Tuesday, January 22, 2008

BUGGER!

MSNBC is announcing that Fred Thompson has just thrown in the towel.

Bloody damnation.

Great. Just sodding great. Is there an actual conservative out there worth voting for? How's Duncan Hunter's health these days?

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani would be Democrats if they were anywhere but Massachusetts and Newt Yack City -- and they're both gun-grabbers to boot. Mike Huckabee apparently thinks the Constitution should be edited and tightened up so that it agrees with his version of God; and as for McCain -- three words: McCain. Feingold. Act.

And he's a gun-grabber.

Crap. Crap, crap, crap.

LawDog

44 comments:

BryanP said...

Hunter already dropped out.

I have the distinct feeling I'm not going to be able to vote this year without being drunk first.

Tommytwoguns said...

Ron Paul???

Zundfolge said...

Well now I'm even more glad I just ordered another AR-15

I just wish Fred would have stayed in long enough for me to vote for him in a primary.

X_LA_Native said...

It certainly isn't going to be pretty come November.

My only hope is Fred! doesn't do something vile and endorse lil' Johnny Not-So-Free Speech.

THAT would be a nightmare.

Oh! I'm a new reader of your scribblings. I'm enjoying them tremendously.

wolfwalker said...

Dammit. McCain is an oathbreaker, Romney is a Masshole, Giuliani is a New York RINO, Paul is a moonbat, and Huckabee is a socialist theocrat (something I previously thought impossible). On the other side, we have two socialists and a hermaphroditic slug.

Every four years I look at the presidential field, and every four years I have the same reaction: we have at least a hundred million constitutionally-qualified people in this country, and THESE are the best candidates we can find!?!

Paul said...

I'm also sorely disappointed. It seems to be the role of us conservatives to be disappointed by our Party's nominee, at least for the last 20 years.

I'll VERY reluctantly vote for Mitt, as he's the least bad of the 4 remaining, and all of them are not nearly as bad as the 3 scumbags on the "D" side of the aisle.

Damn! I'm still shaking my head over this. I agree with Wolfwalker that I simply can't believe that this is the best we can do.

rationalchristian said...

Well, I'm still torn between Ron Paul and Obama. I like Ron Paul's platform, but the odds are pretty high he's nuts. Obama because he isn't Hillary, and all the remaining Republicans scare me.

He seems like a decent person, even if his policies suck. I don't think the former is true of the remaining Republican candidates.

CrankyProf said...

The best I can hope for -- the absolute best -- is that someone offers Fr3d a Veep slot. Otherwise, I'm going to have to consume a great deal of single-malt before voting.

No matter how much I drink, I know I can't vote for that crazy little homunculus Ron Paul, though.

Deputy Polarbear said...

We need a new option to vote for: "none of the above are acceptable, try again"

nurf said...

Conservatives better get used to the idea of President Hillary. Even complete Republican unity might not be enough to beat the Dems this time around, and as it sits now, no Republican candidate doesn't divide Republican support and that = victory for the Dems.
History is gonna repeat itself and she's gonna make Jimmy Carter look like genius. I predict full blown recession, terrorists emboldened all around the world, left wing tax & spend fixes for every problem (real or imagined), trial lawyers running amuck all over our Rights, and near immediate confirmation of lefty judges everywhere there's an opening. And don't forget mass amnesty for illegals, borders even more porous than they are now, enforcement even more lax than it is now, and earmarked pork spending till you can't even identify the original bill. (Republican Congresscritters will make deals and go right along with the spending so they don't miss out on the gravy train).
HC will probably be a one termer, but things are gonna get awful ugly before the real conservatives of the Republican party wake up and reject the neo-con agenda. The Bush's were never the Reagan conservatives we imagined them to be and the whole country is about to pay a hefty price for our delusions. A very jarring wake up call is on the way.

It'll be Hillary (Pres) and Obama (VP) and the NYTimes will report it as "a near landslide victory".

And you can take that to the bank!

Billll said...

See what happens when we let the media pick our candidates, heaping praise on the ones they like, and ignoring the ones they don't.
Bottom line, the next 4 years will be a dem administration, it's up to us to decide which one will do the least damage, hold our noses, and vote for him.

phlegmfatale said...

I'm dismayed...

Jagath said...

He's not that big of a gun-grabber. He did oppose the assault weapons ban (but he is for closing the, er, "loophole" of private sales).

That's a damn sight better than Obama, who says he wants to ban all semi-auto firearms. I guess he doesn't have much respect for the 1911. I don't think he even knows what "semi-auto" means.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul. The republican party doesn't want to hear that though. They'd rather push a tyrannical nutjob like Mr. 911, a blow dried eastern socialist like Romey, a crazy old thug like McQueeg or a nanny scold like Hucksterbee. They deserve everything they're going to get.

