., ...... is just a new version of "Entertainment TV" that he use to MC.

.

You like Ann Coulter? Do you like her the way I like O'Reilly (he's sometimes mildly amusing) or do you really admire her?

I like smart alecks. I was one. My friends all were. I could have a drink with her.

I really don't care for any of them any more. Everybody gets on my nerves these days. Michelle Malkin I want to smack. I really enjoyed watching Shepard Smith. I can't say why exactly....his sense of humor perhaps. In any event I've banned Fox News so I haven't seen him in a couple of months.

Lou Dobbs makes me crazy too. I agree with him on some issues but he's just too indignant all the time, I think. Don't even get me going on the rest of the CNN crew....Blitzer & Cooper etc. UGH!!!!

I haven't watched ABC since Jennings left. I like him a lot. I tried once to watch Katie Couric, couldn't do it. My point is, even the anchors are on my last nerve.

OK, now that I've had lunch and a little time to digest this, lets see where this takes us.

ohio county wrote:McCain kept pushing amnesty even when it was pretty clear nobody outside of Congress supported amnesty. And he rubbed it in my face when he crossed the aisle and teamed up with Ted Kennedy to push amnesty. When many of us complained he replied that we were "nativist and racist". I'm thinking since he makes the law I'd like to see some respect for it out of him. This is my principal complaint but there are others...

In principal, if I'm not right on with you on immigration, I'm pretty damn close. About the only place we might not be on the same wave length is in guest workers programs. I think something should be done along those lines. I also believe we should secure our borders, build a fence, kick the illegals here out, go the whole 9 yards...

Thing is, I know it's not only not likely to happen, I know it's not practical.

The best way to secure our borders is to put enough border guards there and give them authorization to shoot anyone coming in. I know it sounds extreme but do you have any idea how quickly it would stop the massive amount of illegals attempting to cross on a daily basis?

Even if we don't shoot illegals, catching, detaining and shipping them back will still require massive amounts of people that will cost billions and what will end up happening that always happens when enforcement cracks down; the criminals move. There's what, 1500 to 1600 miles of border between CA, AZ, NM and TX alone, and that's not counting coast lines.

We could build a fence at a cost of BILLIONS and all then what. The illegals will go around, over or under to get in. The only way to stop it is with manpower so you're back to square one.

To McCain's credit, he realizes that it's not as simple as saying "secure the border" and "kick em out" and the likelyhood of us deporting 12 million or 20 million or how ever many of them there are isn't practical. And also to his credit, he's at least tried to come up with a solution. He could have set back and issued the same tired soundbites that don't work that everyone else has issued but he didn't do that. He acted.

What we have to do is come up with a long term solution to solve this problem and to be honest, I don't think we can solve it without help from Mexico. The only way to stop illegals from coming here is if they have no reason to come here. We've got to stop letting them enrol in our schools, go to our hospitals, getting our welfare, stop taking care of them, and crack down on business that hire them big time and that's what we need to do on our end.

But the bottom line is, we can't solve this problem alone. We have to engage the Mexican government and tell them that if they don't help with the problem all foreign aid is going to stop. In fact, go ahead and stop the foreign aid and tell them they get nothing back unless they crack down on the flow of illegals.

That's one thing I don't think I've heard any candidate say. We've got candidates that want to talk to Iran and Syria about solving Iraq's problems but none that want to talk to Mexico about their problem.

ohio county wrote:McCain would rather hundreds of Americans die than to inconvenience Sheik Mohammed Khalid by running a little water up his nose. I'm having a little problem with that.

I have a huge problem with that as well. One man's torture is another man's way to get information. I remember when we were in Panama, some orgainzation claimed our troops blaring rock music was 'torture'. I know there is a line but imo, politicians shouldn't be the ones defining that line. That should be left up to experts that know what they are talking about.

ohio county wrote:McCain would rather try Muslims found with Khalishnikov high-powered rifles and communications equipment in Afghanistan and Iraq in domestic courts and respresented by the ACLU than to segregate them in Guantanamo Bay.

No argument here. I disagree with McCain on this as well.

ohio county wrote:He voted against Bush's tax cuts twice. Bush hasn't done much right but he did cut taxes. McCain doesn't support tax cuts. He's on record. He says he wants to make them permanent now. What's changed?

That one I halfway understand. This is the first time we've ever went to war without paying as we go and look at our deficit, which we HAVE to address. Personally, I'd reduce the money from entitlement programs and foreign aid but we both know that isn't going to fly.

ohio county wrote:In trying to keep so much money out of politics McCain-Feingold put restrictions on political speech - exactly the kind of free speech most highly prized by the Framers. Russ Feingold himself was involved in the one and only test to McCain-Feingold and I need to look up the details before I show my ignorance.

This I am very interested in reading once you find those details.

ohio county wrote:There were threats a while back to invoke the "nuclear solution" on judicial appointments. Judicial appointments were backing up and not getting approved. They had a simple majority but the threat of a filibuster was bottling them up. The so-called nuclear solution would have invoked cloture and forced the appointments out on a simple majority vote as opposed to the two thirds vote historically required. McCain and his little toady, Lindsey Graham, were part of a cabal that fostered a compromise solution which maintained the filibuster as an effective weapon. Given the fact that majority control is a sort of a whimsical thing and in retrospect, maybe he did the right thing.

I think every political appointee should be voted on, yes or no, within XX days of nomination. This should be a constitutional amendment and would sove a ton of partisan politics.

ohio county wrote:He's strong on spending. I can support him there...

Hopefully, this is an area where he won't cave. Time will tell.