The American Spectator : Sean Hannity’s Time for Choosing

coal carrier| 6.28.10 @ 7:14AM

Mr. Hannity is a good conservative and he is on our team. However, when he asks a question he needs to let the person answer without interrupting half way through their response.

Alan Brooks| 6.28.10 @ 8:18AM

" [snip] and strong social values"

That has gone. The patrimony is trashed.

Alan Brooks| 6.28.10 @ 8:25AM

PS,
in a more feministic era one might say the matrimony is trashed, as well. you can't see how things have changed in the last decade? and no, I do NOT blame Bush for THAT.

The Derb called compassionate conservative vapid, he didn't say mistaken.

Occam's Tool| 6.28.10 @ 1:16PM

"Compassionate Conservatism" is mistaken. Government should be a safety net for severely disabled people, fine. But it's not used that way. And the more Gov't does, the weaker we become. Come on, Alan, you were so good on France.

Alan Brooks| 6.28.10 @ 2:27PM

Dissing France is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Liberty? that's a tough one.
Without decency, what good is it? when families go bad, then Social Services steps in. IMO only in a world without families could libertarianism be valid.

And if I were an optimist, AS wouldn't be the first choice for a site. This isn't the Optimist's Web club; Emmett Tyrrell isn't Rebecca of SunnyBrook Farm.

Christopher Holland| 6.28.10 @ 8:27PM

If you want Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, go look in the children's section of the bookshop. Emmett Tyrrell writes for adults, he doesn't write nursery rhymes for toddlers.

Bruce | 6.28.10 @ 3:49PM

What the hell is with this penchant of yours to constantly reply to your own comments, Brooks? Do you also answer your own questions when speaking - or do you just have this liberal thing about seeing your name and words in print?

Clinton nee Publius | 6.28.10 @ 12:06PM

What team would that be?

What have the Republicans done that is fundamentally different from the corrupt liberals?

The biggest spending big-government President in history is Barack Obama. Before him the winner was George W. Bush. Before GWB the winner was Bill Clinton. Before Bill Clinton the winner was George H.W. Bush. Before GHWB the winner was Ronald Reagan.

My point here is that supporting the Republicans will not emancipate us from big government. The Republicans just have their own version of big government that is different from the corrupt liberal model of big government.

We need a system of government that seeks to eliminate government from our lives altogether and have it replaced by the private sector wherever and whenever possible.

This will never happen with Democrats and is very unlikely to ever happen with Republicans. After all, if the Republicans do our bidding then their power will be reduced and they will never voluntarily reduce their power - look at what they did to Joe Barton and Joe Wilson when these people stood up and pointed out the corruption.

Our only hope is the Tea Party and taking over the Tea Party with the thought of tearing down the majority enjoyed by the Republicans and Democrats and replacing it with a new system of privatization that replaces the corrupt system we see today.

Mr. Hannity won't support that and that is where my path and Mr. Hannity's go separate directions.

Cris Worth| 6.28.10 @ 7:33AM

If I remember correctly Hannity favored Romney in the '08 GOP primaries. Romney is hardly a Republican of "bold colors" in the mode of Reagan. I wonder who Hannity will support in '12?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 7:50AM

Certain Libertarians try and deceitfully paint Sean in a bad light by saying this. Just as some try and paint me (and other conservatives as well) in the same bad light for voting for McCain.

The reality is that Fred Thompson dropped out of the race. Good conservatives will back the best Republican possible and not sit out the elections or write in a loser's name on the ballot. For the sake of the country we will not allow our votes to be thrown away.

How's that hope n' change working out for ya?

Alan Brooks| 6.28.10 @ 8:21AM

You confuse optimism with GULLIBILITY.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 8:28AM

You view optimism through your pessimistic eyes.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.28.10 @ 9:30AM

Margie,
Please try to remember that Alan is merely Psychotic.
I have not completed my diagnosis quite yet, but he is some interesting combination of "dual personalities".....and "bi-polar".

We have all gotten used to his dual posts. Extremely indicative of a serious "cognitive disconnect".
I just get a sad smile and move on. Hope you can too.
This long of a discussion of "him" already has him uh...pleasuring himself.
Heh.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 9:43AM

Well Ken, we've all got our problems. Some of us brought out of near insanity and in the depths and nether regions of sin to be saved by Grace. Sometimes Alan does come out for the truth. I've seen that, too. One thing about Alan is that he is who is is and doesn't hide it. God can work with that, this I know from experience. May He reveal to Alan the same mercy and overwhelming love He's shown to me, and to you.. as I know this for a certainty, too.

Jesus specializes cognitive disconnects.

Occam's Tool| 6.28.10 @ 1:18PM

Dear Ken,

Remember, even though Alan screws up a lot, he was right on France. From that there may be saving.

Christopher Holland| 6.28.10 @ 8:33PM

But you confuse contrarianism with intelligence, which is probably worse. At least optimism is not pretentious and pontificating and there is no hint of faux morality and preening, patronising intellectual superiority. I will take the optimism any day of the week.

Cris Worth| 6.28.10 @ 10:24AM

Fred Thompson was another phony "bold colors" Republican...social liberal and lest not we forget voted to acquit Bill on one charge of impeachment.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 10:40AM

Cris,

I see. So, in your eyes there just wasn't a good enough candidate, then. I truly believe this is a hue problem amongst conservatives and how we lost the election to Obama.

Why is it that we have to fight against ourselves and lose? Why cannot we elect a Republican administration and work with it? We have a 2 party system, it's just the reality. I can't stand it when people are "socially liberal" either. I'm a Christian. I hate Liberalism in all of its forms. BUT! We also have to work with what we've got.
Good
Better
and Best.
But the best isn't always what we can get, so you can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Cliche ole!
But seriously folks, we just need to WIN in 2010 and in 2012. And from now on.
Remember what Rush said? There are no Marxists or Communists in the Republican party.
They may not be perfect~but then again~are we?

Cris Worth| 6.28.10 @ 10:53AM

What qualifications did Fred Thompson have to be President? Enlighten me...could it be he is a movie/TV star? Reagan was as well but he had solid core conservative principles, said so and governed that way. Thompson was a political mish mash of nothing in the mode of Bob Dole another phony "bold colors". To this day I still don't know what Bob Dole stood for. Thompson like Romney tried to hide this social liberalism in '08 but failed miserably. Voted to acquit Bill...phoey on Fred.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 11:06AM

Let me ask YOU this: What are YOUR conservative principles? What must a candidate possess in order to pass YOUR smell test?

Or is it a hopeless question?
Must they be a non-interventionist?

Cris Worth| 6.28.10 @ 12:52PM

You did not answer the question...what about Fred Thompson that stood out in comparison to other GOP candidates in '08? If it was his movie/TV star image admit it there is no shame in it. If it wasn't then tell me what were his presidential qualifications?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 1:20PM

Fred Thompson. A man who understands what freedom means. A man who is for a strong Military Defense, a strong economy, and free market capitalism, pro-Second Ammendment, Pro-Life, pro legal immagration.. need more?

Now answer mine.

Cris Worth| 6.28.10 @ 1:39PM

I can't disagree with your fundamental principles, but Fred's Pro-Life stance is dubious at best. His lobbying for Pro-Abortion groups tells another tale. And his acquittal of Bill's perjury impeachment charge using specious arguments of impeachable offense or not when Fred himself believed Clinton was guilty of perjury. What caused Thompson's presidential campaign to flame out so quick? Could it be the two items I just mentioned?

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 1:58PM

Many of us conservatives never even got a chance to vote for a number of conservative republican candidates , due to Super Tuesday Front Loading .
For what it's worth ,Thompson's lifetime ACU rating is 86.1 and we fell off Thompson's campaign sled anyhow.
Arizona Sen. John McCain's lifetime ACU rating is 82.3.

McCain was a Serial Traitor to Conservatism.

McCain-Feingold ,McCain-Kennedy , McCain-Lieberman , Gang of 14 , Opposition to 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts , Aaaaand TARP.

Occam's Tool| 6.28.10 @ 1:23PM

Conservative candidate:

Musts: keep taxes low. Support free enterprise.
Keep spending low, except for defense as needed.
Oppose the culture of death.
Stand against tyranny; in Reagan's time, Communism, in ours, Islamofascism.
Protect free speech and the right to bear arms.
Don't apologize to scum.

That's about it. With the exception of his abortion views, Guiliani was almost perfect, and was closest to the best of our Presidential candidates running. He also had great demonstrated executive ability, making NYC much safer during his tenure. A deal could have been made where he agreed to appoint no pro-choice Supreme Court justices, which is the only place a President's views on abortion matter.

Occam's Tool| 6.28.10 @ 1:27PM

Which is why I would not vote for Ron Paul, because he is even farther to the Left than Obama on foreign policy. When you find a foreign policy vote where Ron Paul has NOT voted with Dennis Kucinich, please let me know.

Under Paul our Republic would be doomed, as our enemies would kill us.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 1:39PM

I despise the views held by the non-interventionists. I would vote for one of them only if they by some fluke won the nomination for the Presidency, for the sheer fact that along with him would come a Republican administration.

I doubt very much if that would ever happen though. Most Americans realize his Leftist views on war.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 2:06PM

Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul :
”The only proper way to go to war, the only legal way to go to war, the only constitutional way to go to war is to declare the war, by the congress, not by the president. The people should be behind it.”

