Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: McCain and the Republicans' Woes

Two interesting things have happened over the last month that threaten to drastically reshape the political landscape for the fall.

First, Republicans lost their second and third special elections of the cycle in congressional districts that gave President George W. Bush 59 percent (Louisiana's 6th district) and 62 percent (Mississippi's 1st district) in the 2004 election.

Second, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has broken with the Bush Administration not once (global warming), not twice (handling of Hurricane Katrina) but thrice (victory in Iraq by 2013).

The factors that caused the first set of events are almost certainly the cause for the second set. That is, the Republican brand is badly damaged -- due in large part to Bush's prolonged disapproval rating of nearly two thirds -- and, as a result, House districts that are not normally considered competitive territory have suddenly turned into pickups for Democrats.

Sensing that dynamic, McCain and his campaign have made a concerted effort to break with Bush on several high-profile issues -- both foreign and domestic -- early and often.

McCain is in the midst of an attempt to re-brand the Republican party, knowing that simply running under the current voter perceptions about the two parties is a stone-cold election loser.

Congressional Republicans seem to just now be wising up to that fact, as evidenced by their statements in the wake of the Mississippi special election loss earlier this week.

"The political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general," acknowledged National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.). "Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) described the Mississippi race as a "wake up call" to his colleagues. As the teenage version of the Fix used to say in the '80s: "No duh."

At issue for McCain and congressional Republicans is whether the re-branding of the party will work in time for the November elections.

McCain has a head start in repositioning himself for the general election campaign, and he is helped by the general voter perception that he is a different kind of Republican -- a remnant of his losing 2000 presidential primary bid. This all makes him more likely than many of his colleagues in Congress to jump off the sinking ship and seek safe ground.

"McCain's long established brand as a rebel in the Republican Party is serving him very well at a time when the Party brand is in tatters," said GOP consultant Curt Anderson.

Recent national polling bears this out. In a Washington Post/ABC News survey, McCain trailed Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) by seven points while those same voters chose Democrats 53 percent to 32 percent over Republicans in terms of who was better equipped to handle the problems facing the country. Digging deeper into those numbers, McCain outperformed congressional Republicans across a variety of key demographic groups as well.

Given that dynamic, don't be terribly surprised if McCain essentially cuts loose his congressional colleagues this fall in an attempt to save himself. The phrase "triangulation" that symbolized Bill Clinton's administration could well return to the political lexicon if these numbers don't change, as McCain will feel compelled to distance himself not just from Bush but also from Republicans in Congress if he concludes they are bogging down his presidential prospects. That struggle will be made all the more intriguing by the fact that people like Cole and Boehner seem to be counseling their House colleagues to hew as closely as possible to McCain in hopes of catching some residual re-branding.

Much has changed since 2004 when President Bush insisted he did not want a "lonely victory" and actively sought to campaign in places where he could broaden his party's House and Senate majorities. In 2008, a lonely victory for McCain may be the only possible victory for his party.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 15, 2008; 2:40 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic Media Group Ditches Ad Effort
Next: McCain's Age (Again)

Comments

I fail to see how McCain has truly broken from the Shrub on Iraq simply because he publicly fantasizes (or hallucinates) that he will be able to achieve victory there by 2013. While these two fools initially claimed victory in Iraq would be (or was) accomplished very quickly, they both now reluctantly admit that the road is actually difficult and will take much more patience (and only a few more hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of unnecessary deaths and permanent maimings). McCain has tried to reinvent himself as a critic of the war effort as executed by the Bush administration (blaming Rumsfeld, not Bush). Their new tack was not taken due to any new wisdom or attempt at political distancing, however, but rather was necessitated by our complete failure to accomplish their initial predictions of quick success. Also, McCain's recognition of global warming is not that far from the Shrub's new recognition that such is a reality. As for Katrina, any fool including McCain (but excepting Bush) can see that the Shrub's incompetent response to that disaster was a separate and equally horrific disaster that has dramatic ramifications for thousands of people still suffering (who can nonetheless still vote). Since McFool is trying to win an election, it would be stupid for him to deny the obvious relating to Bush's incompetence. Bush doesn't care about the consequences of his vast failures concerning Katrina since he no longer needs to try to win (read: fix) an election and has managed to steal enough money from the Treasury to be comfortable in his exile to Dubai.

Posted by: Patrick Henry | May 19, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

There is a current issue that is not on most bloggers' radar screens, but that is very high profile in many "red states". The Farm Bill. This is a very important safety-net program among the Republican base in rural, agricultural America. Traditional Republicans are chagrined at Bush's upcoming veto of the bill, and of McCain's support for that veto. There is a reason Republican Congressmen and Senators eschewed the Bush position and supported the bill this week---and will also vote to override a veto. McCain is clueless on this, and many among his Republican base in key red states are incensed and looking for other options. Obama can beat McCain over the head with this in rural America and make some inroads there that many inside the Beltway don't see coming. This can make a big difference in states like Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, Minnesota, Louisiana, et al. You cannot kick your base in the shins and then ask them to stand by you.

Posted by: Boisemark | May 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Has McCain and the Republican leadership considered forcing some Democratic style legislation through Congress with a veto proof majority. I know they are probably recessed and all, but technically Congress starts up again after Labor Day. Pick a high-profile domestic issue written in a way Bush is sure to veto, make McCain the lead Republican sponsor and deliver it to his desk with two-thirds of both houses. Either Pelosi and/or Reid will stand in its way and be perfect ammunition for the Republicans or they will let the McCain act pass. Sure you get the "why do I want Democratic-Lite when I can have a real Democrat", but these are desperate times.

Posted by: muD | May 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I think you are on the wrong website. Post at http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm
Old crooked dick Bill may be interested.

****************
I am lucy. A beautiful woman from New York. WIRED is a quite good place to meet friends and even find whatever your need. i

am just in the beginning of my career and want to find a rich man, maybe to be my sugar daddy. so i uploaded my hot sexy even

nude photos on ..http://www.seekingsugar.com !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! maybe you want to check out my photos firstly!!

Posted by: lcuy | May 16, 2008 10:36 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Goodness gracious ! The Republican Attack Teams (also known by the acronym "RATs") will be in their splendourous 'display' for the next six months and McBush's 'Straight-Talk Express' has just been re-named the "Straight-Trash Express " !
I fully encourage their present behaviour, so that the whole world will once again be witness to their smear-ridden, gutter-politics to which they have always resorted to, because of their pathetic record on all issues, foreign and domestic !!

