Do We All Become McCainiacs, Now?
January 30th, 2008 at 08:58am Mark Noonan
Well, not just yet - my man Romney is still in this thing, but Victor Davis Hanson makes a timely observation over some of the rather overwrought complaints about McCain:
I am not being wishy-washy or suggesting that there would not be differences in their respective governance, simply that either candidate on the most critical issues-the war, restraining spending, closing the border, appointing judges-would be vastly superior to the Clinton centaur. It is important that the two fight it out, air their differences, and display their tenacity, and experience, so that voters can see in the present cauldron who would be the more effective and tempered party leader later on in the autumn.
But all that said, at some point there should be recognition that some are becoming so polarized-and polarizing-that we are reaching the point that should a McCain win (and there is a good chance he will), and should he grant the necessary concessions to the base (chose someone like Thompson as his VP, take firm pledges on tax cuts, closing the border, etc), go on Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. for some mea culpas, all that still seemingly would not be enough. And if that were true, the result would vastly increase the chances of the Presidents Clinton, under whom there would be a vastly different Supreme Court, some chance of forfeiting what has been achieved in Iraq, and surely greater growth in government and earmarks.
Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow Republican.
Wise words - there are strong differences between Romney and McCain and the two candidates should vigorously battle it out, but both of them are Republicans, and both of them are vastly superior Presidential material than either Obama or Hillary. Remember, boys and girls, the goal is the good of the United States, and that means the GOP simply must win. Not because we’re all brilliant and the perfect monster that ne’er was, but because the Democrats are entirely too corrupt and irresponsible to be entrusted with the power of the United States of America.
In light of this necessity, I’m simply not going to engage in bitter exchanges back and forth - Romney is my guy, but McCain will be my guy, if he wins the nomination. I like Romney because he seems the more solid conservative, but McCain is still a magnificent war hero with a lot of conservative background - if we GOPers can’t rally ’round that, if need be, then what sort of party are we?
Lets have a good fight - nothing wrong with a fight; but lets keep it clean, no hitting below the belt, and save the reallly hard punches for those who deserve it: Democrats.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
72 Comments
1. OhioOrrin | January 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am
mark wrote:…”and should he grant the necessary concessions to the base (chose someone like Thompson as his VP, take firm pledges on tax cuts, closing the border, etc), go on Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. for some mea culpas, all that still seemingly would not be enough.”
the VP (job) isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit so who cares anyhow…well, unless ur cheney in which case the VP actually runs the show.
mccain voted against tax cuts WITHOUT corresponding SPENDING CUTS (lets don’t leave the last part out like u want to).
even if he doesn’t kowtow, then what…sit on ur hands, take your homeplate & go home, hillary 4 prez?
pah leeze
2. Retired Spook | January 30th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I can accept the fact that McCain’s rationale for being one of only two Republicans to vote against Bush’s tax cuts, not once, but twice, is that he wanted to tie them to spending cuts. In retrospect, it’s too bad more lawmakers didn’t share his view.
I can also accept the fact that McCain has said publicly that, after witnessing the huge public backlash to his “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, that “he gets it”, and that border security MUST come first.
The part I’m having (and going to continue to have) a hard time getting around is the law that McCain co-sponsored (with one of the most liberal members of the Senate) that makes it illegal for groups like AARP, NRA, etc. to pool their members’ resources together to run ads criticizing a candidate 60 or 90 days prior to an election. Surely the Founders must be turning over in their graves over the “Incumbent Protection Act”. Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers or any other independent writings of the Founders, knows that the main impetus behind the First Amendment was religious freedom and unhindered political speech.
I’m not sure exactly what McCain would have to do (or could do) to get around that hurdle. As I said in the previous thread, McCain vs. Obama or Hillary is still a no-brainer, but he could make it a lot easier on mainstream Conservatives like me to vote for him without holding my nose if he could explain his rationale behind CFR as well as he has with tax cuts and immigration reform.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
3. hermie | January 30th, 2008 at 9:46 am
If McCain really wanted to solidify a win in November, he’d choose Romney as VP. Romney has vastly more experience and knowledge regarding economics, which McCain sorely lacks.