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Warrior | 6.28.10 @ 1:48PM

Would you vote against George Washington? He believed in limited foreign alliances as when you make an ally, you acquire their enemies. Guiliani was head and shoulders above McCain and I would not have had to hold my nose voting for him. The question I have for you is this. Do you really believe that Guiliani who has a pro-choice view would have appointed a liberal judge??? To eliminate him based on his view of abortion has extremely limited the conservative viewpoint. Using your standards, almost every Republican should be cast out of office as Dennis Kucinich was a no vote on the initial health care bill going through the congress. That means many R's voted the same way. Excellent criteria when applied across the board.

njoriole| 6.28.10 @ 10:40PM

Rudy was my candidate too, and I was very much looking forward to voting for him in the primary. Unfortunately, he didn't really seem to have the "fire in the belly" for the job, as witnessed by his bizarre "I'll wait 'til the Florida primary before really trying" strategy. By the time New Jersey Repubs. got to vote, my only choice not named McCain was Romney. It was kind of like looking forward to a good filet mignon, only to find out that the kitchen ran out, and I had to choose between a hot dog or spinach souffle.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 2:40PM

Giuliani ain't a Social Conservative.

" Rudy in his own words , supports of Roe vs. Wade, gun control, and gay marriage. You can see why the Christian right thinks he’s just so peachy! "

Warrior | 6.28.10 @ 11:11AM

Margie, respectful to your opion. I can no longer hold my nose and vote for the Republican candidate who more looks like a "Democrat Lite" candidate. The leadership of the Republican party has become disjointed and lost. If McCain had his way, Lieberman would have been his choice for VP, what does that tell you about the candidate. The only candidate that was willing to stand up for a Constitutional government, Ron Paul, gets ridiculed and laughed at. While no candidate is ever perfect. Pick out from the list below the candidate that most likely attempt to lead and govern by the our founding fathers original intent:

John McCain
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
Ron Paul
Sarah Palin
Rudy Guiliani

McCain finishes dead last on that list. Don't expect us to vote for any Republican because they are better than the alternative. They only bring about the socialist change slower. The Republican party needs to give us candidates that offer a clear difference from a Democrat. Until such a time we are not changing the game, only slowing the clock towards the inevitable conclusion.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 11:28AM

Well Warrior,

Here we have it, then. We will go on handing elections over to the Left because of our divisions. It truly breaks me heart.

I would pull the lever for your Ron Paul IF he were the Republican nominee, because it would bring us a Republican administration. I hate with all my being the Communists in the Democrat party, as I hope you do as well. Now why is it that you guys in the Paul camps can't do the same?

You guys b!@#$ and moan about conservatives not being conservative enough and call us hypocrites and "Israel-Firsters" and phonies and all manner of lies, and yet we do the right thing. We vote for the Republican nominee because we want the PARTY to be in POWER instead of the COMMUNISTS! Why can't you guys get that?

This thought you have and I've heard it before, about "only slowing the clock towards Socialism." That is totally the enemy (that would be God's enemy, the Devil) deluded you off to sleep. He is completely tricking you if you believe that lie. Because it EXACTLY gets you to not vote! If you don't vote, guess who'd party is going to win? His. Do you think that the party of Communism is not the Devil's? Communism is anti-freedom. It sucks away the individual freedom of the human being.

How could you say that voting against the Communists is in ANY way contributing to Socialism, because that is what you are saying in reality. You're saying that by voting Republican it is actually contributing to the Communists, or as you say, Socialism. And you don't even see it!

I appreciate you very much for commenting to me in the way that you did and I only wish to try and wake you up to the reality that if we do not destroy this party BY voting 'R' we are going to have even heavier punishment under the Communist-in Chief.

This alone should make everyone want to vote for the opposition party but sadly I think we are going to be in for more of the same.

Warrior | 6.28.10 @ 12:12PM

You speak of waking up, that's the problem for Republicans, I did. I voted R for many years and ended up with higher taxes, bigger government, illegal alien amnesty part 1, higher deficits, SCHIP, no child left behind, medicare prescription drug program.

What the left implements today, the right will be defending in a few years. Name one "R" who is advocating the changes that are needed. Here's something we may need to wait a little time on but I would be happy to speak with you when it occurs. If the repubs take control of both houses, how many of our elected R's are going to defend Universal Health Care? How many of them are going to sit quietly by while social security and medicare bankrupt the country?

The Clown in Chief was not elected because of me. He was elected because there were no clear choices given the American people since the contract with America seems to have been terminated with extreme predjudice.

We are not in for more of the same. The impending bankruptcy will change everything.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 12:28PM

Groaning... well Warrior, shall I listen to you? I will not. Never the twian shall meet. Instead of beating the Democrats, you're turning your gun to your own side.

I so utterly despise the view of the Liberal Libertarians. It is pure insanity.

Warrior | 6.28.10 @ 1:41PM

Respectfully, no you should not listen to me. I have my own opinions and values that guide my decisions. If you want to discuss a topic, then discuss it. There is no need to groan or start dispersing with libertarian name calling. You are desciribing the definition of insanity. Continue to do the same things over and over again and expect different results. My goal is not to beat the democrats but to return to a government based on the Constitution. I would vote for any party that ran and delivered on that alone.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 1:56PM

I do despise the Liberal Libertarian views. I will despise them till I go to my grave. If you want to call it name calling, fine.

Ron Paul and his non-interventionist views are the definition of insanity. He has a cult following in that you guys refuse to vote for amyone that isn't a non-interventionist guy. That's the truth and I'm sticking to it.

How on earth do you intend on electing a party based on the Constitution (which the Republican party IS)~ if you don't vote for it? Unless of course you truly are not interested in the Republican party winning.

And THAT is where the truth lies.

Warrior | 6.28.10 @ 2:20PM

Republican part is a party based on the Constitution. Maybe the funniest the line I've read in a month. Good luck Margie, you are defining better than I ever could why the Republican party is losing. Maybe the RNC can find a few more Didi Scarzafava's (one example) they can support over a "more" conservative candidate.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 2:44PM

The typical Liberal tactic.

I suppose you don't like Sarah Palin either? She said that the Republican party best reflects her conservative views and its planks are right.

You aren't intersted in the party being restored though because you refuse to vote for a candidate that isn't a Paulite.

Since you have no interest then, there's absolutely no talking to you.

Warrior | 6.28.10 @ 3:27PM

Unfortunately, you are using the liberal tactics. When you can't discuss the topic reasonably, attack the messenger. Palin was not a candidate for President and has a razor thin political resume. She was a political gamble as the pick for VP which backfired. I would have rather voted for Palin for president than McCain truth be told as she was closer to conservative than he ever will be. I congratulate her on making tons of cash writing a book and going on the speaking tour. I see her quitting as governor as negative. When you speak about the party being restored, the question is restored to what? You, like Hannity attempt to speak down to those conservatives that won't mimic your limited viewpoints. It is the intollerant in both parties that are destroying this country.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 4:13PM

I'm sorry Warrior, you and your Paulite pals will not vote for a candidate unless they are a non-interventionist.

You are not interested in restoring the Republican party, therefore all of your "conservative" posturing is phoney baloney.

Tay| 6.28.10 @ 5:34PM

"Here we have it, then. We will go on handing elections over to the Left because of our divisions. "

Has it ever occurred to you that voting "against" someone is just as bad as not voting at all?

If the Republicans can't field a candidate that I, or others, truly support,then what difference does it make if that Republican is elected? The results will always be the same.

There's not much difference between a Republican and a Democrat these days. I believe that if you can't find a candidate you support in ether of the two major parties, then for a third party, or an independent, and let your voice truly be heard. Our vote is the only REAL voice we have in government anymore.

I will no more vote for a Republican candidate I do not support than I would vote for any other candidate from any other party that I do not support. I will NOT sell my vote to one party just so the other party's candidate can't win. If I do, then I abandon my own convictions, my own principles, and that I will not do. It is that very abandonment of principles that is the cause of all of this "division."

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:48PM

Did it ever occur to me? What occurs to me is that we need to hound the Democrat party out of office. The ONLY way to do this is to vote Republican. Those are the cold hard facts. Why is it that that fact is completely and utterly lost on you guys?

No~ voting for the opposition party IS following my principles. I understand that we have an enemy to defeat. And it isn't the Republican party.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 5:59PM

"The ONLY way to do this is to vote Republican."

No, it isn't. People can chose whichever candidate they wish. There are several parties in which to chose from, you know. Some are even quite popular. But voting Republican just to keep a Democrat out of office would be an easy way to keep a third party from gaining prominence, correct?

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 6:04PM

"I understand that we have an enemy to defeat."

That, I believe, is the major problem with politics today in America. Far too may people think of politics as some type of warfare as are willing to abandon their own principles in order to "defeat" someone else.

Here's an idea, vote for who you LIKE, not against those you HATE! That way you get better representation. That way we ALL get better representation. That's what we're supposed to be doing, choosing the best person to represent us as individuals, correct?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 6:24PM

"Vote for the person you like". That's about a fifth grader's outlook though. You are not abandoning your principles to vote to make sure the party that opposes the Democrat Communist party wins.