Posted by: Hussien for America | May 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I am lucy. A beautiful woman from New York. WIRED is a quite good place to meet friends and even find whatever your need. i

am just in the beginning of my career and want to find a rich man, maybe to be my sugar daddy. so i uploaded my hot sexy even

nude photos on ..http://www.seekingsugar.com !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! maybe you want to check out my photos firstly!!

Posted by: lcuy | May 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

A McCain goal of "victory" in Iraq is no break with Bush. Bush still says he wants to win (although we're never too sure what either one of them thinks a win would be). Jjust like Bush, McCain would stay longer (and spend more and kill more) if it doesn't happen by 2013 - or by any other date certain.

Posted by: FlownOver | May 16, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The guys that wrote my pathology text book have cancer derangement syndrome (CDS) The damn thing is like five thousand pages long and there is not ONE good thing said about cancer!

AIDS derangement syndrome too (ADS)

Posted by: DDAWD | May 16, 2008 2:43 AM | Report abuse

By the way if the articles I read on a purported FOIA gained recording between Military Stadegist/Commentators and Rumsfeld is true, just how insane is it to suggest Iraq needs more of an Authoritarian leader when Hussein was taken out, his sons, were taken out and the Republican Guard was destroyed ?

Nevermind propaganda beamed at the American Public but spinmiesters will say anything right, the republican Presumptive
nominee included ?

I guess now I fully distrust the republican party nominee because he is just another cog in the Military/Industrial Machine willing to put Arabs first rather than Americans. No offense to my friends past and present if you please.

Posted by: Mark W. | May 16, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

In an odd way I see the republicans being self destructive whether by design or by lack of presence I am not sure.

The Presumptive nominee says he needs four more years to declare mission accomplished. That feeds right into the assertion by democrats that republicans are offering four more years of George Bush.

During a populus movement in general, it would not be smart to oppose a farm bill. With disposable income decreasing while gasolene prices increase a lousy vacation season is now being forecast here and there. Food prices continue to increase. But, both McCain and Bush opposed the veto proof farm bill that passed through Congress this week. Is that a lack of presence or willful sabotage, who knows.

The irony of it all is an audio tape now appearing on the internet claimed to be recorded during one of those meetings between Military Stategist/Commentators and the Donald Rumsfeld himself. Parties claiming the tape was gained through FOIA, is reported that "The People" did not understand that Hussein would have rearmed with wmds and that what was needed now was a more authoritarian leader in Iraq. Tape is purported to be from 2006.

I had flashbacks to the republican presumptive nominee saying, "It was only a matter of time until Hussein would have reaquired wmds". I remember blogging that Libya did not rearm. Or that evidence showed that investment into Iraq was dependent on Iraq maintain a germ free state. I also shouted my head off about mere mortals making crystal ball predictions.

If mere mortals are able to predict the future, was is the republican party headed for an apocalypse now ? And is it by Divine Providence or devious objectives of mere mortals ? I don't know, maybe some are just riding the current tide of losing.

Posted by: Mark W. | May 16, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

MarkinAustin:

You may very well be right about which member states were responsible for enforcement. As I said, it has been a while since I looked at the resolutions in detail. I just had a recollection that they had gone out of their way to not mention the US (to avoid any appearance of unilateral action I presumed). The part that concerns me is the precedent of preemptive war. I just cannot accept that any such war can be morally (or legally, as far as international law goes) justified.

Posted by: silence309 | May 16, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Silence, I could not let this go without looking at the resolutions. Look at 661,670,687,588,700,1302,and 1441. 1441 specifically reminds Iraq of Ch. 7 [incl Art 42] and as you said, puts enforcement on the "Member" states. 661 as reiterated in 700, I think, put enforcement in the Security Council, however, and in one of the later resolutions Russia and China declined to join in the enforcement. Then France dropped out, so I think the remaining "661" powers were the UK and the US.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 16, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

I saw your response and it was well reasoned. I have not read the Resolutions in years but I thought when we began the no-fly zones the Security Council approved but Russia and China did not participate. But without review of the entire twelve years I accept your point[s].

Re your 10:44P post, with which I agree:
Most persons do not understand that if the President claims the power to declare an enemy of the state and a right to detain based on that declaration than there is no theoretical limit to the power except the discretion of the President.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 16, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

kingofzouk:

Actually, we do occasionally charge POWs with crimes. They are called war crimes. For example, we charged a number of Japanese officers with waterboarding US GI's during WWII. Wait...waterboarding a war crime? But...but...it is legal to do that...isn't it?

The problem with "keeping them locked up until the war is over," is that, by definition, the 'war on terror' will last forever. Or do you actually see a time when they all gather together with a white flag, cowering before our superior firepower and we see no terrorism at all? Or are you just waiting until we wipe out Islam from the face of the Earth? Either way, it will be a long time. So given a state of perpetual war your solution is to lock up anyone suspected of being a terrorist...forever. Thank god you aren't writing laws.

And I can assure you that your rights are NOT intact. You just aren't smart enough to know it. By the time you actually SEE the effects of this erosion, it is too late. But once again...you're not foreign. You're not a Muslim who maybe can't control what his friends and acquaintances do. So why should you care? Once again, a perfect example of the difference between the left and the right - the left manages to think about people beyond themselves.

I sincerely hope I never lose my idealism. Becoming an unthinking, unfeeling conservative prick would be very depressing.

And as for being reserved? I am done with that. Conservatives have been busy little bees screwing up the world, while, for the most part, the Democrats have been sitting on their asses like the cowardly tools they are. I have had it with reserve. It is time to fight. And trust me...you are going to lose.

Posted by: silence309 | May 15, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Re: McCain/Schwarzenegger '08:

Since Schwarzenegger is ineligible to be President (he's not a natural born US citizen), he's also ineligible to be Vice-President.

See the Eleventh Amendment:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Posted by: NoCal | May 15, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Markinaustin:

1) I have read the resolutions, although admittedly it has been a while.

2) I don't believe that the US and UK were tasked with policing Iraq. My understanding is that the resolutions called for "member states" to help enforcement, but I don't think we were specifically mentioned. I could be wrong though. Were we the de facto police men because we were most capable and had the most interests at stake? Yes.

