About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

CNN aired Laura Ingraham saying conservative "suicide voters" might vote for Clinton over McCain

February 07, 2008 5:34 pm ET

image

On the February 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Carol Costello reported on conservative radio talk-show hosts' condemnations of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), stating that "conservatives cannot stomach" the idea of a ticket consisting of McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Costello's report included an audio clip in which Laura Ingraham asserted on her show that some conservatives would turn themselves into "suicide voters" and vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) rather than vote for McCain.

In the CNN clip, Ingraham said: "McCain has been -- has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton."

From the February 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

COSTELLO: The talkers called McCain's big night a win for liberal Democrats, since part of John McCain's platform was reaching across party lines.

RUSH LIMBAUGH (talk show host): We want is to defeat those people. We view those people as threats to the American way of life as we've always known it.

COSTELLO: On Laura Ingraham's show, she lamented McCain's victory, reminding her listeners Ronald Reagan would not have been happy -- especially today, on what would have been his 97th birthday. She then urged them to go to a Heritage Foundation's website called What Would Reagan Do.

RONALD REAGAN (former U.S. president): Tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let them know and nail them on it.

COSTELLO: Still, Ingraham wasn't ready to declare McCain's win meant the death of Reaganism or conservative talk radio just yet.

INGRAHAM: Before people start writing again the obituary, whether it's for talk radio -- blah, blah, blah, we've heard that before -- or the obituary of conservatism, remember what was happening last night. In state after state, John McCain wasn't winning conservative votes.

COSTELLO: McCain did come in third among conservatives. But Huckabee won in five states on Super Tuesday, even though talkers told their listeners a vote for Huckabee is like a vote for McCain.

HUCKABEE: People across this country are saying that, yes, we heard what the pundits said. But this is our vote, not theirs. This is our election, not theirs. This is our presidency, not theirs.

COSTELLO: And with Huckabee's success came talk of a McCain/Huckabee ticket -- something conservatives cannot stomach.

INGRAHAM: McCain has been -- has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton.

COSTELLO: It was a common theme in the world of conservative talk, although some eventually admitted if it came down to a McCain/Huckabee ticket, conservative voters would abstain.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jeter2 (February 07, 2008 5:41 pm ET)
         

      Ok I must be missing something here.

      What's the beef?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 07, 2008 5:45 pm ET)
           

        Ok I must be missing something here.

        What's the beef?

        Don't worry, the sensitive left will find some way to be offended by the remark.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 5:58 pm ET)
             
          Yes, some liberal will be on here any minute saying Ingraham's opinion is invalid because it's not supported by any facts, after all we don't know of a single soul who has committed suicide by voting for Hillary.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (February 07, 2008 6:14 pm ET)
             

          There's no beef, guys. 

          MMFA's just noting that a conservative is so upset that they're going to back a liberal-- and consider it to be suicide (!)

          It's called irony. Or maybe just ridculousness on their part. It's worthy of note.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
               

            You all should be sitting back in your chairs, arms folded, feet up on your desk, smiling smugly, watching these conservatives having a fit over their presidential nominee - even contemplating "suicide" voting as an alternative.

            Instead some of you are hand-wringing over what she said.  Priceless. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 07, 2008 6:37 pm ET)
                 
              Thanks, Tommy. Sometimes I'm so confused about what I "should be doing". Then, you come along, and with one sweet post, make everything better. You're the ginchiest!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:46 pm ET)
                   
                I have no clue what "ginchiest" means, but I accept your thanks.....and you are very welcome!  Anything further, contact my assistant.  :)
                Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (February 07, 2008 7:25 pm ET)
                 

              Oh, I am sitting back and enjoying it! It beats "the young and the restless" any day of the week.

              But the real suicides will commence on November 8th when a bunch of crackers in the south wake up and say:

              "SHEEEIT! My PREZ'DENT IS A *!@*?*&!" (insert racist or sexist term here!)

              Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (February 07, 2008 7:05 pm ET)
             
          I dont have a problem with it. I am not suprised the ignorant right is trying to read our minds again.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 5:50 pm ET)
           
        There is no beef.  Ingraham was saying what she believes and MMFA doesn't like it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 07, 2008 5:52 pm ET)
             
          Tommy, don't you know that's gross misinformation?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by LeftSidePositive (February 07, 2008 5:59 pm ET)
             
          Tommy, what are you talking about?!