And it IS a war. In case you haven't noticed it is a war between the Left and the Right. A war between right and wrong. A battle between Socialism, Communism, and the utter destruction of our country and those who want to try and stop it.

Of course you want the person that best represents your values, but lots of luck finding the perfect person because they do not exist. The point is, like Sarah Palin said~ you vote for the party that best represents your values, and I agree with her when she says that the Republican party best represents the conservative's values.

Voting early in the Primaries for your candidate helps to ensure they win, along with sending money, and spreading the word.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 6:41PM

"That's about a fifth grader's outlook though."

No, it isn't. As a matter of fact, it's one of the founding principles of our very form of Government. We, the people chose who shall represent us. We can do this individually, make the choices based upon our own personal beliefs and ideals, just as we should. We don't need to choose from a list of approved party candidates. WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES! Of the People, By the People, For the People, not Of the Party, By the Party , For the Party, remember?

By ingoring our own personal responsibilities, or own personal choices, and mearly selecting a name from a prepared list of party candidates, we, the people, lose our ability to chose those who will best represent us and hand it over to someone else. We abdicate our own freedoms to someone else.

Now, tell me, why should I give up my own individual freedom to decide who will best represent me and simply hand it over to a political party to chose a small selection of potential candidates for me to pick from, especially when those candidates are becoming more and more alienated from my own beliefs, my own principles? Just to make sure someone else doesn't win? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 6:58PM

It is a fifth graders outlook to believe that there are perfect candidates. There aren't any.

We have a 2 party system. Your vote counts. My vote counts. I choose to vote for the party that best represents the values of most of the country. It is far better than the Communists and the fact is that the only way to defeat them is to vote in that party.

Anything short of doing this means another round of the Traitor-in-Chief. Is that really what you want?

Cris Worth| 6.28.10 @ 1:10PM

Rush was wrong...there are plenty of leftists of the clost variety in the GOP. Two examples departing Senator Bennett voted for the confirmation of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsberg. Departed Virginia Senator Warner also voted for Breyer and Ginsberg and voted AGAINST Robert Bork. Just go back over the voting records of the GOP and actions of Republican Presidents as well a couple of decades and see for yourself a shocking display of closet liberalism.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 1:17PM

Yes, yes, I know. It's all utterly hopeless, Cris. :^(

Yes yes 2 examples.

You won't vote Republican unless it's a Paul guy, I get it.

Cris Worth| 6.28.10 @ 1:48PM

Just think if Robert Bork was confirmed Roe v. Wade would probably been overturned and the question of abortion returned to rightful place amongst the states and the people (10th amendment). But Warner and other liberal Republican senators prevented this. Another egregious example of liberal GOP malfeasance came in 1996 when departing Senator Alan Simpson voted NOT to override Clinton's veto of partial-birth abortion. That one vote prevented the override.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 2:00PM

Cris,

I know! But sadly we don't have perfect people and sometimes not even truly conservative people that end up being elected.

This whole conversation comes to nought though because of one factor.

If you will not vote for a candidate unless they are a non-interventionist, then the truth comes down to that you just don't want to see the Republican party win.

Is that the case? You haven't answered my question, though I answered yours.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 6:24PM

Hay, Margie, why does the Republican party "have' to win? They haven't been doing such a good job at upholding Conservative Principles over the last few decades, so why should Conservatives keep supporting them? Wouldn't it be better if Conservatives vote for fellow Conservatories no matter what party the Conservative may be aligned with? That just makes sense to me.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 7:04PM

Ray,

The answer to this is for us to seek out conservatives who are wanting to run and to back them to run in the Republican party. We did this in NJ, VA and MA. Conservatives put our money where our mouths were, ignoring the RNC all together and their candidates. We won! So this is what we need to keep on doing. The reason party matters is because realistically we really are a 2 party system and it is how we can win. The actual planks of the Republican party are good~ Limited government, a strong Military defense, free market Capitalism, pro-life, etc.

njoriole| 6.28.10 @ 10:52PM

You know, I just don't get the idea that the Republican Party can't be reformed from within. Yes, ok, we get it; the Republicans (once they came in from the wilderness and realized that they, too, could dole out the pork) spent like drunken frat boys, just (slightly) less than the Demo-rats. They then got the drubbing they soundly deserved. (Two drubbings, actually, in '06 and '08.) That kind of set-back can do wonders to clarify the mind, and bring one back to sound principles. Unfortunately, some of the Repubs still didn't learn. However, the emergence of the Tea Party activists, coupled with the seismic shifts brought about by the most recent elections (Brown in Mass., Christy here in New Jersey, etc.), should finally make it clear that, in order to win, Republicans must act like Republicans and conservatives, and not just "me-too"'s. Personally, I feel very hopeful about the GOP in 2010 and beyond. One caveat, however: once they retake the House, and/or the Senate, and (God willing) the White House, we can't let them back-slide. Please folks, don't despair, it CAN be done, with diligence.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 10:07AM

Thank you. Notice how not ONE of these people has any interested what so ever in what you had to say. It is because they aren't interested in restoring the Republican party. They want to see it destroyed.

The Leftist Libertarian non-interventionists wouldn't vote for a Republican candidate if they're life depended on it. Not unless they were "one of theirs." The only "true conservatives". They have to be Paulites. Lunatic anti-war candidates.

Lawrence Boccardi| 6.28.10 @ 7:54AM

Ditto to coal carrier.
I am a card-carrying conservative. I like Mr. Hannity, personally, but his news is stale, and the presentation cliche'. Hard to watch.

ds80| 6.28.10 @ 8:11AM

Don't be a dolt, Lawrence. This article is not about how Hannity should stroke your ego and cater to your entertainment preferences.

ENOUGH ROPE| 6.28.10 @ 11:18AM

Lawrence is correct, and I agree with him. Hannity and O'Reilly want to hear themselves instead of their more astute guests. I am astonished that Lord's review has not demanded "Author, author!" Hannity seems incapable of original thinking. He pads his comments with repetitive phrases while waving his hand with the unused pen. Is he imitating Buckley with the pen?
His radio and TV programs are tedious unless he has a major thinker as a guest. It baffles me that a shallow thinker like Hannity is more successful than conservative hosts such as Michael Medved.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 8:12AM

Libertarians don't like Sean Hannity and they'll be here in droves, indeed they're already here.

In truth, Sean is the best thing that's happened to Conservatism since Rush Limbaugh.

Ronald Reagan lives on in Sean. He gets it. God bless him!

Sean, if you happen to be reading this, I used to call your radio show often when you first came to NYC. You called me the iconoclast. Love ya Sean. you've done well!

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.28.10 @ 9:22AM

Hey, Folks.
Speaking of books...

I just finished Glen Beck's "Overton Window".
A novel.
I shan't try to review it here, (or at least yet), but I learned one thing I never knew.

He defines "troll" as on the internet. Now before scrolling down, do you know precisely what it means?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
. "a fishing lure trolled behind a boat."

So, troll watch and youall...may we begin calling these guys..."fish-bait"? "mullet catchers"?
Any other suggestions we can all sorta vote on?

They are here to attract our eyes to either get our eyes off the ball.........or "hook us" to write something to get us on a list.

Heh,
With T.E.A.M America, I'm already listed so I don't give a darn. http://judgeroy.wordpress.com

Nevertheless, we need undercover patriots as well as talkative patriots, so fare yee also well in breaking these communists' (pardon the shorthand), plans.

Beck's book is a fun read, and not at all what you may be expecting.

Doctor Right| 6.28.10 @ 9:57AM

As a Conservative, I'm probably in the minority here (and I'm sure I'll get lot's of nasty replies), but I cannot stand Sean Hannity.

Hannity is, in my humble opinion, the Ted Baxter of the Conservative movement. He really has nothing new to contribute, but he says it boldlyt anyway, and hopes that no one notices.

He cleverly places his show to begin just as Rush Limbaugh's is ending, thus guaranteeing an audience that wants a Conservative viewpoint without having to change the dial.

Howver, Hannity's radio show is in reality a poor rehash of everything that Rush just discussed, except that Rush is very insightful and highly entertaining, while Hannity is simply...not.

Hannity's FOX TV show is also, in my opinion, a dud. Yes...it gets great ratings. But so does "Dancing with the Stars". Getting the lumpenproles to tune in is not indicative of quality. His show was actually much better when the martian-looking co-host Alan Colmes was there to offer the predictable (stupid) leftwing POV...This served to make Hannity look better by comparison. Without Colmes, Hannity and his predictable, schoolboy patriotism just seem vapid and dull.

And don't even get me started on his books. Uggh! A relative bought me one for Christmas a few years back; I couldn't get through it. It was basically everything he says on the radio transformed into print. BLECH!!

I used to listen to Hannity's show every day, as I was a pharma-sales rep, and spent a lot of time in my car. I began to have serous doubts about Hannity during the Abner Louima-Police Buitality case in NYC. Louima was a Haitian immigrant who was brutally beaten (and sodomized with a toilet plunger) in a NYC police station. There was NO doubt that it happened - Louima's rectum was perforated - although crack-pots and knee-jerk police apologists (like Hannity) tired to question Louima's motives, and even entertained whack-jobs that said Louima had done it to himself. Hannity went out of his way, every day, to make sure and say that we should not "rush to judgement until ALL the facts are in", and that "No one knows just how hard a police officer's job is", as if that actually had any relevance whatsoever. He was particularly strident in his defense of Officer Justin Volpe, one of the accused who allegedly performed the worst abuse on Louima.