Likewise with Romney, he could take McCain as VP for his expertise in National Security and knowledge of how the Senate works.
However, I’m of the mind that McCain would spurn any offer of VP, simply because he is too egocentric to do what is right for the GOP. He can’t be the ‘maverick’ in a Romney administration. Romney would accept VP for the good of the party.
My worst case scenerio would be McCain as the GOP nominee and he would choose a weak running mate like a Whitman.
4. Retired Spook | January 30th, 2008 at 9:54 am
My worst case scenerio would be McCain as the GOP nominee and he would choose a weak running mate like a Whitman.
Hermie, if by “Whitman”, you mean Christine Todd Whitman, then I agree. That would be awful. Unfortunately, McCain is just unpredictable enough to do something like that.
5. Kahn | January 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am
McCain-Rice, that would be the ticket. I always wished she’d run to begin with.
6. Kahn | January 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Oh, Romney-Rice would be OK also.
I wonder how the female/black split in the Democratic Party would handle that? I mean, since they obviously vote based on color and or gender…
7. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Looking at the Feb 5 states, I don’t think Romney has much of a chance remaining.
With Rudy’s endorsement McCain should win NY, NJ and CT which are all or nothing states and make up a huge portion of the delegates.
With Huck still in the race, he will do well enough (if not win) the southern states.
Even if Romney wins Calif, they give delegates as all or nothing on a county level. So Mitt would have to virtually sweep Cali. That isn’t going to happen.
I could be ok if it is McCain and a decent VP (i.e. NONE of the other candidates) and he runs against Hillary. But it would have to be a pretty damn good VP candidate… after all Gramps is going to be 72 come 1/20/09.
Unfortunately my guy Edwards is now out of the race. I’ll now be voting for Obama in my primary.
8. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I can certainly back McCain in terms of the GWOT and if adds Romney to the ticket, they would bolster my enthusiasm.
If, and I guess when McCain gets the nod, the Democrats should just phone it in come Novemeber. They don’t stand a chance. And that is a comforting thought.
9. hermie | January 30th, 2008 at 10:32 am
neocon:
Don’t underestimate the MSM and the Clintons.
The media have pretended that McCain is their buddy, because as a ‘maverick’ he was good for anti-Bush soundbites. As the GOP nominee, watch for the Keating 5 to be resurrected, and all manner of stories about his temperment to suddenly reappear.
They’ve had their knives sharpened since 2000, and can’t wait to stick them in McCain’s back; especially if it’ll put the Clintons back in the WH.
10. Retired Spook | January 30th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Kahn,
My wife and I were discussing potential VP candidates last night, and we both blurted out “Rice” at almost the same instant. She would be MY first choice for VP, no matter who the Presidential candidate is.
11. Timmy J. Rooter | January 30th, 2008 at 10:54 am
“mccain voted against tax cuts WITHOUT corresponding SPENDING CUTS (lets don’t leave the last part out like u want to)”
McCain claims this now, but at the time he was very vocal about the tax cuts going to the rich and that’s why he opposed them. He made no mention of corresponding spending cuts until the campaign.
12. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | January 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am
With McCain as the nominee, we are sure to see a repeat of ‘96.
Disaster awaits. Hell, he might as well pick Dan Qualye as VP.
Mark my words.
13. Sara | January 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
McCain can’t get along with anyone, especially if that someone calls him on any decision. The man is a walking time bomb. Get his back to the wall and he lashes out with lies, distortions and vicious personal attacks. Plus he isn’t exactly the brightest bulb in the pack. He may be the media darling right now, but wait until he actually gets the nomination and they have to cover him and their true media darling Obama. You think you got tired of hearing that Bush is dumb (even though he got better grades than his opponents), with McCain they really will have a case to make on that score.
