Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

John McCain's Perfect Ride


John McCain can be excused for looking like the cat that ate the canary at a breakfast today in Washington. (AP).

By Joel Achenbach
How did John McCain become the certain Republican nominee? With what they call in horse racing a perfect ride.

Yes, there was that rather large stumble last year. The word "imploded" is the officially sanctioned journalistic term for what happened to the McCain campaign. But his timing was fabulous! Last anyone checked, the spring of 2007 had no scheduled primaries or caucuses. For candidates, reporters and political junkies, the campaign was going great guns, but for citizens, which is to say voters, it was an off year.

When the voting began, McCain consistently won where he had to win. He skipped Iowa and proved that it didn't matter. He maximized his delegate count per vote. He won South Carolina narrowly with 33 percent of the vote to Huckabee's 30 percent, but he got 18 delegates and Huckabee got only six. He won Florida with a titanic total, by McCain standards, of about 36 percent of the vote, and swept up all 57 delegates. With 42 percent of the vote in California, he got almost every delegate up for grabs (149 to Romney's six, according to AP). All told, McCain won 4,114,973 votes, while Romney snagged 3,471,691 and Huckabee 2,130,469.

E.J. Dionne today described how McCain's ride managed to skirt the South and the Mountain West and, in essence, the base of the Republican Party. That's going wide and ceding the rail, but McCain found good footing.

His perfect ride began before the election even got rolling, as Tony Blankley pointed out yesterday in the Washington Times. The strongest Republican candidate, Jeb Bush, found himself as a member of the one family in America effectively prohibited from offering a candidate. And George Allen stepped in macaca.

And perhaps a part of McCain's perfect ride happened a year ago, when McCain skipped the CPAC convention altogether.

It was risky. Everyone else showed up to woo the hard-core conservatives. Rudy Giuliani bombed, and though he went on to spend 2007 as the titular front-runner, the stony silence that greeted him at the Omni Shoreham may have prefigured his inability to connect with the party's base. Giuliani spent much of his speech praising Abraham Lincoln, apparently unaware that, in this particular crowd, Lincoln is widely hated (on doctrinal grounds involving federal government overreach, etc.).

The star of the show was Mitt Romney, who trucked in busloads of supporters, then touched on all the Reaganesque themes with perfect pitch. Few people have ever tried harder, or spent more money, or crafted ideological positions more feverishly, to ingratiate themselves with a political party's base. But he could never shake the odor of inauthenticity. It's fitting that Romney used CPAC as the place to make his exit.

McCain will probably never persuade conservatives that he is truly one of them. And by skipping CPAC last year, he avoided having to contort himself.

He'll show up at CPAC today, and it'll be interesting to see what he says. Mike Allen on WTOP this morning wondered aloud if McCain would be booed. This can be an edgy crowd. But the party's far right is no longer sitting in the power position. McCain is.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 7, 2008; 1:43 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Joel's Two Cents , John McCain  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Camp Tries to Set Expectations for Potomac Primary
Next: John McCain Among the Conservatives

Comments

You all make me sick.
I'm sick to death of liberals who are as close-minded as
evangelicals, and yet are all-knowing, while conservatives
are considered weak-minded scourges.

Sick to death of a country that is so politically correct that
we have given up doing the right thing because of an ACLU backlash.

Sick to death of a country that takes down crosses and
the ten commandments, but allows public schools in various
places to have foot baths and prayer time for Muslims.

Sick to death of a liberal country that allows stark-raving religious zealots to protest in the most crude and disrespectful ways at our soldiers funerals because of the right to free speech.

But Heaven forbid that we say a prayer at venues and places that have been a part of the American way of life since the beginning of this country. (Like I would move to Iran and expect them to quit observing their religious rituals and the basis upon which their country originated because I, an American, have moved there and am a Christian and may be offended.)
I would never dream of making them change for me. I simply
would not participate, while attempting to be respectful of their beliefs while quietly observing my own.

Sick to death of country that bashes someone because they have money (I guess if you live the American Dream, you are scum because the rest of us didn't quite make it) and use their earned wealth to try to become President, refusing to take a salary if elected (in contrast to the Clintons, who make more money than anyone I know on appearances, books, etc. but allow the taxpayers to pay over a million dollars a month rent on their residual presidential salary allotment for living quarters in the most ostentatious area in Harlem)

You see the rest of the world views the United States as you view Romney,
the rich, successful kid that you want to see fall and fail, even though they have the potential and willingess to be the one who can save the others.

