Wingnuts Heart McCain
What a difference a couple of weeks can make, readers.
The same person who eagerly rushed to reprint a sick story claiming that John McCain cut a deal with his Commie captors in Viet Nam so that he could relax in a Hanoi apartment and have sex with two hookers is now just furious that the New York Times is printing an article that talks about McCain’s close relationship with a female lobbyist.
Crazy Pammy, quoting Jack “Young Indy” Wheeler, 3 February 2008:
Dr. Wheeler has been kind enough to release his explosive article on John McCain, How The Clintons Will Destroy John McCain… Now you can read the whole thing; [sic]
[Wheeler:] According to T, [documents] reveal that McCain had made an “accommodation” with his captors, and in exchange, T’s father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa.
Crazy Pammy, reacting to the NYT article mentioning McCain’s “close relationship” with a lobbyist, 20 February 2008:
So what? Are we supposed to get our bowels in an uproar over a suggested rumor with a colleague? The leftards can’t have it both ways. We had to live through an eight year Clinton presidency with a horndog that fucked anything that moved — that is if he deigned to insert the one eyed snake. Rape, harassment, threats, cigars, all in a day’s work……………. yech.
Just seventeen days ago, McCain was such a villain that Crazy Pammy was more than happy to help Jack “Young Indy” Wheeler spread the nastiest rumors imaginable about him.
Less than three weeks later, the very idea of her “get[ting] [her] bowels in an uproar” over the appearance of impropriety between McCain and a lobbyist makes her sneer (and reflexively curse about Teh Clenis while she’s at it).
Question: What if the article in question had appeared at WorldNetDaily or at Young Indy Wheeler’s own website?
When Young Indy printed his looney-tunes conspiracy theories that accused McCain of cutting deals with the Commies and having sex with Vietnamese Commie hookers, it was a troubling story and a very big deal.
Today, when the NYT says McCain had a close relationship with a lobbyist, she’s all “So what? The NYT still hates America, and Teh Clenis still exists!”
It’s just as I predicted, readers — despite all their grumbling about how McCain’s a “RINO” and a “liberal,” the wingnuts will line up to vote for McCain in November. They were upset for a while, but they’re ready to join the McCain camp now.
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your email address is never displayed.
Do not paste an entire article or blog post into here: create a link to it (or at least create a tinyurl) instead.
The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
February 21st, 2008 @ 18:50
Crazy Pammy says ‘we can’t have both ways’?
Exactly what we are saying. How does it feel? Get used to it.
And of course your prediction is correct. They will all line up to vote for McCain. Just like the liars did for Bush in 2004 after his first 4 years of disaster.
Hopefully this time, there won’t be enough of them.
February 21st, 2008 @ 20:47
Your definition of a Right wingnut just dropped me out of the category. Thanks, man.
I will be no where near the McCain lever on voting day.
February 21st, 2008 @ 21:15
Fourputt mentioned Alan Keyes as an alternative to McCain. What about you, H.D.? Who are you thinking about?
February 22nd, 2008 @ 05:09
Alan Keyes? What a joke.
The thoroughly confused moron will be asking you soon, ‘what experience does Obama have’?
This country could only hope and pray that dumbass would be the Republican nominee. Barack would beat his ass worse than the 70% – 27% he beat him with in 2004.
Face it, they don’t have a single candidate that 75% of this country can stomach anymore. Their boy Bush exposed them as the losers they truly are.
February 22nd, 2008 @ 07:46
In ascending order, for President, I would vote for;
Ann Coulter
Alan Keyes
Ken Holland
Dave Dombrowski
John Kasich
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
Duncan Hunter
George Allen
The 1st CEO of Big Oil, Auto or Pharmaceutical to tell Congress to piss-off
and
Hank Dagny
February 22nd, 2008 @ 18:56
With your voting record – No surprise there.
February 26th, 2008 @ 00:23
Vote for Dagny. Because Dagny is for hope. And hope is better than no hope. Vote for hope. And vote for change. Because without change there is no hope. Without change, you live in history – and history is like ….so yesterday. So vote for the future because history is behind us and hope is in front of us…if we change to the future hope in front of us. So, in the future – vote for hope for a change. I hope you do.
February 26th, 2008 @ 17:14
So when you voted for George W. Bush what we’re hoping for?
Ah, skip that. You’re actually one of the few people dumber than Bush so you get a pass.
February 26th, 2008 @ 22:33
In 2000, I was hoping for tax cuts and the shrinking of the tyranny and wealth redistribution that has become our government.
In 2004, I realized the Republicans lied to me again and I left them for good. I did not vote Republican for president – and did not for a few other positions.
Can’t argue about being dumb. The vote in 2000 fits the criteria.
But Bush in office instead of Algore for 9/11 was a gift from God. Even with Democrat lies, dead votes and tricks – the moron lost. Hillary has that fixed for 2008. Don’t you worry your little Mao cap.
February 27th, 2008 @ 06:27
In 2000 you were paying less tax than you are now. You’re not in the right income bracket but you’re too dumb to realize it. And, what about your share of the additional $4 trillion in additional debt your boy has left us with? Oh that’s right, you’re hoping to leave that to your kids and grandkids. In 2000, you were even able to have a job in Michigan. How many jobs have you had since Bush came into office, 4 or 5?
In 2004 you made Ripley’s ‘Believe It Or Not’ by being the only man in America to have 4 Bush/Cheney signs in your yard but ‘didn’t vote for him’. But I understand, you should be embarrassed.
It’s good that you still predict Hillary as the nominee because with your dismal record of being right at about 5%, Obama is a slam dunk.