3. Yes. The burden to police Iraq was limited by resolution to exclude invasion. Nowhere in any of the resolutions is military force specifically prescribed as a remedy for Iraq's failure to comply. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter a silent or implied resolution on the use of force is not permissible due to the exceptional character of both the use of force and the delegation of authority relating to its use.

4. It was not illegal under US law. The congressional resolution authorizing force took care of that. It was, however, illegal under international law. Without a UN resolution specifically authorizing force, any preemptive war is, by definition, illegal.

Posted by: silence309 | May 15, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

McCain / Schwarzenegger 2008 !!!


WILL WIN WIN WIN !!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

The Republican's won't be able to re-brand themselves until they spend some time alone in the wilderness.

My theory is the Pelosi will be a better Speaker because she feels the eyes of history on her as the "woman Speaker". Same deal for the next president: that they'll mind their P's and Q's because they'll be the first to hold the office - and they won't want to screw it up like the Republican's have.

If I'm right then the GOP could spend a long time outside looking in.

Posted by: NoOneImportant | May 15, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

"McCain is in the midst of an attempt to re-brand the Republican party, . . . "

I disagree. McCain is trying to re-brand himself.

The attitude of the Republican 'base' towards him is "We're waiting to be courted." The party itself won't have the courage to shed it's current 'base' until it spends some time alone in the wilderness.

I figured that Pelosi would be a good Speaker, because she feels history watching her every move as the first woman to hold that office. Last thing she wants is to tranish the image of a "female Speaker of the House".

Same deal with the next president - they're going to be on their best behavior being the first to hold the office.

If I'm correct - the Republican's could spend a long time outside looking in.

Posted by: NoOneImportant | May 15, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter, who happens to be quite comfortable with John McCain. He is an honorable man, and he's not business as usual for the most part. That's why most conservatives hate him.
You can't retreat back into the 1850's with someone who actually cares about the people...all the people...who live in the nation, and Senator McCain does. He cares a lot more than these conservatives who push the country into a fight every chance they get...as long as they, or their kids, don't have to get involved in the fight. Ever notice flag-waving conservatives, like the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannity's never volunteered for service? Senator McCain understands what it's like to go to war, and there's no doubt about that.

Unfortunately for Senator McCain, his issue is the Republican record over the past 8 years. President Bush has run the train off the tracks. Mr Bush presided over a nation with a surplus when he walked in, and refused to raise taxes once the expense of the war became overwhelming. Instead, he sold us to the Chinese. Mr. Bush started the war, and could not adequately promote the rationale behind the action. Going to war based solely upon intel...and not having other means to support the action was a huge mistake.

Mr. McCain has to split himself away from the conservative cause that promoted the initiation of war in Iraq, the spending of trillions of dollars on defense, selling the nation to the People's Republic of China, fiddling while global warming; whether man-made or not, its melting the planet, and watching gas prices skyrocket while his friends make money hand over fist. Not much of what's happened on Bush's watch has been a winner. It's amazing what hot-button issues like gay marriage, that affect hardly anyone who isn't in that type of relationship...can turn an election in a particular candidate's favor. Basically, Republicans have to win by getting people to ignore what's happened over the past 8 years, and that promises to be more difficult to do for Senator McCain.

Mr. McCain has to do more than say he's going to cut taxes, not let the nation get pushed around, and prevent gay marriage. That's all the Republicans have done. Heck, Mr. Bush didn't even stop gay marriage!

Posted by: pga3 | May 15, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Nevermind my handle here. I'm a voter with an open mind. I would honestly like to hear from Republicans whom plan to vote for McCain. Kudos to those Republicans whom do not.

Seriously, I am curious from another's point of view. We've seen the great spotlight with the Democrats lol. I am interested if any would openly state what is going on and their opinions with the Republican camp that hasn't gotten as much spotlight. I'm just curious. Any takers? What exactly is going on. Where do you stand with it? I don't get to read those comments as much. Please enlighten!

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 15, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

There is no possibility that McCain will be able to re-brand the Republicans. It isn't just the last eight years, although, that really would be enough, it is the whole long time since Richard Nixon that Republicans have had their opportunity to bring about a better world.
They have failed. Our nation is ready for a HUGE change. That is what the three special elections that the Republicans have lost, in Republican territory, mean.
There is nothing they can do because they have done this to themselves.
McCain is a weak candidate: old, surrounded by lobbyists, making blunder after blunder on the current campaign trail.
The energized and inspired Democrats are going to make mincemeat of him. As well they should.

Posted by: cms1 | May 15, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

There is no possibility that McCain will be able to re-brand the Republicans. It isn't just the last eight years, although, that really would be enough, it is the whole long time since Richard Nixon that Republicans have had their opportunity to bring about a better world.
They have failed. Our nation is ready for a HUGE change. That is what the three special elections that the Republicans have lost, in Republican territory, mean.
There is nothing they can do because they have done this to themselves.
McCain is a weak candidate: old, surrounded by lobbyists, making blunder after blunder on the current campaign trail.
The energized and inspired Democrats are going to make mincemeat of him. As well they should.

Posted by: cms1 | May 15, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

McCain has a lifetime Conservative voting record of over 83% and over 90% since his 2000 presidential run. He is no moderate/Maverick. It is a carefully crafted image. He is a neocon true believer - more bellicose Bush-style foreign policy. His tax policies now reflect the borrow and deficit spend policies of Bush. He talks of the moral outrage of torture but then votes with Bush and the Republicans to preserve the right to torture. His supreme court would be a nightmare. I could go on. He is not a break from the failed policies of the Conservatives but a continuation.

Posted by: birdman | May 15, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Silence wrote:

"(Note that I do not regard the invasion of Iraq as illegal even though under international law, it most assuredly was.)"

1. Have you read the UN's Iraq Resolutions?

2. If so, do you argue the US and UK were not burdened with the obligation to police Iraq?

3. Do you argue that the burden to police Iraq was limited by resolution to exclude invasion?

4. If you think it was assuredly illegal why do you not argue that it was illegal in your view?

Just curious.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 15, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Vote Obama and save a soldiers life...

Posted by: Vote Obama and save a soldiers life... | May 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"Or had you not noticed that NONE of them has been charged with a crime? "

We generally don't charge POWs with a crime, we just keep them locked up until the war is over. and the funny thing is, they don't even quailify for the nice treament, not wearing a uniform and fighting for a specific country and avoiding civilians and all.