          I think MMFA, as a progressive site, would be DELIGHTED if people started voting for Hillary in the general election for whatever reason (they would also probably be equally delighted if people voted for Obama, if he were the nominee).
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
               
            What they don't like is how dare Laura Ingraham speak so heinously as she did here.  Suicide voters, FOR HILLARY!  Shame, shame.  
            Report Abuse
            • Author by edenscape246494 (February 07, 2008 6:13 pm ET)
                 

              A. It elevates that nitwit to serious news correspondent to allow her to disgrace the television with her presence and yes, opinions that are devoid of fact, tact or substance...it's the equivalent of having a three year old appear on the nightly news to call all Republicans 'poopie heads.'

              B. It makes like of suicide bombers, glad to know trie conservatives find the war on terror so amusing

              C. It's MMFA's site, they can do whatever they want right?  The free market will decide.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:15 pm ET)
                   
                They absolutely can do whatever they want, and as long as they permit it, we are allowed to comment as well.  See how that works.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by edenscape246494 (February 07, 2008 6:18 pm ET)
                     
                  I agree.  See that's the problem with all this WITH crap, no offense intended as I like your non WITH posts quite a bit.  If you and others already know it's MMFA's right to post whatever they want then the WITH is redundant.  Instead it would broaden the discourse to actually explain why an item may or may no be relevant.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:26 pm ET)
                       

                    Eden,

                    As I have explained, the "WITH" posts often go directly to the relevance and placement of why an item is here.  That is as valid a viewpoint as anything else.  It has nothing to do with MMFA's right to put it here, nobody is questioning that. 

                    And it is certainly far more valid than when somebody just drives by and insults the media misinformer in question with nothing else.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by edenscape246494 (February 07, 2008 6:31 pm ET)
                         

                      Yes but Tommy this was today's WITH:

                      "the sensitive, what’s the beef, Ingraham was saying what she believes. gross misinformation, to speak so heinously."

                       

                      Do you believe any of that adequately explains why this is a WITH item?  I'm just saying the WITH is getting to be a crutch for some cats that can't explain the difference between conservative politicians, policies and personalities.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:32 pm ET)
                           

                        "some cats"

                        I like that, nobody speaks that way anymore, that is so cool.  You're OK by me.  :) 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by edenscape246494 (February 07, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
                             

                          HA HA  I do talk that way.  I like reintegrating old slang.

                          You're ok by me too Tommy, we don't always agree but it's fun to argue with you.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 07, 2008 6:49 pm ET)
                               
                            Eden, don't let that L-7 Tommy bother you, I think you're plenty "hep".
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by finarfin (February 07, 2008 9:47 pm ET)
                               

                            When reintegrating old slang and terminology (something i likewise delight in) its a nigh impossible task for once its gone there is little chance of return. Some of the most  nifty terms are unfortunately lost into the void, but i suppose this is how languages develop.

                            Report Abuse
            • Author by carlileb5935 (February 07, 2008 6:15 pm ET)
                 
              Tommy, they're just noting that she's ridiculous-- and maybe helpful to Dems. There's no outrage.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (February 07, 2008 6:16 pm ET)
             

          The main target of MMFA's ire is CNN in this case.

          Of course, MMFA does not like Ingram's characterization of conservative deserters at a time of a presidential election as "suicidal".

          I think the main 'beef' is that MMFA doesn't like that CNN, "the most trusted name in news," found it necessary to give TV air time to sewage like this. 

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:22 pm ET)
               

            Pete, I disagree.

            This is a very valid and relevant story, many of the conservative base bolting their nominee?  You think just because Ingraham chose a hyperbole that it descends into being "sewage".  I don't. She speaks for many in her party, it's a very newsworthy story. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by edenscape246494 (February 07, 2008 6:28 pm ET)
                 

              OK, now we have a discussion.

              From what 've seen so far on this site the Righty posters like to claim that the Limbaughs, Coulters and Ingraham's are not representative of the party.  That all Republicans shouldn't be tarred by the shrill diatribes of a few wingnuts with radio shows.  So MMFA is pointing out that the MSM does allow these nuts to act as spokespeople and that the MSM is crazy for allowing that.  It's like Obama having to apologize for something MoveOn does.

              So in reality I would say MMFA is helping normal conservatives like yourself weed to out the whackos, albeit whackos with vast audiences for the betterment of the party as a whole.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
                   

                Eden,

                I hear what you are saying, but Ingraham speaks her mind every day on the radio - she has many listeners and people that agree with her, but she speaks for only for herself, she isn't obligated or responsible for anyone eles.  Some agree, some do not.  If she says something stupid, it's on her, if she says something smart, it's also on her.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by edenscape246494 (February 07, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
                     

                  So here's my beef...

