Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain's Negative Flyer

To date the leading candidates for president have largely avoided any direct confrontations with one another, believing -- perhaps rightly -- that any sort of major scuffle will leave both sides damaged in the eyes of voters.

But, behind the scenes an all-out war of information (and misinformation) is going on as each campaign seeks to ensure that reporters, activists and other political hangers-on are made aware of each and every negative article, misstatement or controversial policy position made or advocated by their opponents.

While most of these attacks fly below The Fix's radar screen we managed to get our hands on a flyer that was handed out last Friday night at a gathering of the Charleston (S.C.) County Republican Party. (You can see the flyer here.)

Paid for by Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential exploratory committee, the handout compares and contrasts McCain's positions on hot-button social issues like abortion, gay marriage and gun control with those of his two main rivals for the presidential nomination -- former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

On abortion, the flyer cites a Christian Science Monitor article from May 15, 2006 that says the Senator "consistently votes the antiabortion rights position" while noting that Romney "says he's pro-life" but then quotes from a 2002 gubernatorial debate in which he says he will "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." Giuliani's statement to CNN in November 2006 that he is "pro-choice" is also mentioned.

On judges, McCain is quoted as supporting "judges who interpret the Constitution and don't usurp...the public's right to elect representatives to write out laws." For Romney, a Boston Globe article is cited that says Romney as governor bypassed GOP lawyers in favor of Democratic and Independent attorneys. Giuliani is quoted seemingly praising Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointment to the court.

You get the idea.

McCain's campaign confirmed the authenticity of the flyer but offered no comment on its contents.

What's clear from the flyer is that McCain remains committed to running as the truest conservative among the top three contenders. It's a drastic reversal from his 2000 campaign against then Texas Gov. George W. Bush when McCain endured months of attack on his allegedly frail conservative credentials

It's a line of attack that McCain is likely to bring more public as the months pass between now and the first presidential votes next January in Iowa. So far in the campaign, Romney has tried to paint his moves righward on social issues as part of a personal -- not political -- evolution. Giuliani, on the other hand, has not hedged his stances on social matters, hoping that voters who disagree with him respect his forthrightness.

It remains to be seen whether McCain can cast himself as the most conservative candidate among the top three. Conservatives remains quite skeptical of him after comments he made about some of the leaders of the religious right -- calling them "agents of intolerance" -- during the 2000 campaign.

The strategy didn't work at the straw poll conducted in Charleston, S.C. last Friday night. Romney won with 86 votes while McCain placed second with 55. Giuliani took 33 votes while Sen. Sam Brownback (Kans.) received 21.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 17, 2007; 3:45 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Va. Tech Shooting Puts Politics on Hold
Next: Parsing the Polls on Gun Control

Comments

Cillizza writes "Giuliani, on the other hand, has not hedged his stances on social matters, hoping that voters who disagree with him respect his forthrightness."

Excuse me? Giuliani previously opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion (now favors it), vigorously defended taxpayer funding of abortion (no opposes it per the Hyde Amendment), viewed Roe as "good constitutional law" and heaped praise on NARAL (now promises strict constructionists), and led efforts for tough federal gun control such as national licensing (now says it should be up to the states). May I ask how much flip-flopping it takes to be seen as at least "hedging"????

Posted by: RationalGuy | April 20, 2007 1:19 AM | Report abuse

pacman,
"Whether accurate or not, campaigning by pointing out your opponents' unpopular positions is NEGATIVE. Positive campaigning is pointing out your positions on issues..."
Well, the flyer lists McCain's positions on those issues. The fact that his opponents hold "unpopular" positions on key issues for conservatives is something that conservative voters should know. I would also not call them unpopular as those are the positions Romney and Guiliani held while holding office in MA and NY. Those positions are very popular throughout the country, especially the northeast. Granted, they are unpopular to a lot of non-northeastern conservatives. Aside from that though, i still fail to see how comparing and contrasting your positions on issues against other candidates is negative. Defining yourself and your opponents is what campaigning has always been about.

Posted by: Dave! | April 18, 2007 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Some of today's posters point to a troubling trend.

Some say that the Sen. McCain flyer is not negative, largely because it's "ACCURATE!" Is this what campaigning has come to: it's not negative unless the mud is really dirty?

Whether accurate or not, campaigning by pointing out your opponents' unpopular positions is NEGATIVE. Positive campaigning is pointing out your positions on issues, explaining how you plan to make voters lives better. To me it's really simple, but I guess I'm alone.

Posted by: pacman | April 18, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Jim D in Fl - interesting comments. If the election was tomorrow and you had to vote for a republican candidate or a democratic candidate, but you didn't know who specifically, would you vote dem or repub?

