Third time's a charm for GOP

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, while expecting different results each time.

Go ahead, GOP. Run the Wright ads. Tie local candidates to Obama and Wright. And when the GOP loses their filibuster margin and starts looking like the Whigs, maybe they will figure out something.

It's the economy, stupid.

Reaganite, is that a dirge you are whistling as you walk past that graveyard? The Democrats have run consistently conservative candidates in that Mississippi district for years, and it's always gone GOP.

It wasn't the type of candidate that changed this year, Reaganite. It's the electorate. They are tired of the GOP urinating on their legs and telling them it's raining. They are tired of the GOP spending our country into oblivion and sending our troops off to wars that should never have been fought. And they are tired of an administration that cares more for large corporate interests than the working folk in this country.

Take, for example, the bill being considered to provide some relief to homeowners in danger of losing their homes. The President is planning a veto of the bill because he is worried it might benefit some speculators. He had no problem with Bear-Stearns being bailed out of their hugely speculative ventures over the past years?

The President gave up golf for the war. A huge sacrifice. Lots of us have given up loved ones for their third, and in some cases fourth tour of duty in Iraq. Over 4,000 have given up their loved ones forever.

So please, let the President play golf. Let him play with a full bag of clubs...shoved where the sun won't shine.

RJohnson:

Interesting comment (at 9:05 AM), but I think you're mistaken on two counts:

First, you're right that it was dumb to try to tie the Dem. candidate in the special election (Childers) to Wright/Obama ... since, after all, Obama was not on the ballot and is not even the nominee (yet). And expecially since Childers -- as a conservative Democrat -- was rightly perceived by the voters there as having more in common with Ronald Reagan and John McCain than he does with Walter Mondale and Barack Obama. However, in conservative Districts this fall it will make plenty of sense to tie Democratic congressional candidates to the person at the top of the ticket and to any of their notorious "spiritual mentors." Guilt by association works, otherwise Obama wouldn't be trying to tie McCain to Bush 43. For the same reason, the GOP will likewise try to tie Obama to Rezko, Ayres, Wright ... and, while we're at it, to Michelle :-)

Second, it's not "about the economy, stupid." It's more about the war. Fatigue with this war is what PRIMARILY cost the GOP the Congress in 2006 (though there were other factors). Yes, the economy looks wobbly, but most people still say THEIR situation is fine -- they just think the other guy is hurting. I think it is anxiety about our situation in Iraq which is really driving the dissatisfaction with the GOP. In any event, we'll know for sure the day AFTER the November election, won't we :-)

The big thing is that conservatives hate McCain. Therefore, running a negative campaign fails because they hate everybody at the top. The GOP Congress needs to consider McCain an enemy and run on their own issues, such as drilling in ANWR, no carbon taxes, no amnesty, etc. We know McCain will sell out his own party to work with Dems, and Republicans sold themselves out with Bush. It's a Parliament of Whores. I want to see a chastity belt.

The GOP's problem is its unquestioning support for the Iraq War.

While serving military personnel continue to support the war more than the general public does, the communities they come from -- mainly in the South, the Midwest, and small towns -- feel the strain. yet there is no nuance, no regret, no sublety to the way most Republicans approach the issue, and so there is no end to the war in sight.

It doesn't help, of course, that the Republicans proved to be unprincipled spenders over the past 8 years. Nor that such an astonishing number of blatantly corrupt GOP congressmen remain in office impervious to the demands of decency that they leave -- Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, David Vitter, Rick Renzi, Vito Fossella, John Doolittle.

But in a sense, those other things are just epiphenomena. The GOP has long been the national security party. On Iraq, they've blown a major national security issue, at least as far as the public is concerned, and they aren't willing to allow any second-guessing of it. Time for a housecleaning.

Mhoram:

Re: your 10:08 post, I hear your frustration as a conservative with the GOP. I agree with a lot of what you say .... HOWEVER ...

Your comment that the GOP did "nothing to advance conservative social issues" is something I keep seeing here and over at the Kuo blog ... and I think it TOTALLY wrong-headed.

Social conservatives aren't getting all they want out of Washington ... but they're getting a lot more than if you had Democrats in control of the White House AS WELL as the Congress.

Do you think that a President Obama would recommend folks like John Roberts or Sam Alito to the Supreme Court ... or would his nominees more likely line-up with Ruth Ginsberg and David Souter on the Court? How does the sound of "Justice Laurence Tribe" feel to you this morning?

