Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008?

[st.cronin]

Its mystifying to me how Romney's political career ever got off the ground. Who does he appeal to, exactly?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Its mystifying to me how Romney's political career ever got off the ground.

His political career? Or his Presidential bid?
(Seems like the two answers are probably pretty different in his case)

Who does he appeal to, exactly?

My wife had become pretty fond of his candidacy just before the GA primary.
Among her reasons(taken from http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm)
# Reduce corporate tax rate--we have 2nd highest in world. (Jan 2008)
# You don't help the wage-earner by attacking the wage-payer. (Jan 2008)
# Apply Reaganomics to current recession: cut taxes & grow. (Jan 2008)
# Only someone who worked in private sector can fix economy. (Jan 2008)
# I support the Bush tax cuts. (Jan 2008)

Worth noting, most of those positions were not the primary influences in my leaning toward him for the primary. And since my leaning was lukewarm at best & primarily based upon a theoretical ability to derail McCain (at that point), my own reasons probably aren't as relevant to your question as my wife's might be.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

# Apply Reaganomics to current recession: cut taxes & grow. (Jan 2008)

To apply Reaganomics, he would need to be in favor of cutting taxes, increasing spending and running the national debt through the roof, to be paid off by whomever gets elected in 2020.

[molson]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention enough, but McCain looks REALLY old on Larry King right now. He better find a young and energetic running mate.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe I haven't been paying attention enough, but McCain looks REALLY old on Larry King right now. He better find a young and energetic running mate.

Would be the oldest guy to ever take office as President at age 72.

[Swaggs]

Should it be Obama vs McCain, it will certainly make for an interesting contrast when we see them facing each other in debates.

My father, who is in his early 60s, has even made the statement that McCain appears "old" to him.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Should it be Obama vs McCain, it will certainly make for an interesting contrast when we see them facing each other in debates.

My father, who is in his early 60s, has even made the statement that McCain appears "old" to him.

The debates will be like this:

[Buccaneer]

...with Obama answering "Yes we can" to every question posed to him. It certainly will be an interesting debate: young vs old, black vs white, liberal vs conservative, etc.

[flere-imsaho]

Is it just me, or does it seem, when McCain's speaking, that he's just this >< far away from sighing?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

...with Obama answering "Yes we can" to every question posed to him. It certainly will be an interesting debate: young vs old, black vs white, liberal vs conservative, etc.

Who's the conservative?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Who's the conservative?

+1

Seriously. McCain isn't a conservative and he's a flip-flopper at that. He's digging that hole that even the bickering Democrats will be able to get out of, by continuing to sell out left and right. He doesn't excite anybody, his 'base' is going to go to Hillary or Obama and he's eroding whatever support he'd have.

People keep ignoring that he's not the John McCain of 2000. That image is gone. Folks respect him and all, but that's a far cry from wanting to elect him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That image is gone. Folks respect him and all, but that's a far cry from wanting to elect him.

I'd say you're being awfully generous.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say you're being awfully generous.

He's the nominee, so he fooled more than a few folks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He's the nominee, so he fooled more than a few folks.

I was thinking of the "respect" part.

edit: On a fairly unrelated note, I think this current headline deserves at least one chuckle:
Bush Family Swinging Behind McCain

I just never really pictured them being into the whole open marriage/swinging thing ... and really wish I hadn't have pictured it now either.

[Young Drachma]

hahahaha...McCain is trying to handicap the field. He wants Obama to abide by his pledge to accept public financing if McCain did.

McCain is funny.

Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”

Mr. Obama did not rule out the possibility of accepting public financing, but declared on Friday, “I’m not the nominee yet.”

With the money Obama is raising, it'd be political suicide if he chose to go this route. I can't see how he could. Hillary sure won't.

With the lack of donors and PACs coming out in support of McCain (preferring to wait four years and find a better candidate to back to topple the Dems) down the road, he knows that money will be tight and Obama is already outspending Hillary, he realizes his own chances will be bleak -- at least from the money side of things -- if he has to go head to head against him.