I assure you my rights are perfectly intact and it seems as if yours are doing swell.

After you get out of school and experience the real world a bit, you may climb down off your idealistic horse. I did.

then you launch from a fairly reasonable stance into the usual liberal kookiness:

"Let's just kill them all and let god sort them out. They're just foreign scum. They don't matter."

and therfore discredit all the progress you made. I hope if you ever become a practicing trial attorney scumbag, you learn to be a little more reserved when trying to convice others of your merits.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

The Fix is in error when it claims that McCain is breaking with Bush by setting a date of 2013 to exit Iraq. If you read the speech, he did no such thing. The speech was a list of things McCain said he'd like to see at the end of his frist term. One of those things was an Iraq that meets all his criteria for removing "most" U.S. troops from the country. These criteria include an end to the civil war, manageable violence levels, and Iraq government able to exert its authority in every province in the country, etc. The 2013 date was not a commitment to remove U.S. troops by 2013. It was *only* a date McCain wants to have achieved the conditions under which he could remove "most" troops ("most" could equal one soldier more than half the troops). In other words, to be as charitable as possible to McCain, all the candidate revealed in his speech is the date by which he thinks it is possible to achieve his definition of victory. The problem, of course, is that there is not certainty -- in fact, considerable grounds for great skepticism -- that McCain's goals can be reached in that timeframe, or, for that matter, in any time frame.
Four years is a long time to wait for a serious drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. But the point is that McCain did not commit even to that. He merely expressed a desire -- or, to be the most charitable, a prediction -- that certain conditions be met such that the troops can be removed.
So when the major national newspapers say that McCain has set a timeline for drawdown, they have it wrong.

Posted by: Reg Gilbert | May 15, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, the Nazi brand was seriously damaged by the invasion of other countries and the Holocaust. The Communist brand was seriously damaged by Stalin, Iron Curtain and the Gulags for political dissidents.

The Republican brand was seriously damaged by inviting the radical right-wing evangelicals into government, by invading another country under false pretenses and bankrupting a nation for the benefit of it's corporate supporters, for supporting torture and unlimited power by the executive branch, by...the list goes on and on.

There are those who will claim that Hitler hijacked REAL National Socialism, that Stalin and Mao hijacked REAL communism and that Bush/Rove/Cheney hijacked REAL Republicanism but, like the above brands, the Republican brand will never recover.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"silence, you will forgive me if I don't consider the countries biggest problem the short -term discomfort of some terrorist a-hole. you seem overwrought."

I am not overwrought. I am angry...and quite lucid right now. I am also currently in law school, motivated in no small part by GWB's actions. In my opinion, a president who continually disregards the law is a fairly serious problem - certainly more important than how much the government is spending in its budget.

I am not concerned about terrorists rights, I am concerned about my rights, your rights, and the rights of the innocent people at Guantanamo Bay. Or had you not noticed that NONE of them has been charged with a crime? But the government never makes mistakes right? So why do we need habeas corpus? Or laws against torture? After all, it works for Jack Bauer, right? Let's just kill them all and let god sort them out. They're just foreign scum. They don't matter.

And bringing up Clinton's pardons when GWB pardoned Libby for obstructing justice, strikes me as ludicrous. Libby lied to the FBI to protect the administration. I admit there was no underlying crime. Libby was lying to avoid admitting that GWB had declassified intelligence to politically smear an opponent. It wasn't illegal (although frankly it smacks of obstrcution of justice), just immoral and slimy. Clinton's pardons may have benefited his supporters, but Bush's pardons benefited himself. Which is more reprehensible?

Posted by: silence309 | May 15, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

As shown by the comments of the blabbering W brigade, those supporters of Bush Jr do NOT represent the US political, social and religious mainstream.

They're radicals and extremists, they know it, they know their mindset is thoroughly despised by the voters, and even better, the blabbering W brigade knows that none of their easily-debunked drivel can sway enough voters to stop a political massacre that's going to be worse for the GOP at the ballot box this year than the party suffered in the 2006 elections.

All the GOP's problems are self-inflicted, brought about by the party's spectacular corruption, colossal incompetence and unearned arrogance.

"Milk Crate" McCain is going to get rightfully crushed in November, and the GOP's woes aren't going to be made any easier by it's desperate attempts to now separate itself from the Bush Jr Administration.

Just watch how many GOP candidates will pledge, leading up to the elections, that they'll insist on strong Congressional oversight of the next Administration. Maybe if they felt that strongly about Congressional oversight of the current Administration the Republicans wouldn't be thought of as hypocrites and Bush Jr lackeys, showing far more loyalty to this Administration than the Constitution every Representative & Senator swears to uphold and defend from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The easiest way to show up the Bush Jr radical, extremist lackeys is to point out how the next President-undoubtedly a Dem-will be able to claim the SAME unchecked, imperial powers Bush Jr has.

Those who favor Bush Jr's power to warrantlessly spy on US citizens and purely domestic communications won't favor the very same unchecked, imperial powers wielded by a President Obama or President Clinton, especially if it's gun fanatics taking their turns under the warrantless spying microscope.

The GOP and the blabbering W brigade cannot logically-I know, "logically", a word and concept unknown to the blabbering W brigade-be in favor of only one particular President claiming unfettered authority to supersede the Constitution and the law, then decry those powers being used by a Democratic President.

So the Bush Jr lackeys can either help stop Bush Jr from using or claiming those powers, or they can keep their mealy mouths shut if the Democratic President spies, with NO legal oversight, on causes dear to the GOP and blabbering W brigade.

This wailing and gnashing of GOP teeth over the upcoming repudiation by the US voters is so thoroughly enjoyable, pure Republican misery worth gloating about.

Posted by: KingCranky | May 15, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have big woes of their own and his name is Obama.

Posted by: Bigbee | May 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

When was free sex ever a plank of the Democratic platform?


so do you support government funded abortions? how about condoms in middle schools, birth control without parents consent? If I clintonize the term into "low-cost sex" will you go along with the new definition? how about the ultimate insult - letting a live baby die after they survive a partial birth "procedure". In fact, your candidate fought hard for letting the defenseless infant die and prohibited the doctor from helping him. that is going to make a great campaign add.

but of course the Libs will call it racist somehow. no fair holding someone's voting record (when they actually do cast a vote) against them. that is so old school.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

silence - you cleverly left off the rest of the list:

high taxes, weak defense, regulation, big government

I believe those are the essential planks of the Dem platform.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"I always thought voters were pretty good at discerning an imitation (or late convert) with the real thing"

It would seem that the voters of WV are indeed good at this.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I always thought voters were pretty good at discerning an imitation (or late convert) with the real thing. That is to say, if you think republicans screwed things up, then the best alternative is voting for a democrat, not a republican talking like a democrat.

