You *really* need to re-think what you're saying here. First of all, you write, "Ann Coulter's claim that she will actively support the Democrats' nominee out of spite against McCain" - which is simply untrue. Her reasons are clearly stated and do not include spite:

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Can I take a breath now?

-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

You may not think those reasons are adequate, and it's more than fair to dislike her bombthrowing style. But dishonestly saying that her reason is spite and characterizing it as a hissy fit is beneath you.

Ann Coulter's decision doesn't harm the conservative movement one iota. It hurts the GOP, which is an entirely different thing.

Oh, and comparing a disagreeable, forcefully expressed opinion with disseminating fake documents? You're embarrassing yourself. Please stop.

"Can I take a breath now?" - Laura.

Please do. A deep one. Then please take the trouble to go back and read the entire article, not just firing off as soon as you hit a part you don't like.

You might also want to look up the definition for "spite".

Yes, Conservatives do have a hard choice. Do we want zero chance of an acceptable President in the next 8 years, or a very small chance of one.

The next 4 years are already decided, the decisions we need to make are for the 4 after that.

I did read your entire article, thanks. I just think you're dead wrong.

I did mess up my blockquote - the section from "on the issues" down to "solar panels" is quoted from anncoulter.com. Those are her stated reasons, and don't include any of these.

A Republican that Ann Coulter hates pretty much fits my definition of viable candidate.

I have some strong disagreements with McCain, but annoying the far right wing isn't one of them.

See, irf in four years you DO get your conservative candidate, what happens if in the meantime you have completely alienated the moderate republican wing by heaping vitriol their way and essentially throwing the election to Hillary?

You see, what goes around comes around, and if you throw a hissy fit this time, they fvery well might do it next time. How will you feel if you get your ideal candidate. .and because of yourfit of pique and insistance on the candidates ideology being as pure as the driven snow. .they go down in flames?

Have we forgotten everything that Karl Rove taught us about elections? Ann Coulter's endorsement just made Hillary pure poison to nearly all Democrat voters. In just a few words Ann accomplished what conservatives have been trying to do with money and campaigning. Ann has stopped Hillary.

Also. .using the standards I have seen some of these loons applying to the race, we will never have a viable presidential candidate again> They will remain pure. .and completely unrepresented in the United states government.

"Ann has stopped Hillary." - Burt

Hillary seems unimpeded, if RCP's numbers are to be believed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

DJ, don't be such a defeatists. There is still hope, but you and your brothers must act now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1966036/posts

Oh yeah, Ryan, calling people who are standing on principle childish, yeah, that will help restore the Republican coalition. Way to go. That will sure help us in four years.

Nearly everyone has a line that they would not cross in a nominee. Would you vote for the R if it were David Duke, or even a slightly more sane Ron Paul? My line was McCain. I supported Thompson, but I would have voted for every single other candidate.

Barney, I'm curious. D'you support His Blackness, who does not have a record, or Her Femininity, who hides hers?

Laura's comment certainly deserved more than the flippant and way off target "reply" from DJ. I have a feeling that this is the way it's going to be from here on out. McCain critics, of which there were many here at Wizbang will suddenly become "denialists" and McCain defenders will become "reality based".

One of the ways used to disarm an opponent in debate is to label their reaction and arguments as irrational or emotional and so we will be seeing a lot of the "spite" and "suicide" words applied to people like Laura and myself. It does no good for converted McCain supporters, as party loyalists, to admit that there could be a logical political calculation to not supporting McCain in an all but unwinnable election. Better to dismiss McCain denialists as nuts and extremists.

DJ, way to sink to race/gender baiting.

You're a class act all the way.

Race and gender baiting? Give me a break... Obama and Hillary are the ones desperately playing the race and gender cards here. And you sarcastically calling DJ a class act is freaking hilarious. You wouldn't know a class act if it bit you on your liberal buttocks.

One of the ways used to disarm an opponent in debate is to label their reaction and arguments as irrational or emotional and so we will be seeing a lot of the "spite" and "suicide" words applied to people like Laura and myself.

Well, you are dealing with Republicans here. ;)

mikem, the funniest thing about obstinate whiners like Drummond is that they will vote for McCain, but will hold themselves above you because you came to the same conclusion as them more quickly.

Well, you are dealing with Republicans here. ;)
-------------------------------
Another idiotic post from Lava 's brainwashed moron.

mikem, if you actually look at the article, you will see that I agree with many of Laura's complaints. I even agreed that these incidents may collectively be more than McCain can repair with conservatives.

