If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Political Carnival)   Meghan McCain: "If I don't see some changes in next 4 years, I'm going to consider registering as an Independent"   (thepoliticalcarnival.net) divider line 168
    More: Amusing, Meghan McCain  
•       •       •

3744 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Nov 2012 at 12:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 10:14:43 AM  
I guess she hung in there because of her dad, but this is hardly a surprise.
 
2012-11-18 10:18:36 AM  
Small steps...
 
2012-11-18 10:19:31 AM  
No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.
 
2012-11-18 10:20:27 AM  
Why give it two years? What does she expect to happen that will drive out the social conservatives leaving only fiscal conservatives?
 
2012-11-18 10:20:43 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.


c580019.r19.cf2.rackcdn.com
 
2012-11-18 10:20:46 AM  
She'll see change, but there are decent odds the change won't be to her liking.
 
2012-11-18 10:33:36 AM  
So?
 
2012-11-18 10:34:37 AM  
But she'll still vote for Republicans across the board.
 
2012-11-18 10:40:04 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.


I had a clever comment to add. Now I can't even remember what it was. Amazing.
 
2012-11-18 10:44:26 AM  
I would have sexual relations with those juicy, juicy tits.
 
2012-11-18 10:45:08 AM  

GAT_00: But she'll still vote for Republicans across the board.


Independent is what republicans who are afraid to admit they're republicans call themselves.
 
2012-11-18 10:59:34 AM  

unlikely: GAT_00: But she'll still vote for Republicans across the board.

Independent is what republicans who are afraid to admit they're republicans call themselves.


Mitt Romney's camp thought he was going to win the election because he was winning independents. What they didn't realize was that the "independents" he was winning were former republicans who at least had enough self-awareness to be too ashamed to call themselves republicans.
 
2012-11-18 11:12:25 AM  
Once she inherits mommies beer distribution empire she'll go back. Then she will tell us about that boot strappy thing.
 
2012-11-18 11:14:40 AM  
If the few moderate Republicans want real change in the party, they need to give up this bullshiat of "registering as an Independent" (and then voting Republican).

I think the only way to retake the party from the lunatics is to blow it the fark up. Republicans who are disenfranchised need to just bite the bullet and register as Democrats. The truth is that the Democrats have moved so far to the right in the past 45 years that most of their policies are already in line with the Republicans of the past, When the Democrats obliterate the Republicans in the House, Senate, Governorships, etc for a couple of cycles, the party might be weakened enough for the sane conservatives to retake it.
 
2012-11-18 11:25:37 AM  

unlikely: GAT_00: But she'll still vote for Republicans across the board.

Independent is what republicans who are afraid to admit they're republicans call themselves.


In fairness, I still consider myself fairly Conservative, but the GOP is now firmly in the hands of radicals. The party has given up on any pretense of fiscal restraint, actively hates a fair amount of the population, and is adamant on fighting against anything resembling equity or the rights of individuals. I hung in for years, hoping to vote in sane candidates, but that voice was drowned out, and it just didn't help. I gave up my membership to the party after casting my ballot in the last Primary, and it didn't do a damn bit of good to keep Romney off the roster.

I'm not a Democrat, but if the choice is between a radical, and centerist with a plan for the future that doesn't involve shooting or jailing dissenters, then I have to go with the candidate with a sane plan for the future, and those are rarer and rarer within the ranks of the GOP. They've embraced radicalism, and still want to call "Conservative" in the same way that "Social Conservatives" hate their neighbors and want to establish a radicalized view of freedom of religion.

I want sane fiscal policy so my daughter isn't saddled with huge debts. I want sane domestic policy that doesn't demonize my neighbors for simply existing. I like our Constitutional protections, and that means I like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, I like the right to seek legal redress, I like both the Second and First Amendments. Freedom of religion isn't about liking only ONE faith or ministry, and that means that marriage equality is sort of an issue--not all ministries have a problem with same sex couples, and if folks don't want to marry gay and lesbian couples, that's their business, but likewise the folks who do want to perform those ceremonies, we can't really stand in their way, and likewise, it comes down to equality under the law. Marriage equality IS an issue, and it's one that good Conservatism should have stood for, rather than listening to a bunch of radicals who want to impose their faith on the rest of the nation. I want sane foreign policy, and that means scaling back our adventures overseas. That means encouraging the UN to step up to the plate, instead of just saddling ourselves with more and more debt to play policeman across the globe, because Germany and France and the UK are glad to have us send our men and women overseas to secure their interests, and NOT foot any of the bill. We need to stop embracing radicals because they happen to be fighting against the folks we have problems with today, and never mind what they might turn into tomorrow. We need to fulfill the promise of the Constitution for all our citizens, not just the ones who smile pretty.