Posted by: Aussie view | April 18, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey "Reason" -

The UN scientific panel just last week reached international agreement not just that global warming is real, but the HUMANS ARE A PRIMARY CAUSE OF IT. I'm sure you will be skeptical because they are foreigners and thus supposedly "hate America," but even so, that's a consensus of international science. And I too have heard the supposedly scientific contrarian views - subscribed to by a small minority of the scientific community and often funded by the fossil fuels industry. Nuff said.
No, we may never know for absolute certain exactly how our environment works. At this point, though, the science is far enough along that we probably have a pretty good idea. If you're right, no harm done. But if you're wrong, by the time everyone has been convinced of the need for action, it will really be too late. I don't think we as a species should be rolling the dice with the future of our environment.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Reason:

"(m)any scientists disagree on why were having global warming." Really? How many out of how many?

Posted by: Steve Soto | April 18, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

mccain today hardly seems like the same guy who ran in 2000. we knew at the time that he was conservative, but not that he would go to the mat for the gop's social agenda. the thing is, at least in 2000, a lot of his support came from independents and democrats who wanted a change. with statements like these, he has lost those votes, and the jesus nazis are still suspicious of his devotion to their issues. i respect mccain's service to the country, also mccain-feingold, but if this is a sample of his agenda, he's done. he may get the gop nomination, but after that he's done.

Posted by: meuphys | April 18, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I call myself reason and I do believe in science. But, unlike Global warming nuts, I look at facts from all scientists. That being said, many scientists disagree on why were having global warming. Noone disagrees that global warming is occuring. That is fact. Why global warming is occuring is debatable. I believe global warming occurs on a cyclical pattern, as it has over the last few billion years. I respect legitimate scientists arguments that present the case that global warming is caused by human activity, but respectfully disagree with that assessment and with the assessment of other scientists who believe it's cause by a cyclical pattern.

So, b/c I don't agree with the same scientific theories you agree with, doesn't mean I'm against science or that I'm unreasonable. Quite the contrary. I believe you should look at all scientific theories before making accussations that I'm unreasonable. But who needs science, drug smoking hippies and folks profiting from emissions trading in Europe (Al Gore, the prophet) say the world is doomed...so who needs more than that? Sorry true reason, I do!

Posted by: reason | April 18, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I second what Jan says. I too switched parties. Although I'm not overjoyed with the Dems either, they seem to (in general) align more with the things I carea about: fiscally responsible government, environment, individual choice, preserving the constitution. The Reps used to but they left those things behind, IMO.

I too served in the military but under Carter, Reagan, and Bush I. I'm no tree hugger, and am a war vet. But I hate what bush jr. has done to our country.

Posted by: Randy | April 18, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Sorry - in my last post, I quoted JimD in FL in order to respond -- *I am a moderate voter...* -- but the quote marks don't show. Looks a little confusing. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Jan | April 18, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

From a marketing point of view McCain is following the textbooks by branding himself as a true conservative, consequently his image is not equivocal and therefore we know exactly what he stands for.

However, electors are moving away from this offering which was brought to them by Bush. Too many of them are rejecting any connection with Iraq and conservatism.

McCain will not win the election. He is on a losing horse.

An example of his ability to encourage rejection by most of the electors came from his claims that the unpopular war was being won. He told the voters that the surge is working. This led to ridicule from many of his detractors and was shown to be a doubtful and hasty assumption by the subsequent bombing of the Iraqi Parliament.

McCain has positioned himself as a true conservative who will give the nation more of the failures that Bush has delivered. This will attract hardline conservatives but will lead to his rejection by the polls and the GOP.

Posted by: robertjames1 | April 18, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

After the 2006 GOP Thumping, I'm thrilled that the GOP campaign slogans all still emphasize their curious positions on the issues -- how Speaker Pelosi is bad, but assault weapons are good, how letting women make decisions for their own lives is bad, but Bush's War in Iraq is good, and how gay human beings are bad, but Dick Cheney is sane.


I am a moderate voter with a great deal of disdain for both the right and the left. I distrust the left on economic issues and national security. I also believe that the Bush administration has been a disaster on national security but I do not think most of the Democrats have the right ideas on how to rescue us from the Bush fiascos. I distrust the right on social and environmental issues. I am also against the reckless cut taxes and spend policies of the Bush administration. So, I am interested in both parties' nomination battles.