Lo and behold, the evidence against Volpe became too powerful, and he eventually confessed to the abuse of Louima, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

And how did Hannity react? He stopped speaking highly of Volpe, and INSTANTLY began referring to him, over and over, as "Vicious Volpe". I noticed the flip, and I thought it was pathetic.

Let's be clear: Hannity is NOT a bad person. His opinions are reliably Conservative, and he does help to support Conservative causes, and he sincerely loves his country. His followers like to refer to him a s a "Great American".

OK...Whatever...he's certainly not a bad American. But neither is he a driving force in the Conservative movement. He's a guy on the radio who says the right things to attract an audience that likes their Conservatism wide, but not necessarily too deep. And with all that's happening in our country today, that's simply not enough.

John Navratil| 6.28.10 @ 10:14AM

I have to agree. Colmes was the best thing for Hannity.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 10:14AM

Dr, Right,

I'm doing a survey. Would you refer to yourself as a Libertarian?

Thank you.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 9:46AM

margie, i'm doing a survey. did u forget to take your meds yesterday? have u now, or have u ever been under the care of a psychiatriast? do u suffer from ron paul derangment syndrome?

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 10:11AM

I thought you were banned little miss cookie cutter? You lunatic liar Paul-bots show up to slander the "Neo-cons" on these threads, then you will disappear back into the ether.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 11:32AM

My original screenname WAS banned. Oh well.

This is fun.

Hey Margie, you don't happen to live alone with like 50 or so cats do ya? You remind me of the crazy cat lady who lived on the street I grew up on. She was nuttier than squirrel poop, and so are you. We would walk by her house on the way to school and she would think we were trying to take her mangy, flea-ridden and malnourished cats. You think I'm a neo-communist Libertarian paulite paulbot leftist blah blah blah because, well why was it? Oh yeah because I said I'd like to see "strict Constitutionalist" politicians.

A-effing-MAZING!

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 1:08PM

Still waiting for you to deny anything I said.
Stick to the facts now.
I haven't seen anything so far.
Would you vote for any other candidate other than a non-interventionist?

Your typical demeaning of my character is just that. Typical.

Doctor Right| 6.29.10 @ 4:03PM

Margie:

NO. I'm NOT a Libertarian. I am a CONSERVATIVE.

Warrior | 6.28.10 @ 11:15AM

I agree, doc, Hannity is an "entertainer" first.

ENOUGH ROPE| 6.28.10 @ 11:27AM

Doctor Right, you wrote it much better than I did above.

Bruce | 6.28.10 @ 4:06PM

If you are in the minority I guess I am too. I cannot stomach either Hannity or O'Reilly. To me neither represents conservative principles that *I* believe in. I don't give a DAMN about all this "social conservative" crap a few here continually spew - most of that cannot be affected by the President anyway. Social issues should be left to the states. Period. I want a fiscal conservative leading my party. Small national government. Adherence to our Constitution. This nonsense of inserting this "social v. fiscal conservative" crap into the mix does nothing but assure us of continued Dem/Marxist control over our country and our lives. How do we beat the left when we continue to fight amongst ourselves?

John Navratil| 6.28.10 @ 10:16AM

We are reminded that the Congress needs to "flip" to control the purse. But that is not enough. The executive branch controls the spending and will ensure every dollar authorized to any department is spent in furtherance of this cancer.

Like chemotherapy the balance will be between killing the cancer and killing the patient. I will not be easy or pretty.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 11:36AM

Libertarian Paulites will sit here and bash Hannity, a true conservative and meanwhile they do not even see the pure hypocrisy. The high and mighty Libertarians who are so busy looking down their noses at other conservatives that they don't even realize they are on the side of the Enemy.

Thanks much, guys. Obama II here we come.

Ryan| 6.28.10 @ 11:57AM

Disliking Hannity does not make a conservative a libertarian. I hold probably 99% of his views to one point or another, and probably would agree with practically everything he states in his book.

I only listen to his radio show for the interviews and because it's on for the drive home - he seems to be the only one around who can get high-profile guests on consistently. That's his niche and the best part of his show.

Other than the bitter Michael Savage, Sean's show is probably the worst conservative talk show on the radio. ALL the rest are better - Bennett (my favorite by far) is calmer and more rational, Hunt, Medved, Levin, Beck, etc. They just are. Hannity rarely offers anything new and doesn't do calls well (occasionally he gets some lefties alright, but that's about it).

Don't disparage us, please, for simply not liking his show simply because we think it's just not very good.

Of course, it's "not very good" all the way to the bank...

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 12:01PM

Oh please, Ryan. You know just as well as I do their Libertarians. You say "us" after telling me not to lump you all together. What a joke.

And of course, don't go to any of the issues I brought out. None what so ever.

Ryan| 6.28.10 @ 2:02PM

Which issues? You've posted a lot.

If you're talking about the tendency for Paulites (of which I'm not one) to abandon the Republican nominee, I'm with you. I'll (usually) vote Republican over Libertarian so we can win.

I DO think, however, that such a rule should be thrown out the window in primaries. We should vote our conscience, then, so that our preferred, rather than "winnable," candidate gets in. I voted for Huckabee in the primary and McCain in the general election.

I DO dispute your notion that Sean is the best thing for conservatives since Reagan - I think that you're giving him too much credit. I would put that notion maybe on the Contract with America and the 1994 elections - items of substance which we actually accomplished, not just talked about.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 2:11PM

I said since Rush.

The Paulites do despise Hannity. Sorry but it's a fact.

I do agree that voting in the Primaries are super important. Not enough conservatives do. That's part of the problem. I think now with people waking up more and more, perhaps they will vote Republican. That is unless they run into some on our side who will enjoy talking them out of doing that, sadly.

Ryan| 6.28.10 @ 2:31PM

Since Rush - gotcha.

I still stand behind my statement. Contract with America and '94 elections.

Those were results.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 12:23PM

LOL. I don't play by Liberal rules. Those that say I'm not allowed to "disparage" the disparagers.

Warrior | 6.28.10 @ 1:59PM

Margie: Why so hostile towards libertarians? I imagine that every Democrat you discuss politics with must be called a liberal. I am not judging nor am I looking to call names, but you seem to want to cast out conservatives that may have a different opinion than yours as libertarians. Why do you believe that you and Hannity get to define what a conservative should stand for? Your arguments, in my opinion, seem to border on myopic. However, I respect the fact that you have an opinion, and defend the rights you have that entitle us to discuss it.

I would disagree with Ryan on his critique of the talkers, but respect is opinions. Bennett is a terrible show in my opinion. I personally like Mike Church a little more than most, but actually would rather listen to good old rock n' roll in the car.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 2:06PM

Actually, the hostility comes from the Hannity haters. I dislike them as much as they dislike him. Am I not entitled?

Sean is a real conservative. I've made my obvious points to which Paulites are oblivious. Libertarians despise conservatives. Especially strong ones who are pro-Israel and against non-interventionism.

And the beat goes on.

Ryan| 6.28.10 @ 2:03PM

I never said "not allowed."

I said, "please don't."

Is there a difference?

dw| 6.28.10 @ 2:12PM

Well, looks like it worked. You people will let the communist deflect your aim. Hannity is not the problem, Paul vs. McCain is not the problem, the problem is who is ruling the country right now and virtually any of the republican alternatives will be better than the proven corruption called obama. You all seem to be in a contest to see who can be the more erudite and intellectually gifted in your analysis. Meanwhile the leftist ideolouges will be happy to mix in enough to confuse and divide. Whatever Republican can take back the presidency will be a step in the right direction and can be upgraded one election at a time. Recognition of the danger we are in, which is what Hannity does do a good job at, is what is important now. Have the primary fights but once the dust settles the only important thing will be to check your egos at the door and vote obamination out. Their all politicians but there is a huge difference between the two parties.
A liberal can never make a valid point because their base premise is flawed and any idea or point that flows from them is likewise flawed, no matter how it may sound on the surface.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 2:18PM

Gee thanks, dw. Nothing like knocking a girl who's trying to fight the good fight.

Kudos, babe.

Bruce | 6.28.10 @ 4:13PM

Because, you see - it's all about Margie the Iconoclast.

So rigid. If you disagree with her views you are the enemy. You're a Paulite if you dislike Hannity. You're going to hell if you don't care for her views on abortion. You're not Christian if you disagree with her views on Israel.

Give it a rest, dear - it's not all about you no matter what you think.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 4:24PM

So Bruce, are you a non-interventionist only candidate?

I bet you won't answer the question, just as your pal Cris Worth wouldn't.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 5:10PM

"Because, you see - it's all about Margie the Iconoclast. "

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! That's why she feels it is necessary for her to question you're political affiliations every time you disagree with her or any of her "analysis."

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:19PM

Ding dong.
Actually Ray, I do it to prove a point. The non-interventionists absolutely are on the side of the Left. Each one will not vote for a Republican candidate unless they are a Paulite non-interventionist, proving that they are not really interested in restoring the Republican party at all. They are only interested in destroying it and wish to install the Leftist Libertarian non-interventionists.

It just happens to be the truth. Don't like it, and don't like the fact that I expose the truth? Tuff.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 5:41PM

"The non-interventionists absolutely are on the side of the Left."