Would a President Obama veto legislative attempts to sanction gay marriage and/or gay unions? Would he veto attempts to provide federal funds for the entirely gratuitious embyronic stem cell research? Would he veto attempts to overturn the federal ban on late term abortions? Would he veto attempts to abolish "don't ask, don't tell" in the military? Would a President Obama receive Pope Benedict XVI at the WH with the same affection and awe that we saw from President Bush this past April? Who is more likely to end up sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom in an Obama White House: Rosie O'Donnell (with her "partner") or Elizabeth Hasselbeck (with her husband)?

Remember, this is a man who said (in a debate with Hillary) that his vote to put a hold on Terri Schiavo's extermination was his single biggest regret as a US Senator. Who single-handledly blocked in the Illinois State Senate a bill to ban late-term abortions ... because he was concerned about the constitutional ramifications of granting legal personhood to the fetus emerging from the womb. Who told a Pennsylvania audience about not wanting to wish on a young woman the "terrible fate" of an unplanned pregnancy. Who now wants us to think that he really didn't attend church at TUCC as often as he previously led us to believe.

Nothing would make social conservatives pine for the days of Bush 43 more than would four years of an Obama Presidency coupled with Democratic control of Congress.

Stop whining! No matter which party is in control of Washington, we are dealing with a cultural establishment (media, Hollywood) that is simply hostile to our values. Belief in the Gospel of Christ has been replaced, as has been noted recently on this board, with "Moral Therapeutic Deism" in the minds of at least two generations now. Social conservatives should stop blaming the GOP and get back to work at the grassroots level (and in non-political ways) to rebuild the culture. And be grateful for what little help we're able to get from Washington.

Reaganite: "Second, it's not "about the economy, stupid." It's more about the war. Fatigue with this war is what PRIMARILY cost the GOP the Congress in 2006 (though there were other factors). Yes, the economy looks wobbly, but most people still say THEIR situation is fine -- they just think the other guy is hurting. I think it is anxiety about our situation in Iraq which is really driving the dissatisfaction with the GOP. In any event, we'll know for sure the day AFTER the November election, won't we :-)"

Well, if exit polls are to be believed at all, the war is not the top concern of voters this year.

www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/index.html

According to this poll, the economy was top concern among 42% of the electorate. This parallels other polls that have been published in the last month or two. And if gasoline prices continue to climb over the summer (we're being told to look for $5.00/gallon here in Iowa) that concern will remain near at the top of the list.

Pocketbook issues always trump other issues. The reason is that if it is not your pocketbook feeling the squeeze at the moment, yours may be next. Job insecurity, continued inflation with food and energy costs, and continued uncertainty in the housing market are strong drivers for this concern.

If the GOP is going to salvage anything for this fall, they are going to have to do something significant, like override the veto that Bush is promising on the housing bailout bill.

As for your guilt by association, it's easier to associate someone with President Bush when they have a voting record to refer to in commercials. Showing how McCain so often supported the failed policies of Bush is fairly simple...just show the votes.

Making the case that Wright is going to influence Obama is less so. People are starting to tire of the sound bites. Their pocketbook is speaking louder than their television. And having talking head conservatives tell them that things are not really that bad does nothing to assure them that the GOP understands the nature of the problem. It makes them sound more and more like the party of the corporate interests and millionaires.

"Would a President Obama veto legislative attempts to sanction gay marriage and/or gay unions? ... Would he veto attempts to abolish "don't ask, don't tell" in the military?"

Why would any sane (not to mention compassionate) person of either political persuasion do that?

Aren't ALL people created equal in America anymore? Why these special rights for betterosexuals?

RJohnson:

Maybe you're right that it will be the economy and not the war. We'll know soon enough.

By the way, if it is the economy, what are Obama's credentials? Where does he stand on controlling wasteful government spending? Is he opposed to earmarks (like McCain)? Has he demonstrated the same political courage as McCain in going against his own party and "crossing the aisle" to hammer out solutions? Or is he rigidly partisan -- as his voting record in the US Senate suggests he is? How come he is rated the most liberal Senator, and is an extreme left-wing approach to the economy the way to get us back on track? As bad as things are now, won't they get a lot worse under Barack?

Does the "Audacity of Hope" pay the monthly mortgage? You may be right in saying that voters are getting tired of the "sound bites" but apparently not the ones in West Virginia who voted yesterday. Perhaps what they're tired of is all the hot rhetoric from a candidate who seems otherwise tongue-tied (and condescending) when he's not reading off the teleprompter.

