Tom W: I’m talking about the fanatics, the ones spew on and on about McShame, McLame, McInsane, etc.
Fanatics? For calling him McShame? I think the Founders would have dealt much more harshly with any politician who tried to surrender US sovereignty to the hordes. And “McShame” pales in comparison to the “bigot” and “racist” calls that we’ve had to put up with. You people are really pulling at straws, these days.
Now we’ve been treated to Bradley’s attempt to declare us the nutroots of the right. What a joke. Just look at the difference between how the shamnesty went and how the FISA bill has gone.
Again, you conservatives have it within your power to control McCain, but you won’t sully your precious “principles” by supporting him and thus forcing him to take your agenda into account. You can wring concessions from him by making your support conditional.
My principles are precious. Call me silly.
And your contention that anyone can “force” McShame into concessions is living in la-la land. All of McShame’s history is a refutation of that thesis.
He still refuses to change on the illegal issue, though now he likes to bring up the canard of the border fence – which is a joke. We have tens of millions of foreigners coming through the US every year and it would be simple for a few million of them to just come and stay every year, bringing us back to the present situation, even with a border fence. The issue with illegals will always be one of interior enforcement, which McShame refused to support and still refuses to support. Only now, he thinks he’s being smart by hiding behind a “border fence”. It’s a joke and a bad one.
If you sit out the election and he wins anyway, you’re going to be irrelevant. Why can’t you see this?
Nice to see how you care about us so much. This line might carry more weight if you hadn’t written all that garbage before it. From what you claim earlier, you should be rooting for us to be irrelevant, since we seem to be messing up your vision of how the political world needs to run.