That's not true. That's not even CLOSE to being true. You'll find "non-interventionists" in just about every political party, including the Republicans. You shouldn't generalize that way.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 6:12PM

Non interventionism is Leftist. Deal with it.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 6:18PM

Margie, there has been a lot of "non-interventionists" Conservatives throughout our history. Like just about everything else, non-interventionism policy is not limited to just one end of the political spectrum. I don't know why you keep insisting that it is.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 7:14PM

Leftist non-interventionism is anti-war policy and has no place amongst real conservatism. The Democrat party is the king of ant-war policy. This is where it needs to stay. Now, through the Libertarians who run as Republicans (because they cannot get elected otherwise), they are trying to take over the party. They are just as nasty and militant as the Leftists are, and will only vote for their fellow non-interventionists. It is not compatible with conservatism, it is it's enemy.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 7:30PM

To understand the Leftist Libertarian's non-interventionism, here's a post from David Horowitz's site, Frontpagemag.com.

"Beneath its exhortation to “return to the Constitutional Republic the Founders intended,” the Ron Paul Revolution is animated by the ideological reflexes that drive Leftist radicals. We push-back against the creed of the Paulists because its consequences hardly differ from those of the Leftist agenda we normally confront.
I assert such a similarity after providentially finding a profound analysis, a veritable blueprint of the Paulist mind, provided by David Horowitz in Why the Left (and Timothy Burke) Can’t Handle the Truth. Mr. Horowitz designates the two fundamental dispositions of the Leftist mentality – utopianism and a nihilistic ambition to destroy the Capitalist West.
Horowitz explains:
“The left’s “original sin” is utopianism… It is the left’s utopianism that has produced its “anti-Western predispositions”… the belief in an alternate world to replace the one into which he has been born.
Those identifying themselves as Constitutional Republicans, as did Medina, dream of a profoundly transformed America. In this “Constitutional Utopia,” free from the “military-industrial complex,” America would no longer be controlled by greedy corporations and global bankers who plunder the world. Freedom fighters everywhere “would no longer be terrorists since America wouldn’t be an occupier.” We would withdraw to pristine isolationism, a Daniel Boone wilderness with virtually no government involvement in our lives. Of course, initial massive government regulation would be needed to bring about the country’s liberation from the Big Corporations now enslaving us. Once the people are free from the Military-Industrial neo-cons, power would be returned to the small businesses and individuals.
Nihilism is the second element of the Leftist mind-set, it is the bitter hatred for any manifestation of American world intervention. Withdrawal of American military influence is a common theme for the Drs. Paul and sympathizers.
Horowitz points out:
“Today the Left is still divided over its plans for the future, but these plans pale into insignificance in the face of its real passion which is its nihilistic antagonism towards the United States the metropolis at the center of the global capitalist system, and Israel, its imperialist pawn in the Muslim world. The left’s overweening hatred of global capitalism – “globalization” – which is its energizing force, explains how it can make alliances with Islamic fundamentalists who share the same enemy.”
“In the section of Unholy Alliance called The Mind of the Left, I show how this psychological trope distorts and energizes the vision of leftists across the political spectrum…I explain how the left’s religious need for a social redemption overcomes such differences and forges the coalition which includes…Islamofascists as well. This coalition is most obvious and visible in the global crusade of Islamist fundamentalists and secular leftists to produce a second Holocaust of the Jews in the Middle East.”
Mr. Horowitz set out to explain why disparate Leftists put aside conflicting political agendas to unite against the War in Iraq. He could easily extend the boundaries to include those following the Ron Paul Revolution. Dr. Rand Paul spoke of forming a coalition with the Left to “defeat the Military-Industrial Complex,” a move that would eliminate America’s presence in the Middle-East, contributing as effectively as the Left to the Holocaust of which Mr. Horowitz wrote."

theformercookiecutter| 6.28.10 @ 9:33PM

Wow. What a bunch of neo-babble tripe.

I actually have a solution to the muslim problem but America is too soft to implement it. For every 1 of us they kill we kill 1,000 of them (that's how wars used to be won, not this "proportionality" PC garbage). Sooner or later they stop or we run out of muslims. Win frigging win baby.

Again, labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a leftist or non-interventionist or Paulite or whatever is a tactic of the Left and right out of Alinsky's playbook.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 10:49PM

No sweetheart, you spout the Leftist neo-communist tripe.
You are a liar and that is exactly what YOU and your Paul-bot pals do. Try and destroy anyone who isn't part of your cult.

A good lesson can be learned by all who have read this thread today. That the Libertarian non-interventionists are indeed Leftists and despise conservatives. David Horowitz has you guys down pat. And so do I.

You have absolutely zero interest in voting for conservatives unless they share your Leftist philosophy exactly. You are the most despicable breed of political hacks for the cult of the anti-war crowd and rank right down there with the Obamatons.

You'd rather die than vote for a person who isn't a Paul-bot lunatic.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 9:40AM

Oh, and Margie, I'm having a little trouble following all the name-calling. As far as I can tell, I am:

non-interventionist
non-interventionist Libertarian
neo-communist
Paulite
Paul-bot (funny, I didn't vote for Dr Paul though, hmmm)
Obamaton

You are right about a good lesson being learned on here today. The lesson is rightwing Republican ideologues are just as mean, nasty, deceitful, hate-filled, vile, narrow-minded and despicable as leftwing Democrat ideologues.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 10:13AM

So little miss cookie,

Do you deny that you are a non-interventionist Paul-bot?

Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 12:49AM

Margie The Acocalyptic Neocon Broad is an argument against herself.

" Horowitz opposed American intervention in the Kosovo War, arguing that it was unnecessary and harmful to U.S. interests "

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 9:33AM

Hey, I opposed US intervention in Kosovo too. Thought we backed the wrong horse in that one. To me it would be like Canada supporting Mexico when Mexico tries to annex the SW USA. We helped muslims carve a country out of an existing, sovereign ally.

So Margie does this make David Horowitz a non-interventionist Libertarian? (2-1 she doesn't answer)

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 10:16AM

David Horowitz was against Bill Clinton's "war" on Kosovo. That is correct, loser.

Hey lunatic~ still say that the Arab vote will soon be able to cancel out my "Neo-Con" Israel-Firster" vote?

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 11:26AM

So does that make him an non-interventionist neo-communist Paulite Paulbot America-hater Leftist? Or was it OK to be non-interventionist when the president was a Democrat?

Umm, and I don't know wtf you're talking about as far as the arab vote thingie goes. More of your lies/schizophrenia I suppose.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 12:50PM

If you had a brain, you could learn.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 9:42AM

cuz thats what her rnc talking points tell her.

dw| 6.28.10 @ 2:29PM

I am not knocking you Marge. My point is we all must agree on one main point. Take the dems out of majority control in 2010 and kick obama out in 2012. We must stand together on that. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you for that goal.
I am with you girl, not against you.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 2:48PM

THANK YOU, that is what I have been trying to say. And now, since my brain is burning, I'll see ya around.
Excelsior!

Cookie Cutter| 6.28.10 @ 3:38PM

Folks, Margie is no better than leftists libtards trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them. She's the rightwing Alinsky of the Spectator boards. She really adds nothing to the argument, and trying to discuss rational differences with her ineveitably end up with her condemning you to hell because 1 - you support the devil and 2 - she is openly hostile to opinions contrary to her small belief system.

She should probably change her handle to "Bobby Boucher's Mama" because everything that ISN'T a Republican talking point is "the devil."

But I digress. There are legitimate differences among those on the "right" side of American politics. Margie is everything that is wrong with the Republican party. She's a "vote in an R now and let's worry about the consequences later" kind of person. Until we get folks on the right who demand strict Constitutionalists, we'll be stuck with Dem-Lite repubs and folks like Margie who support them.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 4:10PM

You're a liar and a coward.

Tell me, liar~ what do you happen to mean by a "strict Constitutionalist"?

Would that happen to be a non-interventionist candidate only?

Come on coward~ answer the question.

Bruce | 6.28.10 @ 4:15PM

I rest my case.

"Liar and coward" Because he disagrees with you. What are his lies, and how is he a coward?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 4:22PM

What case is that, Bruce? Sorry, but I didn't see you come in. Were you having a conversation with me? I must've missed it!

Liar because everything it said is a lie.
Coward because it comes in to slice and dice without addressing me to my "face".

Got it?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 4:53PM

Margie, its kinda hard to "address you to your face" when apparently around AS disagreeing with Margie gets your username banned.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 5:24PM

Right On !

Start asking where This AS CENSORSHIP is coming from !

Inside The AS Shop or Outside .

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:30PM

Oh look who's joined the party. Good old Timmy* who has regularly spewed his filthy lying mouth toward me.

If you're being banned it must be because of your foul language.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 5:43PM

Hey you guys , I'm winning The Crazy Margie Insult Hour.

Next , Margie's gonna try to Hannitize Me ,with her wand.

theformercookiecutter| 6.28.10 @ 5:56PM

LOL!

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 6:04PM

Hey theformercookiecutter !

Apparently , Margie's gonna take back our " Great American " Badges.

theformercookiecutter| 6.28.10 @ 6:33PM

Really. Sheesh man never saw anyone come unglued b/c you don't particularly care for a certain radio host.