I can't help but think they secretly would prefer to face off against Hillary, though.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Seriously. McCain isn't a conservative and he's a flip-flopper at that.

His voting record puts him solidly in the conservative category, with an 82.3 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Obama's rating is 8.0, Clinton's is 9.0. Once the general election campaign begins, I don't think there will be any confusion as to whom the liberal and conservative candidates are.

[JPhillips]

I don't think it's a secret that he'd rather run against Hillary. Now one of his advisors, McKinnon, has said he'll resign if Obama wins the nomination because he wouldn't feel comfortable running negative ads against him.

[Buccaneer]

You two are still being obtuse. Here's the deal about Bush1's endoresment

There is a vocal faction of social conservatives in the state who regularly sparred with President George W. Bush during his presidency and his days as governor.

The former President Bush is no favorite of these social conservatives either, but his embrace is being orchestrated as an important signal to the state's broader Republican establishment that it is important to back McCain and participate in the primary.

One could label the House of Bush as a conservative dynasty but Bush1 was no favorite of a fringe conservative group. As said numerous times, there are numerous types of conservative groups (as well as all of the general-label groups). Off the top of my head, McCain appeals to about 4 out of the 7 groups but not the one Huckabee is in and not to the minority group that makes a lot of noise. Obama appeals to 0 of the groups, which puts him less conservative than McCain.

[Buccaneer]

Thanks VV for bringing that up again.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think it's a secret that he'd rather run against Hillary. Now one of his advisors, McKinnon, has said he'll resign if Obama wins the nomination because he wouldn't feel comfortable running negative ads against him.

That guy is a Democrat who had a man crush on GWB, worked for him and now he's on McCain's side. But that story actually came out last summer that he'd ditch McCain if Obama is the Democrat nominee, because he doesn't want to be involved in negative campaigning against him.

He said he'd still vote for McCain, but that he won't be involved anymore.

Link from last year

[Young Drachma]

There wasn't a question in my mind about who would be viewed as more conservative. My point was simply that given the chance to hold your nose and elect John McCain or sit on one's hands, that many conservatives will opt to do just that unless it's HRC vs. McCain. Again, I don't think that past statistics will bear anything in this race.

[Young Drachma]

Fresh Start Conservatism

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Fresh Start Conservatism

Mr. Brooks sounds alot like an old Republican Corporate Country Clubber. That wing of the party only began calling themselves 'conservative' after the Reagan Republicans made the word 'fashionable.' Notice how he bashes the 'populists' on both left and right.

I always get a big chuckle out of his type claiming that its 'education' thats needed and not a review of 'free trade.' But then the type of 'education' that the suddenly illiterate unwashed masses of lazy U.S. citizens need to compete globally is never specified. How could it be?

When you can tear down a factory where a U.S. worker is making $20.00+ an hour and ship it to Mexico or China where the same worker is making $3.00 a day what the heck kind of education is going to fix that? Make more lawyers?
More engineers? India is cranking engineers out that work for half the cost or less than ours.

The "Free Trade' we have is nothing more than 'managed' trade created to benefit Corporate elites that don't fall under U.S. Sovereignty anymore anyways. Brooks-types lack of specificity is always big enough to drive a Mexican truck thru. Maybe the 'education' Brooks refers to is expanding McDonalds Hamburger U. to get more burger-flipping managers out into the field able to feed more minimum wage workers going to their half-hour unpaid lunch breaks.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

My point was simply that given the chance to hold your nose and elect John McCain or sit on one's hands, that many conservatives will opt to do just that unless it's HRC vs. McCain.

If Obama is the nominee, there's no way that many conservatives are going to sit on their hands and let someone who is running to the left of every presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972 win the election. No way. Especially when the issues of Supreme Court appointees, socialized medicine, tax increases and immediately withdrawing from Iraq start getting scrutiny in the general election campaign.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

If Obama is the nominee, there's no way that many conservatives are going to sit on their hands and let someone who is running to the left of every presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972 win the election. No way. Especially when the issues of Supreme Court appointees, socialized medicine, tax increases and immediately withdrawing from Iraq start getting scrutiny in the general election campaign.