Sick to death of a country that is on the verge of
electing someone named Hussein who attended a Muslim
school and now attends a black separatist church,
but is pardoned on those grounds due to the attention
given to Mormon bashing in our land of religious freedom.

At least let all of the candidates have the same scrutiny and don't be selective,
That's what I hate about liberals...so selective in their all-knowing positions.

You liberals still honor a President that lied under oath and
continually breaks every sacred covenant in his life.

God forbid we elect someone who has been successful in every area of his life because you don't like his religion.

Let's choose the one who is an emotional midget, screams obscenities, admires Hillary, votes with the Democrats on crucial issues, and leaves his handicapped wife for another. I guess he has changed his position on a few promises, but we are only talking holy matrimony and nothing as relevant as gay rights.

I'm sick to death of a country that won't allow someone to change his mind and make amends. I believe abortion to be murder, but have fluctuated on my views. I even once offered to help a friend financially who was considering abortion because I was afraid that she would commit suicide. I regret that, but I have a different understanding now than I did then. I guess I'm just a flip-flopper and should never consider
running for office.


So go ahead and vote for any of the democratic nominees,
McCain, Clinton, and Hussein Obama.
Vote for an ex-Muslim (maybe), a hot-headed liberal hawk, or Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife.....boy, anything is better than those damn Mormons, right?

You deserve what is going to happen.
Me?.....I am looking for a nice place in Mexico now that all of
their top-notch citizens will be living here permanently.


Posted by: kls_wllms | February 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

If McCain in the GOP nominee all those McCain haters could vent their anger over him directly and honestly if the ballot had a NO column and the highest net yes wins. They wouldn't have to hide it with a vote for the Dem nominee like DeLay and others indicate. They could vote directly against McCain and help the opposition win...or...better yet, they could vote NO against the Dems, help their party win but with a clear message that he doesn't have their support unless he alters his views to more closely conform to theirs. Many positive from a negative, including a result that more honestly reflects voter sentiment rather than hiding those that vote for yucky parsnips to vote against yucky broccoli. It's time to be able to "JUST SAY NO" as some conservative family in the past said.

Posted by: Valjean1 | February 7, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Too bad Hillary Clinton doesn't follow Romney's lead, and drop out for the good of her party and her country. I don't think I could stand a Clinton-McCain matchup. Ron Paul might even have a real shot against them.

Here's hoping Obama pulls it out on the Democratic side, so we have someone new and interesting with a chance to win. Sure, he'll spend us into oblivion, but so will Clinton and McCain (war isn't cheap.)

Posted by: drd6000 | February 7, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Since when is a nomination "certain" before a candidate locks up the minimum number of delegates required to win?

What if Huckabee wins all of the remaining primaries, now that conservatives aren't splitting their votes against McCain? What if Huckabee and Ron Paul win enough delegates between them to take it to a brokered convention against McCain? Do you really think McCain is popular in Texas? They haven't voted yet.

Posted by: drd6000 | February 7, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who supports the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture should never be in the WH. Anyone who supports wasting a couple of trillion dollars of taxpayers funds in Illegal Invasions of Sovereign States should never be our leader. If one had any courage, one would call for the Axis of Evil to be indicted for War Crimes. People who support Mission Accomplished is equally Guilty in the thousands of Murders. The Decider and his Murderous Gang need to face Justice at the International Criminal Court. There is no Statue of Limitations on War Crimes.

Only a Coward would send others to do his dirty work. Why have these Born Again Killers not made any sacrifices with their huge public salaries to finance their Illegal Invasions.

WHAT WOULD JESUS KILL?

The Guns Owned Party of the National Right to Annihilate are all Cowards with Guns. They can only Kill Defenseless Creatures. They have Zero courage without their Guns.

All of these Religious Extremist Psychos are Frauds. Only Deluded Ignorant Idiots would believe any of them and their Delusional Religious Fairy Tales.

INDICT the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Coward Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture and their Gang of Born Again Coward Killers!

http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm
War Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court


McCain, the candidate who is trying to become the oldest person ever elected to a first presidential term and who almost promises a war with Iran ("There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran").

935 Iraq Falsehoods

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, January 23, 2008; 1:00 PM

A nonprofit group pursuing old-fashioned accountability journalism is out with a new report and database documenting 935 false statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials hyping the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001.