Posted by: Max | May 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Blue-Two another overwrought Lib rant devoid of facts and replete with hyperbole:

Market collapse

muzzled scientist

you have been watching Krazy Keith haven't you? did you forget that there is no factual "news" on his program, only hyper-partisan outlandish opinion. As you have just aptly demonstrated.

I know many liberals who make perfect snese and don't need to resort to the wild accusations and hyperventilating drindl-isms you all employ here. what is wrong with you people?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

When was free sex ever a plank of the Democratic platform?


sorry I got a hobby confused with a position. but you all have thrown bill and hill out so you don't have to worry about this anymore, do you SPitz?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

silence, you will forgive me if I don't consider the countries biggest problem the short -term discomfort of some terrorist a-hole. you seem overwrought.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

There is a class of people who are habitual Republican voters. They are sensible people who want government to spend less and to do less. They voted for Bush because he said he wanted smaller government and lower taxes. Bush also said he embraces the God, guns, and gays morality stance of southern, religious conservatives. Well, Bush did not deliver on smaller government. It grew. Spending grew. Taxes were reduced on the very wealthy. Everybody else pays taxes as usual. The national debt multiplied. No progress on banning gays or those flag burners. No progress on putting the Ten Commandments in every classroom nationwide. No change in gun policy; it remains guns available to everyone. The nation was attacked, physically, on his watch by a group of inspired Saudi Arabians. So, true to form, Bush attacked Iraq. That was supposed to take only a few weeks and U.S. involvement would end. Only it didn't. Government scientists were muzzled by Bush appointees because they measured and found, contrary to received wisdom, Global Warming to be on account of human activity. Praying to God won't improve that situation. The housing/industrial complex went on a spree that, absent meaningful regulation on Bush's watch, permitted fraudulent behavior and market collapse. Presidential papers (i.e. e-mails) have gone missing, in violation of law. On a record like that, how could sane voters choose to prolong the agony?

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | May 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

silence309, Calling President Bush an "admitted felon" is not a valid or respectable postion, imo. You seem obsessed about it, a common affliction of the left.


What about the many felons that President Clinton pardoned? These are actual felons-
and, three recipients of 11th-hour pardons issued by Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife.

Clinton was impeached and issued a staggering 395 pardons! Until that time no one has lied to the American people as did William Jefferson Clinton, that is why he was impeached, because he is a felon, convicted or not. Lying under oath is a felony. You have no grounds against Bush.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk"

Bussing? Free sex? Welfare? What on earth are you talking about? Who is arguing about these things this campaign season? When was free sex ever a plank of the Democratic platform?

We could have legitimate debates about conservative principles and I am not prepared to defend every liberal policy, but the point I am unwilling to let go is the one about GWB violating the law. Waterboarding is specifically defined as torture under US and international law. GWB has publicly admitted ordering the CIA to waterboard people. Ergo, GWB has violated the law (as did the CIA employees in question, but that is another story - I am unwilling to have GWB dump this on lowly subordinates like he did in the Abu Ghraib case). Just because he had his stooges in the Office of Legal Counsel come up with a memo "legalizing" his actions, doesn't make them legal. By the way, that memo was withdrawn within a matter of months because it was in fact, inaccurate, and did NOT reflect current legal standards. But he is the president and is therefore only subject to prosecution by the Senate in an impeachment trial and because the Democrats do not have enough votes, they have refrained from making the attempt. Why waste the time if you are virtually certain that Republicans will vote against it? If any other person in this country had admitted doing this, he would currently be under indictment. I will also point out that GWB has assiduously avoided judicial review of most of his actions in this arena. The reason? Because he knows they will not withstand the scrutiny. And this is just the torture issue. He has also admitted violations of the Hatch Act, surveillance laws, federal information retention regulations, and FISA regulations. (Note that I do not regard the invasion of Iraq as illegal even though under international law, it most assuredly was.)

GWB is a criminal. When he loses his power over the apparatus of justice and the Supreme Court DOES end up repudiating his positions, remember this exchange.

Posted by: silence309 | May 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Would someone please tell Tom Cole that this country is going nowhere with the Pelosi Congress ???


What have the Pelosi democrats done to help the economy ???


Pelosi has a do-nothing Congress here and Tom Cole is strained to point it out.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

William K writes
"Barack Obama is upset at this statement by President Bush. Why? What does he disagree with? Shouldn't he just have seconded the president's admonition against falling for such a foolish delusion. Or does he know that his promise to talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad puts him in the camp of the foolish delusionists?"

Senator Obama is in the camp that includes Condi Rice & Secretary of Defense Gates, who are both proponents of sitting down with Iran in a diplomatic setting rather than bombing them back to the stone age & creating a 3rd front in the war on terror, not to mention another country of potential terrorists.

What is most offensive about President Bush's comments is that he ignores the fact that his own people - his top foreign policy people, the Secretaries of State & Defense - are actively pursuing diplomatic relationships with various enemies & state sponsors of terror, but he finds it amusing & appropriate to group such folks in with Nazi appeasers of the 30s. What would be comical, if it weren't so sad, is how his neanderthal supporters lap it up like a dog at his own puddle of vomit.

Posted by: bsimon | May 15, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Tom Cole should really get a grip on what this country is pessimistic about : higher Obama taxes that are going to drag the economy down more.


Seriously Tom Cole has to focus in on the solutions.

Present an economic plan to the American public - heavily weight it toward the working middle class which has made this nation strong and which has been hammered by the free trade policies of the democrats.


Very simple.


The American people are actually a little ahead of Tom Cole.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Everyone hear about the latest rhetorical efforts of Bush (in his speech before the Israeli Knesset) and McCain in his follow-up comments, to paint Barack Obama as an "appeaser" for favoring diplomacy first? Chris Matthews just did all intelligent Americans proud by exposing some far-right nut named Kevin James (apparently a West Coast far-right talk-radio host) as a no-knowledge fraud. James was a guest on Hardball to discuss the Bush/McCain comments and invoked a comparison of Obama and former Conservative Party British PM Neville Chamberlain. James' historical knowledge was so lacking that he had no clue when asked by Matthews about Chamberlain's actions at the Munich Conference. Typical uninformed right-wing moron.

