Ann Coulter: Hillary over McCain

In an interview on Glenn Beck's show on Headline News, Ann Coulter stated that she'd rather have Hillary Clinton in the White House than John McCain.



I'm not sure I totally agree - just hearing Hillary's voice gives me a headache, so just listening to the State of the Union every year would become a major undertaking.

Coulter definitely has a point, though: of the three candidates, Hillary looks to be the most conservative. It's a close call (and a bit frightening to any conservative who may be wondering what the U.S. will look like in 2012), but there it is.

John McCain has tried pandering to the conservative base of the Republican party, but in doing so, he seems to have forgotten that conservatives aren't fools - real conservatives aren't mind-numbed Republican robots - we remember McCain-Fiengold. We remember McCain-Kennedy. We remember the "Gang of Fourteen." And we know that's not who we want in the White House.

One other important point that Coulter brings up in her column: one of the things that has endeared McCain to Republicans is the fact that he's a Vietnam Vet. So is Duncan Hunter, and he would've made a much, much better choice for president.

Personally, I can't say that I'd rather have Hillary than McCain - any of the big three (Clinton, McCain & Obama) would be horrible choices for America, and I wouldn't vote for any of them.

At this point, given the choice of Clinton vs. McCain or Obama vs. McCain, I think I'll probably write in Ann Coulter.

They're Conservative Now....But How About After The Election?

Republican presidential candidates held a presidential debate last night. Much of the debate centered around criticizing Hilary Clinton, but before they got to Hilary, they spent some time arguing over who is more conservative.

My problem is this: listening to them in the debate, all of the candidates sound good.

I know that Giuliani is too liberal on too many issues to earn my vote.

Romney, as the former governor of the liberal haven of Massachusetts gives me pause if for no other reason than he was elected in Massachusetts. I've heard many things from Romney that make me think he would be a good president - better than Giuliani, anyway (or anyone the Democrats are running).

Thompson looked good...then he actually entered the race, at which point it became hard to tell just what he stands for. He may make a good conservative candidate, but that has yet to be seen for sure.

I've heard some good things from McCain during the campaign that make me wish he were consistent enough to earn my vote. However, he co-sponsored the McCain Feingold Act, as well as the recently defeated immigration bill. I have a lot of respect for John McCain - it takes a lot of courage to go through what he went through in the Vietnam War...but his record just isn't conservative enough to earn my vote.

Duncan Hunter looks like the best candidate to me...the primary problem is that he's largely an unknown: he doesn't generate the type of press that big names like Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney do. Hunter has been consistently conservative on a range of issues, and I believe that he would make an excellent president.

Personally, I have a problem with what has been going on in the conservative camp. The candidates are trying to out-conservative each other, each trying to pass himself off as the most conservative candidate. Basically, they're trying to out-Reagan Reagan (whose name was mentioned multiple times during the debate).

Ronald Reagan was a man who stood for conservative values in the face of harsh criticism. He stood up for his beliefs, unafraid and unashamed to stand up for his beliefs. This is what America needs in a president.

But this election is not just about having a candidate who knows what he believes and will stand up for it. This election is about America's future, and just what course the nation will take. Will we become yet another bastion of socialism, a nanny state destined for failure, or will we stand up for the true value of the individual, knowing that the feel-good option is not always the right one...or will we opt for the status-quo of straddling the fence, halfway between what we need and what feels right?

I think Duncan Hunter is what America needs. He will stand up for conservative values in the face of criticism; he has shown this in the past. In order to successfully move forward, we need to look at the values and the policies that have made the United States the world's superpower. Socialism didn't get us to where we are today. The United States of America got to where it is today through what is known as the American spirit: the willingness to buckle down and work hard, knowing that through hard work and perseverance you can be successful.

McCain Lashes Out

John McCain has been busy - he's been out there criticizing Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson for their stances on immigration.

Now, I'm more apt to agree with Romney or Thompson than with McCain, because both are more conservative. And for McCain to be out there bashing anyone for opposing his immigration bill is, in my opinion, just absurd.

This new bill looks good on the surface, but it's nothing that hasn't been tried before, and it has failed each and ever time it's been tried. One definition of stupidity: trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

McCain has accused Romney of flip-flopping, trying to characterize Romney's earlier-stated positions as being in-line with the current proposed immigration legislation. The truth, however, is that McCain (and the article) twists Romney's previous position to make it seem contradictory. Previously, Romney said that we should be getting rid of illegal aliens who came to America and further broke the law, and we should allow illegal aliens who otherwise follow the law to stay and apply for citizenship. That position does not work with the kind of amnesty that McCain's bill offers, so Romney's condemnation of the bill is, in fact, consistent.

The article also tries to imply that Fred Thompson has flip-flopped, because he opposed the current bill, saying that we need to secure the border first, then we can deal with what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants. He is supposedly a flip-flopper because he previously stated that we need "comprehensive immigration reform." To say that this is a contradictory position is stupidity, plain and simple. I happen to agree with Thompson, that the first thing that we need in any comprehensive immigration reform is to secure the border, because without a secure border, there is no way to solve the problem.

The truth is that this new immigration bill looks good on paper, but the American people have seen immigration bills that look good on paper before. The question is not, "does the bill look good?" but is instead, "will the bill be enforced effectively?"

This has been the problem with past immigration reform bills: they look good, but they are never enforced effectively.

To Senator McCain, I would say this: trust has to be earned. You can introduce all of the sweeping immigration bills that you want, but until some action is taken to secure the border, no thinking person will ever take you seriously.