The fact that he won't get the nomination and the utter hatred and venom of the false right concerning him is case in point of what is terminally wrong with the Republican wing of our bi-factional ruling party. The fact that the rest of the drek in the race are being touted as some sort of alternative to Empress Rodhamus Maximus also shows just how utterly principally and ideologically bankrupt the Stupid Party is.

Empress Rodhamus Maximus will ascend to her throne and the republicans will get everything they deserve and get it good and hard. You thought she was bad with FBI files just wait until she gets control the new Internal Security Police you gave her. Oh the PATRIOT act and the Department Of Homeland Security aren't looking so benign are they? Just thank Dear Leader and the professional fuckwits in congress when the jackboot is grinding into your neck.

Saladman said...

My first choice on domestic policy and taxes was always Paul, but I realize the center of the Republican party was never going to put him forward.

Thompson, as a federalist and a fiscal conservative was perfectly acceptable to me. The same cannot be said of the annointed front-runners.

Clinton as the Democrat nominee might be enough to make me vote for Romney McJuliani if whoever it is moves right, but my real forlorn hope is going to be that the Rs can recapture a house of Congress.

Ethan said...

I am voting for paul and based on one of your previous posts i thought you would too. I hate to say it so bluntly but everyone liked Thompson until he announced he was going to run for president, then they decided they didnt like him as much.

Ethan

Judy said...

Another Ron Paul supporter here. He's nowhere near perfect, but better than the front runners. He'll probably drop out before my state has a primary, and who does that leave me?

God help us all I'm afraid we're going to end up with Hillary in her third term.

wolfwalker said...

Folks, Ron Paul is not a viable candidate for the simple reason that so many of his policies are nonsensical when they aren't outright ridiculous. I could give a long list of examples starting with his isolationism, his "blame America first" view of terrorism, and his self-contradictory financial policies, but I honestly don't think it's worth the time. Most Paulites are not Paulites out of any rational reason; they're Paulites because Paul is the ultimate anti-Establishment candidate, and they're so sick of the Establishment that they'll give their support to any anti-Establishment candidate on the grounds that he can't possibly be any worse than the Establishment.

They are, unfortunately, wrong. As bad as the Establishment is, Ron Paul would almost certainly be worse. Much worse.

Library-Gryffon said...

Connecticut is part of Super Tuesday, and I think I'm still going to vote for Fred, if only to let the party know what I want. Then come November I'll vote for whoever has an (R) after them, since none of them will be as bad as any of the (D)s.

I too hope that Fred gets the VP slot.

One of my sisters (the moderately left one rather than the one who is a KosKid) actually prefers Fred to all the (D) candidates. How's that for a crossover vote?

roy in nipomo said...

LD-

Fully concur with your feelings. I may write in Thompson's name and vote for him, anyway.

And as much as I [very strongly detest] the Clintons, I'd probably vote for her rather than Dr Paul as I'd like to still have a country here to be able to vote her out in four years.

Anonymous said...

All hope is not lost...... Fred! could still get the VP slot and Rudi McRomney could drop dead.... what? It COULD happen........

That said, the Choice in November pretty much boils down to who is ordering the BATfMEN to kick in your door, because you didn't register all your guns........

ASM826 said...

A.B.H.

X_LA_Native said...

we have at least a hundred million constitutionally-qualified people in this country, and THESE are the best candidates we can find!?!
I think that holds not just for Presidential nominees, but Congress and the Senate!

aczarnowski said...

I've always liked the idea of having a "none of the above" option on ballots. If NOTA wins the election, the incumbent stays and we go back to the polls in 6 months with no candidates reappearing.

Sure it would cost more, but so does always having the lesser of the evils in office.

Tequila Mockingbird said...

this really upsets me. fred thompson's wife was legitimately hot, and i was hoping to see more of her. granted, he was a wrinkly, pompous windbag, but she totally offset that.

Rorschach said...

Just shoot me now.

Zundfolge said...

Everyone complains about how Ron Paul is ignored by the party, but its his own damn fault.

Siding with the anti-war left and the "truthers" has cost him any credibility with conservatives.

If Ron Paul weren't so adamantly against the Iraq war, he'd be the front runner. Period.

Zundfolge said...

Now if Thompson becomes McCain's running mate that could be a good thing.

McCain's old ... he could drop dead hours after taking the oath and we'd get that President Thompson we all wanted :D

Mark inAZ said...

The only two left who are not gungrabbers are Paul and Huckabee. Of those two, the only one with a rational domestic and monetary policy is Dr. Paul.

Pauls big problem isn't that he's antiwar, it's that he's failed to articulate the difference between being for hunting down terrorists, and against nationbuilding/ stability operations

Dr. Paul also has the best idea I've heard on how to deal with terrorists, i.e. treat them the same as pirates. The the 2007 Marque and Reprisal act he introduced.

Randy said...

Fred leaving helped me make up my mind. I'm voting for Hillary. No sense putting off the apocalypse any longer than necessary.

Anonymous said...

I am going to vote for Shillery and/or Obama Winfery.