Posted by: OHIO CITIZEN | May 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom wrote:

"The new Republican party is fresh and rebellious."

Yes, fresh out of ideas and rebelling at the thought of a Democratic sweep in November.


Posted by: thorn | May 15, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

With all respect, you are out of touch with the Republican party and McCain's message.

The main problem in the House races were bad candidates especially in Mississippi and Illinois.

In Illinios, the candidate Oberweis ran something like 5 times in 6 years, and kept on coming up short - no one liked him - to extrapolate that guy over the whole country would be difficult - you would have to clone a very unlikable guy and get him the nominations all over.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

I am familiar with BDS. It is a typically shallow ad hominem attack designed to marginalize lefty critics. It (and you in your post) completely fail to address the substance of the criticism and instead, attack the critic. My complaints are dismissed as irrational while you fail to explain how you can justify supporting an admitted felon (even if, because he is essentially immune to prosecution, he has not been convicted). Actually...I take that back. Your reasoning is implicit in your answer: you support him because you believe it to be in your own economic interest. And that is where I believe our differences lie. To me, our country's integrity and prestige is extremely important. To you, the important thing is how much you are paying in taxes. It is hard for me to respect that point of view.

Posted by: silence309 | May 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, President Bush, speaking to the Israeli Knesset, today:


"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."


Barack Obama is upset at this statement by President Bush. Why? What does he disagree with? Shouldn't he just have seconded the president's admonition against falling for such a foolish delusion. Or does he know that his promise to talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad puts him in the camp of the foolish delusionists?

-----------------------------------


Barack Obama, inexperienced waffler and typical politician.

Posted by: William K | May 15, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

The Republican party voted out the old brand last winter - were you watching another horse race???

The new Republican party is fresh and rebellious.


Any attempt to tie McCain to Bush is a little wacky - Bush's people smeared McCain in South Carolina and the relationship went down from there. If anyone tries to sell you that line, they are a liar.


McCain rules.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


Are you going to be amazed when we tell you that McCain is the REAL CHANGE AGENT


Obama is the same old liberal policies


tax everyone, create more jobs for their cronies - and more government programs.


McCain is a fresh rebel - he is perfect for this nation.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"Do you really consider liberal critiques of GWB's performance to be solely based on some kind of irrational dementia? Because I have news for you...there is a MOUNTAIN of tangible evidence that indicates not only that conservative ideology is deeply flawed,"

Is that why Libs keep winning elections by running on conservatiuve values?

More cognitive dissonance from the moonbats I see.
the facts are that all the liberal 60s policies that you Libs keep trying to reseccitate are the ideas that are deeply flawed: busing, welfare, free sex, abortion, high taxes, weak defense, regulation, big government. did you not notice the demise of the CCCP, because the capitalist method was not employed. Yet you want to try again.

the prestige of america - try to live in the real world for once - Germany, France, Italy, etc have all recently elected pro-US leaders. Hardly a result one would expect from our damaged prestige.

and if there are so many tortured, trampled, silenced americans running around, how come the NYTimes can't find a single poster child for this campaign of misinformation?

the President has violated the law - I had no idea your Supreme court case ruling had come back in your favor. can you cite the result for us fly-over rubes who might have missed your glorious victory?

Otherwise your laundry list is akin to a Krazy Keith rant about the detritus from angry leftist blogs - a ratings disaster.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

This quote says everything:

"McCain's long established brand as a rebel in the Republican Party is serving him very well at a time when the Party brand is in tatters," said GOP consultant Curt Anderson.

Thank you Chris:

However, I have to point out - where were you during the Republican primaries ???


Did you not know that the Republican party voted out the old ways and voted in McCain????


Were you distracted as Obama would say?


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

There is much Wisdom in What I say


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Do you really consider liberal critiques of GWB's performance to be solely based on some kind of irrational dementia?"


Speaking for myself, Yes.

It has a name: Bush Derangement Syndrome.


But, (also speaking for myself), I am angry about the abandonment of the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint during Bush's tenure.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

OK, moonbat, I'll bite. Let's cover this point by point.

Let's assume that all your fears about the big bad bush are accurate. does it then make sense to allow the dimwits who voted him in to have the ability to repeat their mistake at any time in the future?

Or. alternatively, we could eliminate the power that is centralized in Washington and even more so in the President. But liberals want to expand this power. how could one guy mess things up so bad? Maybe it is just government in general that always messes things up. why would anyone in their right mind want to do more of that error, unless you're in your left mind that is.

and to counter your bushaphobia, we have had record expansion in the economy, record low inflation, record unemployment, record wealth creation, practically scandel free administration led by an honest and community minded man. No attacks on the homeland and many other benefits.

I gues you miss a president who is consumed with his image and lining his pockets, who could care less about the general welfare and the military.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Shouldn't Words of Wisdom contain some wisdom? I'm just saying...

Posted by: Agreeing with Everyone | May 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

To the gutsy anonymous poster of:

"blither blather eeep squawk drool splat Libs froth rant,"

Let me ask you this: exactly what malfeasance would it require for you to get angry about GWB's conduct?

As for me, invading a sovereign country that did nothing to us and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives in a counterproductive attempt to "confront evildoers" while simultaneously uniting the entire Muslim world in the belief that we are engaged in a modern day crusade, pisses me off.

Failing to give due process of law to American citizens pisses me off.

Torturing people pisses me off.

Illegal surveillance pisses me off.

The complete politicization of the Justice Dept. (not to mention the rest of the federal govt) pisses me off.

The loss of America's global prestige pisses me off.

What pisses you off? Let me guess - high taxes? Cheating on your wife with an intern? Foaming-at-the-mouth liberals? Exactly what kind of moral standard do you have?

Do you really consider liberal critiques of GWB's performance to be solely based on some kind of irrational dementia? Because I have news for you...there is a MOUNTAIN of tangible evidence that indicates not only that conservative ideology is deeply flawed, but that GWB is most certainly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. See this link to "Waterboarding used to be a crime" by Evan Wallach:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

Our criticism is NOT irrational. He has committed at least three federal crimes, according to the strict letter (and intent) of the law. Just because Senate Democrats don't have enough votes to impeach him, doesn't mean he isn't guilty. If he wants to argue that what he did was in the national interest, then fine, he can argue that at his trial. But to allow him to act above the law, when one of the founding principals of our Republic is that no man should be above the law, undermines the very rule of law and thus, the integrity of the United States. And yes...that pisses me off.