Our freedoms aren't the freedoms to be pleasant and chatty. They are the freedom to piss each other off. To disagree, even vehemently, and STILL be united as a nation. To have a public discourse that doesn't demonize the other. Right now, the GOP isn't really interested in that. Not the leadership, not the vocal rank and file, and they are embracing the most radicalized voices as their champions, and that IS a turn off. It isn't remotely Conservative. We need thoughtful approaches to taxation, rational responses to threats to our domestic tranquility, thoughtful approaches to justice. We have folks who fear education, who fear progress, who fear science, and that has never been a particularly "Conservative" process, but that embraced by radicals who fear change. Conservative thought has been about thoughtful and care in the changes our society has wrought. Careful consideration to decisions that may have unforeseen consequences. And that isn't really what the last twenty years has been about, but increasingly radical voices, who put blinders on to consequences, and then try to paint those consequences as the result of "unforeseen circumstances." But that is sort of the point of a Conservative view--that you take the time to consider the possible fallout. Like, what might happen if you back a dictator over the duly elected government, like in Iran. Like what backing religiously motivated freedom fighters against the Soviets and then abandon those freedom fighters entirely to try to organize a shattered nation like in Afghanistan. This hasn't been a hallmark of the Republican party for some time, and that really is the issue. It has been moving far and away from Conservatism, while trying to retain the title, and what is occurring that folks are starting to pay attention, and realize that by bringing radicals under the Big Tent, we've pushed away those Conservative voices, and replaced them with the shrill squawkings of maddest and loudest, and called those voices "Conservative" because the title was more palatable than "Batsh*t Crazy."
 
2012-11-18 11:36:21 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: If the few moderate Republicans want real change in the party, they need to give up this bullshiat of "registering as an Independent" (and then voting Republican).

I think the only way to retake the party from the lunatics is to blow it the fark up. Republicans who are disenfranchised need to just bite the bullet and register as Democrats. The truth is that the Democrats have moved so far to the right in the past 45 years that most of their policies are already in line with the Republicans of the past, When the Democrats obliterate the Republicans in the House, Senate, Governorships, etc for a couple of cycles, the party might be weakened enough for the sane conservatives to retake it.


This illustrates a common misconception.

Registering in either party doesn't mean that you have to vote a straight ticket. If you vote a straight ticket, without considering the merits of each candidate on their own, then you have failed your civic duty. What registering does do is allow you to help choose who is on the ticket. Nothing more. It allows you to have a voice on who gets on the ballot, but that never locks you into who you vote for. Well, unless you're some sheep who believes that EVERYONE in your party is inherently better than the OTHER.

Registering Democrat would mean that I got to help choose the Democratic candidates, certainly. But at this point, given the levels of Crazy Train that has infected my former party, that really doesn't give me much control there either. For me, it means that I don't align with either DERP Brigades, and can show to BOTH parties that their platforms aren't attractive enough for me to align with one or the other. Which means that centerists on both sides have the opportunity to show me if they're worth voting for.

I DID have hopes that the Modern Whigs would get themselves together enough to become a valid third party. That was sort of negated when the Astroturf that is the TEA Party came along, and more's the pity, because they had a platform I could get behind.

Just joint the Democrats isn't really an option. I vote for the sanest candidate, no matter the party. Registering just means that would have some impact on who the party chooses, and given that I prefer a far more Conservative approach, that means that my voice is likewise going to be drowned out in the Democratic as well as Republican Primaries. Better to be in that pool of what the media likes to call "undecided" voters so that candidates can expose their positions in bolder language so that I can choose between the less DERPy of the them, and let them show their hands.
 
2012-11-18 11:41:19 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.


I think we're done here.
 
2012-11-18 11:55:14 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.

I think we're done here.


no we aren't. we need more pictures.
 
2012-11-18 12:11:13 PM  

hubiestubert: This illustrates a common misconception.

Registering in either party doesn't mean that you have to vote a straight ticket.


Of course not, but severely dwindling Republican registrations along with increasing Democratic registrations would highlight the problem and garner some media attention that would be harder to ignore than having registered Republicans voting for Dems or simply staying home. Hell, if moderate conservatives could influence the Democrats to move just a little further right, they'd be squarely where the Republicans used to be and it would be liberals who would find themselves looking for a party that represents them.