14. clark smith | January 30th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Correction, McCain was a magnificent war hero … 35 years ago.
35 years ago, soldier McCain displayed honor for his country. Since becoming Senator McCain 22 years ago, he’s displayed dishonor for his Party.
How long does the McCain of today have to act like a weasel until people stop touting McCain as some moral giant for something he did three and a half decades ago?!
At some point we have to recognize that the guy is just a heel, and the great person he was 35 years ago doesn’t exist anymore.
15. clark smith | January 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Once I was interested in Rice, but after how she has consistently sided with the Palis against Israel, I have no interest in her whatsoever.
16. Sunny | January 30th, 2008 at 11:34 am
go on Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. for some mea culpas,
Give me a break. I will vote for McCain if he is the Republican candidate - could never vote for Hillary, but he will hurt himself and lose votes if he subcumbs to the Limbaugh/Hannity ilk. One of the things that hurt John McCain in the past was his willingness to humble himself to the Bush administration, to cater to the evangalistic nut cases (Falwell et al) and not stay true to himself. If you cannot vote for him based on his true ideals, then maybe you need to just stay home on election day. Don’t try to make him something is isn’t.
17. SteaM | January 30th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Based on the facts of the past 7 years of the history federal government of the United States of America that was dominated and ran by the Republican party how can you possibly say this? It’s simply not logical and throws common sense and history out the window. If you believe this truly then I pity you. I remind you that with that much ignorance of facts and history the consequences are that you get the leader you deserve.
This constant historical ignorance coming from your party will only embolden that 75% of the country who does not think that the country is headed in the right direction. You empower them and raise their volume of dissent with each debunked piece of regurgitated false information.
18. SteaM | January 30th, 2008 at 11:42 am
” 75% of the country who does not think that the country is headed in the right direction.”
har har, i meant wrong direction… I slept through proofreading in school… that’s the great US public school system for ya ;)
19. LaMano | January 30th, 2008 at 11:45 am
“Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow Republican.”
Good …………….. so we CAN speak ill of McCain.
20. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
All the dislike of Gramps McCain on this post is quite odd. I’m surprised you folks really do not like him.
It sure sounds like a lot of you are going to do what a lot of Dems did in 2004… hold your nose and make your vote.
Good Luck with that one. I’ll be cheering for President Obama come 1/20/09 (since it won’t be President Edwards).
21. BARRASSO | January 30th, 2008 at 11:52 am
‘Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow Republican.’
The exact reason to never allow republicans to govern, total dishonesty and no will to police themselves. As proven by the last eight years of spending without thought on anything they could think of to make each other rich.
22. Brian | January 30th, 2008 at 11:55 am
clark,
So what you’re saying is, McCain would have to be serving in the military RIGHT NOW to be considered a war hero?
A man’s life accomplishments should not be thrown away simply because of time. McCain IS a war hero, unlike that faker John Kerry.
23. clark smith | January 30th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I’m not saying that at all. What I am saying is ‘How can you hold McCain up as a man of principle for what he did 35 years ago, when he has often shown himself to be an unprincipled man between that time and now?’
Fair enough; but who can deny that we’re considering Senator McCain, circa 2008, not soldier McCain, 1973?
The fact that McCain counts on 35-year-old history to vouch for his character, speaks poorly of his character resume’ since joining the Senate.
24. Sara | January 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
This is not a zero sum game. McCain could have been a war hero 35 years ago, but please tell me how spending several years as a POW QUALIFIES someone to be President? He has shown in the years since that he isn’t qualified any more than any other person who ever served. And he wasn’t even honorable about his service, remember he said the Swift Boat Veterans were “dishonest and dishonorable.” He thumbed his nose at Vets when he supported Winter Soldier Kerry and I, for one, a person who spent 26 years of her life attached to the military, feel no obligation to support him just because of his service, since he obviously feels no obligation to us.