However, to publicly declare support for a candidate known to stand against all Conservative values and ideals, simply because you are angry at the Republican candidate, no matter how valid the cause, is indeed to act rashly and in spite, and instead of the limited damage a McCain Presidency would do, risks the widespread catastrophe of much worse effects:

Yes, McCain may not nominate another Alito, but he would surely nominate better judges than we would see from Clinton or Obama;

Yes, McCain is 'iffy' on certain aspects of the WOT, but he would not desert Iraq or Afghanistan, while Clinton and Obama are already on record for a bug-out.

I don't think I need to go on. Taxes, government regulation, socialized medicine, restrictions of free speech, on every conceivable front a Democrat would be worse than anything we have reason to expect from McCain.

That does not mean McCain has earned your support, or that you owe him anything. But working for the enemy is always going to be out of bounds. That should be obvious to everyone.

Thanks Chad. As Chad explained, Barney, it's Obama who makes a big deal about being a black candidate; it didn't matter to Dr. Keyes when he ran, or Condi Rice in doing her job. ONLY Democrats make a big deal about race as some sort of QUALIFICATION for a job.

As for Hillary, name me one other candidate crying on cue this campaign. Name me one other candidate who sells how 'hard' it is to be a woman running against all those men. Yep, you want to see who's pandering gender, it's Hillary. I merely called her on it.

Oh and lol'ing, you might want to actually read all the words in the article, because you pretend to sum up my position on a point. You missed this one badly.

Let's get one thing straight, nothing Ann Coulter says about Hillary will make any difference. Outisde of the most far right circles, Ann Coulter's opinion is simply not taken seriously by anyone. I seriously doubt that Ann Coulter even takes the things she says seriously. She is good at saying very reactionary things to make money, thanks to you all.

another comment- you all are so against mccain based on his positions on things which you view as sacred cows; immigration, etc. mccain is no liberal. have you ever thought about why mccain believes what he does? he's a senator from AZ, so surely his constituency has some interest in the illegal immigration debate.

your belief system is going extinct. as is your power. that is what your Mr. Bush and company has achieved for you. What happened to the permanent republican majority?

"working for the enemy"

That's true in this case on many levels.

"simply because you are angry at the Republican candidate,"

Her reasons are clear. Why do you keep reducing them to mere emotionalism? McCain has made it abundantly clear that on many issues, "liberal" is an entirely appropriate adjective to describe him. Now as President, and with the support of a Democrat majority Congress, try to imagine just how much more effective he will be implementing those ideas than Obama or Hillary would be with the Republicans nearly universally against him/her. His damage would not be limited *nearly* as much as a Democrats would be because he would split the Republican opposition. This isn't about being mad. It's about simple logic.

As for judges - McCain took that argument off the table himself when he proved that a handful of rogue Senators controls who gets a chance to be on SCOTUS.

I seriously fear that this part:

"John McCain went out of his way, well out of his way in some cases, to make enemies of Conservatives and to attack them, in some cases completely without cause. It's not just McCain's vote on some issues as the way he discussed them in public, viciously denouncing Conservatives time and time again. McCain also acted in a narcissistic manner on a regular basis, not merely supporting but leading a movement to deny Senate committee votes to judicial nominees, to prohibit support for public debate just before elections, and in regularly defying his Senate Majority Leader, GOP leadership, and even tossed off regular snipes at President Bush, displaying a petulance and temper ill-suited to a would-be head of state. McCain did not merely burn some bridges, he cratered the landscape around the wreckage, salted the ground and disparaged all efforts to commend him to a more gracious behavior."

Will be written again on 11/05/08...

I'm sorry, but it IS childish. Standing on principle is fine when thne you are punishing is yourself.I dislike the EXACT same things you do about McCain, hover I am not insane enough to gine that we would somehow be better off with Hillary or Obama. YOu see, the difference is tre more about the wellfare of _the UNited States_ than "The conservative movement' - the 'COnservative movement' never does any good if you constantly reject anyone imperfect and allow people who espouse the complete dismantling of everything you have accomplished into office.

THe gulf between McCain and either of the democrats is MUCH larger than the gulf between Cain and my ideal candidate. ANd, if you really thought about ideal candidate. On every issue where you excoriate McCain, the Democrat would do _at best_ the same or in almost all cases _Worse_/. SO my apologies, but I really don't see your point in any way. I don't consider a stand that injured your cause to be principled. I don't see a stand that sets all the gains you have made back to be principled.