Personally, I like to take the opposite approach. I'm the leftiest leftist libtard who ever libbed a lib... since I live in a solidly blue state, I register Republican and vote for the least electable radicals during the primaries, but I'm kind of a dick.
 
2012-11-18 12:23:27 PM  

ManateeGag: FirstNationalBastard: AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.

I think we're done here.

no we aren't. we need more pictures.


Meghan McCain is one of those women who really benefit from raccoon eye makeup. I don't know how the phenomenon works, but it does:

img844.imageshack.us
img717.imageshack.us
img694.imageshack.us
img831.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-18 12:49:09 PM  
Meghan who? 

gaaaaa...doesn't matter. Another nobody and political suckerfish trying to sell a book or something.  
www.missstan.com
 
2012-11-18 12:49:52 PM  
No she isn't. The only interesting thing about her is that she's a Republican.
 
182
2012-11-18 12:50:45 PM  
well, then.....tits or gtfo.
 
2012-11-18 12:54:45 PM  
Go get fatter.
 
2012-11-18 12:54:58 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.


Always good to be reminded that Republicans don't have an exclusive lock on the War on Women.
 
2012-11-18 12:55:48 PM  
Because somehow the republicans have gotten less crazy over the last decade Megan?

Yeah, lets hope they get back to where they were under bush jr....
 
2012-11-18 12:56:13 PM  
But she won't, because otherwise grandpa will take away her trust fund
 
2012-11-18 12:56:50 PM  

Pappas: No she isn't. The only interesting thing about her is that she's a Republican.


Pretty much that. If she didn't have the "I'm a Republican, but I don't follow lockstep with the party" Maverick, Jr angle, no one would pay attention to her.
 
2012-11-18 12:59:33 PM  
Why wait? They've shown themselves incapable of adapting to clearly changing demographics and moral standards for decades now, what makes you think the next four years are going to be any different?
 
2012-11-18 01:00:33 PM  
oh my god i don't care
 
2012-11-18 01:01:07 PM  
I don't get the attraction to her. She's a fat idiot with a lot of money and a Senator daddy. It's not like she is the bright future of the GOP. She's about as deep as the kiddy pool at the YMCA.
 
2012-11-18 01:01:10 PM  
I know I'm not the first to say it, but registering as an independent is irrelevant when you're just going to vote Republican anyway.
It's like breaking up with an abusive husband but still stopping by to screw him whenever he calls. Pointless.
 
2012-11-18 01:01:50 PM  

Lsherm: Meghan McCain is one of those women who really benefit from having large tits.


Fixed. No one gives a fark about her eye makeup. Or her party affiliation, for that matter.
 
2012-11-18 01:02:06 PM  
If Paul McCartney wants boogie woogie, he doesn't wait 4 years, he writes Lady Madonna right then and there.
 
2012-11-18 01:02:10 PM  
In four years she'll be just right to anchor something on Fox News.
 
2012-11-18 01:03:08 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.


I see my work here is done.
 
2012-11-18 01:03:56 PM  

Theaetetus: AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.

Always good to be reminded that Republicans don't have an exclusive lock on the War on Women.


Here's the pitch...swing and a miss.
 
2012-11-18 01:04:40 PM  
Sweetie; as long as you and your family register as Republicans, give them money, help them get elected, and vote with them once elected, you're part of the problem.

And if it takes you well over a decade to split with a group of crazies, you really got to ask if the problem isn't fully them and not you.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone not directly running for office would register for *any* political party.
 
2012-11-18 01:05:02 PM  
Inderpendents:
Want health care fixed but don't want to pay for it.
Want abortion outlawed except for rape and incest.
Want tax cuts and less spending on programs they don't use.
Want cheap food without subsidies.
Want illegal immigrant labor but don't want to pay for it.
Want civil unions but not gay marriage
Want the poll workers to check your ID but don't want Voter ID laws.
Would prefer Obama have less of a tan Obama
 
2012-11-18 01:06:37 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.


a thousand times this.
 
2012-11-18 01:08:29 PM  

wildcardjack: In four years she'll be just right to anchor something on Fox News.


Bingo. She's gonna be the disingenuous 'voice' of the 'kids' hurt by the 'entitled' democrat baby boomers.
 
2012-11-18 01:09:09 PM  
I'd like to register my my affiliation to her bosoms.

4 MORE YEARS...
 
2012-11-18 01:09:35 PM  

Bontesla: Why give it two years? What does she expect to happen that will drive out the social conservatives leaving only fiscal conservatives?


