Would it be different?

I was wondering recently if things would have been any better with McCain than with the dirty filthy Kenyan fascist. My conclusion: marginally.

McCain is up for re-election in 2010. He has a primary challenger already. The challenger has no chance in hell of winning. But he'll make enough noise to put pressure on McCain to stay right from here on in. And so you all of a sudden see McCain turning into Mr. Conservative. He voted against the Wise Latina for SCOTUS. He has taken a refreshing stand against ObamaCare. And he even voted NYET to CaP 'N Tax. Would have been nice if you'd acted even somewhat conservative in 2008 Johnie Boy. You might even have won a few of those close states like Virginia and Florida and NC where a lot of conservatives stayed home. But that is water under the bridge, as Billy Jeff Clinton (who is NOT the Secretary of State just so you know and don't get Mrs. Clinton all riled up again) so famously told us, don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Wait that was Fleetwood Mac. Where was I going with this? Oh yeah.

However, I believe were McCain president, he would have done the exact opposite of what he's doing now. He would have nominated someone as radical as the Wise Latina. He would have proposed his own version of nationalized health care. And he would have supported wholeheartedly Can 'N Tax. At heard McCain is as liberal if not more so than the filthy Kenyan.

The difference between the two is the level of fascism in their blood. While the filthy Kenyan sends out union thugs to beat up old men at town halls, I can say with 100% confidence McCain would not do that.

And as the filthy Kenyan said earlier this week, amnesty is on tap for 2010. It will be interesting how McCain plays that one. Winning a Republican primary in Arizona while championing amnesty for illegals is not exactly a wise strategy. Maybe he should consult one of the Wise Latinas on how to proceed.

And speaking of amnesty. Does the filthy Kenyan really think in an election year it will pass? I've read some analysis that this is actually a brilliant move by the filthy Kenyan. Democrats will be united for amnesty and Republicans will have an internal battle like they did in 2007. I saw bullshit on both counts.

First off, Democrats won't be united at all. The far left in the Dem party will be united. The centrists will be shitting their pants at the thought of voting for amnesty after voting for nationalized health care after voting for Cap N Tax. Ain't a happenin'. Maybe if unemployment were 4%. When unemployment is 10%, even the dimmest Democrat (is there such a thing as a non-Dim Dem?) knows you don't tell 1/10 Americans who can't find a job that you will give citizenship to 20 million illegals who are working under the table and undercutting Americans wages.

Second and this is lost on all the professional pundits. The squishy Republicans are gone. Mel Martinez one of the authors of the 2007 amnesty bill is gone. Elizabeth Dole one of the big supporters of amnesty, gone. Can't remember his name, but the Rep senator from Oregon who lost in 2008, gone. Specter is a Dem now. Aside from McCain and Ghramnesty, where does Obama expect all this pro-amnesty support to come from? The upside of being so hammered in 2006 and 2008 for the GOP is as a small group it's easy to have a united message and stay on message.

And this is also where the stupidity of the MSM and its punditry is displayed. On the one hand they talk about how the GOP is now a regional conservative party. Then they say that the GOP will be split on amnesty. Well if the region they're describing is the South, how in the world will they be split on amnesty. If anything the South is the one area of the country that is guaranteed to be against amnesty.