So I ask again: what exactly would he have to do to piss you off?

Posted by: silence309 | May 15, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Then there are the record low congressional approval ratings. No Congress has fallen as far and as fast as the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid-led House and Senate. Unlike President Bush, congressional Democrats will be on the ballot this fall, and can do little to improve their lackluster record before then. It must also be disconcerting for Ms. Pelosi that the Democrats' winning formula has meant conceding ground on guns, prayer, partial-birth abortion and other issues that matter to social conservatives.

Posted by: Karl R | May 15, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

There's comedy in the air surrounding McCain wherever he goes. It all comes out humorously garbled when he tries to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time on every issue on the table. If it looks bad for him now, it's going to be even worse when the dust settles in early November, and that's when the real laughing starts. In the mean time, we can all sit back and have an ongoing chuckle as the old fellow tries to rearrange the deck chairs on his personal, sinking Titanic.

Posted by: Butch Dillon | May 15, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse


President Bush said in a speech to the Israeli parliament:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," the president said.


McCain countered that Obama's approach to foreign policy is ripe for questioning.

"I think Barack Obama needs to sit down and explain why he wants to talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, who wants to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust. That is what I think that Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people," he said while on a bus to the airport.

"It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama that shows naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of Israel. My question is what does he want to talk about?"

Joe Biden rebuts:

"This is bull[oney]. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset...and make this kind of ridiculous statement," Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

"He's the guy who's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something."

John McCain: straight talker or typical washington politician?

Posted by: bsimon | May 15, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Texting Wrigley Field Texting Wrigley Field Words of Wisdom is a Republican.

Wrigley Field come in, Wrigley Field come in.


We figured it out - Words of Wisdom is a Republican !!!!!!

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

drindl has a very good point


It is true, that is what they are attempting to do.

However, in the process, they are making a mockery of their own campaign theme, a transcendent America - a post-racial candidate coming to save the country from itself.

The people of this country can see a fraud a mile away.

Let me advance that the people of West Virginia have called this elitist fraud out for who he is.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama headquarters is texting Wrigley Field right now to tell them that Words of Wisdom is a Republican.

Whole new situation here, huh???

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who disagrees with Saint Obama in any way is by liberal defintion a racist. If you were stuck with our issues and solutions, you would be forced to fight this way too. What else do we have?

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

McCain is the same brand he was 10 years ago.


I am surprised at this posting.

Where was Obama 10 years ago when McCain was staking out these positions ????

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse


To the poster at 4:03


If screen names could file defamation suits, you would be sued - you do not even cite the comment which prompted your vicious false attack.

Take your attacks elsewhere.

Take your hatred for the white people of American elsewhere.

I guess I'm just a "typical white person" who looks scared with black people walk down the street like they are going to mug someone.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Many leftists learn nothing, know nothing, and propel themselves not with practical wisdom, but with outrage and contempt and a desire to punish those who do not agree with them."

I resemble that remark!

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Larry,

You are entitled to your opinion as wrong as it is but just worry about Mccain. There is a lot of dirt on a man with SO many years in politics being a WASHINGTON POLITICIAN. See where that got us now...bang up job your party did vetting Bush

Posted by: All ready in the general | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Bonjedi


How is Obama headquarters doing today? Kreuz-missile off to the Cubs game????

give me a break, get lost.

The democrats are seeking to define the Republicans.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed that as of this afternoon (5/15, 3 p.m.), only FOUR of the 19 delegates previously pledged to John Edwards have declared for Obama?

An omen?

Posted by: scrivener | May 15, 2008 2:59 PM
=========================================
No not an omen...how many went to Hillary?...dramatic pause.....
N O N E

Posted by: All ready in the general | May 15, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Hmmm -- 'attack Obama viciously,' huh? Don't say you weren't warned."

--------------------------------------

Good. If any of his fellow Democrats, or the "independent" media for that matter, had actually vetted Obama's candidacy - featuring a comically thin résumé, a history of ducking tough votes, and a legion of racist/terrorist/criminal hangers-on - then that loser would have never been in a position to get the nomination. Shame on the Democrats if they nominate this guy. And shame on the supposedly non-partisan media for doing nothing but blow Obama wet kisses.

Posted by: Larry M. | May 15, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, the biggest problem for the Republicans here (and the reason why McCain will almost certainly lose) is that they are looking at this as essentially a marketing problem. They admit no problems with their policies or assumptions (as far as I can tell, for no other reason than their belief that admitting a mistake is somehow 'weak'), the problem as they see it is that they have not 'sold' the American people on their leadership. If they spent a little more time developing intellectually sound policies and a little less time worrying about how to market poorly reasoned and implemented policies, the country might be better off and the Republicans might not be faced with decades of overwhelming Democratic control.

This is what happens when you govern ideologically instead of pragmatically.

Posted by: silence309 | May 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

McCain is already rebranded, a rebranded GWB. If the MSM would do the job and not suck-up to McCain it would be obvious to anyone within earshot that McCain is GWB redux. I think Obama's calling a McCain election GWB's third term is accurate and probably deadly too.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | May 15, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse


John McCain wants to double the Bush tax cuts. But how does this erstwhile fiscal conservative plan to pay for it? An excellent question - and one his campaign has so far failed to answer.

McCain's tax plan would cost a whopping $300 billion (to put that in perspective, we spend about $200 billion a year on the war in Iraq). According to our accounting, McCain has so far managed to offset a grand total of $33 billion, or 11% of his tax cut.

As we have chronicled on this blog, the other savings McCain claims are bogus. So where will this former budget hawk come up with the more than $250 billion he needs to pay for his plan?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

blither blather eeep squawk drool splat Libs froth rant

Posted by: more zouk lies | May 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Or consider the Democrats' promise to pay for their new or expanded programs by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Though neither the Obama campaign nor the Clinton campaign is forthcoming with the costs of its promises, the National Taxpayers Union estimates that the Obama platform will increase federal spending by $307.3 billion. The Clinton platform's price tag is $226.1 billion. No rollback of the Bush tax cuts would cover that kind of wanton spending increase. The Heritage Foundation puts the figure at less than $60 billion annually. Amazed by the dishonesty of the presidential candidates, The Washington Post's economics columnist lamented this week that "the candidates dissemble because they believe that Americans don't want the truth. It would be too upsetting."