When were there ever fiscal conservatives in the GOP?
 
2012-11-18 01:10:03 PM  
Yes, "registrating differently" will really show 'em! Way to go!

And youare going to wait another 4 years to see if your political equivalent of "my husband is beating me" is going to stop? Way to make a stand.
 
2012-11-18 01:10:26 PM  

Theaetetus: AdolfOliverPanties: No one cares, Meghan. Now show your tits.

Always good to be reminded that Republicans don't have an exclusive lock on the War on Women.


iokiyanr
 
2012-11-18 01:11:01 PM  

unlikely: Independent is what republicans who are afraid to admit they're republicans call themselves.


It's about a third of independents who effectively identify with the GOP. Contrariwise, it's almost exactly the same fraction of independents who effectively identify with the Democratic Party. (Linky.)

kxs401: Mitt Romney's camp thought he was going to win the election because he was winning independents. What they didn't realize was that the "independents" he was winning were former republicans who at least had enough self-awareness to be too ashamed to call themselves republicans.


Looking at the CNN exit poll data, it seems perhaps worse than that. He barely won with independent voters, 50:45... but they were only 29% of the electorate, and Democrats outnumbered Republicans 38% to 32%. That looks like the independents he was winning were the former Republicans the GOP had driven out from the name, but that many of the Democrats Obama was winning were Independents who the GOP have driven into the Democratic Party.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Republicans who are disenfranchised need to just bite the bullet and register as Democrats.


Even leaving aside hubiestubert's sound objections, depends which type of Republican. Again, (Linky.)

At this point, the Tea Party and Religious Values voters are just shy of 50% of the party. There's a slim chance there would be a messy fission of the GOP, in which case there's a near-even chance that in the procedural and legal battle the TP&RV might lose control of the brand name to the other factions, and have to make a new one; but it could go the other way around. Odds are, the TP&RV aren't going anywhere.

The "Pro-Government" Republicans look likely they could get along with that coalition. They seem unlikely to go anywhere either.

The Old School Republicans might start defecting to the Democrats, but they have a problem: they're going to be the most extreme right-wing faction in that tent. In so far as they bring big money in their own pockets, a few may be able to get a few elected as "Blue Dog" democrats, and they might be able to have some influence there. However, they're going to be outnumbered by factions more to the left; they'd at most be moderating influences. The best they'd likely do is keep the tax rates from becoming punitive and business regulations unnecessarily draconian. They seem unlikely to be happy with their welcome. They honestly might have a better chance throwing the money behind the Libertarian party -- if they focus on regional elections in 2014, and if they can accept that in the short term the effect will be acting more as "spoilers". The real difficulty is that libertarians don't tend much saner than the GOP these days, with little principled objection to racism by non-government actors (and apparently principled objection to government attempts to counteract such), leaving what seems a significant chance the more racist Tea Party Crazies might follow into the Libertarians if the GOP becomes non-viable.

But the "Window Shopper" Republicans? Looking at the exit polls, and comparing it to the Kaiser data, shows how remarkably few Republicans voted for Obama, when so many "Window Shopper" Republicans were leaning that way. It's conceivable that Romney's brilliant performance at the end of the campaign herded them back into the fold (reading SF broadens your imagination), but it seems far more likely that the "Window Shoppers" are not so much going anywhere as already gone -- no longer identifying as Republicans.
 
2012-11-18 01:11:37 PM  
"We must accept each other and the different opinions within the party...We can't let the Tea Party bully us any longer."

So some opinions are more equal than others?
 
2012-11-18 01:13:26 PM  

Patterson: I'd like to register my my affiliation to her bosoms.

4 MORE YEARS...


"My my my!"
 
2012-11-18 01:15:06 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I don't get the attraction to her. She's a fat idiot with a lot of money and a Senator daddy. It's not like she is the bright future of the GOP. She's about as deep as the kiddy pool at the YMCA.


She's the GOP's plan for appealing to young people. Their whole plan is: 'Hey young people! Look at this pretty, young, rich, white person (who is also an asshole). If they want the same thing that the rich, old white people (who are also assholes, only moreso) want, our agenda can't be all bad, right? Vote Republican! Still not sold? Well what if we said the pretty, young, rich, white person only hates gays a little? Does that make it more sympathetic? No? Well then I'm going to need to see 3 forms of identification before you vote.'

It's not working so well for them.
 
2012-11-18 01:15:14 PM  
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report