The Center for Public Integrity reports that its "exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The database also documents how Bush and others had reason to know, or at least suspect, what they were saying was not supported by the facts.

John H. Cushman Jr. writes in the New York Times: "There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope, and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard M. Nixon used to dismissively call 'wallowing in Watergate.'"

And yet there are plenty of reasons why the deceitful run-up to war is not old news. For one, the war goes on. For another, government credibility remains severely damaged. And then there's the fact that the president has never really been held to account for his repeated falsehoods.

Bush famously told The Washington Post, upon embarking on his second term, that he saw the 2004 election as his "accountability moment." Yet neither before nor since has he admitted mistakes or poor judgment. The closest he came may have been in December 2005, when he acknowledged intelligence failures -- by others.

Study Puts Iraqi Death Toll at 151,000
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE - Jan 9, 2008

About 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years after the United States invaded, concludes the best effort yet to count deaths -- one that still may not settle the fierce debate over the war's true toll on civilians and others.

The estimate comes from projections by the World Health Organization and the Iraqi government, based on door-to-door surveys of nearly 10,000 households. Experts called it the largest and most scientific study of the Iraqi death toll since the war began.

Exxon Mobil posts $40.6 billion profit, Oil giant breaks record for largest annual profit by a U.S. company
By RUSSELL GOLD
February 2, 2008

Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit in U.S. corporate history, reporting 2007 net income of $40.61 billion, fattened by soaring oil prices. The company beat its own record of $39.5 billion set in 2006.

Oil and natural-gas production declined for the year at the world's largest publicly traded oil company by market capitalization, and Exxon said its refinery output also fell slightly from a year earlier. However, its bottom line benefited from significantly higher global crude-oil prices, which briefly touched $100 a barrel earlier this year.

Chevron Corp., the No. 2 U.S. oil company, also reported Brobdingnagian profits. Its $18.69 billion annual profit was a record for the San Ramon, Calif., company.

Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion
New study takes into account long-term costs of healthcare for wounded soldiers.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.
"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."
The higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year. The economists also used government data from past wars, and included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war.

Before the war started, Mitch Daniels, then the White House budget director, had said the war would be an "affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as "very, very high."


Budget Hits $3 Trillion As Debt Marks Bush Legacy
By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and JOHN D. MCKINNON
February 1, 2008

WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush took office in 2001 with budget surpluses projected to stretch years into the future. But it's almost certain that when he returns to Texas next year, the president will leave behind a trail of deficits and debt that will sharply constrain his successor.

On Monday, the president will unveil a $3 trillion-plus budget request for his final year, which is likely to show a deficit of more than $400 billion. New details of the budget emerged yesterday, with officials saying the White House plans to keep a lid on nonsecurity discretionary spending. It wants to cut about $200 billion from the government's medical programs for seniors and the poor. (See related story.)

The longer-term picture is darker. Despite his efforts, Mr. Bush failed to work out a deal with Congress to tackle the spiraling costs of government health and retirement programs. The next president, if he or she serves two terms, could find the U.S. government so deeply in hock that it would face losing its Triple-A credit rating, something that has never happened since Moody's Investors Service began grading U.S. securities in 1917.

As a result, the ambitions of Mr. Bush's successor to cut taxes, institute universal health care or aid troubled homeowners might have to give way to the reality of soaring costs for Social Security, the Medicare program for the elderly and the Medicaid program for the poor.


A Trillion Dollars wasted by the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture. Vote for more Born Again Religous Hypocrite Frauds and expect more of the same stupid policies Illegally Invading Sovereign States, Wasting Taxpayers Money and Generating More Terrorists. What has been Gained by this Trillion Dollars Wasted?

Indict the Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture for War Crimes.

Rising Cost Of Iraq War May Reignite Public Debate
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN and JOHN D. MCKINNON
February 4, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The cost of U.S. military operations in Iraq is rising rapidly, and could reignite the national debate about the war, which has taken a back seat to the economy as an issue for most voters this election year.

Today, the White House will propose a federal budget that for the first time tops $3 trillion. The plan is expected to include a record sum for the Pentagon and an additional $70 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while essentially freezing discretionary spending in areas other than national security, including most domestic programs.

The sharp contrast between President Bush's defense and domestic-spending goals could give Democrats a potent political weapon as the economy continues to deteriorate. But with the Democratic-controlled Congress likely to scrap most of Mr. Bush's spending plans, his funding proposal for Iraq may be one of the budget's most enduring elements.