                  My grandmother is a good person, worked hard all her life, raised a big family and kept it together. 

                  Today she spouts O'Reilly word for word and believes it.  My uncles do to.  In fact lots of people do.  The items you usually dislike are the ones that hinge on particular conservative personalities.  To your credit you acknowledge that they are a-holes and lower the discourse.  My beef is that the general public isn't Tommy.  About half the country is dumb as rocks and everything they believe Bill O'Reilly or his kith and kin told them to believe.  It's why 50% of Americans still think Saddam was in on 9-11.

                  WITH?  It's here to expose these influencial vultures with vast audiences and no editor for what they are....and thats a craven bunch of loony self servers that aren't fit to do news let alone opine.  IMHO of course.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by edenscape246494 (February 07, 2008 6:49 pm ET)
                       

                    To be even clearer I believe the Right's monoply on talk radio and over representation in the rest of the media allows a constant stream of brain washing to occur, subtle but sly, on the publics airwaves.  Certain mantras about liberals would have impossible to spread and cultivate without ditto heads all over the place repeating it ad nasuem to vast captive audiences.

                    Opinions and jokes become stories and sources then fact and law, and if you tell any lie enough it becomes true to a certain POV.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by edenscape246494 (February 07, 2008 6:55 pm ET)
                         

                      ie.  The way MMFA is dismissively mentioned in the MSM, how O'Reilly's "I've been taken out of context spiel" made it's way over to the accepted dialogue column of what's true and what's spin.  You visit here and there are recordings of the shows available free of charge.  I say gramma, Bill is lying, he did say that and I can prove it.  She says Oh, where?  At that fake Media Matters site where they distort his recordings to make him look bad.

                      Again, lies repeated a lot becoming accepted truth

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:51 pm ET)
                       

                    Eden,

                    Some people believe what they want to believe, no matter what.  I am sure it happens on the left as well, so it's probably a wash overall.

                    If your grandmother is a good person, then that is far more important than any dumb pundit she believes in.  Let them have what they have, I have elderly relatives who believe in things that are totally ridiculous too, in my opinion.  We just don't discuss it.

                    Have a nice evening, gotta run. 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by LeftSidePositive (February 08, 2008 5:04 am ET)
                         
                      Whether or not the grandmother (or anyone else) is a good person, is sadly, NOT as important as their political beliefs, in the public sphere.

                      Even the nicest ordinary private citizen could probably reach about 150 or so people by just being a nice good person and being kind to those around them. Even if someone is involved in public service, they might be able to directly influence the lives of around 400 people (I mean ordinary people, again, not presidents of companies or major charities, world travelers or celebrities). Now, reaching out and improving the lives of whomever you can reach by whatever means is a great thing and I'm not knocking it...

                      BUT, who you vote for affects the lives of BILLIONS of people--about 300 million here, and people all over the world who feel the effects of our wars, international violence, global warming, and aggressive diplomacy.

                      So, even a "nice" person can be doing tremendous harm to the world around them by voting for bad people on bad information and bad understanding...
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by edenscape246494 (February 08, 2008 7:18 am ET)
                           
                        And that is my issue with the right wing media machine, it infects even good, ordinary folk and causes them to make decisions that otherwise they might not have made.  Buying into hype and voting for a $1 trillion dollar, 4k American deaths and countless Iraqi civilian death warmonger with a bad resume.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Goodfella57 (February 08, 2008 1:37 pm ET)
                           

                        "BUT, who you vote for affects the lives of BILLIONS of people--about 300 million here, and people all over the world who feel the effects of our wars, international violence, global warming, and aggressive diplomacy."

                        SO what you're saying is that if one disagrees with your world view on these issues, they are just wrong. With no room for difference of opinion? 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by LeftSidePositive (February 08, 2008 1:51 pm ET)
                             
                          Not that they are by definition wrong, but I think in the last eight years it has been pretty well shown that a vote for George W. Bush has meant a vote for fearmongering, endangering the lives of American citizens, endangering the lives of people all over the world, political corruption, corporate corruption, destruction of our civil liberties, the evisceration of our constitution, a declining standard of living for the average American, endangerment of consumers through the watering-down of important consumer safety standards and ineffectively monitored imports, the politicization of science and the erosion of scientific integrity for political gain, the restriction on reproductive freedom and evidence-based methods to combat communicable disease both here and abroad, callously ignoring the needs of victims of major disasters both in America and abroad, and intimidating the media to sit idly by or enable all of these disasters to take place.