For JimD in FL -- You distrust the left on economic issues -- as I once did -- and I thoght you might need to be reminded that Clinton was the best we've had on the economy. AND, I gave the GOP Congress quite a bit of credit unitl I saw the exact same GOP Congress spend like drucken sailors under a GOP Prez.
As far as nationaal security, I served in the military under Bush I and Clinton. I refused to serve under Bush II and even refused to join the reserves. Also, Clinton had the WTC bombed in his first few months in office -- 6 deaths -- and that was the last attack for EIGHT years. Bush brags about *keeping us safe* for six years. He's got two more to go before he matches Clintons record. If you care about global warming and stem cell research, I don't believe you have a GOP candidate that cares about either.
I was a Republican until 1998. Leaving the Party was the best political choice I've made in 50 years.

Posted by: Jan | April 18, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Iraqi war is the lost cause. McCain can't void his association with this war. He is no Hillary Clinton, who could shamelessly and permanently change all her stands on issues and still has somehow guts to continue to be in political front rows.
So, the best thing for McCain is now to step out of this race and to take care of his health, family, writing memories or whichever else he likes to do.

Posted by: aepelbaum | April 18, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Well, I guess McCain learned the lesson Bush taught him during the primaries leading up to the 2000 election. One more person to lose faith in.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Democrats have got to be loving the GOP candidates working each other over.

McCain is the Democrats' best friend right now.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | April 18, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Because the networks asked him for "exclusive" interviews.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

The ambulance chaser-in-chief
From the AP: Bush plans to give three television interviews on [VT] campus before returning to the White House, Perino said. But if he's going to address people at the university in person, why does he have to go on every TV network separately? We know the answer, of course -- because this isn't about healing a community, it's about healing his 28-percent approval ratings.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

How to Prevent the Next Mass Killing
Religious training is clearly necessary. God should at least be mentioned in the classroom and workplace from time to time. God is mentioned on our currency; he certainly should not be ignored completely throughout the school day. God should be even more prominent in our colleges in universities.

--yeah, that really helped that minister whose wife just killed him recently... vacuous stupidy.

Posted by: the lunacy of wingers | April 18, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse


Democrats appear to be standing on firm political ground, as they work toward a final bill. A Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,141 adults, conducted April 12-15, found that 59 percent trusted the Democrats in Congress to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, compared with 33 percent who trusted Bush.

The president has taken advantage of Congress's spring recess to pound Democrats over their legislation, which would impose benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet; create strict rules for resting, equipping and training combat troops; and set a 2008 date for the final withdrawal of U.S. troops. Despite those efforts, Bush has lost a little ground to Democrats, who in February were trusted by 54 percent to set Iraq policy. [...]

Bush continued yesterday to say that victory in Iraq is pivotal to the larger fight against terrorism, but Americans are increasingly agreeing with the Democratic view that the issues are separate. About 60 percent now say the United States can succeed in the terrorism fight without winning the Iraq war, an increase of 10 percentage points since January, when Americans were almost evenly divided on the question.

The number of Americans who favor withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, even if that means civil order is not restored, held steady from February at 56 percent.

Consider the context for these poll results. For the last several weeks, Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang have been hammering Dems relentlessly, insisting that they're endangering the troops and pursuing an irresponsible foreign policy. Administration officials have fanned out across the media to drive the argument home.

And against this backdrop, Americans have heard Bush's pitch and said, "We don't believe you."

In other words, the White House strategy has largely backfired. The idea was to let Americans hear from their president directly, and let him persuade the electorate to his way of thinking. But after weeks of a p.r. offensive, we're just not buying what the White House is selling.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I am a moderate voter with a great deal of disdain for both the right and the left. I distrust the left on economic issues and national security. I also believe that the Bush administration has been a disaster on national security but I do not think most of the Democrats have the right ideas on how to rescue us from the Bush fiascos. I distrust the right on social and environmental issues. I am also against the reckless cut taxes and spend policies of the Bush administration. So, I am interested in both parties' nomination battles.

Probably the two issues I most detest the Republican right about are embryonic stem cell research and global warming. Reason's statement about "the myth that people cause global warming" sum up for me, and many swing voters, why the right wing is becoming so discredited. There is an overwhleming scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that human activity contributes to it.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 18, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Richardson starting to move?

'On the left, the netroots-early-warning-detection-system is starting to buzz a little bit and the recipient of the buzz is Bill Richardson. He is getting attention for his simple and strong Iraq stand (which many of his new admirers like very much compared to the continuing nuances of the big three) and his foreign policy experience, especially the way he has worked with North Korea and Darfur.

Richardson is also good on energy policy, has been everything from a Governor to an Ambassador and don't forget, he's Hispanic on his mother's side. He raised good money in the first quarter, $6.2 million, and spent very little leaving his cash on hand at over $5,000,000 on par with John McCain.