Mr. Bush's budget calls for about $515 billion to be allocated to the Defense Department for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, according to people familiar with the matter. If passed by Congress, that would be the largest military budget -- adjusted for inflation -- since World War II.

Pending Requests

The budget also includes a separate request of $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan for the first quarter of fiscal 2009 alone. For this fiscal year, Congress has yet to approve additional spending of about $102 billion the White House has requested for the two conflicts.

Boosted in part by rising fuel prices and the expense of repairing or replacing vehicles worn down by the long war, U.S. spending on Iraq has doubled in the past three years.

Last year's buildup of U.S. troops -- known as the "surge" -- and the military's growing use of expensive heavy munitions to roust Iraqi insurgents also have contributed to the cost increase. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the average monthly cost of the conflict -- by CRS's measure -- hit $10.3 billion in the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, up from $4.4 billion in fiscal 2004.

$1 Trillion Mark

With Congress having already approved $691 billion in war spending since 2001, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined could rise to just under $900 billion by next spring and could near the $1 trillion mark by the end of 2009.

Pentagon officials acknowledge that war costs have risen sharply, but they say the added spending is justified not only by higher fuel and food prices but also by the need to provide better protective gear and other equipment to U.S. troops. They also note that the U.S. has begun spending tens of millions of dollars a year on salaries for what the Pentagon calls "Concerned Local Citizens," the mainly Sunni fighters who now function as neighborhood-watch organizations in many parts of Iraq.

On the domestic front, the president's new budget is expected to keep a tight lid on costs that aren't security-related. One big target for savings would be Medicare, the health-care program for the elderly. But the budget for homeland security is expected to rise sharply again, with much of the money going to increasing immigration enforcement and border security.

Today's announcement is also expected to project deficits in the range of $400 billion for both 2008 and 2009, thanks to a big economic-stimulus plan Congress is expected to approve. If war costs were fully included, the 2009 deficit would be even higher.

Wars Cost $15 Billion a Month, GOP Senator Says


By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 27, 2007; A07

The latest estimate of the growing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide battle against terrorism -- nearly $15 billion a month -- came last week from one of the Senate's leading proponents of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq.

"This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month, with the Army spending $4.2 billion of that every month," Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a little-noticed floor speech Dec. 18. His remarks came in support of adding $70 billion to the omnibus fiscal 2008 spending legislation to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, as well as counterterrorism activities, for the six months from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31 of next year.

CIA says used waterboarding on three suspects
Tue Feb 5, 2008 6:59pm EST
By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - The CIA used a widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding on three suspects captured after the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA Director Michael Hayden told Congress on Tuesday.

"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the first time a U.S. official publicly specified the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them.

Congress is considering banning the simulated drowning technique. A Democratic senator and a human rights advocacy group urged a criminal investigation after Hayden made his remarks.

"Waterboarding is torture, and torture is a crime," Human Rights Watch said in a statement.


CIA chief: Waterboarding probably not legal
His testimony to lawmakers comes as attorney general refuses inquiry
The Associated Press
updated 2:12 p.m. CT, Thurs., Feb. 7, 2008
WASHINGTON - CIA Director Michael Hayden cast doubt on the legality of waterboarding on Thursday, a day after the White House said the harsh interrogation tactic has saved American lives and could be used in the future.

Hayden told the House Intelligence Committee that he officially prohibited CIA operatives from using waterboarding in 2006 in the wake of a Supreme Court decision and new laws on the treatment of U.S. detainees.

He said the agency has not used waterboarding for "just a few weeks short" of five years.

"It is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute," Hayden said.

Though now legally questionable, Hayden said, waterboarding was legal in 2002 and 2003, a time when the technique was used to interrogate Al-Qaida detainees.