"You may be right in saying that voters are getting tired of the "sound bites" but apparently not the ones in West Virginia who voted yesterday."

You mean the voters in a state where folks still believe Obama to be a Muslim?

Tell me, Reaganite, do you think Obama is a Muslim?

RJohnson: "25 years of energy, and what do they have to show for it? 25 years of carrying water for the GOP...and do they even have a bowl of pottage to show for it?"

Wait a second! You make it sound like social conservatives sought out the GOP ... when it was more that the Democrats under McGovern and Carter and their successors left the social conservatives out in the rain. Sixty years ago, it was lunch-bucket Democrats like Tip O'Neill and Henry Jackson who fought against abortion rights while the Rockefeller Republicans sat on the boards of Planned Parenthood chapters. The realignment which began in the 1960s has been well-documented. Can you blame the social conservatives for finding comfort in the GOP, and the GOP for eagerly welcoming them?

As for what the social conservatives "have to show for it": A lot more than had they stuck with the Democrats and continued waiting in the rain.

Moreover, don't lecture the pro-life movement on the need to provide services for the unwed and pregnant mothers. So many groups already exist today (thanks to the charity and love of Christians of all denominations) to help these young women. Plenty of energy is being directed here.

Balancing politics and grass-roots efforts is NOT a matter of "either/or." Rather it is "and/both." The pro-life and pro-family movements are quite capable (and have the means and the will) to combine political action with direct assistance to those in need.

Regeanite, I agree that Democrats would be far, far worse on conservative social issues, but I don't know how many voters realize that. The main Democrat most of us remember was Bill Clinton, who didn't push things that far to the Left. Granted, that was because he had to spend all his political capital dodging scandals and because Republicans took over Congress in 1994, but I'm not sure most people remember much more about the 1990s than a climbing stock market and more-or-less status quo on social issues.

Yes, I'm thankful to George Bush for his Supreme Court appointments (and that's the primary reason to consider voting for McCain), but that still feels like playing defense. Most of the real work on social issues is being done at the state level or lower, which may be as it should be, but at those levels the differences between the parties aren't as stark, so the credit doesn't go so much to one party or the other there.

Is McCain going to be all that far to the right on Supreme Court nominees? Bush came through because the evangelicals pushed him. I don't see McCain really caring what they say or think once he's elected.

Obama is a Chicago Daley machine hack. There are some serious problems for the Republicans-overspending, the war, immigration, the economy.Mccain by rights should have a very hard road ahead. Yet one each, Obama is not positioned to take advantage; he would simply fall back on Carter-like silliness that got us nowhere in 1977.What has this man ever run beyond the Havard Law Review? Hillary Clinton by contrast could point to the economic policies of her husband as a serious counterpoint. obama doesn't even understand how capital gains taxes work.

Hope and change? Are you kidding? As a conservative, I fully expect Mccain to be a dissappointment, but he's still the lesser or evils with Obama. What I wasn't prepared to say at the outset of this campaign but which is clear now; Hillary Clinton other than on judges(admittedly a huge thing) might be no better nor any worse a president than Mccain.

It's worth a chuckle to see what V-P Dick Cheney said a day before this election campaigning for the GOP candidate in Southaven:

"These are decisive times for America," Cheney said. "And whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or national security, the right answers are coming from Republicans -- not from Nancy Pelosi, or [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, or the rest of the Democratic leadership in Washington."

Yep. A recession (according to the voters, not the experts); highest energy prices in memory, and two wars in the Middle East -- those are the "right answers."

If that's the best the GOP can do, they will be buried in November.

There will indeed be a tidal wave in November; we're just seeing the first little indications of what's coming.

Before you question Obama's sincerity in regard to his Christian faith, it seems only fair that you take a minute or two to read what he himself has to say. The link below will take you to the text of an excellent speech he made two years ago about the role of religion in politics and his own story of coming to faith in Jesus Christ:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

Obama is a brilliant and a good and decent man who wants to unite us and move us forward. If you want to know his positions and proposals on the economy and many other issues, go to his website and read instead of shouting ill-informed insults over the fence. Possibly the worst thing Bush has done in his eight years, apart from the colossal stupidity of invading Iraq, is to make it apparently impossible for people to have reasonable disagreements and rational conversations about political matters. But then, that might actually result in Americans seeing their common interests and uniting to pressure elected officials to GET SOMETHING DONE.