25. Ricorun | January 30th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
If the comments on this thread are any indication (and I think they are), McCain is not well liked among the most dedicated of the GOP base. So I ask people like Sara, Clark Smith, LaMano, StopJohnLiberalMcCain, and Timmy J. Rooter the following question: if McCain is the nominee, what are you going to do?
26. Sara | January 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
As much as I think putting Bill back in the WH will be an unmitigated disaster, I do believe that he can control Hillary to the point of keeping her sane and from going full out socialist left. They are both first and foremost politicos. So, if McCain gets the nomination, I’ll vote for Hillary. It will be the first time in my adult lifetime, since 1968, that I will ever have voted for a Dem. But I see little difference between Hillary and McCain and at least Hillary has some brakes, no one will be able to control McCain. He is a backstabbing lying piece of ##@@%.
Romney is going to win in the Rocky Mountain states and he will do quite well at least in So. Calif. so he’ll pick up delegates here too. Calif. is not winner take all. All I can hope for is that he amounts enough delegates to have a serious voice at the Convention, if it come to that. However, I’m not counting him out yet.
27. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Sara,
The only thing that stopped Bill from selling out to the socialists were the ‘94 Republican Congress and Hillarys health care debacle. Bill has no brakes, Hillary has no integrity and together they’re a disaster. Willing to sell their souls for power.
I am still holding out hope for Romney, but will vote for McCain against either of the Dems.
28. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
It is a bit odd how you say the Clinton’s will “sell their souls for power”, then in the same breath root for Romney. The one who will spend every dime possible and say anything that needs to be said for that very same power.
Just think it is a bit odd.
29. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Joe,
You’re sadly mistaken, AGAIN, if you’re comparing Clintons dishonest past with Romneys. You are as dishonest about him as the Clintons are about everything. Now I know where you get it and why you identify with them so strongly. Birds of a feather……
BTW, Romney set aside personal ambition to save the Olympics. He didn’t have to do that and he probably left a lot of money on the table by doing it. He has more integirty on a bad day than Clinton does in total.
Your obsession with him is a little creepy as well.
30. Ricorun | January 30th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
As for potential runningmates…
If Romney gets the nod, McCain would be a terrible choice. Romney has a hard enough time with the GOP base as it is, and McCain would add to his problems. Condi might work though. She would be a very good compliment. Maybe Thompson would work too.
If McCain gets the nod, Romney would be a good choice. He would be a very good compliment. McCain has mentioned Lieberman. I hope he’s joking. Anyway, Lieberman doesn’t sound interested. Although I have to say that if McCain gets the nod, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Lieberman decides to caucus with the Republicans. That would be a no muss, no fuss, Senate seat pick-up. One other person I think would be a good choice for McCain is Haley Barbour, the governor of MS.
31. Sara | January 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
It is far from over. Even if McCain takes all the winner take all states, not a given, there are many states that split delegates and it isn’t as if McCain is going to win anywhere with more than a few percentage points. Romney may not win Calif., but he will walk away with a lots of delegates. Does McCain have a chance of winning big in Texas? I doubt it. Romney will have easy wins in Utah, Idaho, Montana, and maybe even Colorado (where I heard last that he has a 19 point lead). Does anyone know what Fred will do in Tennessee? Will he support McCain?
32. Sara | January 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Does anyone think that any staunch GWB supporters will get behind McCain. I’m asking because I don’t know. I can’t believe they will, but I guess anything is possible.
33. clark smith | January 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
On Election Day, I’ll count one solemn duty as superseding all others: voting for the name across from Hillary’s.
I’ll throw up a little in my mouth if that name is “John McCain.”
34. extramedium | January 30th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“if McCain is the nominee, what are you going to do?”