Posted by: mawt | February 7, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

McCain, GEORGIE'S HEIR TO HIS THRONE! and and won't he be sad when HILLARY gets to sit on the throne,
AND
it will be an end to the mess in the USANOW OBAMA , THE LILY WHITE, KNOW NOTHING WILL RESORT TO THE MUD SLINGER HE IS! B. HUESSAIN OBAMA, HALF BREED, MONEY GRABBING FROM HIS PAL 'OPRAH ' WHO IS MAKING PROMISES TO THE KENNEDY CLAN FOR $$$$$$$ . tWO WOMEN IN THE wHITE hOUSE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FOR HIM. hE WILL KEEP CONDIE AND CAROLYN FOR DEVERSION WHILE HE TRIES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT A PRES. SHOULD DO! BUT WHAT HE DOESN"T KNOW HE AINT GETTIN THERE!!!!! HILLERY is our next president, god willing. i REALLY THINK BO IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE FOR THE JOB!!!!!!!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | February 7, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

WoW Now he is a dud? Oh and I would and the thousands of other people would give up our hard earned money to support a dud, well he is still in it, oh and Conservitism and warmogring are not in the same book ok, You are thinking of Neo Cons not Conservittism. Ron Paul is going to wipe the floor with that little Troll in the next debate, Im having a party, beers on me, we going win RonPaul 08

Posted by: RaferJanders | February 7, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

As I read of the intense dislike that modern fiscal conservatives have for John McCain, I cannot help thinking back to his vote against the Bush Tax Cuts. Republican electoral success over the past two decades has been based on a fantasy of Supply Side Economics, the idea that budget deficits are justified because tax cuts pay for themselves. In support of this idea, modern fiscal conservatives have worked very diligently to change the very definition of the term "fiscal conservative". John McCain, early on, to his credit, recognized that Supply Side Economics was a fantasy, providing great applause lines during an election but not actually based on the operation of our economy. Again, to his credit, he didn't think we should risk the future of our country on a self-delusion. When he voted against the Bush Tax Cuts, he did so for the old reasons - it was bad for the economy and morally wrong. McCain acted as an actual old-school fiscal conservative, rejecting the silliness that somehow became Republican Doctrine, and in doing so undercut the fantasy world of the Supply Siders.

Some commentators have suggested that the selection of McCain as the nominee would be the end of the Reagan Revolution. If that is what it takes to get the Republican Party back to fiscal reality, then let's hope it happens. However, it won't be John McCain that will have killed supply side economics, it will be George Bush, because he actually tried it. Supply Side, like that other famous economic fantasy, socialism, will have been proven wrong by reality. Modern Fiscal Conservatives are likely to eventually be as bitter and disillusioned as the ex-Socialist. Except of course a lot wealthier. As I read of the State of the Union Address, I couldn't help but think that this will be the President's real legacy - the death of supply side economics, and a re-validation of the model for government that developed out of the Depression.

ashby2008.com

Posted by: ashby | February 7, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

iam very diapointed that we lost the only canadate today for presdent my second choice is know that obama will make our country safer and the best next four yrs
as for this trader mccain to be elected i hope that day will never come id mccain is looser lets all vote demecrates know that all rep,have givin up obama we do not need another nafta presdent since we are now owned buy china and mexico run


Posted by: mewoolen | February 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Bob Beckel made a poker analogy about McCain that was pretty appropriate. He said that McCain drew to an inside straight. The author's thoroughbred racing analogy about McCain getting the perfect ride is good too.

McCain was alway in the right place at the right time. His campaign faltered in the early going so it allowed him to disappear off the radar screen while the other candidates were roughing each other up.

He was always in a position where other candidates were doing his work for him such as Huckabee weakening Romney in Iowa. Then he was able to win in New Hampshire thanks to crossover votes.

Then Thompson and Romney were taking votes away from Huckabee in South Carolina which allowed McCain to eke out a victory.

Finally the collapse of Guiliani's candidacy help deliver Florida and the northeastern states that voted on Super Tuesday.

On Super Tuesday, Romney and Huckabee took votes from each other in states such as Missouri and California.

Meanwhile, Romney was always just missing. He almost pulled off the traditional win early strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire and just missed in Florida which could have blunted the McCain momentum.

McCain either had a brilliant strategy or a lot of luck. Take your pick.

Posted by: danielhancock | February 7, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is loved because he's the underdog with zero chance of getting elected. His brand of naive libertarianism has not been put under the microscope. He comes across as whiner about everything. He can always claim he's right because he'll never be in power and will never have to be held accountable for his promises and actions. Ron Paul is a dud, a slightly lesser dud than most of the Republicans this time round, but still a dud.

Posted by: dhayjones | February 7, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I guess GOP supporters now know how the Dems felt back when Kerry suddenly decided to drop out.