Okay.

[Buccaneer]

Listen to him and remember that. History does provide lessons and believe me, what is happening this year is definitely not unique. There will be those stubborn enough like Jon but those are very few, comparetively, esp. when more independents will come in play than before. Also, just in the last two elections, many Republicans, independents and libertarians held their nose (really hard in 2004 especially) to vote against Gore and Kerry (and certainly not for Bush2).

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Listen to him and remember that. History does provide lessons and believe me, what is happening this year is definitely not unique. There will be those stubborn enough like Jon but those are very few, comparetively, esp. when more independents will come in play than before. Also, just in the last two elections, many Republicans, independents and libertarians held their nose (really hard in 2004 especially) to vote against Gore and Kerry (and certainly not for Bush2).

Okay.

[Buccaneer]

Awww man, I was hoping you would ask me what elections in history were like this. There would be several names of charismatic, left-leaning (for the time), populist candidates but most people would not have heard of them (a few one, though). I would have to dig up their names (don't remember some of them) but I would rather do something else tonight.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Awww man, I was hoping you would ask me what elections in history were like this. There would be several names of charismatic, left-leaning (for the time), populist candidates but most people would not have heard of them (a few one, though). I would have to dig up their names (don't remember some of them) but I would rather do something else tonight.

Okay.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Awww man, I was hoping you would ask me what elections in history were like this. There would be several names of charismatic, left-leaning (for the time), populist candidates but most people would not have heard of them (a few one, though). I would have to dig up their names (don't remember some of them) but I would rather do something else tonight.

Daddy Bucc, will you tell me about the election of 1824 since you were there and all?

[Buccaneer]

1824 was a clusterfuck. You don't want to know.

[Young Drachma]

Frank Rich begins the talk on the GOP as the Grand Old White Party

Consider the source, but...expect a lot more to come as the race moves forward.

[Galaxy]

I guess McCain is now being thrown around in a rumor of an affair back in 2000?

[path12]

What's the point in having an affair if they look like your wife?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by path12

What's the point in having an affair if they look like your wife?

I haven't see any pics of the alleged mistress. If it was with Thompson's wife, I would.

Rudy's wife is just scares me.

[SirFozzie]

One of my co-workers has an interesting take on the article.

This story first bubbled up in December, and rumor was that McCain had lawyered up to try to spike the story.

The theory goes that the Times, boosted by certain Democrats, held the story after putting up a fight because if they had ran it then, it could let a resurgent Romney or Huckabee back in the race.

Instead, they waited till McCain was guaranteed the nomination, and began to swing at the Democrats, and decided to run the story to keep McCain from gathering momentum while the Democrats took care of the affairs in their own house.

My co-worker fully expects this to be a long running set of articles, with one story after another being released with slightly more details, until Hilary or Obama win the nomination and take over bludgeoning McCain on the issue.

While I'm not sure I believe him, it is an interesting theory.

[JPhillips]

That's some good conspiracying.

A less dastardly, but more probable take is that the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek were all apparantly working on the story and close to running their own versions. WaPo did in fact run a story immediately after the Times printed theirs. The New Republic was also about to run a story on the competing factions at the Times on whether to run the story or not. That article is supposed to be printed in the next edition of TNR.

The conspiracy angle also makes little sense given that McCain polls far better against either Hillary or Obama than any other of the Republican candidates. Why would diabolical Democrats at the Times hold a story that they thought could have killed McCain?

On the story itself, I don't care about the adultery angle. That's none of my business and has no bearing on whether he could be an effective President. The influence peddling angle is more worrisome, but even that doesn't bother me too much as it's going to be true for anybody in the Senate.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The conspiracy angle also makes little sense given that McCain polls far better against either Hillary or Obama than any other of the Republican candidates. Why would diabolical Democrats at the Times hold a story that they thought could have killed McCain?