Either of them will play this country like a harp from hell. And maybe after 4 years or 8 years the Republican party is going to wake up and get mad as hell and vote someone like Bolton into power to fix it all.

McShamnisty?

HuckUP (never met a tax I didn't like)?

Mitt from Taxaschuchetts?

Really the best bet is to let the Daffy Duck party screw it all up.

Grunt said...

Folks get the 4 Bs Beans, Bandages, Bullets and Bullet throwers. If it is Hitlery we will get the revolution the Dems were afraid of during Bill Clintons day.

Is it it illegal to vote under the influence?

Ky Person said...

aNo way, no how, am I voting for Herself. I don't care how angry I am with the GOP, and I am very angry with them right now. The consequences would be terrible. We are even now living in the conditions that were issued in under Jimmah Carter. Thank you for the nuclear Iran Mr. Peanut.

Dixie Amazon said...

Duncan Hunter Endorses Mike Huckabee

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1958386/posts?page=23#23

Eb said...

Remember, there are a lot of people in DC. You have to vote for an extreme version of your views for maximum effect.

Thats why Ron Paul is a good idea. He's far enough on the fringe he balances out a whole lot of "moderate democrats" in one shot, but you'd have to elect 535 of his clones to congress before the country was in any real danger.

Overshoot the mark, vote Ron Paul

HerrBGone said...

I fear for the Republic.

As I said over at the Dragonfly, I predict the Hilderbeast with her new best friend Ohbummer as VP will take over the Executive Branch and in short order precipitate Reset.

I hope I'm wrong, but fear I may not be...

Can we draft Fred?

Larry said...

I don't know if I am going to write Fred in, vote Huckleberry for his support of the Fair Tax, or just vote for the most vile Democrat I can find.
Then again, I might just stay home and drink instead. That way I will have earned the headache.

Anonymous said...

Holy fuck, that Republican debate last night was boring. Seriously, couldn't Romney and Giuliani have gang-raped McCain (to which a sighing McCain would have said, "Again?")? Couldn't Huckabee do some kind of Jesusy mumbo-jumbo to expel the demon that runs Ron Paul? They could have brought Ronald Reagan's skull up on stage and each taken a turn fucking the eyeholes, and the skull would have been more lively than the candidates. It would have been more interesting and politically enlightening to try to set fire to one's own farts. Jesus, it would have been more fun to keep punching oneself in the nuts to see if one passes out or coughs up blood first.

dr mac said...

I know I should be appalled at that last comment but I'm laughing too hard.

perlhaqr said...

Why does supporting the Constitution get you labeled as "nuts" these days, even among people who respect the Constitution?

Ok, Fred's gone. That leaves you with Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and Paul. Exactly *one* of those four has stated that he thinks the Second Amendment is absolutely an individual right.

If all the people who said "Ron Paul can't possibly win" went out and voted for him, he'd win by a landslide.

You can either support him, and maybe he'll get elected and shoot down any proposal Pelosi and Company come up with to further abridge our fundamental rights, or you can just say "well, he's unelectable", which will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and maybe you'll get stuck with Romney, instead, who was, after all, acceptable to Massachussetts. Or Huckabee, who wants all the wimmins out there barefoot and pregnant. Or McCain, who thinks you should just shut up and let the bureaucrats tell you what to think.

Your choice.

Anonymous said...

Glad you found that comment on the debate amusing.

Has it occured to you all that the Republican party has no interest in winning the next election, the cluster of disasters they've set us up for are going to be a tar baby handed to the (pre-selected, corporate aproved) democratic winner.

So, Ron Paul backers, how does it feel to finally realize that the press is for controlling your country, not informing it?

Bob said...

My sentiments exactly. We gotta get excited about Romney now, I guess.

nurf said...

I coughed up blood, then passed out. Think i'll do it again on election day. Bound to be more fun than listening to the MSM stifle their glee and fake bated breath with the exit polls.

Rick R. said...

To Mark Inaz and all the other Paulists who think that Dr. Paul's foreign policies are "rational". . .

You DO realize, don;t you, that Paul's "Marque and Reprisal" idea is now classified as a WAR CRIME, according to the Geneva Conventions? (And has been for over a century?)

That right there illustrates the level of rationality and preparation he has put into MOST of his ideas -- the fact that he doesn;t even realize that he espouces a policy that makes the individual members of the United States government, US military personnel, and US citizens all liable for being hanged in a PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE Nuremburg type hearing.

This is the saem man who loudly delcared that the first AUMF was "too much" (being, in HIS words, a Declaration of War by Congress) for al-Quaida, and that they should have passed the (war criminal) Letters of Marque and Reprisal. But the actions against Iraq are an illegal "not war" because the SECOND AUMF (in which Congress authorized the same sort of actions) wasn;t a legitimate Decalration of War becuase it didn't use the magic phrase "declare war" in it.

RP is a barking moonbat -- only on the right.