Rico - like Mark says, it’s not about voting for the best candidate - it’s about keeping the evil Liberals out of power. Any Republican with a heartbeat will do. Values and positions no longer matter.
35. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Rico,
Wow, Barbour. I hadn’t thought about that but not a bad call. I think Romney would be a better VP choice, if they can heal the wounds, or Thompson, to shore up the base. I like Rice but have some reservations in terms of Sec of State accomplishments, which should be more in my opinion.
I specifically like Romney if McCain is a one termer.
36. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Sara,
To conservatives, the alternative to McCain is not an option. We would rally around anyone in our effort to keep any of the current Democrats out of office.
If McCain wins, expect wide support. Especially if Hillary is the candidate. She is a conservative uniter.
37. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Extra,
Values always matter, but compromising those values in order to keep this country from becoming a third world socialist haven and selling out to the world community at the hands of the Democrats will become a necessity.
38. clark smith | January 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Well … with Hagel–or, even better, Specter–McCain could complete the perfect “Up yours!” ticket.
39. Sara | January 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I worked for McCain for about a month in the 2000 primary and walked out after he blasted the entire staff with a temper tantrum the likes of which I’ve never seen in a sane adult. The pettiness was what did it for me and several others. I do not think the man is mentally stable.
40. Ricorun | January 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Sara: Does anyone know what Fred will do in Tennessee? Will he support McCain?
I think you can pretty much count on that, yes. They’re very good friends.
41. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Sara,
You may want to consult the likes of Stephanopolous and Dee Dee Meyers, amongst others to learn more about Hillarys compassion.
42. Sara | January 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I have heard all the Hillary stories and they turn me off big time and believe me, I’m not a Hillary supporter. My only other choice would be to skip the presidential choice part of the ballot and not cast a vote at all for president. I won’t sit home since we have other issues here in Calif. that need to be voted on.
BTW, Fred’s California Political Director, Fred08 and Founding Director Arizona for Fred Thompson, Nevada for Fred Thompson, Oklahoma for Fred Thomson grassroots organizations. Richard Rios, has endorsed Romney.
43. clark smith | January 30th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
It is about voting for the best candidate, both in the primaries and in the general election.
I won’t vote for McCain in the primaries, because he’s not the best Republican candidate.
I’ll vote against Hillary in the general election, because she’ll be the absolute worst name on the ballot, no matter who the Republicans put against her.
And if you don’t think Hillary is the absolute worst candidate in the entire ‘08 field, then you don’t know thing one about Hillary.
Against Hillary, yes, any Republican with a heartbeat will do.
And, no, “values and positions” do matter, which is precisely why I will vote the straight “Anybody But Hillary” ticket.
44. Joe | January 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Huh… and you laughed at those that voted the “Anybody but Bush” ticket in 2004.
Funny how things get all turned-around.
45. clark smith | January 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
If you think anyone equates to Hillary, you are woefully ill-informed, or–worse–irrational.
46. Retired Spook | January 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Funny how things get all turned-around.
Yeah, Joe, history has a funny way of repeating itself.
47. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | January 30th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
This clown and his Gang of 14. I cannot believe the majority of the party is buying this horseshit.
The guy wants Gitmo closed so the terrorists can be shipped to east Kansas so they can get ACLU lawyers taking their cases.
If it is between a crazy old mean loon and Billary, I’ll stay home.
48. Retired Spook | January 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
If it is between a crazy old mean loon and Billary, I’ll stay home.
That would probably be an excellent plan.
49. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Clown,
Staying home accomplishes nothing. I would rather fight McCain over SOME issues rather than fight Hillary over EVERY issue.
In this day and age of politics, nobody gets everything they want, you just have keep pushing the needle towards your side of the issues.
50. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
On second thought Spook, you’re probably right. I may have had a momentary lapse of judgement.
51. keefer | January 30th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
the VP (job) isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit so who cares anyhow…well, unless ur cheney in which case the VP actually runs the show.