The sad part is it is because of Republicans like Margie that rightwing or conservative or whatever you want to call folks who love America and believe in the Constitution are disillusioned with politics. Ya know there's no way in heck I could vote D but then to come into the R tent and be lambasted b/c you don't like Hannity or actually believe, you know, Congress should declare war is utterly amazing and sad at the same time.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:57PM

The only thing you ever win, Tim*, is the Useful Idiot award.

Enjoy.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 7:00PM

Now ain't you A Bus callin' a Lemon Pie Yellow .

And here ,we thought you retired that trophy after winnin' it so many times.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 7:08PM

You and good ol' Justin Raimondo share not only the useful idiot award, but the easy squeezy lemon peezy pie award.
Lewy Rockwell, too. It's a tie.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 7:46PM

Let's all guess why Apocalyptic Nutbag Neocon Agenda Broad Margie is bringin' Rockwell into the discussion.

What could Margie be angling at ?

Hmmmmmm !

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 9:08PM

I thought you were banned, Timmy*. I guess all the other Neo-con agendists must've changed their minds. Or maybe they just called it a night.

Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 12:14AM

Interesting ,The Neocon Apocalytic Pyscho-Broad thinks We're Neocons Too Now.

See a Therapist ,Head Case .

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 12:48PM

No, idiot. I was quoting you in your earlier, unhinged post. YOU said the "Neo-Con agendists" were banning you.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 12:59PM

Being that Timmy* here said that the Arab increase in population would eventually cancel out my "Israel-Firster", "Neo-Con vote", I think the connection to Justin Raimondo and Lew Rockwell is obvious.

Tim* is a wolf in sheep's clothing, pretending to be a conservative. His sole purpose is to cyber stalk me and harrass me when ever I expose his Leftist self. He pretends to be a Tea Party activist but the above comment reveals the truth about where he is at.

Why would anyone be happy that the Arab vote will cancel out my conservative Republican vote? Hmmm?

Baby Meghan| 6.28.10 @ 5:01PM

Maybe the bigger question is why is Margie allowed to spout hate and call names but anyone who takes her on gets their username banned????? What's up with that AS?

Kinda proves my point--Margie is not interested in truth, or different opinions. Margie you are no better than Saul Alinsky. Isolate and attack, right Saul?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:13PM

You peeps are truly unhinged. Par for the course though.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 5:19PM

Well, that post sure didn't lend credence to your argument that you're just trying to engage in civilized debate and not ridicule those who disagree with you.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:24PM

Apparently Ray doesn't know how to read. I engaged in civil debate, for a few hours, in fact. I see that you have not. Your asinine post just lends credence to the fact that you are an idiot.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 5:43PM

You're still doing ti, Margie. Contrary to your claims, the majority of your posts consist of personal attacks and innuendo. May it's time for you to review your posts and reconsider your "civilized debate" statement?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:54PM

A snake is a snake, "Ray." You aren't interested in debate. Fraud.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 5:30PM

Uh Oh !

Apparently , The Protect Zany Apocalytic Margie CENSORS are unhinged .

4x a Poster| 6.28.10 @ 4:58PM

Margie who is the coward? Someone like me who speaks the truth as I know it, or someone like you who calls names and then hides behind the AS admin to block folks from responding to you?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:11PM

Huh?

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 5:16PM

"Would that happen to be a non-interventionist candidate only? "

How did you arrive at the conclusion that "strict constitutionalists" is merely a code word for "non-interventionist?" Cookie Cutter's original post said noting about "non-interventionist candidates," so why did you even ask the question, unless it's a strawman argument or you're trying to insinuate something that can't logically be insinuated, based upon the content of the original post?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:21PM

Ray,
You would actually have to have a brain and read this entire thread.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 5:23PM

There you go again, resorting to insults and insinuations instead of answering questions and/or engaging in debate! Now, tell me, why do you keep doing this?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:26PM

Uh, because I'm an idiot to engage you.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 8:00PM

Ya got the first part right, Neocon Nutbag Margie.

Aaaaaand ,The 2010 Idiot Buffoon Award goes to Joisey Girl Margie .

Joisey Girl Margie speaks to the hushed audience at The Newark Free Library : "I want to thank Sean Hannity, David Brooks, Arlen Specter , My AS Censors and all the supporters of The Apocalyptic Movement.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 9:05PM

Hilarious little man. AmSpec bans no one. You fraud.

Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 1:01AM

That's pretty bold talk for a one-eyed fat broad.

You poopie face .

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 10:42PM

Tim* is stalking me. Ladies and gents, he is letting me know he knows where I live. He is a sick man. Just letting you all know this.

Tim* | 6.29.10 @ 12:52AM

You're too ugly and psychotic to stalk Chubby Cheeks.

Maybe you get Algore to hit on ya.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 11:43AM

You forgot paranoid and delusional.

theformercookiecutter| 6.28.10 @ 5:23PM

That's the question Ray. The username "Cookie Cutter" was banned shortly after Margie engaged me. So not only does she engage in straw-man attacks, I am not even afforded the opportunity to address her delusions.

What part of "strict Constitutionalist" is so hard to understand Margie?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:27PM

Liar.

What part of fake, phony fraud don't you understand?

theformercookiecutter2| 6.28.10 @ 5:39PM

Margie, I asked a question. Questions are not lies, they are questions.

Now, what part of "strict Constitutionalist" don't you understand?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 5:52PM

You are a liar and a fraud. Your entire post was nothing but lies and personal attacks. I posted for hours explaining exactly where I stand. Now take your lying little butt and go read what I said. Then get back to me.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 6:31PM

Actually, dipso~ your original attack post asked no questions at all. It was nothing but a barrage of lies.

In fact, I asked YOU the question, which not one of you seem to want to answer. And that was~ what do YOU mean by "strict Constitutionalist?" Does that mean you will ONLY vote for a non-interventionist candidate?

theformercookiecutter| 6.28.10 @ 9:21PM

Margie, the question you asked me doesn't have anything to do with my statement about a strict Constitutionalist. It truly doesn't. You seem to see "non-intereventionists" behind every post that doesn't toe the R party line, and it is kinda creepy IMHO.

My answer to your question is I would like to see politicians who are strict Constitutionalists. (I would also like to see term limits, voting only extended to those who pay taxes, and the 17th amendment repealed, to name a few). If you don't understand that "strict Constitutionalist" is THE answer maybe you should read a book or something.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 10:34PM

Your post was filled with nothing but complete and utterly defamatory lies sweetie.

And what's the matter, why you still can't answer the question? Got a problem with the truth?

Would you not vote for a candidate who wasn't a non-interventionist Libertarian or not?

You know you won't answer the question because it goes to the heart of your Leftist Libertarianism.

Which isn't conservatism at all, and explains why you and the rest of your hateful ilk despise Hannity, and conservatives like him.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 9:16AM

How many straw men can you come up with Margie? You have Cookie Cutter Derangment Syndrome.

First of all, your question was so far out there compared to my original post that it doesn't even deserve consideration.

Secondly, the Constitution clearly lays out the way America is supposed to declare war. I would vote for strict Consitutionalists. I mean can you put 2 and 2 together or are you really THAT stupid? Follow the Constitution. You wanna wage war on Lower Whackjobistan? Fine. Make the case to Congress and have them vote on it. If they declare war, fine. If they don't, no war. What is so hard to understand Margie?

Thirdly, how did I go from merely a "non-interventionist" to now a "non-interventionist Libertarian?"

Fourthly, talk about lies. In ALL of these posts I have NEVER said one word for or against Hannity, so for you to say I "hate" him is a lie. Personally I could take or leave him, and prefer Rush, Beck, Ingraham, etc. But I certainly don't hate anyone.

Actually, I pity you or anyone like you who is so tied into a political party that they can't even CONSIDER differing opinions. Again, not asking you to change your opinion, but people like you are so offended by differing opinions that you immediately atack, attack, attack those whose opinions are slightly different. Its sad because you're just an R party shill. Your worldview is so small and your intellect and capacity for critical thinking smaller that all you know is what Michael Steele tells you you should know. Anything othe than that is a non-interventionist or a Libertarian or whatever.

What people like you don't understand is that it is EXACTLY people like you who push folks away from teh R party. Folks who have legitimate differences with the R party but would vote for the R candidate anayway, you push away with your rigid adherance to the party and not the country. Its sad because you THINK you love the country, but you really love the party. Oh you'll deny it because in your little world there is only one way. There is only "red," no maroons or burgundy or whatever.

So instead of trying to work on the small differences between us you just label us "leftists" and ostracize us and ridicule us. That's fine. I'll keep voting for the Constitution Party candidate or whatever.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 10:00AM

You're a liar and you had no wish to debate me. You came in here with a slew of lies sweetheart. There is no debating with you, as you are only here to slander.

You and you're ilk are fully explained by the above post from Frontpagemag, David Horowit'z website. You know, the post you read and called "pure "Neo-Con babble or dribble."

Now go crawl back under your slithery slippery rock, liar.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 11:20AM

So you ARE that stupid.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 11:25AM

You'll be gone after today, fool. Have your fun while it lasts. People like you only show up to slander us "Neo-Con, Israel-Firsters."

Enjoy.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 11:40AM

Another lie. I NEVER posted anything about Israeli-firster. Interesting though that you say I'll "be gone after today." So you DO have AS admins block folks who shame you?