Posted by: more lib lies | May 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

From: Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/change-that-you-deserve.html

Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Change That You Deserve

From the Chicago Tribune:

"The slogan unveiled this week by House Republicans - "Change you deserve" - is already a trademark used by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals to market its antidepressant Effexor XR."

Black Screen.

Fade into:

Scene of a thin grey haired man standing in a green field. Behind him we can see the sun is rising.

"I got the change I deserved with GOP"

Cut to a small child, in a sun dress, who looks up at him and smiles.

"I was tired, listless. I had lost interest in my usual activities--creating false attacks, acting as if I had been unfairly attacked about issues created out of whole cloth, drawing specious historical parallels, fawning over ideologically bankrupt manufactured father figures. Sure, I sent emails claiming that Obama was a Muslim, but somehow...it had lost the spark, the enjoyment of everyday life."

Cut to a child who rides by on a bicycle, and throws a newspaper on the front porch.

"That's when I found GOP."

Cut to man rowing in a scull across a still river. He turns to the camera, smiles.

"In clinical studies, GOP has been found to increase aggressiveness in the absence of actual provocation in 8 out of 10 users. In most users, the desire to gleefully attack returns in 1 week. Full enthusiasm for invented ideas in two. "

Cut to image of porch swing.

"With GOP, my attention to minor distractions fully returned, until I was again building them into major accusations of flawed character. Once again, my intense focus on pins, buttons, sentences fragments and remote relationships as absolute indications of personal virtue and ability was at its peak. For an entire weekend, I could one again choose the right moment to accuse a candidate of treason without cause--when I was ready, when the time felt right".

Cut to a series of blurred images: long, stringy haired teens in torn jeans and ironic 80's t-shirts lounging by the Washington Monument; picture of John Kerry in a Swift Boat during Vietnam;
Eiffel Tower. Plate of Arugula. During these images, rapid voiceover in female voice:

"GOP may cause monosyllabism, inability to consider two differing concepts at the same time, memory loss or inaccurate recall of recently and repeatedly presented intelligence information, focus on size of automobiles or koro, sequential nicknaming, knowing mischaracterization, hooting. If you have a desire to read the collected works of Ann Coulter that lasts longer than four hours, this may be a sign of a dangerous condition and you should contact your physician immediately."

Cut back to man standing in field. American flag waving in the distance behind him, below a risen sun. A woman walks up beside him, puts her arm around him, and smiles.

Man:

"So get the change that you deserve. Talk to your doctor about GOP. Soon, you'll be walking by the homeless on the street again and saying "Let them get a job!"

Or better yet--let them get GOP."

Woman smiles.

Fade.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/change-that-you-deserve.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | May 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I SEE WORDS OF WISDOM IS A RACIST AND A REPUBLICAN WHAT A SURPRISE.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Excellent theme music selection.

Posted by: dk | May 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Some would call McCain's efforts rebranding. Others would call it putting lipstick on the pig. I would guess that this will turn out to be more of Macko saying one thing while doing another.

Judging by the posts here already, there is a portion of the electorate that is still falling for the straight-talking maverick image, rather than an out-of-touch mope fond of talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is lucky it accidentally nominated the one guy who could potentially disengage from the Republican brand and run toward the middle.

Posted by: ed lahoa | May 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Neither Obama nor his party seems to understand how incentives motivate human behavior -- not force, not coercion, not mockery, not nursery-school regulation, but real possibilities of good fruits up ahead for free and responsible actions. They do not understand the wellsprings of a virtuous, free, and prosperous society. They are still entangled in the fantasies of the European Left of 150 years ago.

Thus, Obama is now the creature and the prisoner of the American far Left, which has learned nothing from the failures of socialist and statist and anti-capitalist ideas during the past hundred years. Many leftists learn nothing, know nothing, and propel themselves not with practical wisdom, but with outrage and contempt and a desire to punish those who do not agree with them.

Posted by: Novak | May 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

McCain has been talking about different positions for the Republicans for years - since the 2000 elections.


Who knows where Obama was then.


The point of your posting seems curious - like you never heard anything McCain had to say before. McCain has been talking about changing the lobbyist system, campaign contributions etc.

That is why we have primaries - the voters of a party get to choose a new course - the Republican voters have choosen a new course.

I am curious as to why you think this news to you.

This was the whole point of McCain running for the nomination -

.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

the whole problem boils down to Lib liars getting into office on Repub issues. for example I promise to honor the 2nd amendment, I promise to respect the pre-born, I will eliminate earmarks, I will institute pay-go, I will work five days a week, I will play fair in the rules committee, I will balance the budget, I will lose the war now, etc.

All Lib lies meant only to get elected and fool the troglodytes that support them. If a Lib ever had to tell the truth, thier days would be numbered.

Ask Obama whether he will wear a flag pin or not. ask him how he sat for 20 years and didn't hear. ask him how one can rack up so many "present" votes. ask him to detail the non-partisan issues he has advanced. ask him how he will pay for his huge spending. ask him how his waffle tastes.

you can't get a straight answer because there isn't one.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


All these things are consistent with McCain's positions over the past 10 years, when he first started thinking about running for President.

McCain has always supported the environment.


McCain wants to end the war - he just wants to win first. Obama wants to quit before we finish the job.


McCain has always been a different kind of Republican - the Republican voters in the primary gave the go-ahead to the rebranding last winter.

Didn't you read the election returns???

Posted by: Words of Widsom | May 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse


"We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy," promised Chris LaCivita, one of the Republican strategists behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry in 2004.

Hmmm -- "attack Obama viciously," huh? Don't say you weren't warned.

Posted by: party of hatred | May 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris: That Flash upgrade has made your site much more readable. Do the posts now accept links, or is that just for the blogger-in-chief? Thanks to your technocrats for the improvement.

Posted by: scrivener | May 15, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed that as of this afternoon (5/15, 3 p.m.), only FOUR of the 19 delegates previously pledged to John Edwards have declared for Obama?

An omen?

Posted by: scrivener | May 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Technical problems, CC? You guys sure do have poor tech skills.

Since Bush has been president, McCain has agreed with him on issues 95%. He has been in Congress, what, 20 years?

He's part of the problem, not the solution.

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company