                          So, it's not "just because" someone disagrees with me that they are wrong--LOOK AT THE CONSEQUENCES and then realize that one should take some responsibility to get informed, think critically, and vote intelligently, to save yourself and the rest of the world from what's gone on above.
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 07, 2008 7:11 pm ET)
                     
                  You are trying to have it both ways. Claiming BOTH that she is a entertainer who speaks only for herself, AND that it is somehow an important and valid story. Those two postitions are contradictory. Why not ask Melanie Griffith what SHE thinks about McCain voters?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by MoonbatYouBet (February 07, 2008 8:30 pm ET)
                     

                   She speaks for many in her party
                  - tommy / Thursday February 7, 2008 6:22:59 PM EST

                  but she speaks for only for herself
                  - tommy / Thursday February 7, 2008 6:35:56 PM EST

                  You Maverick!

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 9:42 pm ET)
                       
                    I admit that does sound ridiculous, and rightly questioned. What I meant was of course many agree with her but she does only speak for herself. As I do, as you do. Like it or not she is a vocal advocate for her positions and she does merit coverage.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MoonbatYouBet (February 07, 2008 9:53 pm ET)
                         

                      But everytime you go off on this topic you neglect the larger truth.  Yes Laura's words, or Bill's or Rush's or Sean's or whichever RW pundit with good ratings and a book deal or two one may name are just their own words.  But their success in their fields makes them and their words representative of their followers.  I am not a spokesperson of the crazy left, I'm some twit with an internet connection.  Laura Ingraham is a spokesperson of the fringe right as a function of her success in preaching to them.

                      These people are wingnut icons because they are saying what the wingnuts want to hear.  When their ratings drop and their books stop selling then their words become just their own and not representative of anything else.  You may not agree with everything these blow hards say and good for you on that.  But listen to the call in segments on any one of their shows.  There are plenty of people who take their words as gospel in stone from on high and those people spread the word.  Every ridiculous "the liberals want to give terrorists free educations and houses and make it illegal for conservatives to drive SUVs" starts with these shows.

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by LeftSidePositive (February 08, 2008 5:10 am ET)
                         
                      WHY does this person merit coverage?!?!

                      I'm all for free speech--let her have a "newspaper" that is a bunch of 8.5x11s stapled together that she hands out on street corners, let her put up flyers, let her have her own public-access radio station or website, and let it reach both people who would be interested in hearing it if her diatribes weren't propped up by corporate media.

                      But, I don't get invited to speak on CNN, YOU don't get invited to speak on CNN. Furthermore, why do I watch CNN? Because I want to hear from intelligent, well-informed people who have done a thorough study of the news of the day and can provide a valuable perspective. CNN is a major TV network, and their commentators can be the best of the best--what standard of quality are they demonstrating here?!?!?
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (February 07, 2008 6:38 pm ET)
                 

              So she could have gotten her point across without hyperbole every bit as effectively as I could have?

              I think we can at least agree on that.

              But then, CNN probably would not have found her remark 'newsworthy.' 

              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (February 07, 2008 7:09 pm ET)
                 
              Ingrahams OPINION based on nothing, is a very valid and important story WHY? She is a bomb thrower. She has no expertise as anything EXCEPT an Ann Coulter Wannabee. It would be exactly as valid and important if they asked Ronald McDonald what HE thought.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (February 08, 2008 11:21 am ET)
                   
                How ridiculous.  She is no Ann Coulter by any stretch.  She doesn't live only to get publicity and be provocative like Ann does.  She hardly throws bombs like Ann does.  To compare the two is absurd.  You may disagree with her, or even hate her, but to toss her in the same bin as Coulter is just silly.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 09, 2008 9:17 pm ET)
                     
                  No it isnt ridiculous. She is Annie lite. She does no in depth analysis. She tosses bombs, denigrates liberals and any who disagree with her and has NO expertise at anything else. It is NOT an important story that she is a loon. Anymore than it would be an important story to ask the guy at Taco Bell what HE thinks. Give up on your stupid attempts at mind reading. I dont hate Inghram. She barely exists in my universe. I know it is the hivemind assignment to  keep repeating ad naseum that us liberals hate whatever we are criticising but its just stupid. You DONT have amazing mind reading powers and you DONT know who I hate and who I dont so give up on pretending you do just because the hivemind TOLD you to believe and repeat the nonsense.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 07, 2008 5:51 pm ET)
           
