January 31, 2008
Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 03/28/07 07:39 PM [ET]
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.
In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCains chief political strategist.
Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCains case, they said, it was McCains top strategist who came to them.
At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadnt asked McCain to switch parties.
Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.
Youre really wondering? Downey said he told Weaver. What do you mean youre wondering?
Well, if the right people asked him, Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, The calls will be made. Who do you want? Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey are very good friends.
He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: We certainly didnt discuss in any detail about the senators political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.
Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.
Within seconds of arriving home from his lunch with Weaver, Downey said he was on the phone to the most powerful Democrats in town. One of the first calls he made was to then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle.
I did take the call from Tom [Downey], Daschle said in an interview. It was Weavers comment to Downey that started the McCain talks, he added.
Daschle noted that McCain at that time was frustrated with the Bush administration as a result of his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary.
Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority [A lot of issues] were on the table.
Absolutely not so, according to McCain. In a statement released by his campaign, McCain said, As I said in 2001, I never considered leaving the Republican Party, period.
I don't think these guys are lying. And I imagine they have diaries and scheduling books and the like which, while not quite proving they're telling the truth (they could be forgeries, etc.), will pretty much prove that McCain is lying.
Guess when that documentary evidence will make it to the press?
Pretty cool h/t on this: Mark "The Great One" Levin.
Apparently this is flying around all over the place because a lefty guy I know just got it, too.
UPDATE: Jack M. This is one of those occasions where I can offer first hand confirmation as to the essential truth of this story. I can't offer it from the Democratic side, as I have no idea what the nature of McCain's discussions were with Daschle, et. al. I was privy, however, to discussions with John Weaver during the time-frame in question.
Weaver has a public quote that gained some prominence. I'll look for it later, and link it if I can find it. Some reporter asked him (I think it was in 2002) about the candidates who he was now representing since he switched from a registered Republican to Democrat. Weaver's response was essentially "all of my clients are Democrats". The reporter, surprised, prompted Weaver with the reminder "and John McCain" to which Weaver responded "oh yeah...right."
Why is this important? Well for one it illustrates the mind-set of those closest to McCain at a time contemporaneous to the period all these discussions were taking place. Clearly, in the minds of many in McCain's inner circle, he was a Democrat regardless of what letter followed his name on the C-Span graphic.
But many of you will say "Jack, you are gonna take the word of Daschle, Edwards, blah, blah, blah?."
No. I'm going to tell you why I believe these allegations. Because John Weaver told me this personally.
One of my former bosses in the Senate served on a Committee with McCain at the time. He also had a friendship with Weaver that preceded his election to the Senate. For that matter, so did I.
And while McCain's threat was making the rounds, we had discussions in my bosses office about how to capitalize on it if McCain made the jump. We saw opportunities to move up on certain committees that we might not otherwise have had the seniority to attain. Why did we take this so seriously? Because Weaver, when asked, did nothing to disabuse any of us of this "rumor."
Jeffords' jump really caught most people in both parties off guard. As I remember it, he jumped because he was upset that the Bush administration wouldn't fund some education program at the level Jumpin' Jim wanted. At the time, nobody spent much time worrying about anything Jim Jeffords was up to. But Jeffords was hearing the same rumors too. In talking to some of his staffers in the wake of the jump, one of the things I was told was that Jeffords was motivated to do it at the time he chose, because he was convinced that if McCain jumped first, nobody would care about the reasons Jeffords was offering for switching.
Which makes this story sadly ironic in a way. I remain convinced that had Mr. Irrelevant, Jim Jeffords, not jumped, and had his moment of glory for staging the one-man Senate coup, John McCain would have done so. And the GOP would not now be considering nominating him as the standard bearer.
So, if McCain can convince the country to elect him President, he'll have Jim Jeffords, and his desire to beat McCain to the punch, to thank.
Which doesn't make me feel any better about the prospect of a McCain nomination.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at January 31, 2008 07:05 PM (68v+0)
Unbelievable. Well, not really.
The amazing thing is this is coming out now. What else do they have on the guy they are waiting until he is nominated to release? And then what are they holding on to for a week before the general?
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 07:13 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: Fred at January 31, 2008 07:14 PM (pSNpE)
Oh, and where the fuck has RWS got herself off to of late?
Posted by: Fred at January 31, 2008 07:15 PM (pSNpE)
Democratic plan to win the Presidency:
Step 1: Get McCain nominated as Republican candidate.
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Win Presidency.
And yes, I appear to be channeling Fark recently.
Posted by: Hermit Dave at January 31, 2008 07:16 PM (Tk5HT)
Posted by: Winston at January 31, 2008 07:24 PM (WVrjT)
If this ain't it, did whatever that was leak out and I just missed it? Is there another shoe to drop?
Posted by: Ray Midge at January 31, 2008 07:24 PM (bKSJC)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 31, 2008 07:26 PM (o/KrO)
This was written a year ago, i remember hearing about it at the time and it was covered pretty extensivly at the time. Daschle has had plenty of time to show it's true, but hasn't done so.
Posted by: forged rite at January 31, 2008 07:27 PM (w+nrD)
Boo hoo...Bush was mean to me when I was touring all over the country on my big ol' straight talk express bus in 2000.
Posted by: Winston at January 31, 2008 07:27 PM (WVrjT)
Times editors about to get them not to publsih because of the effect it
would have on the, then, start of the primaries? This would fit.
No, that was about lobbyists, and this article is almost a year old. It's a "Flashback." Check the dateline.
This is old news. It's just being repimped all of a sudden.
As for Daschle not providing proof: Well, we'll see what he's got come August or so, I guess, huh?
Posted by: ace at January 31, 2008 07:31 PM (SXBHu)
Posted by: Winston at January 31, 2008 07:31 PM (WVrjT)
Posted by: Z Ryan at January 31, 2008 07:33 PM (PDeVA)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 31, 2008 07:34 PM (o/KrO)
Posted by: Fred at January 31, 2008 07:34 PM (pSNpE)
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 31, 2008 07:36 PM (p8IOE)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 31, 2008 07:37 PM (o/KrO)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 31, 2008 07:38 PM (o/KrO)
Posted by: Phillip at January 31, 2008 07:41 PM (ABHP9)
what dem pres would stand up for our security? What dem pres
would veto congress if it came to it?
What makes you think McCain would do that? Seriously, I am not just knocking the guy, I'm curious.
I haven't heard him say anything on FISA and that's up right now. I know he wants to close GITMO on the first day he's in office...to improve our image in the world.
Why do you think he'll veto anything his good friends Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold and the rest send him?
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 07:42 PM (hlYel)
Enjoy your moment of attention. If you detach yourselves from the closest thing the party has to a voice tolerable to the vast majority of Americans, no one will be paying attention the next time you decide to throw a hissy fit.
Eventually, you'll grow tired of watching each other masturbate to images of your ideological superiority. After you've wiped yourselves off and the scabby patches have healed, you'll be welcomed into the adult world again, though you'll have to understand if people prefer to keep their distance for a while.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 07:43 PM (8aPVo)
Great post, Ace. You've pretty well summed up my position on McCain. And the Coulter clip is just hilarious.
Posted by: Bugler at January 31, 2008 07:51 PM (YCVBL)
"Scabby patches"? We lube up, dude. Look into it.
Posted by: Fred at January 31, 2008 07:58 PM (pSNpE)
It's always worth remembering what a backstabbing sob mccain is though.