Think about who benefits from maintaining the status quo and you'll understand who the politics of division serves: the oil companies, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the war profiteers, and the wealthiest 1-2 percent. As long as we are at each other's throats instead of engaging in the political process and holding the feet of our representatives to the fire, they have absolutely no reason to change a system of which they are the chief beneficiaries. But it's OUR government, OUR democracy that's being strangled. There's still a chance we can make a difference and I am going to work and pray for the only candidate who isn't beholden to those special interests and who has the vision to lead and the ability to inspire. Obama `08!

Reaganite, maybe you don't follow Illinois politics. Living along the border of Illinois and being a native of that state, I keep track of the news from there. You say that Rezko was being creative, and dismiss this as speculation.

Others from around here disagree.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-kass-24-apr24,1,6520162.column

Republicans benefitting from the Daley machine antics in Chicago? Surely not!!

The Combine works for both sides of the aisle in Illinois, Reaganite. It's about power, not party.

RJohnson,

I'm not from Illinois and have never lived there. I don't follow Illinois politics. I'll cede to your superiority on this matter and will agree that there MAY be more here than meets the eye re: Rezko and his "working both sides of the street" politically. RJohnson, we all look forward to hearing more updates from you regarding Rezko.

By the way, do you think that talking about Rezko hurts Obama more? Or hurts McCain more? Just asking :-) By all means, let's all talk more about Rezko!

A candidate's whose wealthy wife refuses to open up her finances amid talk of questionable financial ties is not really in a position to to be talking about corruption, especially when he was one of the Keating Five.

RJohnson: You answered a different question than the one I ask. You said that Rezko will tarnish the GOP (a questionable assertion, at best). I asked whether he will hurt Obama or McCain more? The fact that Obama has been a fixture in the corrupt world of Chicago politics hasn't hurt him any. Why, then, should Rezko's involvement with some sleazy GOP pols in the Chicago area hurt McCain, who's from Arizone?

Daniel: I am so embarrassed for you!! Haven't you trotted out these old canards before about Cindy McCain and the Keating Five? How tiresome!! Can't you come up with someone new and untried?

For your info, Cindy and John McCain signed a pre-nup when they got married ... so her finances are off the table. Hey, didn't Teresa Heinz Kerry slso choose to keep her finances off the table -- were you yelping and barking back in 2004 about that, Daniel? As for the Keating Five, McCain was cleared of all the charges -- which was about 20 years ago (or didn't they mention that in your DNC talking points?). The experience opened McCain's eyes to the rot in Washington and fueled his commitment to clean politics -- even at the expense of his own political popularity especially among fellow GOP Senators.

So give the old naval aviator credit for showing some humility and courage on this issue -- two qualities that Mr. Harvard Law Review might come to acquire with age and experience and polish off when he makes a second try for the WH in 2016.

Daniel: Back in 2004, Mrs. Kerry never released her full tax returns. She kept holding out ... and holding out ... and eventually only provided the first two pages of her 2003 returns ... and that was it!!

You may recall, Daniel, that it became an issue only because her money had become a factor in the way Kerry bankrolled his Presidential campaign. Something about a home or two she owned being mortgaged to pay for his campaign back when his political fortunes were at rock bottom before his success in the Iowa caucuses. There's no hint of anything like that involving McCain and his wife. Thus Cindy McCain's personal finances are OFF the table.

There's no hint of anything like that involving McCain and his wife. Thus Cindy McCain's personal finances are OFF the table.

He rides in her jet as part of campaigns and doesn't pay for the trips. Ultimately, she and her wealth are helping to indirectly finance his campaign by relieving him of a signficant campaign expense.

She's not going to be able to hide her $100M estimated forture for long and will have to disclose some more tax info.

Reaganite: "I asked whether he will hurt Obama or McCain more? "

And I said that as other prosecutions come down the line it will likely hurt the GOP more. Do you not believe that this would affect the McCain campaign?

Imagine that an indictment of Bob Kjellander came out, say in mid-July. Kjellander is a long-time friend of Rove, who is an advisor to McCain.

Kjellander and a fellow named Nick Hurtgen have been investigated concerning funny deals with pension acounts. Hurtgen gave Kjellander a million dollars just before he (Hurtgen) was indicted back in 2007. Kjellander then gave $500,000 to Rezko, allegedly as payoff for a bond deal that is under indictment.

Kjellander's job, supposedly, was to get his friend Karl Rove to put the brakes on Fitzgerald's investigation of these (and other) allegations. According to investigators this is why money went from Hurtgen to Kjellander, with Rezko involved only through the bond scam.