I'm sorry, I don't like McCain either, but. . . .I dislike him> I LOATHE the alternative.

"Outisde of the most far right circles, Ann Coulter's opinion is simply not taken seriously by anyone"

Finally, someone on the right acknowledges CPAC is the "most far right circle" of the GOP:

"Ann Coulter's only full speech and Q & A at CPAC will be on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 4:00 pm "

Well, we know we're going to end up with either McCain, Clinton or Obama in November.

Here's the thing, if we don't have as many Republicans (even if they're RINOS) in the House and Senate as we can, there won't be any Republican comeback in 2012 and probably never; and you can forget about third party stuff. That never works.

The President will probably not get much done if we can create deadlock in both House and Senate. Choose who you want or don't for President, but do vote Republican on all the rest of the ballot. It could make a difference even if we can push back a little in the coming 4 years.

DJ: "it's Obama who makes a big deal about being a black candidate;" and how has he done that? Maybe in his "One United States of America" speech at the '04 convention?

Please feel free to continue to call Obama "His-blackness" when you refer to him. I wouldn't want you to have to play out of character.

As far as Hillary is concerned, Romney and Rudy have cried like babies on numerous occasions during their campaigns.

Laura, one more time. Choosing not to vote for someone because they have not earned your votes, yes that is principled.

Publicly declaring support for someone whose values and purposes you rightly despise, in order to 'punish' someone who won't even pay attention whatever the outcome, and in so doing risking the installment of the worst of potential political conditions, and in so doing damaging your own movement's strength, credibility, and future? That is definitely pure spite, and there is no better word to describe it.

Please feel free to continue to call Obama "His-blackness" when you refer to him. I wouldn't want you to have to play out of character.
------------------------------------
Why have been you shilling for the Clintons all these years? BTW, are you supporting Obama because of his church association (Farakkhan was honored there)?

As far as Hillary is concerned, Romney and Rudy have cried like babies on numerous occasions during their campaigns.
------------------------------------
Are you going to vote for McCain now? Or you have been conned by Obama? Or you actually think that his platform represents your true conviction?

"The President will probably not get much done if we can create deadlock in both House and Senate."

That's the spirit I like to see! It's not like there are any real, serious and pressing problems that need to be solved by the next administration, whoever it may be. The real goal for all americans should be to be as obstructionist as possible. Actually, your attitude explains why the "conservatives" (misnomer, by the way) are on the way out. Your "my way or the highway" attitude is simply not good enough anymore. There are REAL problems which need very difficult solutions now, and they are going to require some compromise. This is not an all conservative country, I regret to inform you. What we need now is not simply a war of attrition by conservatives or liberals- we need solutions. if conservative candidates don't see this, or can't, it is time for them to step out of the way. clearly this is what the american people are saying now.

bye-bye deadenders. you have done quite enough damage already. to use your phrase, the "grownups" are going to have to clean up your mess now. i hope there are some grownups left...

you serisously thought fred thompson was going to be able to pull this one off? no wonder all of your "convservative" candidates are gone now. get real, people. time to wake up.

"Publicly declaring support for someone whose values and purposes you rightly despise, in order to 'punish' someone who won't even pay attention whatever the outcome, and in so doing risking the installment of the worst of potential political conditions, and in so doing damaging your own movement's strength, credibility, and future? That is definitely pure spite, and there is no better word to describe it."

And once more time, you *refuse* to see that there is a logical, reasonable argument to prefer a D in office rather than McCain, who will do many of the same things the D would, but with the support of a good deal of the GOP.

So to use your methods, I guess I can conclude that your lust for power for the GOP is more important to you than the outcome of socialist and open border policies being enacted?

DJ,

Yes, there is some anger, just as you get angry at politicians like Kerry or Clinton over certain issues. But that does not make your subsequent stated reasons for opposing them irrational or emotional, right?

For those who see an out of phase Republican victory this cycle as a pipedream anyway, your warnings about Hillary or Obama don't seem to apply. Sure, they are worse. But they are all but sure of winning regardless. And all that we Far Right Extremists (who more or less converted over from Dems to Republicans and made the Republican Party a majority, but now we are Far Right, LOL) can accomplish by supporting the new libertarian Republican party is normalize our marginalization.
It's rational for me and others to oppose McCain. It would not be rational, I guess, for someone who is a minimal tax guy, but for converted Dems it is. We were never minimal tax people to begin with and frankly I consider minimal tax people to be the most deserving of Far Right Extremist labels. Taxes are the meat and bones of Right politics after all.