The theory is: Because rather then killing McCain now, and having Romney or Huckabee prime up the base, and them having to run full bore.. this way the Republicans can't put up a new candidate, and they get to drag him down, pulling him away from independents, and leave him being hit by both the moderates and the conservative netroots

[JPhillips]

And that theory's dumb.

McCain is easily the most formidable candidate on the Republican side. There are literally dozens of polls that show this. It makes no sense to think that a team of Democratic operatives would work to ensure McCain's nomination if the goal is to strengthen the Democratic candidate.

[SirFozzie]

The interesting thing, is that the Drudge Report and some conservative commentators are trumpeting the exact same charge.. that this was timed to hurt the Republican candidate.

[JPhillips]

Well of course conservatives are bitching about this. That's what they do. Any negative stories are proof of bias as are any positive stories about Democrats as are no stories whatsoever. Obviously McCain would prefer this story never saw the light of day, but the timing is just about perfect. When better to have a negative story than February after the nomination is sewn up?

McCain's press conference today seemed like a big blunder. I can't believe he said he's never done anything that wasn't for the benefit of the general public. That just invites a close scrutiny of everything and given how long he's been a Senator it's almost certain he's done things to benefit large donors.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The interesting thing, is that the Drudge Report and some conservative commentators are trumpeting the exact same charge.. that this was timed to hurt the Republican candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8617.html

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The New York Times does for McCain what he couldn't do for himself, rally the base.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8617.html

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The New York Times does for McCain what he couldn't do for himself, rally the base.

Ironic, isn't it.

[Ksyrup]

Dumbass....



A Hole in McCain’s Defense?

An apparent contradiction in his response to lobbyist story.
By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 22, 2008 | Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET Feb 22, 2008

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

[Galaxy]

The problem I have is two things:

1) Why wait eight years, right until McCain, is about the GOP nomination?

2) The article lacks a lot of hard evidence. Until they print some, I'll have my doubts.

To be honest, I couldn't care about his personal life.

[Galaxy]

Interesting tidbit:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...beral-activist

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The problem I have is two things:

1) Why wait eight years, right until McCain, is about the GOP nomination?

2) The article lacks a lot of hard evidence. Until they print some, I'll have my doubts.

To be honest, I couldn't care about his personal life.

Are you referring to the article I just posted? The big issue there is that he lied (or misremembered) talking to Paxson.

The article has nothing to do with his personal life, and most people figured out that whether he cheated on his wife is irrelevant to the other claim being made. This may not prove that issue, but - again, making the Clemens analogy - when you say one thing and then evidence proves you wrong, it looks like you're trying to cover something up.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Are you referring to the article I just posted? The big issue there is that he lied (or misremembered) talking to Paxson.

The article has nothing to do with his personal life, and most people figured out that whether he cheated on his wife is irrelevant to the other claim being made. This may not prove that issue, but - again, making the Clemens analogy - when you say one thing and then evidence proves you wrong, it looks like you're trying to cover something up.

I wonder if McCain is actually trying to play up the sex scandal angle in order to drum up outrage against the media, so he doesn't have to answer questions about general influence peddling (which seems to be what the Times story is really about).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I wonder if McCain is actually trying to play up the sex scandal angle in order to drum up outrage against the media, so he doesn't have to answer questions about general influence peddling (which seems to be what the Times story is really about).

Of course, he is. He's following the Clinton playbook.

[JPhillips]

Galaxy: They haven't waited eight years. They only got the story a few months ago. And of course the story is of more interest now that McCain is the presumptive nominee.

As to the story being thinly sourced, you're right. I don't think there's nearly enough evidence to make the suggestion of a sexual relationship. The question that should be asked to the reporters is, do you believe they had a sexual relationship and if so why? If they don't have any more info than what was printed it's really bad reporting.