Posted by: slackmac at January 31, 2008 07:59 PM (3bFaP)
Can I least get a royalty check?
Posted by: HowardDevore at January 31, 2008 08:00 PM (RcaiV)
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 08:00 PM (8aPVo)
McCain sucks. But if he gets the nod as our candidate, he'll get my vote. One reason, and one only: the war against islamic fascism. He may be the same or close to the dems on many issues near and dear, but he'll fight the terrorists
Only if it doesn't require scaring a few of them into talking. Because that would be totally over the line. Fight: yes. Pour water on their heads: no way!
Posted by: The Band at January 31, 2008 08:02 PM (/94xL)
Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein...
Wait a minute, I thought you were supporting McCain?
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 08:02 PM (hlYel)
Maybe, but if he can prove it, why float it? Putting it out there and waiting a year and a half to show proof only lessens it's credibility and any impact it would have.
Posted by: forged rite at January 31, 2008 08:03 PM (w+nrD)
Y'all - Ace, Riehl, Coulter, Malkin and HateAir - have lost your minds. It's kind of sad to see the right roots going through the same thing the nutroots went through a few years ago.... Eventually, you'll grow tired of watching each other masturbate to images of your ideological superiority.
No they won't.
It's just so satisfying to be true in a World where the heretics and unbelievers are running amok.
Were there not serious problems on the table it would be a pleasure to witness this self-immolation. As the World is now ---- not so much.
Posted by: dougf at January 31, 2008 08:03 PM (16GPT)
images of your ideological superiority. After you've wiped yourselves
off and the scabby patches have healed, you'll be welcomed into the
adult world again, though you'll have to understand if people prefer to
keep their distance for a while.
You know what, Hakim?
Quite a few of us are willing to support McCain in the general election, so maybe you could lay off the self-righteous, condescending jackassery for a bit?
Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Slublog at January 31, 2008 08:08 PM (icHSw)
Why should you care who I support? I'm just a weird name on a weird comment board on a self-proclaimed "moronblog." I'll support McCain if, as seems likely, he's the nominee. You may think he's self-important. I've always found his self-deprecating sense of humor one of his most appealing qualities, but, then again, I don't consider someone a traitor for saying "good morning" to a Democrat. In fact, I don't consider someone a traitor for being a Democrat. Up until recently, I despised the Democrats because it seemed they were willing to sell out our troops in the field and our allies around the world to score political points. Now, I find that a large section of the Republican Party and the self-styled "conservative" movement is willing to do the same thing.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 08:09 PM (8aPVo)
Posted by: Z Ryan at January 31, 2008 08:09 PM (PDeVA)
Posted by: slackmac at January 31, 2008 08:10 PM (3bFaP)
Exactly when did I die and go to hell?
Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 31, 2008 08:10 PM (JvmRx)
election, so maybe you could lay off the self-righteous, condescending
jackassery for a bit?
Is that too much to ask?
Actually, Slublog, I don't see why you or anyone else here feels the need to associate yourself with the Coulters and Riehls and Malkins on this score. You're free to disagree with them if you want, aren't you?
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 08:14 PM (8aPVo)
I don't consider someone a traitor for saying "good morning" to a
Democrat. In fact, I don't consider someone a traitor for being a
guys, are you getting this down? this is good shit. Who'd a thunk? How reasonable!
I despised the Democrats because it seemed they were willing to sell
out our troops in the field and our allies around the world to score
define traitor please.
Now, I find that a large section of the Republican
Party and the self-styled "conservative" movement is willing to do the
willing to sell our troops out for political points? Really?
holy shit man. swallow the red pill, come back to us on planet earth.
Posted by: slackmac at January 31, 2008 08:15 PM (3bFaP)
I don't see why you or anyone else here feels the need to associate
yourself with the Coulters and Riehls and Malkins on this score.
dude, make up your mind!
Posted by: slackmac at January 31, 2008 08:18 PM (3bFaP)
need to associate yourself with the Coulters and Riehls and Malkins on
this score. You're free to disagree with them if you want, aren't you?
Like I said, the fact that some of us are willing to consider McCain at all separates us from the views of those you mentioned.
But you ignored that, I see.
Posted by: Slublog at January 31, 2008 08:19 PM (icHSw)
Ah yes, McCain's well known self depreciating sense of humor.
Who could forget this knee slapper?
"I led for patriotism not profit."
Or is it his attempt to insinuate that he was the only person to support the surge, that cracks you up? It wasn't enough that he was right about the surge, no everyone else had to be wrong.
I don't consider someone a traitor for saying "good morning" to a Democrat.
Neither do I, nor does any sane person. Of course I don't consider someone who often espouses Democratic positions to be a conservative Republican either.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 08:21 PM (hlYel)
This is a critical test for the Republican Party. We had 8 years of a pretty conservative George W. Bush, and now the moderates are looking for their turn.
Is the GOP going to remain the big-tent party?
And hey -- at least it's not Huckabee. I might've voted for Obama over him.
Posted by: TallDave at January 31, 2008 08:23 PM (v7AWu)
Posted by: Bugler at January 31, 2008 08:25 PM (YCVBL)
I live in Idaho and on the local evening radio talk show, the discussion was McCain. The only argument the defenders were able to muster was that McCain was the most 'electable' candidate for the GOP. Nevermind that he's not.
Since we don't have a Republican primary until May, I've watched things pretty carefully. Fred was my first choice. I lacked faith that he would win the nomination and Mitt was my second. Mitt's business experience matters to me as a fiscal conservative; I might be able to care less about social issues, if I try. Now it looks like the GOP will nominate a fellow who isn't conservative at all.
McCain's only draw (as far as I'm concerned) is his stance on pork. Except he'll raise taxes to pay for everything else under the sun. Mitt might not be the socialist of conservatives in re: social crapitude, but the man's a businessman. He won't favor taxes or additional government bloating. He will advocate a governance that promotes individuality and individual excellence. That's something I can support. McCain? He's courting a bare third of the president's constituency. With wild success.
Posted by: Justin at January 31, 2008 08:26 PM (wXxAY)
McCain is a fine Democrat.
Democrats control both Houses, right? Congress controls the purse, right?
Yet the War continues. Why?
Posted by: Ambulance Chasing Lawyer at January 31, 2008 08:27 PM (GvwnD)
unity, perhaps you should first try instead rallying behind Mitt Romney.
Hah! I love how every one wants to rally now. This is total bullshit. The "mau-mau" about party unity is a reaction to the Chicken Little mindset that started back when Huckabee won Iowa, not any love for McCain. Do you guys remember that? It was only a few weeks ago. Every one of you that went apoplectic and started a pledge-not-to-vote-a-thon instead of working to find a candidate that the Party can agree upon will be as much if not more responsible for McCain winning the nomination. If he wins the nomination, which he hasn't done yet. But if he does, I'm starting to hope he wins the general, just so your heads can pop. Talk about teaching lessons...
You've been itching to dissolve the Reagan coalition all the while crying about it's demise. Obviously, few of you actually hold the same intellect and political foresight that Reagan did. And a good number of you only know Reagan as a myth rather than a politician.
But don't worry there's a place for you too. A place where you will have the perfect candidate every election. They'll have their convention in April at the Kansas City Marriott. Get your tickets now!
Posted by: runninrebel at January 31, 2008 08:27 PM (o/KrO)
Democrat. In fact, I don't consider someone a traitor for being a
Democrat." Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein @ 32 above
The quoted line is so much hyperbole. Perhaps it is you, sir, who should be a bit less confrontational. I will consider voting for any candidate but I will most assuredly not be brow beaten into choosing one because of the letter between the parenthesis. I will leave the blind loyalty and obsequiousness to the Democrat Party. Any candidate who wishes to have either my money or my vote must explain why their positions are fundamentally closer to my own than those of another candidate.
I was proud to vote for George W. Bush twice, Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush because each of those men earned my vote. I will leave McCain to make the sales pitch but given his record the bar for him is significantly higher than it was for the three mentioned above.
But as to your hyperbole, sir, I know exactly how I feel about it. And I doubt you'd like my vote on that issue.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 31, 2008 08:33 PM (ThZCx)
Obviously. Unless you're Ace, Riehl, Coulter, or any of the others I mentioned posting under the name "Slublog," Slublog, then I don't see why you need to feel included. If you're taking the position that you're willing to consider McCain, then you might, for now, at least want to consider taking a stance against the intemperate, irresponsible, sometimes fanatical criticism that is habitually being directed against him.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 08:35 PM (8aPVo)
I'm beginning to reconsider the good Commissioner's grasp of reality. Maybe it is me that has lost all sense of perspective. In my view, Bush is only a conservative in the sense that the left attempts to paint him as an extremist. Instead, Bush has a very mixed record. One I would be tempted to describe as moderate (conservative= tax cuts, war, and after a misfire, judicial appointments; liberal = huge expansion of gov't (some of it justified, see war), campaign finance, immigration, prescription drugs, education, etc, etc, etc). After eight years of moderate rule under Clinton (thanks to a repub. congress) plus eight years of moderate rule under Bush, maybe it's time for the conservatives to have their turn. no?
Posted by: slackmac at January 31, 2008 08:36 PM (3bFaP)
Conservative Bush? The open borders advocate, George W.? This is the funniest thing besides the usual McCain cheerleaders.
Posted by: BigMike at January 31, 2008 08:36 PM (bvWDr)
This comes from the famous Thomas Jefferson Book, 3rd Edition
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Thomas Jefferson
The cover art on that one was great. Sadly, calling people names does not work.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 31, 2008 08:41 PM (ThZCx)
McCain didn't hold secret talks with the Dems about leaving the party in 2001 in the same way as he didn't have secret talks with the Kerry Campaign to be Kerry's running mate in 04.
Posted by: canuk at January 31, 2008 08:42 PM (dOOjm)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 31, 2008 08:43 PM (o/KrO)
Posted by: slackmac at January 31, 2008 08:43 PM (3bFaP)
intemperate, irresponsible, sometimes fanatical criticism
That's appropriate for an intemperate, irresponsible fanatic.
Posted by: Bugler at January 31, 2008 08:43 PM (YCVBL)
You want to take a wild guess how much I care about your "vote"?
I see bloggers, pundits, and guardians of conservative virtue everywhere engaging unhinged vituperation against McCain. I would suggest that if you haven't seen it, then you haven't been reading very widely. A lot of it seems to have been brought out by the illegal immigration issue, which may have started for a lot of us as sincere disagreement with McCain's approach and tactics, but has since turned into something very ugly - as though being grouped together rhetorically with bigots, nativists, and fanatics has created a "we'll show him!" reaction.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 08:48 PM (8aPVo)
then you might, for now, at least want to consider taking a stance
against the intemperate, irresponsible, sometimes fanatical criticism
that is habitually being directed against him.
Let's be clear. McCain is my last choice. If he somehow manages to lie his way to the nomination, I'll reluctantly cast a vote for him to keep Clinton or Obama out of the White House out of pure pragmatism. I have no intention, however, of giving him any time, money or rhetorical support if he is the nominee. All he gets is my vote.
I'll take no stance against the criticism, since I believe it's all part of the vetting process and feel he deserves much of what is aimed in his direction. It's the cost of being The Maverick,™ It's ridiculous for him to think he can spend so many years spitting in the eyes of conservatives and take no flak for it.
As far as I'm concerned, McCain has some serious work to do to convince conservatives that he's not going to continue pissing on their legs. If nothing else, I hope the criticism communicates to him that he's not entitled to our votes, and forces him to actually pay attention to the desires of the party he hopes to represent in the general election.
If he can't be bothered to do that, then he doesn't deserve the nomination.
Posted by: Slublog at January 31, 2008 08:49 PM (icHSw)
If you've ever thought that I was trying to convince anybody of anything instead of just amusing myself, then that says more about you than it does me.
You'll please direct me to the comments I've made that lead you to this conclusion. I would not vote for Huckabee. I might vote for McCain.
NOTE TO THOSE HOPING TO HELP MCCAIN:
Stop while you're behind.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 31, 2008 08:50 PM (ThZCx)
Yes. Now I see your point. Wait, are you trying to convince me that McCain calling me names should make me like him more or less? Is your point that when he called us names we should have liked it?
And I couldn't care less what you think of me. It matters not. I appreciate that you feel similarly. I'll sleep well tonight.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 31, 2008 08:55 PM (ThZCx)
I can't speak for everyone else, but I just had a mental image of Ace standing in the middle of a stone bridge, holding a glowing staff, facing down a smoking, flaming McCain staffer, and shouting, "YOOOUUU SHALL NOT...PASSSS!!"
Wait--glowing staff, err, flaming--that didn't come out right.
Forget I said anything.
Posted by: nudge, nudge at January 31, 2008 08:56 PM (6BtMV)
I never thought of you.
Posted by: runninrebel at January 31, 2008 08:56 PM (o/KrO)
I strongly doubt he thinks anything of the kind. I don't think he gives a flying fuck about any amount of virtual flak - not least because, you know, he's kind of had to deal with the real thing. I think he'd obviously much rather have the support of the Coulters and the Malkins of the world, but not if getting it forces him to associate himself with the haters.
I keep on imagining Bryan over at HotAir getting a chance for a one-on-one with McCain at CPAC: "Hi, I run a web site where we all hate your guts and think it's really funny to turn the names of people we hate like you into Spanish, not that we're nativist bigots or anything, and to call you a traitor and a liar and to speculate about your untimely demise, but if you knuckle under to all of our our deamdns in an adequately public and humiliating manner, probably some of us - maybe up to 100 real live voters! - might support you after all! What do you think?"
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 08:58 PM (8aPVo)
The moving party bears the burden of persuasion.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 31, 2008 09:00 PM (ThZCx)
I'm just trying to keep score here.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 31, 2008 09:02 PM (ThZCx)
Or fuck you.
What is it with you people?
And yes, it is important who you are going to vote for when you decide to waste your time and mine spewing your so-called wisdom and grace about why it's so wrong for a conservative voter (democrat or republican) to reject a McCain candidacy.
And no, W. is not a conservative. A republican, yes, Conservative, not so much.
Demonized, vilified, and portrayed as Hitler, the devil incarnate, and worse by the MSM, the world's Left and moonbattery, yes, but a conservative? No.
As it turns out, John McCain has my respect as a war hero and champion on many issues of interest to me.
But Ms. Coulter is correct, I think.
HillBilly is likely as hawkish on the war as he is, and her stance on every major issue is no less liberal than his (except perhaps earmarks.)
So no, I cannot vote for John McCain for POTUS, just as I cannot vote for HillBilly or Obama.
Let the democrats run things for a while. This is a great country and somehow we will weather the storm.
Who knows? Maybe things will be better under democratic leadership.
But in the meantime, save your platitudes, condescension, and snark for another place and another time.
Pour yourself a great big, tall glass, of shut-the-fuck-up juice and take some time alone for a while.
And fuck you.
I don't need or want your craptastic opinions.
Posted by: MTT at January 31, 2008 09:03 PM (0mJwb)
So your plan for McCain is to win the nomination and run in the general election without conservatives and most Republicans? That's your plan?
You do know that in none of the primaries to date, McCain has gotten better than 37% of the vote and he's only gotten that high with independents and Democrats voting for him.
Do you really think those groups will be sticking with you and your boy in the general?
Please tell me how the 'Republican' nominee is going to win the election, without you know, his party behind him.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 09:03 PM (hlYel)
It's a shame that McCain's attempt to link us with "bigots, nativists, and fanatics" has "turned into something very ugly". I should have accepted his abuse with the gleeful spirit in which it was given.
Posted by: bgates at January 31, 2008 09:07 PM (z6drm)
Romney might be better on this
stuff than McCain is, but if he is, it's an accident, not an effect of
his experience. Businessmen who aren't small businessmen aren't fiscal
Romney's what we used to call a capitalist -- a financier, not a
"businessman" like the word brings to mind, some hardworking guy owning
and running a factory or a chain or stores. The finance/venture/etc.
markets' players' profits are, in today's economy, proportional not to
their business acumen, but to the degree to which their activities are
government-regulated -- which they, not being fools, rightly understand
to mean the degree to which those markets are distorted and falsely
maintained in their favor by force of law. Their real work is lobbying for that favor.
There are no free-market capitalists. It's a commie myth that only the
dumbest commies believe. Romney's "managerial skill," brought to the
head of state, shouldn't reassure econo-cons. It should scare the shit
out of them.
Posted by: Retired (Not Gay) at January 31, 2008 09:14 PM (k5JzA)
"intemperate, irresponsible, sometimes fanatical criticism"
The timetables... the timetables.... (!!!!!111!!!!eleventy!!!!)
Posted by: Capt'n Kurtz at January 31, 2008 09:15 PM (zdMgK)
Posted by: eldeuce31 at January 31, 2008 09:15 PM (HtVG2)
I think he could win with a coalition roughly spanning the center of the party and the center of the electorate. I'm fairly confident that a candidate supported only by the far right of the party would, in the current and likely political climate, be destroyed, and that an early recovery from that kind of thrashing would be, at best, a remote possibility.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 09:17 PM (8aPVo)
Romney could still win.
Conservatives have legitimate gripes about McCain. Their criticism isn't necessarily unhinged vituperation; it's hinged. And vehement. What's wrong with that? Maybe, with the approach of the convention, McCain will move toward conservatives as result of that criticism. If that's the case, then conservative criticism will ultimately prove constructive in helping to shape the candidacy of the GOP nominee. And the convention may actually become a convention in the old sense, rather than a coronation.
The GOP is not the conservative party. Rather, conservatives are part of the GOP. As a conservative, I wish this weren't the case. But it is the case: a majority of Republicans seem to be making this increasingly clear to the nation through their support of McCain. Conservatives such myself are just going to have to find a way to live with that. Or not. In any event, that's the way of the world and it's not going to change any time soon, if ever. A majority of Republicans are not orthodox conservatives; and a slim majority of the nation's voters are Democrats. End of story. For now.
Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 09:18 PM (jNINY)
Hey DrewM..."What makes you think McCain would do that? Seriously, I am not just knocking the guy, I'm curious." Nothing makes me think that he would...however, I know damn well what the dems will do.
And 'The Band', I'm with ya...but at least he'll fight. It's the shits that we're making the Troops fight with one hand tied behind their backs...but even with that one hand, they bring down a mighty whuppin'. I get a kick out of these idiots asking "Well, how would you feel if our uniformed troops were captured and waterboarded??" As if any enemy of the USA in the last 60 years followed the fucking Geneva Convention...and sure, those terrorists, they're worried about having the eyes of the world upon them...
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 31, 2008 09:20 PM (p8IOE)
I hate John McCain. But I hate Hillary more.
If Hillary is President she will enact 100% of her agenda. If McCain is President he will enact 50% of her agenda.
If it comes down to those two at the end, I will vote for the one I hate the least because, let's face it, 50% of Hillary's agenda hurts less than 100% of Hillary's agenda.
Posted by: t.ferg at January 31, 2008 09:20 PM (j64ME)
Oh yeah. Irony.
Posted by: adamthemad at January 31, 2008 09:22 PM (GF2Xx)
Hakim seems to want to declare the election over now that his boy has a twenty delegate lead.
Well, you know what, buddy? You can wait until voting's over just like everyone else.
Posted by: ace at January 31, 2008 09:23 PM (SXBHu)
Well, I do think that threatening to vote and/or campaign for Hillary or Obama is sort of unhinged. I may or may not vote for McCain if he's the GOP nominee; haven't decided yet. There's lots of campaigning and politicking ahead of us. But I know I won't vote Democrat, much less campaign for them.
Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 09:25 PM (jNINY)
In the interest of clarifying a few positions (and also enjoying the fact that I have internet for a few minutes), indulge me...
1) I'll vote for McCain as a last resort. Here in Texas, we're not batting until March, and it's over by then. All of my guys (among them Giuliani) have bailed out, and I'm down to my last choices.
2) My objection to McCain is not personal- it is purely a matter of stances on immigration, campaign finance, and selected elements of his stances on the 2nd amendment- we need not hash them out here. I am not given to hyperbole and name-calling, even about Obama or Clinton, so I don't associate myself with the "bigots, nativists, and fanatics" label.
3) I am comfortable with McCain's stance on the war- where I depart is the sense that McCain seems to be, along with Huckabee, more of a German Social Democrat in stance. I see nothing to make me think that he will not do precisely what I object to over the last 8 years- social conservatism matched with bigger government. This basic precept defies the fundamental element of conservatism.
In short, I may vote for McCain in the general, but it will only be to fight off the inevitable disaster that an Obama or Clinton presidency would bring. In that case, the cure may be worse than the disease.
Many classic Reagan conservatives have clamored for a more Reagan-esque conservative, and we didn't get it. McCain is not that. It is my hope that enough conservatives will be rallied between now and Tuesday to defeat McCain, but it may not happen. I have no great love for Romney, but ultimately, his stance on immigration is what sways it for me.
Posted by: tmi3rd at January 31, 2008 09:26 PM (Pac14)
So Republicans who support border enforcement and oppose amnesty are the 'far right of the party'?
Republicans who support tax cuts and don't engage in the language of class warfare are the 'far right of the party'?
Republicans who oppose limits on political speech are the 'far right of the party'?
Republicans who support drilling in ANWAR and oppose a huge increase in government regulation of the economy through a 'cap and trade' system to deal with 'Global Warming' are the 'far right of the party'?
Dude, have you ever met a Republican?
You are right that bloggers don't represent the party but they do represent a part of it. The active part that donates time and money. The part that tries to motivate their friends, family and co-workers to vote for the party's candidates
Ask Karl Rove if Bush would have won re-election without the people you and McCain are going to write off. They wouldn't have come close and neither will McCain.
He's Bob Dole without the charisma.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 09:26 PM (hlYel)
And yet again, Drew M. speaks for me. Well put, my friend.
Posted by: tmi3rd at January 31, 2008 09:31 PM (Pac14)
Posted by: ace at January 31, 2008 09:31 PM (SXBHu)
Posted by: waelse1 at January 31, 2008 09:32 PM (C/q6F)
I did get a funky error message though.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 09:33 PM (hlYel)
pretty conservative George W. Bush, and now the moderates are looking
for their turn.
From a lot of people's POV, we've had 8 years of moderate being redefined as conservative, and the term conservative becoming a bad word.
The center has been pushed pretty far left in the last 16 years, from that POV.
A lot of the "count me out" voices are people who believe, with some justification, that they've been marginalized out of the discussion.
And if the voices at the table are Hillary and McCain, a HELL of a lot of people don't have seats at that table. If people want to call that the "grown up table," then you're basically telling all those people their voices don't deserve to be heard.
And then blaming the voices you pushed away from the table for fracturing the party. Way To Go.
At this point, I'm not giving much of a rat's ass, hopefully I will before the end of this mess.
Posted by: Merovign at January 31, 2008 09:35 PM (GLJe8)
and fanatics" has "turned into something very ugly". I should have
accepted his abuse with the gleeful spirit in which it was given.
Have you scheduled a date yet for getting over yourself?
I initially thought his rhetoric - or would it be more accurate to say it was the rhetoric of some of his allies? - was excessive. When I see how McCain and immigration-related threads at HotAir and other places, including AOSHQ from time to time, fill up with commenters calling him "Juan," and talking about a path to citizenship for long-time illegal residents as though it's the Fall of Rome and we're the Romans, then sadly the judgment about what was driving the opposition begins to look more fair. Really, if what you're worried about is the native population being overwhelmed by non-natives, then that kind of makes you a nativist, doesn't it? If you think being associated with Spanish names and words is something shameful, then you're kind of a bigot. If you're still furiously riding the same hobby horse you were riding a year ago, still emotionally upset because some politician said something that hurt your feelings, then you're kind of a fanatic.
If you haven't encountered such attitudes, in abundance, you don't get around much.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 09:35 PM (8aPVo)
Totally agree--my position exactly. You said it better than I could.
I wonder if McCain could win the nomination and the general with the support of orthodox conservatives? I really do wonder.
If he can, and does--well, I guess that speaks for volumes for our failings, or lack unattractiveness. It's like that girl you want who won't respond to you: she's just not that into you.
Maybe the country just isn't that into us.
Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 09:35 PM (jNINY)
That cable we have connecting our brains is a real bitch when I try and drive but other than that I am getting use to it.
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 09:36 PM (hlYel)
Meant to say:
... without the support of orthodox conservatives ...
Posted by: Steve (the artist formerly known as Ed Snate) at January 31, 2008 09:39 PM (jNINY)
Posted by: Z Ryan at January 31, 2008 09:39 PM (PDeVA)
"Really, if what you're worried about is the native population being overwhelmed by non-natives, then that kind of makes you a nativist, doesn't it? If you think being associated with Spanish names and words is something shameful, then you're kind of a bigot."
Um, those aren't the issues.
Illegal immigration. What about following the laws of the country you're trying to live in? How about the impact on our schools, court system, jails, hospitals, housing...who's using WIC programs, welfare, committing Social Security fraud on a major scale...etc...
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 31, 2008 09:42 PM (p8IOE)
Posted by: ace at January 31, 2008 09:42 PM (SXBHu)
Posted by: Don Carne at January 31, 2008 09:44 PM (wSNS7)
Posted by: Z Ryan at January 31, 2008 09:44 PM (PDeVA)
Write in Brian Leetch!
Did you see the thing last week? How great was it when he made the Graves announcement?
Posted by: DrewM. at January 31, 2008 09:45 PM (hlYel)
Hakim, my concern with McCain's immigration policy is its disregard for standing law, particularly when advanced without the approval of his constituency. And as (until recently) a very active member of the MSM, I've encountered plenty of opinions. And as much as I denigrate many of the imbeciles I've interviewed, many are concerned more with the inability of the government to enforce the laws on the books. That isn't a knee-jerk, nativist position- that is a genuine concern (at least when I was in Nashville) with a group of people for whom it is culturally acceptable to drive drunk.
Here in Texas, it isn't much different. There are routine stories of DWI fatalities with recent Mexican immigrants who genuinely didn't know it wasn't okay to drive drunk here in the US. I am only a hardliner on enforcing the laws we have. They can certainly be modified to reflect changing realities, but to do so without the approval of the people who voted you in is not proper representation. I accuse John McCain, in his stances on immigration, of not representing the folks I encountered in Arizona; as someone who might prospectively vote for him, he does not represent me.
Is that a fair enough criticism for you?
Posted by: tmi3rd at January 31, 2008 09:47 PM (Pac14)
I'm getting a little tired of the whiny ass "conservatives" here and around the dextrosphere. If you think you can put together a win for Romney, be my guest, but that dude as intelligent and articulate and pretty as he is comes off as a douchebag. Huckabee may have been playing the class warfare card when he said that Mitt was the "guy that laid you off", but that is EXACTLY how the Clinton machine is going to characterize him-and they will beat him like a drum.
Hakim hit the nail on the head, why should McCain go out of his way to suck your dicks (even though he is)? He has pieces of you little punks in his shit every morning. The man has faced actual adversity at the risk of his life and came out the other side to lead a distinguished if not perfect career as a Senator. And what the fuck do you cunts have to show for yourselves? They ran out of Soy at Starbucks so you courageously went with the nonfat latte and risked a wicked case of lactose intolerance?
Buck the fuck up and get behind the nominee whoever it is and stop this simpering bullshit. I didn't leave my successful real estate business to go to Iraq so that you pussies would decide to sit on your hands in November because McCain wasn't conservative enough for you. That Cunt told Wolf on CNN that she would have everybody begin redeploying out of Iraq within 60 days if she were elected.
Fuck you if you stay home and allow that to happen.
Posted by: Froggy at January 31, 2008 09:55 PM (G6CWT)
Off to bed. G'night, guys. Keep the faith.
Posted by: tmi3rd at January 31, 2008 09:58 PM (Pac14)
I guess Froggy hasn't been reading most of this thread, where most of us have made it clear we'd vote for McCain in the general.
By the way, Froggy, I've been having the same discussion with some of my friends who are on their 3rd tour over there, and they're pulling for Romney in the same way many of us here are- both Marines and Army. Shall I send on your best to them? And while I'm at it, which unit was that?
Posted by: tmi3rd at January 31, 2008 10:04 PM (Pac14)
It takes boots on the ground to win elections, just like it does in war. This is a war. This isn't some electronic video game.
The Romney campaign announced that they had the largest online fund-raising day yet yesterday thru today. That's good. But it takes more than money, it takes volunteers to pass out flyers, work the HQs, man the phone banks, act as surrogate speakers, etc.
Get out of your PJs and go volunteer and also go donate. You can't depend on blog posts and talk radio to get the job done, it takes people.
Posted by: Sara at January 31, 2008 10:08 PM (Wi/N0)
Posted by: Don Carne at January 31, 2008 10:09 PM (wSNS7)
Posted by: Sara at January 31, 2008 10:15 PM (Wi/N0)
It just may be the the majority of American voters - including a large portion of the Republican electorate and nearly the entirety of the Democratic - go around with a different, less strictly defined notion of the country and of who should be accepted, and of how they should be accepted, than do a lot of people on the hard right. That last group has no special claim to defining who and who isn't an American, in my opinion. That's something we all get to do in this country - something we've been struggling to figure out for well over two centuries. That group's claim over defining who's conservative may be better, but it's not indisputable either.
As for legality - we can try to enforce the law, ignoring the fact that doing so has proven far beyond our capacities, possibly because the laws are unrealistic and obsolete - or we can try to amend the laws in keeping with our needs and abilities.
As for our host's statement above that "whether we would or would not vote for McCain in the general,
many of us are fairly passionate about NOT having to make that
decision, and are ramping up our rhetoric to get Romney the nod," I can take that only as a concession. In other words, he doesn't really believe what he's saying, he's just engaging in some agitational propagandizing. Gosh I feel so used.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at January 31, 2008 10:20 PM (8aPVo)
Why should I vote for John McCain?
Because he's the republican nominee?
How can you tell he's a republican?
Hell, I voted 12 years Reagan-Bush, and 12 years Clinton-Gore and then I voted for W.
There is little in McCain's demeanor, style, acumen, or policy that interests me.
I even met John McCain at an award dinner several years ago (he and Russ Feingold were being honored by Leon Panetta.)
A great American.
A great Senator.
Not so much.
A great POTUS.
And no, Hillbilly is smart.
She will not lose the war or sully her historical reputation under any circumstance.
She will take a lot of shit for it, but HRC will not allow the US to lose the war.
As for every other "it takes a village" nonsense, yes, she'll try to enact it all.
OK, let her.
But lose the war she will not do.
So take good care in Iraq, do your job, and come home safe and soon.
If you or your mates need something from us, let us know.
The morons here will gladly hook you up.
Won't we morons?
In the meantime, if John McCain is he candidate for the GOP, I'll sit this one out.
So too, will millions of likeminded voters.
Posted by: MTT at January 31, 2008 10:20 PM (0mJwb)
Set aside your pet worries and get behind the goddamn effort like generations better than us did.
Vote for better, stronger immigration opposed candidates this 08 to ensure shamnesty isn't executive.
DON"T fuck the troops though by not voting or voting for Hil.
Get a flippin' grip.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 at January 31, 2008 10:23 PM (9bguR)
Set aside your pet worries and get behind the goddamn effort like generations better than us did.
Contrary to your dismissal, Republicans have real issues with McCain. The least of which is that just a few years ago he was willing to abandon the GOP altogether. And by the way, this is the Republican primary which is the PROPER time to air these issues. You act as if it's somehow illegitimate to question which candidate would make the better president.
In the end I'll probably vote for McCain over Hillary, albeit reluctantly. But I don't appreciate having my concerns about McCain belittled and being maumaued into accepting him as the nominee when he hasn't won it yet.
Posted by: Maetenloch at January 31, 2008 10:36 PM (JGvZp)
Posted by: forged rite at January 31, 2008 10:40 PM (w+nrD)
Of course I don't consider someone who often espouses Democratic positions to be a conservative Republican either.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 31, 2008 10:49 PM (1V0X4)
defenders scare me the extent to which they're willing to give in order
to win, even describing Bush as a Conservative. The Democrats are
perhaps the party least deserving to win in world history (and they're
winning). But the Republicans aren't much better. Listening to the
Europeans gloat in ignorance on other forums is also infuriating.
Yep, I have no idea what to do at this point.
Posted by: MlR at January 31, 2008 10:49 PM (mX6h5)
Posted by: MlR at January 31, 2008 10:51 PM (mX6h5)
Posted by: forged rite at January 31, 2008 10:58 PM (w+nrD)
Yep, and back I go to wanting to tell the prick to stick a firehose up his ass and turn the water up.
Posted by: MlR at January 31, 2008 10:59 PM (mX6h5)
Posted by: forged rite at January 31, 2008 11:03 PM (w+nrD)
Posted by: forged rite at January 31, 2008 11:12 PM (w+nrD)
I sent in my MR donation, and got my volunteer slot at the MR phone bank.
The meaner and pushier the McCainiacs get, the more support flows to Romney. Very Zen.
Posted by: confuscius say at January 31, 2008 11:17 PM (sipIq)
when we were talking about a permanent Republican majority? Good times.
Posted by: MlR at January 31, 2008 11:20 PM (mX6h5)
Damn. I missed the party. Again. And a chance to pimp my twhirrily thread (or, maybe not, heh).
Posted by: davis,br at January 31, 2008 11:26 PM (q4usA)
Posted by: mare at February 01, 2008 12:07 AM (ZJ22h)
Could not have been better said.
Posted by: mare at February 01, 2008 12:09 AM (ZJ22h)
one-on-one with McCain at CPAC: "Hi, I run a web site where we all
hate your guts and think it's really funny to turn the names of people
we hate like you into Spanish, not that we're nativist bigots or
anything, and to call you a traitor and a liar and to speculate about
your untimely demise, but if you knuckle under to all of our our
deamdns in an adequately public and humiliating manner, probably some
of us - maybe up to 100 real live voters! - might support you after
all! What do you think?"
Fine, why don't you imagine McCain's likely response as well.
In 2005 I sued the FEC to apply McCain-Feingold to the internet; which would have made your blog illegal within 30 days of an election, would have required you all post your names and any possible affiliations you have, would have limited you from having too many posts as they each would have been rated as in kind donations and assigned arbitrary values by politicians with an ax to grind, and basically would have either shut you down, or tied you up in so much paperwork that you couldn't have possibly gotten any sort of opinion out. Heck, you might have gone to jail for what you're doing now.
I tried my damnedest to shut up the internet in its entirety, blogs, e-mails, everything; and I even won the initial lawsuit, but I couldn't quite get enough political power to completely silence my critics... but you wait until I'm President.
Odd that after McCain's actions there aren't just truckloads of bloggers and other internet posters who are willing to support McCain. I guess the red marks from pulling the tape off our mouths hasn't healed quite yet. Maybe my November we'll accept the fact that McCain simply wants to limit who is allowed to have political opinions and support him while accepting that he'll silence as many people as he can.
But I wouldn't exactly bet that way...
Oh, and for people wondering what the hell I'm talking about. An interview with an FEC commissioner circa 2005 for your education (linked in Karl's post at Protein Wisdom).
Not enough? Ok, a WSJ article, specifically read the section:
This proved far too sensible for the sponsors
of the law, who sued the commission for allowing "loopholes" and got a
federal judge to strike down the exemption. The FEC must now decide
just how it intends to monitor and penalize all those attempting to
corrupt the U.S. political system via modem.
Now the FEC then voted 6-0 to treat the internet bloggers as Journalists (so they didn't face the restrictions McCain wanted) but he tried as hard as he could to silence as many individual citizens as possible...
But I bet he'll pick Judges that'll avoid "reinterpreting the Constitution"... right? Just because he has contempt for my Constitutional rights doesn't mean he'll pick Judges who agree with him.
Posted by: Gekkobear at February 01, 2008 12:09 AM (EUUIq)
That would be the sort of thing he was trying to stop, so I assume he wouldn't want anyone trying to persuade people to use actions he considers "illegal donations" to help him.
So even when I have something nice to say about McCain, you can expect me to keep that to myself. I wouldn't want to offend him by accidentally making what he considers an illegal in-kind donation to his campaign. I'll work to avoid giving him that moral dilemma.
Hopefully his supporters will have at least as much respect for McCain's views and positions as I do...
Posted by: Gekkobear at February 01, 2008 12:15 AM (EUUIq)
McCain has been saying "Fuck You" to us for a long time; why don't you all cool it with the "let's be friends" pussyshit and allow us to say "Fuck You" back to McCain for a while longer?
Says precisely what I feel about all the "get on the bus" bullshit. Call me a bigot and avoid association with me like some mentally challenged cousin you're embarrassed of, and you can twist in the wind, my "friend."
Posted by: Mark V. at February 01, 2008 12:22 AM (dZ4mk)
Heck, that makes a lot of democrats far right then, too. Illegal immigration cuts across party lines. , Maybe the activist dems like open borders but I would guess 50% of the rest of their supporters wouldn't mind some enforcement.
Posted by: Harun at February 01, 2008 12:31 AM (lxJIG)
...and talking about a path to citizenship for long-time illegal residents as though it's the Fall of Rome...
20 million unskilled uneducated illegals legalized = Dems in control forever.
Dems = Socialization.
Socialization = the end of America as we know it.
Got it, numbnuts?
If it were only 2 million, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. But it's 20 million and growing, every day. Not only does McCain want amnesty for all of the illegals, he also wants to keep the floodgates open and allow untold millions to join in the "path to citizenship." That's why there are estimates of 50 million illegal invaders when all is said and done.
Posted by: Bart at February 01, 2008 12:45 AM (Bzh10)
Y'know ...the problem I'm startin' to see, lookin' around here and there ...and, now I think on't, probably the reason Fred didn't stand a chance ...is ...I don't think 99.99 frickin' percent of the people I read commenting would know a history book if it bit them in the ass.
I'm pretty sure that DrewM is in the 0.01 percent group though. Nice summation dude.
Posted by: davis,br at February 01, 2008 02:34 AM (q4usA)
Posted by: davis,br at February 01, 2008 02:36 AM (q4usA)
Or maybe that just didn't make no kind o' sense to ol' Froggy.
Making friends is hard to do sometimes, I guess.
Posted by: Merovign at February 01, 2008 02:47 AM (IaYDo)
They said back in 2000 that the reporters aboard the Straight Talk Express were keeping notebooks full of stuff to use at the "appropriate" time. Once the MSM's favorite maverick is running against the Democratic nominee (especially if that nominee is the new and improved JFK), out come the notebooks. Just imagine all the entries that have been added over the last seven years.
So it looks like the next president is coming to us from the biggest collection of egomaniacal blowhard gasbags the planet has ever seen. Why anyone would want a member of the world's worst deliberative body in one of the nation's worst Congresses ever to take the reins at one of the most critical junctures in history is beyond my capacity to understand. Put any one of the three in tandem with a Democratic congress and in four years you won't be able to recognize our country. I suppose we should be grateful that McCain at least realizes that there's a war on. How did we ever come to this.
Posted by: SukieTawdry at February 01, 2008 02:47 AM (wn8o6)
I love the self righteous asshats like hakim who pretend to be so reasonable all the while shitting on those who have the gall to question McCain.
Sensitive little boys like hakim and rebel. Go ahead and vote for McCain. Nobody gives two shits what you do. But if we want to criticize a douchebag like McCain - we will. So stop sniveling, toadstools.
Posted by: Kibbles & Bits at February 01, 2008 03:39 AM (q+HK/)
McCain has already demonstrated what he does with power while he was in the Senate: he uses it to further his own self-image by pandering to the media and undercutting his owns party's agenda in order to be the center of attention.
Could there be a stronger contrast between McCain's conduct in the Senate and the conduct of GW Bush as President? I don't think so.
If McCain had been President for the last 4 years, contrary to the conventional wisdom I am afraid we would have bailed on Iraq, because he does not have the integrity of GWB to do what is right despite the disapproval of "progressives" and his core constituency, the media. The McCain "man of principal" will run out of piss and vineagar as soon as the media starts calling him names, you watch.
His whole persona is a media creation. What the MSM hath made, the MSM can taketh away, and while Johnny fears that greatly, true men of principle like GWB laugh in the face of it.
My addition to the great comment above on the Dem plan:
1. Get McCain nominated.
2. Let the media make him lose his temper (should require ~ 5 minutes).
3. Enjoy Hillary Presidency.
Posted by: sherlock at February 01, 2008 04:29 AM (ojW85)
Posted by: Z as in Jersey at February 01, 2008 04:29 AM (RiRew)
From the article in "The Hill":
Daschle said he doesn’t believe the new revelations will hurt McCain.
Well, there you go - nothing calms my fears better than the reassurances of Tom Daschle!!
Here's what is happening... the Dems are trying to keep the wheels on the old bus so they don't come off too soon, like BEFORE McCain is nominated!
Posted by: sherlock at February 01, 2008 04:51 AM (jdXw+)
Posted by: polynikes at February 01, 2008 05:06 AM (m2CN7)
No, I'm not a McCain supporter, but this is thing gruel.
McCain wouldn't switch parties because he knew he wouldn't win another election in AZ.
Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 05:10 AM (I+jPP)
Surely the dems wouldn't have any reason to attack McCain when it appears he may be the nominee?
Just apply basic logic to the story....McCain likes being a politician. McCain couldn't win another election in AZ if he did the party switch. Weaver's version that it was all gossip among supposed close friends makes more sense than anything else.
If nothing else, perhaps some GOP staffers will wake up to the fact that their "colleagues across the isle" aren't quite the good friends they think they are.
Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 05:17 AM (I+jPP)
Guys, nowhere in the article does it say that McCain himself went to this lunch. or talked to these guys about the party switch. funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:10 AM (I+jPP
Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain “had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority … [A lot of issues] were on the table.”
Posted by: polynikes at February 01, 2008 05:34 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: The Band at February 01, 2008 05:49 AM (/94xL)
Posted by: steveegg at February 01, 2008 05:58 AM (LvEFt)
Posted by: uniball at February 01, 2008 06:46 AM (27iEn)
Posted by: hhuummbbeerrtt at February 01, 2008 07:39 AM (ukuxx)
Posted by: Techie at February 01, 2008 07:48 AM (AV8Z6)
20 million unskilled uneducated illegals legalized = Dems in control forever.
Dems = Socialization.
Socialization = the end of America as we know it.Setting aside the oversimplification for the moment, that's EXACTLY what you'll get when you - purer-than-thou conservatives - will get when you help elect Hillary or Obama.
Identifying Republicans exclusively with a hard anti-immigration line - including the much beloved and very highly overrated "self-deportation/attrition through enforcement" approach, as accompanied by increasingly heated anti-Latino rhetoric - and you can congratulate yourself for turning Latinos into a permanent Democratic constituency, with however many millions of new voters eventually augmenting the group. This would happen, sooner or later, with or without any actual new legislation, until the amnesty of 2020 finally recognizes the fait accompli.
The only chance conservatives have over the longer term of protecting their political viability on the national level is to be identified with a humane, if harder, policy. It's easy to get to the right of the Democrats (easier to get to the right of Obama than of Hillary, however). Doing so without going over into nativist fantasies preserves at least the possibility of gaining support from Latinos, or partly nullifying the Democrat advantage, and opens the possibility, over the long term, of making inroads among African Americans and lower wage workers whose lives are most negatively affected by illegals.
If you think that an uncompromising anti-immigrant line is going to sell to the broader electorate, up front and all the more while under implementation (as if it would ever happen), and will do anything other than the destroy the Republican "brand" for a generation, then you're dreaming. Just look what happened to the Republican Party in California after Pete Wilson was saddled with a popular initiative interpreted as anti-Latino. It passed overwhelmingly - and consigned Republicans to the minor leagues in this state for, apparently, ever. The only exceptions are politicians like Schwarzenegger - a superstar whom I am 100% sure the anti-McCainiacs consider a pathetic RINO.
Hillary will eat your lunch and you'll be lucky if she lets you clean her plate.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Hakim Hussein at February 01, 2008 07:58 AM (8aPVo)
If anyone thinks it will be hard to vote for McCain for us conservatives- try imagining it with a Huckster running mate. Fat effing chance!
McCains nuttiness and Hucksters evangelical past pronouncements= epic blowout loss.
Posted by: jjshaka at February 01, 2008 08:05 AM (dMH+d)
141 (Hakim) - Do you know how annoying it is when in thread after thread you continually ignore the substance of the opposing arguments, ignore that your "expression of concern" has already been addressed (by now, countless times) in a rational & lucid fashion, and assume - like some DU'er in the thrall of BDS induced endorphin ecstasy overload ...generally caused by an incessant incantative recitation of the evils of Teh Bushitler in a sexual like frenzy of spittle-flecked auditory and visual stimuli - that everyone just naturally accepts that if you say whatever about Hilary, the clarity of your inherent suppositions on the evil nature of her hegemonistic potential must simply be as naturally clear to just everyone as the chirp of a newly hatched Robin on a quiet morning in late Spring deep in the wilderness of the Pacific Northwest?
Dude. In simple, simple terms: you are suffering from HDS**.
Which implication is: the rest of us simply aren't afraid of her ...we may not like her, but ...in the "lesser of two evils" political equation we're being confronted with, we have made a rational, reality-based, logical induction that McCain is the greater threat. To conservatives, to Republicans, and to the Republic.
Get some help man, while you can. Before the results of the 2008 election cause you to spontaneously explode from political apoplexy.
**Hilary Derangement Syndrome ...and yes, you read that here first (well, I doubt that it was first, but I haven't read it before, and I'm too lazy to google it)
Posted by: davis,br at February 01, 2008 08:51 AM (q4usA)
vote. One reason, and one only: the war against islamic fascism.
He'll fight them over there, so he'll be able to let them sneak across the Mexican border over here.
Posted by: lmg at February 01, 2008 09:19 AM (cHcxA)
Posted by: Troll QA at February 01, 2008 09:46 AM (ERV3B)
I mean, shit, where were these McCainiacs four months ago, huh?
RWS is the ONLY consistently pro-McC person I've ever seen here.
Hakim is a commenter in good standing and being as civil as needed on this moronblog, so I'm not casting aspersions his way (unless he is a very nuanced Romney mole), but there are folks who are SOOOO over the top like John Larkin that I have to wonder if he's really not just trolling for Romney. It's gotten a few of you to donate and even one or two to volunteer. What a cunning and devious mormon plan (they're like that, you know)*
I agree with K-Lo that now's the time to raise issues, and McCain is deeply, deeply flawed from teh conservative perspective, but try to consider why you're getting so worked up about things. If Ted Olson's on board, I have much more confidence in McCain on judges, as I know Mr. Olson tangentially and trust his judgment implicitly. He's good on the war and questionable at best on Gitmo. Sucks on CFR, decent on guns, pro-life. All in all, something to support, as most of us recognize, in the general.
By all means, let's argue issues, but stop with teh conservative victim vs. belligerent asshole bickering.
* that's a joke, for all you sensitive fags.
Posted by: assholes for McCain at February 01, 2008 09:57 AM (p1s9n)
Posted by: assholes for McCain at February 01, 2008 09:58 AM (p1s9n)
That's how I feel about many of the conservatives rallying against John McCain right now. I have not been terribly supportive of the McCain campaign. National Review magazine has been positively brutal. But the sort of moronic, venal, cowardly, and immoral stuff being thrown at McCain from certain segments of the loony Right is sending me his way. At the risk of e-mail-box overflow, I think these people are revealing themselves as fools and they are hurting the conservative movement.
Exhibit A is Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation. Weyrich, who was a vital leader in the conservative movement 20 years ago, is embarrassing himself and the rest of us. Last year he wrote a profoundly goofy letter to the movement calling on conservatives to take their marbles and go home because politics was no longer conservative business. Then — surprise — he endorsed Steve Forbes, whose campaign was renowned for buying support in certain conservative ghettos.
Apparently Weyrich was re-energized by his Forbes experience, or perhaps he was embarrassed to discover that he was a general without troops when his call for surrender was ignored in all quarters. Either way, he is in the politics business again and we are all the poorer for it. He has now taken to suggesting that John McCain is a Communist spy working at the bidding of some geriatric cabal of Vietnamese Communists. "The Cambodian Khmer Rouge has claimed that 'McCain is a Vietnamese agent,' for what it's worth," writes Weyrich.
Weyrich quotes various conspiratorial websites (which I will not link to) and then says, there's got to be some reason so many people think McCain is a "traitor."
These are the tactics of Communists, Klansmen, and the worst sorts of John Birchers; cite a volume of lies and disinformation and then say, "well, there's so much of it some of it must be true." Weyrich should have stuck with his original plan and quit politics.
And so should a lot of other people. A church flier in South Carolina calls him the "fag candidate." Literature from a pro-Bush, pro-Life group shows a picture of a baby and reads "this little guy wants you to vote for George W. Bush." McCain supporters get cold calls from unnamed Bush supporters calling him a "baby killer" who "wants to increase abortion on demand." There are flyers "showing" McCain with Saddam Hussein, saying he voted to keep Hussein in office.
Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 10:02 AM (I+jPP)
It isn't rocket science.
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at February 01, 2008 10:12 AM (DQDJU)
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at February 01, 2008 10:13 AM (DQDJU)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 01, 2008 10:35 AM (hfyfI)
Nah, just let parties and individual contributors sue the fuckers for fraud and make them personally responsible for repayment and damages.
That'll put an end to right away.
Posted by: DrewM. at February 01, 2008 11:02 AM (hlYel)
And Ben Nighthorse Campbell would have always been a democrat.
Posted by: funky chicken at February 01, 2008 11:13 AM (I+jPP)
I've been using the term MDS (McCain Derangement Syndrome) to define the majority of the reason I voted for Romney, and see your point regarding HDS. However, I've been reflecting on it and think that overusing using the term "______ Derangement Syndrome" may not be best. BDS has very severe and somewhat tangible symptoms, whereas these others not so much. So I for one am going to stop using it lightly so as to not weaken its meaning.
Posted by: infidel2 at February 01, 2008 01:34 PM (pYcF8)
Posted by: docweasel at February 26, 2008 02:46 PM (WzPzd)
Posted by: eiapuxdck vorifc at March 10, 2008 12:14 PM (AJoKz)
Posted by: 素人ホスト募集 at December 19, 2008 10:04 PM (m84na)
Posted by: 钢丝绳 at November 08, 2009 07:02 PM (SIx8Q)
Links of London silver is releasing new products which are of elegant shape and fashionable pattern.
Posted by: Michael at December 29, 2009 08:12 PM (1SZBI)
62 queries taking 2.9162 seconds, 394 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.