Still, it's funny how even though Ron Paul has been more consistent in GOP views, he is still dismissed as a "libertarian in Republican clothing." Even though the rest of the candidates are flip-flopping neo-cons in Republican clothing people STILL like to pretend they don't see Ron Paul.

I only like Ron Paul because he seems to be the only consistent one out there, the rest of them flip-flopping, playing politics and saying what they have to say when they need to.

AND he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. Hate to hate on Mormons, but I wouldn't want a Mormon president, and I'm glad Romney's out. He did protest too much about his Mormon affiliation, and that's telling of what kind of a president he would be. (Not to mention he is a shameless warmonger!!!)

Posted by: kogejoe | February 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

**** **** ** *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
**** * * * * *
** * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* ***** * ** PAUL 2008

Posted by: BOBSTERII | February 7, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to President Bush, and despite the efforts of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, many Americans are fed up of conservatism. The American military is the biggest state-run enterprise in the world, which must qualify President Bush as an honorary socialist. The choice for the future lies between a moderate Republican and two pragmatic Democrats. Whichever one wins, it's a giant kick to the teeth of narrow-minded, evangelical, warmongering conservatism.

Posted by: dhayjones | February 7, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I welcome Romneys departure as it means I might get to vote for a Republican after all. I could never vote for a two faced political opportunist who tried to win his parties nomination by outspending the competition 2 to 1 and unleashing the dirty tricks while crying foul everytime someone fought back. Not that I'm overjoyed about McCain as he seemed to take too much personal satisfaction in his attacks on Mitt. I guess it's too much to hope for to think maybe Huckabee still has a chance. I guess if all of Romney's support went to Huckabee he might, but McCain's so close now that it would almost take a miracle. I gave my support to Dr. Paul for ideological reasons even though I knew he would not win. If Hillary wins, then McCain will get my vote for sure. The only two people in the race since the beginning that I absolutely could never vote for were Mitt and Hillary. These two owe too much to special interests to ever truly have whats best for the people in their hearts. They both say whatever they think the group they are talking to wants to hear. Politician's politicians the both of them. Good riddance to the one and hopefully soon to the other.

Posted by: slbench | February 7, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow! John-Boy is not very well liked in this thread, is he?

Well, he sure isn't a Liberal (80+% undisputed conservative rating). However, this "Progressive" (since "Liberal" is an honorary four-letter word in the US of A) still likes him. He actually THINKS (mostly), which is a distinct improvement on the habits of the current President.

I won't vote for McCain, given my apparent alternatives... but I really, really like him--almost as much as Sally Field.

Posted by: wgmadden | February 7, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone notice how many people in the CPAC crowd seemed to be in their early to mid-20s -- let's call it "military service age" -- and how loudly they all cheered every time Romney or McCain mentioned the war and how the surge is working and Hillary and Barack are going to surrender our country to bin Laden at the first opportunity ... What percentage of those CPACers who can't get enough of the war would you guess have either served in the military themselves or were motivated by McCain's example to go down and enlist and be a part of a war they like so much?

Man, I hate chickenhawks.....

Posted by: TomHRyan | February 7, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney is a scum bag, just like McShame, This reminds me when we ran Bob Dole is the best we can do? Now with Mitt out is Ron Paul top tier yet? Cant wait to hear those three debate, Ron Paul will wipe the floor with them, Them maybe so of you media sheep that call yourself Republicans will see McShame is just a NorthAmericanUnionist, that really hates America and the Consitution, this bitter little troll is still pissed off we lost VietNam. Before you bash me, My dad never came back from VietNam. Vote RonPaul 08

Posted by: RaferJanders | February 7, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

McCain still says he would have invaded Iraq even knowing what he knows today. What would he use as his justification? Does he have any that haven't already been used and fallen flat? This isn't attacking. I just wonder what his reasoning is.

Posted by: Valjean1 | February 7, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

McCain's speech sounded great but it was all "Bombs & Bullets." He's determined to win in Iraq but win what and with what, the way Bush is wrecking the dollar. Particularly if he's paired against Obama, he'll have some explaining to do. Perhaps he can get a hold of a quantity of Jerry Ford's "WIN" buttons.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney is a republican, a Morman and a phony. He would have fit right in with the likes of a lying self-professed born again Christian, George Bush, the fake overweight tough guy with a pacemaker, Dick Cheney, the crook in a yomulka, Jack Abramoff and a tight-arsed punk trying to be a tough guy, Karl Rove.