        Sometimes MMFA just illuminates stupid things said by Conservatives. I think this qualifies.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (February 07, 2008 6:01 pm ET)
           
        I think the idea is that she's associating a vote for Clinton with "suicide", which is negative.  But I don't see the problem either, because if the shoe was on the other foot, I would say it would be political suicide to vote for McCain over Hillary, for instance.  If you want to pursue a political agenda, it is suicide to vote for the opposing party.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (February 07, 2008 6:11 pm ET)
           

        A vote is a CHOICE. This Rightwinger has characterized a choice ... a vote for Hillary ... as "SUICIDE."

        Vote for Hillary, you are taking your own life. You are DEAD.

        This is Rightwing MISINFORMATION, heard in the Media. Hysterical hyperbole by the "conservatives" to characterize a vote they disagree with as FATAL, a DEATH BLOW.

        Next thing you know, they'll be saying NOT supporting GW Bush's policies will result in a MUSHROOM CLOUD. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (February 07, 2008 6:13 pm ET)
             
          Of course, and any idiot that doesn't take this literally is brain DEAD.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (February 08, 2008 1:01 pm ET)
               

            "Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

            I want you to know, I've given this a lot of thought -- I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

            Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

            ---Mitt Romney, Feb 7, 2008 

            BUT LET'S NOT TAKE THIS LITERALLY.

            "Give Terrorism a chance, vote Democrat"

            BUT LET'S NOT TAKE THIS LITERALLY.

            "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," ---Dick Cheney, Sept 2004 

            BUT LET'S NOT TAKE THIS LITERALLY.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (February 08, 2008 1:41 pm ET)
                 
              Pete, I am surprised at you.  I specifically mentioned this portion of Romey's speech in a thread yesterday and said how hideous it was.  This has nothing to do with my response to Tex, or this thread.  What a low blow, especially coming from you.  
              Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (February 07, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
             

          "Next thing you know, they'll be saying NOT supporting GW Bush's policies will result in a MUSHROOM CLOUD. "

          But, didn't they alrea....OH! 

          That was joke grenade!  :-) 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 08, 2008 8:44 am ET)
             

          Vote for Hillary, you are taking your own life. You are DEAD.

          Tex, I took it to mean that voting for HC is political suicide, the "death" of republican chances to win the white house and/or of the republican party as it now stands. In other words, it would be conservatives "sacrificing" their vote in order to kill the changes that they perceive are occuring w/n the repub party.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (February 09, 2008 12:47 am ET)
           

        What's the beef?

        "some conservatives would...... vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) rather than vote for McCain."

        Do you all accept that as a factual claim?  Or is that conservative misinformation intended to damage a moderate among them?  Please remove tin foil hat before giving your answer.

         

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 07, 2008 5:47 pm ET)
         
      I'm not sure where the beef is either, but that article was full of the most bizarre statements. WOW
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (February 07, 2008 5:49 pm ET)
         
      Acccording to Fox News they're really "Homicide Voters."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 07, 2008 5:54 pm ET)
         
      I would argue that they already committed intellectual seppuku when they voted for President Numbnuts....twice.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (February 07, 2008 5:59 pm ET)
           
        They're regular Takehiro Kanazawa's, and their world-view is just as complicated.

        (If you don't know who that is, watch Rashomon, a film from the 50's by Akira Kurosawa.  It's absolutely brilliant)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by LeftSidePositive (February 07, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
         
      On the other hand, it's good to know there are some people who will balance out the insanity of Obama supporters threatening to vote for McCain if Hillary gets the Dem nomination!!

      That said, "suicide voters" seems a little harsh...but I agree, this doesn't seem to be as much about exposing "conservative misinformation," but it is certainly and interesting read to see how crazy some of these people are!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dave (February 07, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
         
      Laura may be correct. McCain/Huckabee is not my idea of a Conservative ticket. However, I think my finger would fall off if I ever pulled the lever for Hillary.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 07, 2008 6:56 pm ET)
           

        Dave,

        Which candidate of the remaining three who all have realistic shots for the White House would be best for the country in your opinion?  I'm not asking who would be best for your arm ;).