Wow, oo, I knew you were a left-leaning moderate, but I never thought you were a kool-aid drinker. WTF?
52. NeoClown | January 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
McCain is a good ol’ boy. McCain is a better democrat then most of the democrats.
I voted for McCain here in Michigan back in 2000. (Actually I was voting against Dubya.)
I am a life long democrat and a big Clinton supporter, but get this:
If Hillary gets the nomination, I vote for her.
If Obama runs against Romney, I’ll vote for Obama.
If Obama runs against McCain, I’ll vote for McCain.
53. keefer | January 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
With McCain as the nominee, we are sure to see a repeat of ‘96.
Boom! That’s exactly my sentiment, as I stated a few weeks ago. Actually, I felt that way about any of our GOP candidates, but it makes good sense in McLame’s case. Give him his shot, just like Dole in ‘96, and press on.
even if he doesn’t kowtow, then what…sit on ur hands, take your homeplate & go home, hillary 4 prez?
That’s exactly what I’ll do, orrin, unless McLame picks a good running mate. However, he’ll probably pick Lindsey Grahamnetsty, or some other RINO.
Pass the scones, mate–I’ll be watchin’ from afar…
54. keefer | January 30th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Get his back to the wall and he lashes out with lies, distortions and vicious personal attacks.
Yeah, he’ll probably blow up big time during the general election campaign, while Hitlery puts on her false face and plays nice.
Hey, maybe McLame will choose Fuss Reingold as his veep; that’ll make CO happy…
55. Timothy Horrigan | January 30th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Neocon said: “Values always matter, but compromising those values in order to keep this country from becoming a third world socialist haven and selling out to the world community at the hands of the Democrats will become a necessity.” Hmm, just for the record, the world’s fastest growing economy is that of Communist China (as we will be reminded right before the General Election during the Beijing Olympics, which will be contested in palatial facilities which will make the Phoenix Stadium look like a Pop Warner field.)
56. keefer | January 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
If you cannot vote for him based on his true ideals, then maybe you need to just stay home on election day. Don’t try to make him something is isn’t.
I agree, Sunni, but there are plenty of lemmings who are going to go to the polls and vote for either Hitlery or Earbama, two true phonies who offer only platitudes…
57. plainjane | January 30th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Demorcrats will have a similar problem with Senator McCain vs Senator Clinton. Many democrats would consider Clinton to be the conservative.
58. keefer | January 30th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Rico - like Mark says, it’s not about voting for the best candidate - it’s about keeping the evil Liberals out of power. Any Republican with a heartbeat will do. Values and positions no longer matter.
Maybe for some, extra, but not for me. I ain’t votin’ for the hypocritical, lying bastard. I’ll write-in John Kerry, aka Spitball, before I pull the lever for McLame. Unless, of course, he picks a veep worth a spit…
59. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Timothy….
So. What’s your point? Our overall economy still dwarfs that of China and our ability and experience will ensure that we will remain a world leader.
But your enthusiasm for communism is duly noted.
60. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Jane,
Hillary has been a conservative and a liberal, and a socialist and a capatilist, and for higher taxes and against higher taxes and for the war and against the war and so on and so on.
She’s for and against everything depending on who she’s in front of.
61. Rich | January 30th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“tell me how spending several years as a POW QUALIFIES someone to be President?”
I don’t know Sara, please tell us how serving as the first lady (and sometimes second or third lady) qualifies one as being a President? Also, please explain how being a Senator for a few years qualifies one as being President. This should be good.
62. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I am anxious for that answer too Rich.
Here’s something interesting from the “Republican” pollster:
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
AdvertismentThe latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Republican frontrunner Senator John McCain with single-digit leads over Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.
63. 31scout | January 30th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I will certainly abide by R. Reagans commandment and not say anything bad about a fellow Republican. I guess that leaves McCain out!