As a matter of fact I don't understand why Israel hasn't dropped a few bombs on Iran yet, but whatever. I'll be cheering when they do.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 12:42PM

Look you paranoid nitwit. I didn't SAY you called me that. READ.

As far as AS admins and myself? I truly do not think they would even be on my side, as I should not even be engaging you.

Look, you came in here with an entire post of lies. You may be willing to bomb Iran but you're also willing to jump on the band wagon of a pshyco.

'Nuff said.

theformercookiecutter1| 6.28.10 @ 5:29PM

Why isn't Margie banned yet?

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 5:55PM

I think Margie's must have a Deal with Pingback.

theformercookiecutter| 6.28.10 @ 5:57PM

Maybe she's Jeff Lord's crazy ol' aunt or something.

Tim*| 6.28.10 @ 6:37PM

Hey cookiecutter , Some Agendist attempted to CENSOR me online again.

Aaaand ,

Margie could be Sean Hannity's Old Joisey Girl .

theformercookiecutter| 6.28.10 @ 9:46PM

If Margie is from Jersey that might explain a LOT. She coulda been raised near one of those famous Jersey chemical wastes sites. Too much exposure rots the brain and makes it impossible to consider other opinions.

Bruce | 6.28.10 @ 8:06PM

That is a very good question. I had no idea that some of you had been banned after engaging this person. That kind of reinforces my decision not to bother engaging her or responding to the rantings of one whose posts consist mainly of ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with her puerile writings. But hey - I don't NEED to comment on anything at AS to get along, so go ahead and ban me and prove the point some of us are making. A childish and - dare I say it? - liberals tactic of squelching debate. Because - like I said - it's all about Margie the Iconoclast ("Oh golly - I was on Sean's show and he had a nickname for me!!!! I'm special!") So don't anyone DARE talking down about this clown she insists is a "true conservative." Hannity is a lightweight, like O'Reilly, and he contributes nothing to the conservative viewpoint. He and his show don't even have the guts to respond to writers emails. I can attest to that.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 9:02PM

Cry baby.

Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 1:04AM

Fascist Apocalyptic Momma .

Purple Lips| 6.28.10 @ 3:46PM

Hannity is a cheerleader, a booster -a good guy to have on your side. But he doesn't project much depth. Like many conservative pundits he regeritates what other say. The former Catholic Seminarian was taken to task many years ago (I think 2002) for advocating artificial birth control. When a Pro Life priest (Fr Eutenauer) reminded him of the Church's prohibition against this (on his Fox show), Hannity became unglued. He first said it was none of the Church's business; and when that failed he reminded the priest of the Church's sex scandals.

Hannity brought that one little problem upon himself when he openly endorsed a position that was not only contrary to the Church's doctrine, but in the Church's eyes could lead married couples into sin. My opinion of Hannity plummeted since then. I couldn't stand watching before, and now avoid him entirely.

Hannity represents what is truely wrong with our society. To him everything boils down to politics.

Derek Leaberry| 6.28.10 @ 3:56PM

"Unbelievable. Incredible. You are a great American. I am a great American. George W. Bush is a good man," said Mr. Emptybrains.

Ray| 6.28.10 @ 5:22PM

I was never much impressed with Hannity as a media personality, but, to his credit, he has his convictions and he doesn't abandon them for the sake of publicity, as so many other have done in the past.

Helen Thomas| 6.28.10 @ 5:58PM

Does Margie remind anyone else of, well, me?

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 6:09PM

Actually Helen~ you are the face of the Blame America First crowd, of which the Israel hating, non-interventionist Paulites share that disposition.

Thus your utter hatred for conservatives like Sean Hannity and others who are strong defenders of Israel. This is what is at your core.

Your Sin will find you out. Mock on!

Helen Thomas| 6.28.10 @ 6:30PM

Funny, I actually kinda like Hannity. He's a handsome fella.

Nate| 6.28.10 @ 6:30PM

The essence of America is constantly to put itself on trial.

There is NOTHING more American than blaming America first!

Hard, relentless, morally focused critique is absolutely necessary for a free people.

Conservatives seem to believe that love of country means bawling and weeping for the flag. But patriotic bathos never did this country any good. You know what they say about patriotism.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 6:34PM

Oh, so brilliant, Nate. If I go outside and burn my gigantic flag will you like me better and consider me patriotic then?

Bruce | 6.28.10 @ 8:15PM

Oh my - there is something a little ... "phallic" ... about this. "My flag is bigger than your flag!" Does this in some way portend greater patriotism than some flying say a 3x5 flag if you fly a 4x6 flag? If so I'll see your 4x6 and raise you - on really special occasions I occasionally bring out my grandfathers 10x12' flag - which just manages to clear the ground from my 18' flag pole.

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 9:00PM

To the perverse all things are perverse.

Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 1:20AM

Aaaand , to Assault Lady Margie and Her Assault Hammer Everything's a Nail .

Bruce | 6.28.10 @ 8:10PM

Ruh-Rooooh - you're in trouble now - Margie pulled out the "God Card" on you! Ad hominems aren't enough for Margie - no sir - now this "good Christian" is calling on God to smite you!

Margie| 6.28.10 @ 9:01PM

Sorry Charlie, but it's true.

Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 1:16AM

Actually , Margie's Satan's niece .

She lives in Hell , some refer to it as New Joisey .

Nate| 6.28.10 @ 6:26PM

Mr Lord,

Obama is not a Marxist, nor does he seem all that influenced by Rev. Wright.

Why is this so impossible to believe?

My priest -- a very good man -- is politically extremely conservative. I accept his religious authority and quietly filter out those things that are clearly just his political opinion. No problems there!

And what has Obama done to convince you he's a Marxist? Do you know what a Marxist is?

Hiring Larry Summers? Marxist?

The bank bailouts? Marxist?

Not stumping for the public option? Marxist?

What is Marxist about Obama?

He's a liberal Democrat. True, he's a notch more liberal than Clinton, but not by much, and he is in the mainstream of the Democratic party.

Are you saying that 60 million of your fellow citizens are so stupid that they inadvertently voted for a Marxist?

That's pretty goddamned arrogant, I'd say. What gave you such a special insight and wisdom that half the country lacks?

Bob| 6.28.10 @ 6:58PM

Just wait until the GOP wins back the House of Reps., they will impeach your non-marxist Presdident...Riot anyone?

RCV| 6.28.10 @ 7:46PM

Bob - I wouldn't count on it. The hallmark of our democracy for 200+ years has been stability. And one great aspect of that has been the willingness of the opposition to abide by election results. I believe the Clinton impeachment hearings left a bad taste in everyone's mouth (no pun intended!). We're treading on dangerous ground if we get to the point in America where, when we lose an election to the opposition, we immediately begin manuevering to "impeach" the winner because we disagree with his/her politics. You really don't want to go there.

Nate| 6.28.10 @ 9:22PM

RCV --

I'm sorry, citizen, you'll have to leave now. No appeals to common sense, tradition, history, or allowed. This is Tea Bagger country!

Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 12:17AM

There It Is Again !

ObamaBoy Nate goes into his Gender Confused Fruit Talk .

Bruce | 6.28.10 @ 8:18PM

RCV says:"And one great aspect of that has been the willingness of the opposition to abide by election results. "

You mean like Al Gore?
Delusion is a sure sign of latent liberalism.

Cookie Cutter| 6.28.10 @ 9:48PM

He also called our country a "democracy." I HATE that. If you call the country a democracy yet claim to be a "conservative," you should have your conservative card pulled. We live in a REPUBLIC for cripes sake.

Nate| 6.28.10 @ 10:55PM

You'd hate reading the opinions of Justice Scalia then, Cookie. He (correctly) uses the word democracy to refer to this country's political system all the time. Indeed, it is his theory of democracy that underwrites his argument for originalism.

Where people on the right got the idea we are not a democracy is beyond me. It's just basic civics.

I think part of the mistake is assuming that democracy and direct democracy (as in ancient Athens) are the same thing.

Democracy is a broader term that can include constitutional republics. A democracy is ANY form of government that responds to the will of the people expressed in elections. Period. And yes, we're a democracy. Hannity's right about something, and YOU are a GREAT AMERICAN!

Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 12:26AM

Not so fast Pseudo-Intellect ObamaBoy Nate .

The United States is A Democratic Republic . A form of Representative Republic .

RCV| 6.29.10 @ 5:31PM

As a matter of fact, Al Gore IS a good example of that. When the Supreme Court issued its intellectually dishonest opinion in Bush v. Gore, preventing the State of Florida from continuing with its recount, Gore and the Democratic Party abided by the result. They didn't initiate impeachment proceedings against Bush.

ds80| 6.28.10 @ 9:37PM

For all the sniffy comments about not liking Sean Hannity as a talk/TV show host ... This article wasn't even about that - but about his adherence to core conservative beliefs, and the expression of such in his book.

There's an awful lot of red herrings being thrown here.

Nate| 6.28.10 @ 11:03PM

Of the three radio giants, I like Hannity best. He's not as foolish, deranged, or demented as Beck. And while he may not be as rhetorically brilliant as Limbaugh (who is?), he's also not as driven by irrational passions. He seems like a decent guy to me, and I admire him for knowing not to hate his opponents. His politics drive me up a wall, but I still like him.