The word is that more indictments are coming out this summer, and that there may be a plea in the works on the Hurtgen case.

By November the name Rezko may well be more associated with McCain's campaign than Obama's.

RJohnson writes: "If it (issues involving McCain) was worthy of Bush's attention in 2000, why isn't it worthy of our attention now?"

Aren't you trying to have it both ways? You criticize Bush for practically everything wrong under the sun ... and now you hold up his 2000 campaign operation as THE STANDARD in examining McCain's past. Apparently the issue you raised was a non-starter in 2000 and has spent the last eight years six-feet under. Good luck in resurrecting it :-)

Daniel writes: "He (McCain) rides in her jets ... " blah, blah, blah. Whoa, Daniel!! How do you know they are "her" jets? And how many trips? McCain is himself personally worth about 10-15 million dollars (mostly from sales of his two best-selling autobiographical books) ... and it just as likely that any plane they MIGHT use is leased or co-owned by them both. Besides, the impression we all get is that McCain pretty much rides in around in the back of that campaign bus and schmoozes with Linday Graham, Joe Lieberman and whatever reporter is looking for a some funny lines for their next story. Give it a break. There is nothhing there :-) Nice try, though!

Also, the jet is owned by her family's company. The records are pretty clear on that.

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27plane.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"But over a seven-month period beginning last summer, Mr. McCain’s cash-short campaign gave itself an advantage by using a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife, Cindy McCain, according to public records. For five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes, those records show.

Mr. McCain’s campaign paid a total of $241,149 for the use of that plane from last August through February, records show. That amount is approximately the cost of chartering a similar jet for a month or two, according to industry estimates.

The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole — rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes — but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making.

Because that exemption remains, Mr. McCain’s campaign was able to use his wife’s corporate plane like a charter jet while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however, added that his campaign’s actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit."

Family owned planes are exempt. Since he claimed the exemption, he owns the problem. The company asset is owned/controlled by a family member. That family member's finances should be relevant to the campaign.

"So who is "RJohnson" to judge him?"

A voter.

"You have made some really foul insinuations about McCain's motives in marrying his second wife."

This seems to be the season for such insinuations. We've seen foul insinuations about folks on the Democratic side of the aisle. Are you suggesting that the motivations of a Presidential candidate's actions are not to be questioned?

I seem to recall some foul insinuations being made about John Kerry's service record, or about Max Cleland's record. Is John McCain's military record above reproach simply because he is a Republican?

For example, there is this website: www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_hacker_2.htm

Why are so many Vietnam vets speaking out against McCain?

The Swiftboaters are out, Reaganite. But this time there will be some return fire, and it won't be pretty at all. But this is what wins elections. Gone are the days of discussing policy and ideals of where a nation should go. Gone are days of arguing over the plans for the future of our nation.

We now have arguments about what a candidate's pastor said, or how many times a candidate has been married, or what their military record was. This is the reality of modern day political campaigning.

So yes, I have made some foul insinuations about McCain's second marriage. But I think maybe the final word should belong McCain and his ex. After all, they were there, and neither of us were.

"Sound marriages can be hard to recover after great time and distance have separated a husband and wife. We are different people when we reunite," McCain wrote. "But my marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." - from "Worth the Fighting For" by John McCain.

Selfishness and immaturity, not the war. He also has mentioned in the book that he put more time into his naval career than into his marriage, even before he went to Vietnam. He admitted to several affairs before meeting his current wife, and he married her only a month after the divorce was signed with this first wife. She said of the divorce in a later interview:

"The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."

Wanting to be 25 again...middle age crazy. Of course it didn't hurt that we became crazy with a soon-to-be millionaire who was well connected in Arizona GOP politics.

Reaganite: "Let me commend you both on your industry (though not on your lack of accuracy or fairness) regarding the personal attacks you've been making against Senator McCain. Not sure who you guys are working for, but they probably have no idea what a great job you are both doing!! Man, your stuff comes with links to the New York Times (who else, of course) and Slate.com (naturally). A very impressive operation."

Why thank you! But if you don't like those sources, I can find the same information sourced at places a little more acceptable to you. FOX News and WorldNetDaily have carried the same or similar stories, covered by their own impeccably conservative reporters. Would that be acceptable to you?

