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
Yr dfntn f Rght wngnt jst drppd m t f th ctgry. Thnks, mn.
wll b n whr nr th McCn lvr n vtng dy.
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
n scndng rdr, fr Prsdnt, wld vt fr;
nn Cltr
ln Kys
Kn Hllnd
Dv Dmbrwsk
Jhn Ksch
Clrnc Thms
ntnn Scl
Dncn Hntr
Grg lln
Th 1st C f Bg l, t r Phrmctcl t tll Cngrss t pss-ff
nd
Hnk Dgny
February 22nd, 2008 @ 18:56
With your voting record - No surprise there.
February 26th, 2008 @ 00:23
Vt fr Dgny. Bcs Dgny s fr hp. nd hp s bttr thn n hp. Vt fr hp. nd vt fr chng. Bcs wtht chng thr s n hp. Wtht chng, y lv n hstry - nd hstry s lk ….s ystrdy. S vt fr th ftr bcs hstry s bhnd s nd hp s n frnt f s…f w chng t th ftr hp n frnt f s. S, n th ftr - vt fr hp fr chng. hp y d.
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
n 2000, ws hpng fr tx cts nd th shrnkng f th tyrnny nd wlth rdstrbtn tht hs bcm r gvrnmnt.
n 2004, rlzd th Rpblcns ld t m gn nd lft thm fr gd. dd nt vt Rpblcn fr prsdnt - nd dd nt fr fw thr pstns.
Cn’t rg bt bng dmb. Th vt n 2000 fts th crtr.
Bt Bsh n ffc nstd f lgr fr 9/11 ws gft frm Gd. vn wth Dmcrt ls, dd vts nd trcks - th mrn lst. Hllry hs tht fxd fr 2008. Dn’t y wrry yr lttl M cp.
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.