Again, I don't think you people have lived through the 90's at all.

Of course, that depends on what your definition on lived is. BTW, that's on film.

True. It's a pretty sad attempt, but I suppose you have to go with the nominee you have rather than the nominee you wish you had.

we'll soon hear Hal squealing about some conservative media attack on his Messiah and claiming hypocrisy by Republicans who stood against one attack and for another.

Again, I don't think you people have lived through the 90's at all. Nor did you seem to be politically aware during the 2004 campaign. Nor have you even heard about John Murtha, or a host of other democrats that have been consistently and rabidly attacked by the Republicans. Even better, I don't think you even remember the 2000 election when GHWB's campaign knocked dear John McCain out of the primary in SC with a whisper campaign of a black child born out of wedlock.

However things turn out, it's going to be truly hilarious to see the entire Republican party play the victim card during this entire election. And we'll have the cameras rolling the entire time, guys. It'll make for some fantastic mashups.

unlike Democrats we have principles, and don't fall to our knees over platitudes and Utopian visions

ROFLMAO. Yes, that's why you're the party who wants to make constitutional amendments outlawing flag burning, gay marriage. You're also the party who went to war with Iraq believing that we'd be greeted as liberators (something McCain has said - on tape, I might add), and that Iraq's flowering democracy would act as sort of a reverse domino effect across the entire middle east. That's why the entire Republican primary hasn't had anything of substance and is instead all about who's "more conservative", "who is more pro torture", who can pander to the evangelicals the best and the non stop trotting out of the mouldering corpse of Ronald Reagan on an almost continual basis.

No one expects that an attack from the Times will unite the party behind McCain - unlike Democrats we have principles, and don't fall to our knees over platitudes and Utopian visions. Republicans take their vote seriously - that's why McCain has a lot of work ahead...

Why? Did you actually *read* their endorsement? What, exactly, does the current article change about that endorsement?

Your argument would be far better if they had anything in there about his uprightness, his non-conflict of interests and his non-cozy relationships with lobbyists. Rather, their endorsement was simply that he was simply the lesser of all the available evils - er, Republican candidates...

Keep plugging away. But do remember that if this is what it takes to unite the base and get them even moderately motivated about voting that it might be useful to remember that the NY Times isn't going to be running for President.

Rick

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from ConservativeKicks.com...

My god, it's like you people never lived through the nineties.

In any event, go ahead and drive the outrage machine to 11, dudes. It really only shows how precious little you really have to work with in your candidate, John McCain.

I guess a common enemy in the NY Times is pretty much the only way you know how to unite.

<snicker>

I don't think many of us on the right give the NY Times the credit it deserves. Everyone can recognize that there was no "there" there, and so the charge is that the NY Times jumped on a story without proof. The titillation of the headline served its purpose - millions read the article looking for adultery and instead got a heaping helping of liberal attack on McCain's strongest suit - ethics.

But it doesn't take away from the REAL story: McCain met numerous times with a telecommunications industry lobbyist and intervened inappropriately on behalf of the lobbyist's client, and then he lied about his communications with the client.