Or maybe my last post, with quotes directly from McCain and his ex, might impress you on the issue. Or we can get court transcripts from Fyfe Symington's trial, or from the Keating trial, that might convince you.

yelladawgNC posted a wonderful quote today from John Stuart Mill that I will share here. It speaks a bit to the conservatives willingness to disregard sources of information that disagree with their preconceived notion of what is correct.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

RJohnson.

So now you're calling conservatives "stupid people." What a marvelous way to advance the debate.

You've made clear that you hate McCain and that you don't like conservatives. Why stop there? Why not tell us all here at "Crunchy Con" who you are supporting FOR President this year and what kind of Americans you think are NOT stupid? Go ahead, try to surprise us!

Zak,

Appreciate the comments. You're right that all this is more than meets the eye. Restraint is needed here. As for the whole Illinois scene, it is something that is very confusing to a lot of us, including me. It's hard to know just who is connected to who. Very murky.

Could you all stop attacking each other? All of your posts seem to be running on rage, but perhaps I'm wrong, online communication lacks capacity to communicate sarcasm properly.

McCain's past acts seem like fair game, of course that would make Obama's relationship with Ayers and Wright fair game as well.

Chris

from the daily kos this morning re: the GOP's third straight loss:

Slate: Panic at the House (news round-up)

NY Times: Republican Election Losses Stir Fall Fears

canada.com: GOP officials despair as 'safe' seats choose the other team

globeandmail.com: Wake up and smell the disenchantment

cqpolitics: GOP Seeks to Rebrand After Childers Victory (good luck with that, boys)

AFP: Shaken Republicans look to McCain as savior (good luck with that, too)

WaPo: After String of Losses, Republicans Face Crisis

Reuters: US Republicans scramble in wake of defeats

USAToday: Republicans fear public has lost confidence (pssst... they have)

AP: Third House loss shakes GOP, raises fears for fall

MSNBC: GOPer compares brand to bad 'dog food' (points for originality and honesty)

You get the picture. But then again, you knew that.

So, imagine this: The GOP that has always despised and derided John McCain

Senator Thad Cochran had this to say: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

now turns to him as 'savior' (see AFP). Meanwhile McCain tries to make nice to the GOP base (and of course, the press, which is McCain's base)

Imagine, reporters protecting a candidate from himself! But, then again, since the reporters on the bus liked Mr. McCain too much to report on his gaffes, he really didn’t need protection. His candor was without consequence. It was another blandishment to the press.

but that won't stop reporters who are fascinated by trainwrecks from writing about the GOP implosion.

The real interesting trick will be to see how McCain is going to pretend not to be a Republican while Republicans wrap their arms around McCain in a death hug, not merely pretending to like him but pretending to be him. The more they succeed, the more he fails. The more he succeeds, the more they fail.

Of course, the odds are that they'll all fail. The bullshit is just too pungent to pretend it's not there, and it isn't the most effective way to sell authenticity and change to a voting public that has rejected the party standard bearer (George W. Bush) as a miserable failure. At the same time, the GOP is bitterly divided, even though they're smart enough not to constantly talk to reporters about it (a trick Democrats have never mastered).

Novak: McCain, GOP in Trouble as Obama Wraps it Up

The claims that McCain has a united Republican Party behind him are greatly exaggerated. We find considerable opposition on the right, ranging from economic conservatives (who consider him too green) to evangelicals. The biggest problem is that he does not realize he has a problem.

Welcome to the 2008 election.

recovering ex-Pentecostal:

I just double-checked the postings from yeserday. I didn't post any comments yesterday on this thread at either 11:30 AM or 11:26 AM. So what the heck are you talking about ??? Moreover, the allegations you make (gay citizens aren't worthy of equal treatment; linking Obama to Wright but not McCain to Bush) are totally bogus. You either misunderstood or purposely misconstrued what's been said.

Please dispense with the sniping. Why don't you provide us, rather, with a positive argument or insight (either pro or con) on the particular issues that are up for discussion here.

Thanks in advance !

Simon,

Good point. If this new Dem. Congressman from Mississipi (Childers) is already running away from Obama/Clinton and the national Dem. party, then for the sake of his long-run political survival he'll be secretly hoping for a McCain victory in November. Victory by Obama in November will force him to choose during the 2009-2010 Congressional session between the (liberal) President from his party and the (conservative) voters back home. If he sides too often with a President Obama (or a President HRC), he'll be plenty vulnerable when he runs for reelection in November 2010.

The same is true for all these conservative Democrats recently elected from conservative Districts. They'll all be thinking about their survival in November 2010 when they secretely cast a ballot for McCain in November 2008 :-)