How can conservatives nominate a nutcase like him?? He’s certainly no uniter like he alluded to last night. What about the vulgarity he has spewed at Cornyn, Grassley, et al?
I’d rather have Hillary in there as i know she’s my enemy as opposed to someone that will stab me in the back. A traitor will never get my vote.
Maybe he’ll pick his buddy Ted Kennedy as his running mate.
64. Rich | January 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“Hmm, just for the record, the world’s fastest growing economy is that of Communist China”
Hmm, just for the record, china uses slave labor and unsafe working conditions to keep that GDP growing. Oh ya, they also sell organs from executed political prisoners to Japanese businessmen. Brag on them all you want.
65. Diana Powe | January 30th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
66. Brian | January 30th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Limbaugh is increasingly losing touch with reality. Now he’s spinning a conspiracy theory that the Republican establishment has been trying to get rid of conservatism all along?
67. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Diana,
Thank you for your copying and pasting of Limbaugh. I usually listen to him first hand but now I may consider just coming here to read your posts.
You’re so informative.
68. bagni | January 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
mark–cainiac
wow
for once…..the aliens called it
all are going to vote for mccain
the green ones will be using him as a fallback
interplanetary irony…..
geez
69. neocon | January 30th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Mark,
Are you awake? There was a debate tonight, where’s the thread?
70. Mark Noonan | January 31st, 2008 at 1:12 am
Brian,
Actually, there is a bit of substance to Rush’s stance, thought not as much - I think - as Rush believes.
The big battle in the GOP was opened up in 1964 when the Goldwater insurgency was pitted against the old-line GOP establishment led, at the time, by Nelson Rockefeller (hence the term “Rockefeller Republicans” to describe non-conservative GOPers). The GOP establishment didn’t like Goldwater, didn’t want the movement conservatives and just wished we conservatives would go away (the exception to this was Nixon - who loyally stumped for Goldwater and built up a reservoir of goodwill amongst conservatives which helped Nixon elevate himself to the White House - a mistake on the part of conservatives, but understandable at the time). These “Rockefeller Republicans” were go-along-to-get-along Republicans - perfectly ok with the liberal welfare State and the increased attacks on traditional morality. The only difference between such Republicans and the Democrats was that these Republicans retained a semblance of fiscal consevatism plus a half-hearted desire to stand up to the communist threat.
The prime example of this sort of GOPer existing into modern times is Arlen Specter, though the unlamented Lincoln Chaffee was also a good example of this sort of thing - and a very large number of such GOPers long ago switched over to the Democrats. But some of them are still there, mostly concentrated in the northeast, and they are just certain that if they can get rid of all these Christians and pro-lifers and NeoCons, then they could get themselves back into power in the northeast..the fact that this means the GOP would be shut out of power in the South and West doesn’t seem to occur to them.
In some minds, McCain is the camel’s nose of a resurgent “Rockefeller Republican” wing of the party - that if McCain or somone like him gets in, a combination of such GOPers allied with Democrats will marginalise conservatism. This was actually the case with the Congressional GOP was made up of a majority of such GOPers….but now conservatives make up a very solid majority of Congressional GOPers and much as a McCain might want to buddy up to Democrats, he’s going to need conservative GOPer votes to get anything done, and that means he’ll have to toe at least a partially conservative line.
Thus I think Rush’s worries are overblown, but they are based on a core reality.
71. Ricorun | January 31st, 2008 at 9:25 am
Who or what, exactly, constitutes the “Republican establishment”?
72. Timmy J. Rooter | January 31st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Ricorun,
If McCain is the nominee, I’ll vote for him then go home and watch him join the finest our party has to offer … Ford and Dole! Both honerable men, both moderates, both losers.
The only moderate to win a Republican presidency in my lifetime was GHW Bush; he only won by virtue of being Reagan’s Veep.
McCain insures a Clinton presidency; the breakup of the democratic party; the House, Senate, governerships and state legislatures will turn Republican by 2012.