Bruce | 6.29.10 @ 1:16PM

Of course you'd like hannity best. ANY liberal would, because Hannity isn't a true conservative - he is in fact a wishy-washy faux conservative, and mindless at that.

Beck is "demented" LOL ... Beck has turned - by sheer weight of his show - more historically brilliant books into best sellers than has Oprah. Beck presents facts and tells his viewers to do the research themselves - unlike the poseurs of the left who spew polls as being "factual." How many people read Hayak - let alone heard of him - before Beck did a show based on him?

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 2:08PM

The Paul-bot reveals himself. "Hannity isn't a true conservative."

You're a joke, like the rest of you lunatics.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 9:55AM

Tim* is a wolf in sheep's clothing who is a completely unhinged maniac and a stalker.

He recently posted to me that the Arab population increase would soon cancel out my "Neo-con" Israel-Firster" vote.

He has now posted that he knows where I live, as I recently accidentally posted my name in here one day. He's done his homework. I pin the loser and he is out to destroy me.

Lotsa luck you paranoid anti-semitic freak.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 11:36AM

Cry baby.

theformercookiecutter| 6.29.10 @ 11:51AM

Sorry margie, I can't play anymore right now. My spouse, who's in Iraq, is trying to skype so she can say hi to the kids. We're so neo-communist libertarian leftist america-haters that we only have 39 years and 4 months combined service to this country.

How much do you have?

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 12:32PM

You're still a liar, and came in here with absolutely no desire to debate.

Bruce | 6.29.10 @ 1:23PM

No - you came here for the same reason you always do - to defame, drop ad hominems, and spew your drivel.

Talk about "unhinged" or "paranoid?" Last I heard, NJ is a pretty large state. You have a problem with people knowing what STATE you live in? You have a problem with using your real name?

I submit that anyone unwilling (too ashamed?) to use their name in public is unworthy of being taken seriously. Demeaning people who have served or are serving their country (it's not just YOURS, you know) because they disagree with your myopic view of the world is beneath contempt.

Now go running to AS to ban my ass, as if I care. I can remove their link from my blogroll just as easily.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 2:06PM

OK creep. Then go ahead and post your name and address.

Bruce | 6.29.10 @ 5:07PM

Jesus - you really are a contemptible moron, aren't you, whateverthehellyuourname is?

I write under my real name. The email attached to it is my real email. My name links to my website, where my entire life is exposed.

Pound sand, moron - you're not worth the effort of banging a few keys. Creep indeed.

Robert in Yorktown, VA| 6.29.10 @ 1:34PM

I tried to respond to this, but unhinged Margie was right. I did get censored~~~AGAIN!

No Margie, you use the same tactics libtards do. That is when confronted with facts, you resort to name-calling, strawmen, and ad hominems. Why? Because you can't compete, as Rush says, in the arena of ideas. The only thing you have are talking points and catch phrases, and vague, nebulous ones at that.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 2:12PM

Right you utter and complete idiot. Because for several hours I expounded as to exactly WHY we need to unite and elect conservatives to the Republican party and quit the imbecilic destroying of same??

You ridiculous loser~ you have not a thing to add to the conversation. You paranoid dope.

Yorktown| 6.29.10 @ 3:24PM

And each post gets even more vile and vulgar.

What would Jesus say about your lying and name-calling Margie?

Jesus C.| 6.29.10 @ 3:42PM

Funny you should ask. I would say Margie is a disgraceful person. Bitter and vile. Anyone that full of hate can not possibly know the Lord. I would tell Margie to cast her burdens to Me and let go of the hate. I would further tell her to stop using me to make political points and to remember the parable about the Pharasee and the poor woman who both offered alms, and who I said would be rewarded more in heaven.

Spouting Bible verses on the one hand and then spewing hatred on the other is a sure way to get ya a ticket south, if ya know what I mean Margie.

Repent, and cleanse your soul of hate.

There is none so blind as the woman who refuses to see.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 4:08PM

Jesus isn't all roses and sweet talk, there sis. And the Pharisees are the hypocrites who proclaim their holiness but are filthy on the inside. I know from whence I came. I know I am a sinner saved by Grace. Are you? Have YOU humbled yourself before Him, yet?

I call an Ace an Ace when I see it. Would BROOD OF VIPERS suit your tastes well enough, dear?

Jesus the Christ| 6.29.10 @ 6:32PM

Yes I am Margie. You forget the Father in the OT was vengeful at times. I on the other hand am the New Covenant between the Father and mankind. That you claim to be saved by My Grace yet at the same time spout vileness towards your brothers is shameful, Margie. Your heart is hardened by hate Margie.

You are no better than the Pharasees who made bold shows of their "piety" yet held jealousy and hate in their hearts. You have shown yourself to be full of jealousy and hate Margie. Free yourself from that hate and embrace the Truth Margie.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 4:10PM

Would "You are of your Father the Devil" be more satisfactory? Read John 8.

Now go get a life.

Heyzoos to you| 6.29.10 @ 6:35PM

Which verse is that, Margie My child? Is that the verse where I instruct My apostles to turn the other cheek, or forgive their brothers 70 times 7 times?

Bruce | 6.29.10 @ 1:24PM

FCC - thank you for your service. Your spouse as well.

tfcc| 6.29.10 @ 6:43PM

You're welcome Bruce.

samrrye| 6.29.10 @ 1:53PM

The problem with the Republican party is that it only needs conservatives to win the elections and then it can raid the treasury like Democrats, create big spending programs like Democrats and ignore the people of American that put them there. I guarantee you a Democrat win in 2012 if they do it again. Get off your high horse RNC and realize who is putting you in office; the common citizens of the United States; many of whom used to be Democrats over the years and were chased out by the libs. We need a conservative candidate with principles like Reagan and an existing backbone that will stand up to the libs in Congress and say the spending stops now and we're going to fix what just got broken and actually live up to our ideals for once like Reagan tried to.
Note: People like Ron Paul, when I hear him, I automatically know there is something wrong in what he says like Larouche, Farrakhan, Obama, Reid Pelosi and many times John McCain who needs to go to pasture now with Graham and prevent them from further damaging conservatism. We know what conservative is and means and it doesn't mean abortion, amnesty, gay or animal rights, right to smoke dope or cradle to the grave welfare. The main difference will be our religious beliefs, most of which come from the same core values that most Americans still cherish and practice. So Republicans get on the conservative bandwagon, we're staying off yours, or lose.

Bruce | 6.29.10 @ 5:21PM

I would agree with you on all except the amnesty and welfare issues, because they impact directly in fiscal responsibility. Social issues? Unlike busybody margie(?), I have zero interest in what a person does in the privacy of their own home. I have no interest in what they choose to smoke or drink. I have only limited interest in issues like abortion. My feeling is "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone."

I am tired - as you apparently are (and others on here with sense) of being given no options in who the RNC decides to run. The last REP I voted for with any kind of joy was Reagan. Both the Bushes ... what choice did we have? McAmnesty? No choice there either. The same held true for local and state offices. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being given a choice of 2 candidates from different parties who act the exact same way and are both professional politicians. I believe most of America feels that way.

Paul is not the answer. Romney is not the answer. Huckabee is CERTAINLY not the answer. I'm not even sure Sarah is the answer, now that she has vacillated on some issues lately. Who would I vote for unconditionally? Allen West for one. Probably Jindal with a little more seasoning - though he already has more executive experience than Obama. Maybe a guy like Tancredo if push came to shove. Reduce the size of government, stay the hell out of my private affairs, reduce the tax burden, and shut the damned border down and they get my vote.

Robt_Yorktown| 6.29.10 @ 6:37PM

Bruce, why are you such a non-interventionist neo-commie Libertarian Leftist America-hating non-interventionist God-hater?

LOL!!!!! I do a pretty good "Margie," huh?

Adam & Eve Dot Com| 6.29.10 @ 6:41PM

Margie, you seem a little, eh, frustrated. Obviously with a personality like that you're alone in this world, so why not look us up on our website and get yourself a "toy." It will really help you relieve some stress and make you see things a little more clearly.

Sincerely,
Adam and Eve

Bruce | 6.29.10 @ 6:48PM

Sorry it took a while to get back to you Margie ... uh ... Robert - I was out marching around with my Mao banner and handing out Ron Paul pamphlets. I think next I will go out a kick a Jew or two and maybe for good measure pull down Old Glory from my flagpole and burn it.

Good God - the woman (?) is a complete and utter nut job! Unhinged doesn't begin to describe her/him/whatever.

Rob in Yorktown| 6.29.10 @ 8:09PM

Wow great minds and all that! After I posted I went to the local skin head rally and got a swastika tattoo'd on my noggin. Then I mapquested to Margie's house with Tim*. I called in to the Hannity show and said "babba booey babba booey Howard Stern is great!"

There's a WWII vet next door so I pooped on his lawn and used his flag (its bigger than Margie's, btw) to wipe my butt. I'm altar boy at the black mass/human sacrifice/orgy tonight so I won't be posting for awhile.

Jeremy| 9.29.10 @ 4:07PM

Reagan tripled (TRIPLED) the deficit!

How is that less government?

The American Spectator

Buy the Book

Sean Hannity’s Time for Choosing

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (224) | Leave a comment Leave a comment