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave (February 07, 2008 8:06 pm ET)
             

          Fried,

          Honestly, I think it would have to be Obama. Hillary and McCain would probably not be able to get anything passed by Congress for a variety of reasons. Obama simply hasn't made as many enemies as those two have. Plus, he seems like the only genuine candidate left. I really think he wants to change things. Clinton and McCain are in it for themselves.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by LeftSidePositive (February 08, 2008 1:59 pm ET)
               
            Dave, no offense, but this makes ABSOLUTELY no sense!!

            Obama's positions are virtually the same as Hillary's. He is very liberal (and I, personally, mean that as a very sincere compliment), so why would you as a conservative want to vote for him?

            I'm glad to see irrational voting go both ways, but there are a lot of really good reasons to vote for Obama, that have to do with his commitment to getting us out of Iraq, improving our health care system, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, undoing the political corruption that has gone on, etc. (I will also point out that all of these are also good reasons to vote for Hillary). These have nothing to do with who's "genuine" (I have no idea what that even means!) or who is or isn't "in it for themselves" (hint: they ALL are--they're politicians! Don't be fooled!!!). Remember all the trouble we got into when we selected a president "we would want to have a beer with"?!

            So please, make some effort to learn about how policy positions affect the world in which you live, and make informed decisions, rather than falling for the next "genuine personality" (whether liberal or conservative) that comes along!
            Report Abuse
    • Author by pithaughn (February 07, 2008 6:15 pm ET)
         
      I'm sorry, how exactly can they pull a lever for Senator Clinton with Senator Obama as the candidate?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dazedandconfused26 (February 07, 2008 6:18 pm ET)
         

      I cant see a McCain/Huckabee ticket working, I doubt McCains base like's Huckabee any more than Huckabee's far right support likes McCain. Oh yeah, that and Huckabee is nuts. I think old Rudy was sucking up to be on McCains ticket when he endorsed him last month.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by keepitreal (February 07, 2008 8:17 pm ET)
         

      ROFLM*O

      For real...what's the beef ?

      I mean, come on now....

      If Laura Ingraham is that concerned about votes, then she should rally for the discontinuation of electronic voting machines and support paper ballets as the only method Americans should be using to cast their votes! 

      Like anyones vote really counts anymore....Oye Vay 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MoonbatYouBet (February 07, 2008 8:24 pm ET)
         

      Here's a bit of the speech Mitt made when he cut and run from the primary campaign:

      ”If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

      So, if Ingraham and all the talkers really and truly believed in Romney as a candidate it follows that voting against McCain is truly a suicide vote on their parts.

      But really, the talkers don't believe in anything but themselves.  So why does anyone believe in them?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Blueneck (February 07, 2008 8:34 pm ET)
         
      Ingraham, Limbaugh, Coulter and a bunch of Republican voters--suicide! There is an idea I could really get behind and boy was I getting excited. Would it be gas, drowning, wild animals, 'enhanced interrogation' or a slow death by radiation poisoning from depleted uranium? Maybe it could be a pay-for-view extravaganza followed by a WWE smackdown featuring Randy Orton and Jeff Hardy. But now you guys have burst my bubble. Oh well I can still dream.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Marker (February 07, 2008 9:58 pm ET)
         
      Conservative trolls, please line up for your last drink since you can't vote for McCain.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ultrasanktpauli (February 08, 2008 12:57 am ET)
         
      A little off but years ago, driving through the desert in the middle of the night i heard this woman say, 'you don't need to worry about your rights. if you've got nothing to hide, you have no reason to worry.'

      I'm just saying---
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Shasta4737 (February 08, 2008 1:03 am ET)
         

      I am a Christian and I can not understand why Laura Ingraham always wears the big cross necklace. She must be trying to make a statement with it, but then she doesn't support the candidates whose actions are at least a bit Christian. Why does she support Romney over Huckabee for example? I'm a Democrat because I believe Christians should help the poor, elderly, disadvantaged, etc. Still, Huckabee does follow social conservative values. But Romney? Why Romney over Huckabee?   

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (February 08, 2008 1:20 pm ET)
         

      She then urged them to go to a Heritage Foundation's website called What Would Reagan Do.

      You've got to be kidding me.  What Would Reagan Do?  Looks like a thinly veiled reference to WWJD.  Unbelievable.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dazedandconfused26 (February 08, 2008 1:58 pm ET)
         

      WWRD, t shirts coming soon. Most conservative hacks talk like Reagan was God anyway.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by keepitreal (February 08, 2008 6:54 pm ET)
         
      Well, I see my comments have not been posted.....again  :0/
      Report Abuse