Too bad we didn't get to see this phony get buried in a lndslide, the makings of his patron saint, George Bush. And even worse that he was vanguished by another republican party phony, John McCain.

On the way out while he toots his own horn, hopefully he won't let the door hit him, where the good Lord split him.

Posted by: DCSage | February 7, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Romney is a CLASS ACT and he proved today that he is a TRUE PATRIOT by taking the high road.
He got over 4 million votes compared to McCon's 4.7 million; Romney won 10 states compared to McCain's 12.
Yet he was selfless enough to step aside, although he could EASILY divide the Republican Party.
If Huck was half the Republican and patriot that Mitt is he would have done the same thing weeks ago.
Good luck Huck. You will need it. Romney is giving you a chance to prove who you really are.
Today proves that there are too many bigots and racists in the Republican party for it to even have a HOPE of a chance in November.
Mitt, you were wrong. Not only is Washington broken but your party is broken too.

Posted by: johnandsonia | February 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Wendim
You seem to be assuming that the next President will be Democratic. The polls seem to indicate that Senator McCain has a respectable chance of being elected, which would almost certainly make him, or his Vice President, the Republican nominee in 2012.
Also, you seem to be assuming that if Senator McCain loses in 2008 that Governor Huckabee will simply fade away, and that Jeb Bush or other conservative luminaries will not shine.
I am not sure that those assumptions are warranted.

Posted by: mousytongue | February 7, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Why is the Media buying into Senator McCain's fake personna? Doesn't anyone remember his interview in US News and World Report May 14, 1973:
"I think it was on the fourth day [after being shot down] that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size of a football . . . when I saw it, I said to the guard, 'O.K., get the officer' . . . an officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as 'The Bug.' He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, 'O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.'" And take him they did to the Vietkong Officers Hospital where best efforts were made to repair the injuries sustained in his faulty ejection from his aircaft (the Vietnamese rescued him from a deep lake in the middle of Hanoi where he had landed.) McCain was also offered repatriation to the US, which was refused as it would have reflected badly on his father Adm. John S. McCain Jr., commander of all U.S. forces in Europe and soon-to-be commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, including Vietnam. Doesn't anyone remember his appalling treatment of Veterans and MIAs families? Doesn't anyone remember his support of his good buddy Charles Keating whose S&L cost the US taxpayer 3.4 billion dollars? (Senator McCain's wife Cindy and her father were the big Keating investors). Doesn't anyone remember his friendship with Joe 'Bananas' Bonanno, long time Tucson resident and head of the Bonanno crime family? Doesn't the Media care?

Posted by: politics12 | February 7, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The Romney brand is rejected. He hurt the pro Life movement in Massachusetts, the Christian Church was hurt, - he hurt the family as the first Gay Marriage state in America - and that he sooooo loved the right to choose abortion. This was a self-serving brand of mere expedience. the most rabid at thse audiences were none other than Mormons. That's the facts. True, long time conservatives were left wondering - who are these people? Well, now the delusion and potential nightmare can fade away where it belongs - the attempt of delusional grander at taking over the country. its time to wake up and go for honest and sincere principle - that's REAL conservatism, and not an escort service!

Posted by: PopeLeoTheGreat | February 7, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Bye-bye, Flip Flopper Mitt Romney. We hardly knew you -- or your sorry attempts to buy the Presidency!!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/02/breaking-news-mitt-romney-will-bow-out.html#links

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | February 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I look forward to the 2012 election with great excitement now that it is inevitable that a liberal will take the helm of this country. Mitt will come in on his white horse and steer the country for 8 years back on a track that will bring prosperity and respect from the world. We will be there to welcome him warmly.

Posted by: wendim1 | February 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm. Wouldn't it be wild if I used a horse race metaphor to do "horse race" coverage. I'm so clever.

Joel

ps- Thank goodness this is not a just world.

Posted by: zukermand | February 7, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Of course, the above completely fails to note all of the favorable coverage the MSM gave McCain, including much more coverage than his rivals. The MSM constantly allowed McCain to lie and make misleading and incompletely statements without calling him on it (youtube.com/watch?v=wm0uWz2BS9M). McCain could have said the sky is green and the hacks in the MSM would not just have dutifully written it down, they would have done their best to try to convince people that the sky was, indeed, green.

And, in fact, the author of this post played his own part, including trying to portray those who oppose illegal immigration and McCain as not just racists but as Nazis:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007442.html

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 7, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company