April 28th, 2008

All you conservatives who don’t plan to vote for McCain—listen up!

This sort of thing is one of the reasons it’s in your interest to vote for him anyway, if you care about the future of the Supreme Court.

Or the future of voter fraud.

Do you think for one moment that the decision would have been the same had a liberal majority been sitting on the bench?

12 Responses to “All you conservatives who don’t plan to vote for McCain—listen up!”

  1. Terrye Says:

    I have wondered about this myself.

    I can remember Coulter having an elitist little hissy fit when Harriet Miers got the nomination from Bush for Supreme Court. Coulter was beside herself. There was nothing more important than putting the right sort of Ivy Leaguers on the Court. Western civilization hung in the balance.

    Then McCain becomes the presumptive nominee and she is threatening to vote for Hillary.

    Hypocrite. Like she cares about the Court.

  2. J. B. Says:

    Last year about this time it was revealed that hundreds of illegal aliens had registered to vote in Texas. The Texas State Senate , which has 30 members, attempted to pass a voter ID law. The way the Texas State Senate is set up, 10 members can block a bill from coming up for a vote. La Rasa and her allies was able to pull this block off. One of the “Hispanic” Senators- lets be honest and call him “Mexican” ,-Senators was sick in the hospital and actually had a bed brought to the Senate so he could keep this bill from coming up for a vote. I read the quote in either the Houston Chronicle or the Dallas Morning news (had it saved hardcopy for a while, but threw it away before I moved) where that particular Hispanic, I mean Mexican Senator had the audacity to say he never heard of anyone complaining about illegals voting. Of course, the national Media mostly ignored this. Even the State Media ignored it.
    Somehow I do not think that John MCcain, buddy of “Dual Citizen” Dr. Juan “Mexico First” Hernandez is going to really be our buddy in stopping illegals from voting or appointing conservative judges. Oh he may fool some people, but he is the MSM annointed “maverick”- I trust him less than Clinton- at least most people are aware she is not trustworthy.

  3. Vince P Says:

    Terrye sycophanted, “Coulter was beside herself. There was nothing more important than putting the right sort of Ivy Leaguers on the Court”

    Please explain.. what are the attributes of the sort of person that you think Coulter was deadset on?

  4. camojack Says:

    Oh, I’ll vote for him. The alternative is unconscionable… 😥

  5. SteveH Says:

    Point well taken.

    I just hope McCain doesn’t dissapoint more than i think he will. Thats if he wins at all.

    Speaking of that. Is it just me that thinks confusing polls of every possible scenario are purposely put out by MSM for this election? I think people are getting so sick of poll driven politics we may be seeing people hesitant to answer them truthfully.

  6. nyomythus Says:

    and many Liberals should vote for McCain, too.

  7. Chris White Says:

    Confirmed incidents of “voter fraud” in this country are minimal and there are various mechanisms already in place to challenge them when it is suspected that they occur. The goal of voter identification laws like the one in Indiana (” … now considered to be the most onerous in the nation.” as noted in the linked article) is unabashedly partisan. For all the right’s rhetoric about the evils of an “activist judiciary” here you point to a SCOTUS decision that, in the words of the link provided, “… may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters.” and ” … the Court’s main opinion said it was “fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role” in enacting the photo ID law …”

    This decision was a “solution” to a virtually non-existent problem (voter fraud) really aimed at creating further means of limiting and intimidating those citizens thought to be most disposed toward voting Democratic from being able to exercise their right to vote. While you’re at it, why not call for a return to the early days of the Republic when only land owning men were allowed the vote? Or go back a far shorter time and agai allow states to impose a poll tax?

    The message is clear; vote Republican (even if that means McCain) so that the slim partisan majority currently in place on Supreme Court can be solidified, granting the right control of that branch of government for the foreseeable future.

  8. OriginalFrank Says:

    I’d vote for McCain if I thought he’d appoint less liberal judges than Hillary would.

    I don’t think he would.

    If it’s Obama, I’ll probably reconsider since Obama is the MOST liberal senator. So even the liberal McCain would be an improvement over BO.

  9. Count to 10 Says:

    Coulter, by the way, just admitted (claimed?) on Fox that she will in fact vote Republican in November, but she sees it as voting for whoever is chosen as VP.

  10. gcotharn Says:

    To Chris White:

    You write:

    “Confirmed incidents of “voter fraud” in this country are minimal”

    Why should we settle for minimal? Why not do better? My zeal for pristine elections is as strong as leftist zeal for pristine civil rights enforcement. If I say: there has arguably been a total of one incidence of civil rights violation resulting from FISA-related intelligence collection, some on the left will say: Why should we settle for one violation? Why not do better? That’s exactly what I say about voter fraud.

    One of the arguments made to SCOTUS was that the law should be overturned due to partisanship: Justice Stevens:

    It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483. If such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may also assume that SEA 483 would suffer the same fate as the poll tax at issue in Harper.

    But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. […] The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.”

    You write:

    “This decision was … really aimed at … limiting and intimidating”

    I don’t see how you can justify “intimidating.” Therefore, what remains of your argument is “limiting.”

    Indiana provides free photo ID upon presentation of a birth certificate or a passport.

    Justice Breyer hilariously dissented that the cost of a passport is “up to $100.” Only a dilletante would think the voters we are talking about have any interest in a) a passport, or b) “up to”, as opposed to “as little as”. Justice Breyer wouldn’t know a weinie roast if the smoke got in his eyes.

    The cost of a birth certificate is, according to Justice Breyer, “up to” $12. Lets stipulate that some voters cannot easily afford to spend $12 on a birth certificate. I personally would favor a state supplement for birth certificates to voters who claimed indigency. Justice Stevens points out such voters can cast provisional ballots without benefit of Photo ID, and can later prove their identity if their votes are needed to decide an election. At this point, I suddenly realize I’m not exactly sure how that would work, and I’ve not time or inclination to look it up right now.

    So, I end like this: either $12, or proving your identity to validate a provisional ballot.

    Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer, in dissent, argue that either $12, or proving your identity to validate a provisional ballot, amounts to a civil rights violation. Stevens, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, learned and revered justices in the majority, seriously ponder whether or not either of $12, or proving your identity to validate a provisional ballot, amounts to a civil rights violation. That’s one heck of an unfair Republican plot going on right in front of our eyes. Shameful. Scandalous.

  11. Thomas Says:

    Chris White Says:

    “Confirmed incidents of “voter fraud” in this country are minimal and there are various mechanisms already in place to challenge them when it is suspected that they occur. ”

    Ahem… bs…

    There are few incidents of confirmed voter fraud because there are few mechanisms in place to challenge it….

    It’s sorta like late term abortion. It’s not legal… but there are no mechanisms to stop it. Ergo, it is defacto legal… like voting when you shouldn’t be able to… or more than once…

    And that’s just the way some want to keep it…

  12. gcotharn Says:

    Something else about that $12 fee to get an Indiana birth certificate: it’s a one-time fee.

    A voter is not paying $12 per election. Rather, a voter is paying $12 to be officially certified to vote in every election for the rest of their life; and to receive a Birth Certificate, and to receive a State Certified Photo ID. A voter’s $12 also reduces the chances their vote will be devalued or disenfranchised due to vote fraud shenanigans.

    The Democratic Party supposedly HATES IT when a voter is disenfranchised…

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge