McCain or Else?
January 21st, 2008 at 06:20am Mark Noonan
So thinks Victory Davis Hanson:
Some observations:
1. McCain is starting to show a certain attraction to many bedrock conservatives that must be based on his war record and service, and this trumps their worries about his less than conservative fides — or at least allows them to accept McCain’s won’t-make-that-mistake-again changed views on closing the border, tax cuts, etc. Privately many conservative voters have looked at the polls and know McCain does best against the Democrats.
2. While those conservatives who support either McCain or Giuliani would probably vote for a Republican ticket headed by Romney or Thompson (not sure entirely about Huckabee), the inverse is not necessary true at this point. In these angry emails I receive, there are the usual threats that if McCain is nominated, they will sit out. I doubt that, but right now that seems to be the braggadacio.
3. It seems that Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee supporters might at least consider that there is a chance that McCain will be nominated and these “I’ll sit it out” conservatives should begin thinking of the consequences of Presidents Hillary and Bill. My guess is that McCain could still unify the party, if he (1) offers some informal assurances about illegal immigration and taxes, and does an “inoperative” on McCain-Feingold; (2) has frank discussions with the conservative media such as Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. and takes his medicine without losing his temper; (3) promises a hard conservative as VP. McCain’s conservative ratings, after all, are in the 80s, he is rock solid on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he wants a balanced budget, and is now against blanket amnesty and “comprehensive” reform — and looks like he is the leader to gain the nomination and simultaneously infuriate base conservatives.
Otherwise, we are about 1/3 the way through a Greek tragedy, in which the fated catastrophic denouement is known, but can’t be prevented.
Hanson is of the opinion that only McCain has a chance of defeating Hillary or Obama - I’m not sure I agree with that. There still remains the fact that whomever the Democrats nominate will have to hold everything the Democrats won in 2004, and take away at least a State or two that President Bush won twice. As unpopular as President Bush is, this is not going to be an easy task and only a split GOP vote (or a determination by a large part of the GOP to sit it out) can assure the Democrats the White House. I noted over this past couple weeks that the “issue ads” from the left out here in Nevada are still running against President Bush…how far will anti-Bush sentiment carry the Democrats in 2008? I’m not sure - but I don’t think it will be decisive in November, especially if the troops are coming home to victory parades in the summer.
In polling, McCain does do best, and that is a plus for him - but GOPers always do weaker than Democrats far out from an election…so even if a poll shows Hillary beating a particular Republican by as much as ten percentage points, that is now - in January - while the result in November could be very much different. The only GOPers I’m pretty certain would be defeated by Hillary or Obama are Paul and Huckabee - Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson all have a credible path to victory in November.
What we GOPers have to do is think carefully here - against either Obama or Hillary, any GOPer will be mercilessly pounded by the MSM, while the Democratic nominee will be presented as near perfection. What we need is any candidate who can take such a pounding, keep his cool, and come back and speak over the head of the MSM directly to the American people in a way they can understand and support. Most people seem to have forgotten that Reagan seemed a sure loser in 1980, until people got a close look at him in contrast to Jimmy Carter at the debates. A platitude-dripping Hillary or Obama confronted with a GOPer who hammers on real themes and issues will be a wonderful event for the GOP.
Is McCain this man? I don’t know - I’m still with Thompson, and if he drops out I’m with Romney. If McCain gets it, then I’m a McCaniac at least until the votes are counted in November.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
48 Comments
1. Christian Wright | January 21st, 2008 at 6:58 am
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
Can we talk about something deadly serious? High-ranking Republicans are selling nuclear secrets to our enemies.
2. Romney » McCain or &hellip | January 21st, 2008 at 7:32 am
[…] NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias wrote an interesting post today on McCain or Else?Here’s a quick excerpt…who support either McCain or Giuliani would probably vote for a Republican ticket headed by Romney or Thompson (not sure entirely about… […]
3. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 7:37 am
Christian Wright,
Can you prove your off topic propagandist lie?!!!
AAR
4. John Mccain » McCai&hellip | January 21st, 2008 at 7:39 am
[…] William K. Wolfrum wrote an interesting post today on McCain or Else?Here’s a quick excerpt1. McCain is starting to show a certain attraction to many bedrock conservatives that must be based on his war record and service, and this trumps […]
5. liberalT | January 21st, 2008 at 8:19 am
victory parades? Wow - that is wishful thinking. I would love it if the troops came home this summer. So are you saying we can remove most of our troops by then?
6. neocon | January 21st, 2008 at 8:45 am
libT,
When the troops do come home, it won’t be a good thing for liberals. They will be coming home victoriously and no matter how the left will try and spin it, they lost big time on the Iraq effort.
7. neocon | January 21st, 2008 at 8:50 am
AAR,
The left rarely needs proof on any of their accusations. Simply rinse and repeat and the MSM will give it some legs. That’s how the dishonest propaganda is disseminated. For proof of this I refer you to: domestic spying, plamegate, gitmo, war for oil, etc, etc.
8. Casper | January 21st, 2008 at 10:02 am
“When the troops do come home, it won’t be a good thing for liberals.”
That could very well be true. But when is it going to happen? This year? Next? Ten years from now?
As long as we have a large number of troops in Iraq, the Republicans are going to have a tough time in November. If the economy tanks, the Democrats win in a landslide.
9. neocon | January 21st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Casper,
The Democrats are a joke. There will be troops in Iraq come November and many of them will be coming home, having secured victory. The economy will not tank, and even though it could be in rougher shape, Romney can run circles around either the empty suits of Obama or Clinton in terms of experience in dealing with financial concerns.
The two Democratic candidates are the weakest POTUS candidates on either side that I can ever remember and their dishonesty and inexperience will be clearly revealed in the general.
10. Greg-O | January 21st, 2008 at 10:24 am
The article referenced by “Christian Wright” indicates that the alleged operations began in 1996; who was President then?
?I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002. The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations,? she said.
Back on topic, I do believe that Hillary will get the nomination, but not after several more rounds of “unapproved and unaware” mudslinging against Obama that should increase her already-high negatives. This should then make her quite beatable by whomever the GOP nominee is. Let us also not forget the incredibly unpopular and ineffective “leadership” of Pelosi and Reid, which should also add to the millstone.
11. Casper | January 21st, 2008 at 10:47 am
“There will be troops in Iraq come November and many of them will be coming home, having secured victory.”
I truly hope you are right. I would love to see all of our troops out of Iraq by next November, but I realize that’s not going to happen.
“The two Democratic candidates are the weakest POTUS candidates on either side that I can ever remember and their dishonesty and inexperience will be clearly revealed in the general.”
Frankly, I think the worst candidate running is Rudy. He is the only one that I have absolutely ruled out voting for at this point. That said, IMO we have much stronger candidates on both sides this time than we did the last two presidential elections.
12. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
You’re right!
In this case, however, the MSM didn’t even make allegations accusing Republicans of selling nuclear secrets, at least not in the link which Christian Wright provided. That was a total lie, fabricated by C. Wright, who seems to forget there are Democrats (Liberals) employed by the federal government — probably in even greater numbers than Republicans.!
C. Wright makes no mention either of the illegal release of classified information to the press regarding our terrorist surveillance programs — which was also likely the work of Democrats (Liberals) working for the CIA or other intelligence agencies.
In any case, the guilty parties should be hunted down, tried, and hung as traitors!!!
AAR
13. OhioOrrin | January 21st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
as an indie centrist, I’ll vote 4 whomever the GOP nominates as a check n balance to the (continued) dem majority in congress.
having said that, I don’t feel huckabee, romney, or thompson can beat hill or baama.
I’ll (probably) never again vote the same party to control the executive & legislative branches.
split govt forces solutions to the center & marginalizes the extremists, left & right. plus the 2 sides rat each other out.
14. Casper | January 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
OhioOrrin,
I agree that the best scenario is to have at least one house of congress controlled by the party that doesn’t have the White House. However, I vote for the person I think will do the best job regardless of party.
15. Joe | January 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
neocon,
Kerry was a pretty weak candidate in ‘04. The only reason he got so many votes was because so many didn’t want Bush for a second term (me included). So to say the current crop is weakest is a pretty lame claim.
Mark,
There still remains the fact that whomever the Democrats nominate will have to hold everything the Democrats won in 2004, and take away at least a State or two that President Bush won twice.
That is true, however this is a different type of election than in ‘04. First off, see my comment about Kerry above. Secondly, in my opinion, there is more hope and optimism about the Dem candidates than there are on the Repub side. I also don’t believe any of the Repub candidates have the full backing of the Republican base. There are too many smells coming out of the collective candidates on the Repub side.
16. Joe | January 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
neocon,
Here is some more on ol’ Mitt for ya…
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2033704120080121?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
and
Business success doesn’t always equate to polital executive success.
17. bagni | January 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
mcmark
you’re finally coming around to the alien prediction?
you and i will be voting for mccain in nov whether we like him or not……
(and yes i vote….cuz i’m a legal alien)
18. Faceplant | January 21st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“domestic spying,”
You mean the domestic spying program that was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Judge?
“plamegate,”
That would be the case where Scooter Libby was found guilty of lying, and obstructing a Federal Investigation. People don’t lie for the hell of it. They lie to cover up wrongdoing.
“gitmo,”
You mean the place where SUSPECTED terrorists go so they can live in a 8 foot open walled cell, with no access to a lawyer, no right to challenge their detention, and are subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” all without being convicted of doing anything?
19. Faceplant | January 21st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“C. Wright makes no mention either of the illegal release of classified information to the press regarding our terrorist surveillance programs — which was also likely the work of Democrats (Liberals) working for the CIA or other intelligence agencies.”
Please explain to me how the leaking of the existance of a warrantless wiretapping program did ANYTHING to harm US security.
Did terrorists not know we were spying on them? Do you think they care whether we have a warrant or not?
This attempt to paint the people who leaked the existance of a legally dubious spying program as traitors is simply pathetic.
The leaking of the program did NOTHING to harm US national security. In fact the only crime the leakers appear to be guilty of is embarrassing Georg Bush. And that apparently is enough to make you a traitor in the cult of Bush.
20. FmrMarine | January 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
mcLame is a true rhino, who couldn’t wait to poke the republican led congress and the President in the eye every chance he got.
The media loves him and is constantly lifting him up, while virtually ignoring Rudy and Fred. That in its self should speak volumes. If he gets the nod i will probably stay home and hold my nose for the next four years.
I dont feel 22 (1-2 hour) sorties really qualifies one as having a heroes “war record” or does getting shot down.
Surviving 5-6 years in a prison camp does wonders for his resume though, but there are questions from those who served with him in prison which raises “swift boat” style questions.
21. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Plant,
Please explain to me how the leaking of the existance of a warrantless wiretapping program did ANYTHING to harm US security.
Trying to explain ANYTHING to you would be a total waste of time, an exercise in futility, and falls within the same category as mud wrestling a pig! The very nature of your shallow comments confirms that fact!!!
Suffice it to say, releasing classified information is illegal and those guilty of the crime should pay the price — up to and including the death penalty if it can be shown the release of that information aided our enemies (which it did), compromised our nation’s security, and endangered the lives of American citizens.
AAR
22. Uncommon | January 21st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Once again AAR is full of $h^t.
23. AAR | January 21st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Uncommon,
Is that the best you could do?
You and Plant are good examples of today’ failed Liberal “education” system!!!
AAR
24. Diana Powe | January 21st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Mark reiterates the article of conservative political faith that the corporate media, except for FOX News (more properly known as Official State Television), isn’t dominated by conservative points of view. Conservatives-as-victims ignore the fact that it was the hated New York Times that, courtesy of former-reporter Judith Miller and current-reporter Michael Gordon, was one of the primary advocates of the invasion of Iraq prior to March 2003 and still reports approvingly of it courtesy of Gordon. Only yesterday, Gordon wrote a piece offering “analysis” of the presidential candidates’ stances regarding Iraq with the clear point of view that the only Serious ™ point of view is that we must stay in Iraq for many years to come, i.e., no “victory parades in the summer.”
What is most striking about the conservative and President Bush-approving stance of the corporate media is all the hand-wringing that is currently in progress over the terrible, awful, slimy, repugnant whisper campaign against Senator McCain in 2000 claiming that he had an illegitimate daughter who was black. Story after story has bemoaned this dirty political attack. Yet, what goes completely unmentioned, except in passing, is the fact that Senator McCain had only one opponent in that race - George W. Bush. So, the supposedly-liberal media is terribly, terribly interested in talking about how unforgivable that act was and how he’s getting a fair shake now, but totally ignores the question of who might have been responsbile for this unforgivable act.
25. Mark Noonan | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:21 am
Diana,
“Corporate media” - and the “tinfoil hat” alarm goes off…
26. Mark Noonan | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
bagni,
I’ll just have to go with whomever is to run against whichever of the three incompetants are leading the Democrats…
27. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:42 am
Mark,
So, who do you think was behind the “illegitimate black child” campaign against Senator McCain in 2000? It’s certainly a current topic of conversation. It’s beyond credulity to believe you don’t know of it and have some idea of who was behind it. Also, what’s your political theory about why the corporate media doesn’t evince any interest in who was behind it? They talk about its existence but it would otherwise seem to have just appeared out of nowhere.
28. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 am
After all, Mark, if the corporate media was the liberal organ your mythology claims it to be, they should be all over the metaphorical dial at least speculating that it was Karl Rove. Instead, we see him getting a writing gig from the liberal media at Newsweek. Heckuva job, “liberal media domination”!
29. Mark Noonan | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 am
Diana,
Once again, you’ve just been wallowing in propaganda rather than learning and coming to an understanding - the bias isn’t in editorialising, but in selection and emphasis of stories…thus Tom DeLay was all over the news for next to nothing, while William Jefferson is not only still on Congress, but got a standing ovation from his caucus when he took his seat in 2007…
Really, start learning…you’re quickest route to understanding, right now, is just to go over to the B4B archives and read all the “What Media Bias?” entries.
30. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Mark,
I note with interest that you don’t offer any theory about the McCain story in 2000. Quite odd for someone as devoted as you are to following politics. As I said, the only other campaign at that point was the Bush campaign and we know who the architect of that campaign was. So, we have four facts:
1) Senator John McCain was the subject of a blatantly racist smear campaign eight years ago with Karl Rove being a completely plausible (while maintaining plausible deniability) suspect.
2) “Liberal” media is talking endlessly about that smear campaign today giving the “liberals” that hate Republicans and Karl Rove a perfect chance to speculate on Rove’s possible role and, by extension, take swipes at President Bush and the GOP they always “mercilessly pound”.
3) They don’t.
4) Karl Rove is given job within “liberal” media.
Can’t you just feel the media bias, Mark?
31. SEW | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 am
Let’s hope dian is not still trolling the streets of Dallas, charging the mentally ill with criminal charges that were simply expressions of mental illness, handcuffing them and carting them to jail and then returning to the street for a repeat performance. Progressive police in action in Dallas.
32. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 am
SEW,
Well, that was pretty random. Are you familiar with the term non sequitur?
33. SEW | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 am
I am familiar with you spinning every time you post.
34. SEW | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
Non sequitur came to mind when you randomly mention your work with the Dallas/Richardson police. And your multiple mentions of your military brothers who are Democrats.
35. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:16 am
SEW,
My only reason for mentioning those is to point out that Democrats can come from backgrounds that most people would assume to be reliably conservative.
36. SEW | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 am
Most consider A&M progressive. Same sex partners there forever.
37. Joe | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
SEW,
I find me saying the same thing every time I read one of your posts……
“WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT???”
38. SEW | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
Either take your meds or quit talking to yourself. I go into your posts knowing you are talking either trash or BS liberal talking points.
Regards
39. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
SEW,
Yes, Texas A&M circa 1958-1961, when my oldest brother was there, was extremely progressive. You could only attend if you were:
1) Male.
2) Were a member of the Corps of Cadets for at least your freshman and sophomore years.
and
3) Almost certainly white.
40. Ricorun | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
SEW: Most consider A&M progressive.
Well, that certainly broadens the definition of “progressive” quite a bit. It makes one wonder what colleges “most” don’t consider progressive.
41. SEW | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Correct. I was referring to the progressive sexual orientation there.
42. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
Which, of course, has zero to do with Texas A&M University circa 1958-1961 and 1968-1971 when my brothers spent four years each in the Corps of Cadets. Pretty weak for a smear. I think we can rule you out as a suspect in whoever came up with the “Senator McCain had a black daughter out of wedlock” campaign in 2000.
43. redhawk | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Romney-Thompson as the GOP Ticket… and Mc Cain Retired in Arizona.. That is the way to keep Shillery out of the White House…
44. Brian G. | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
How can any of you people support Romney? The sound of his voice and the sight of his barbie-like plastic hair makes me sick to my stomach. It really made me lose faith in the GOP when I saw that man win primary elections. He is a perfect example of a slimeball politician hellbent on self advancement…forget personal values! No Independent or Democrat in their right mind would even consider a ticket with Romney’s name on it…you have to be mentally ill to think otherwise. This is EXACTLY why overly conservative people are dangerous…you already ruined our party, don’t ruin our country, too!
45. SEW | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
1961 was a very good year
http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=110&F=2440#s=110&f=2440&t=1866070
46. Casper | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Brian G.
“How can any of you people support Romney? The sound of his voice and the sight of his barbie-like plastic hair makes me sick to my stomach.”
How do you decide who to vote for? By his or her looks? By the sound of his or her voice? Abe Lincoln wasn’t considered a very good looking man and reports are that he had a fairly high pitched voice, yet he ended up as one of the greatest presidents we had. I haven’t decided who I’m going to vote for yet, but I certainly haven’t ruled out Romney. In a lot of ways, I think he’s one of the strongest candidates left.
47. FmrMarine | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
casp
HELP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with you ARRRUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
LOL
With the hopes of Fred gone, and Fla. vote coming up next week, I am really leaning towards Romney.
No one I talk to wants rudy, Huck is most likely going no where, and that leaves mcLame…UGH!
48. Brian G. | January 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I decide who to vote for based on whether or not I believe a thing that comes out of the candidate’s mouth. And to add to my previos statement, I would be personally embarassed to have the endorsement of some of the so-called evangelical leaders in this country.