Richardson will get a look over the next sixty to ninety days and if he transfers his growing online buzz into mainstream media buzz, watch out. Media pundits are a little bored of the Hillary / Barack / Edwards stories and they might latch onto the new guy and jump him up a notch. I think he would hurt each of th big three equally, pulling a few points from each and moving into mid-teens by June.

On the right, this would be the bombshell but I personally believe that every day the right's contenders flounder, and if it appears that McCain slides towards "no chance in hell status" you will see Vice President Dick Cheney enter the race "for the good of the country."

Remember: he was Bush's choice to head up the VP search and in the process, discovered himself. He is a true believer in wingnuttery and the pressure from the extreme right has to be certainly growing. They have no candidate and no hope right now and eight years of President Democrat is enough for Sean Hannity to give Cheney mouth-to-mouth next time his ticker tocks.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/the-presidential-pool-ju_b_45956.html

Posted by: Joyce | April 18, 2007 9:07 AM | Report abuse

The Senate, thanks to a resolution it just adopted, has confirmed that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is the subject of a "preliminary inquiry" over his involvement in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.

The Senate just adopted a resolution (S. Res. 153) stating that "for matters before the Select Committee on Ethics involving the preliminary inquiry arising in connection with alleged communications by persons within the committee's jurisdiction with and concerning David C. Iglesias, then United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, and the subsequent action by the committee with respect to that matter.'

The passage of the resolution confirms that Domenici is being scrutinized by the Ethics Committee over a phone call he made to Iglesias, prior to the November election, inquiring whether Iglesias was going to indict some New Mexico Democrats. Up until this point, the Ethics Committee has refused to state whether it is actually investigating Domenici.

Domenici has denied any wrongdoing in the matter, but he complained personally to President Bush about Iglesias, and Iglesias was removed from his post on Dec. 7. Iglesias told congressional investigators that he received calls on the issue from both Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.).

Posted by: Domenici's troubles | April 18, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- Wall Street ranked as the top source of large campaign donations for presidential candidates in the early part of the 2008 campaign, aided by traditional contributors and new donations from the private-money industry, according to newly released campaign-finance reports.

Wall Street has historically been the largest single source of political contributions, so candidates who can successfully raise money there often have more resources to fund their campaigns than other rivals. Donations from financial-services firms could be even more important during the 2008 presidential campaign as employees of hedge funds and private-equity firms begin opening up their wallets.

Posted by: wall street owns every candidate | April 18, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

McCain is definitely the most consistently conservative of the three main Republican contenders. I sometimes think his liberal former admirers have overlooked that in their anger over his courting of the right. He appealed to moderates and some liberals in the past because he did not make a fetish of the right wing social issues and he espoused a few moderate to liberal positions (and I do mean a few).

Rommey, I believe, will ultimately be unsuccessful because of the flip-flopping issue. The irony is that I think he could have been more successful running as a moderate candidate - the pragmatic business executive, successful Republican governor in a liberal state, problem solver extraordinaire. Romney now just looks like a Repbulican John Kerry windsurfing from position to position for momentary political advantage.

Giuliani has the pragmatic, problem solver position all to himself. I think he can win the nomination and would be a formidable general election candidate. There are a lot of conservative Republicans who do not get excited about the social issues. The hard core social conservatives are not a majority in the GOP and thy are split among several candidates and without a real champion in the race. Giuliani is a maintstream conservative on fiscal restraint, national security, and judicial restraint. Giuliani does not try to run away from his past positions on social issues, he simply tells Republicans to look at the 80% of issues they agree on. His 9/11 image helps a lot of them to overlook the differences. Also, remember that the Republican primaries are almost all winner take all for delegates and he can win in a crowded field with around 33% of the vote. The front-loaded primary schedule with several large states coming early should help him as well.

Giuliani could probably win the election against Hillary if it were a head to head contest. However, I think that the diehards on the religious right would mount a third party challenge if he is the nominee.

Posted by: JimD in FL | April 18, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I want to leave an irrelevant comment too.

Posted by: che the troll | April 18, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

'He believes the myth that we as people cause global warming, '

you don't believe in science -- and you call yourself 'reason' -- typical republcian.

Posted by: true reason | April 18, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Gotta agree with Dave!(!) - whatever you think of McCain, this flyer is hardly "negative". It states the positions of the three candidates, albeit with an emphasis on Romney's "past" positions. It's a largely factual piece, the kind we should welcome in a campaign that is increasingly about big money, personality and momentum. Rather refreshing to talk about issues for a change, isn't it???

Posted by: calmnsense | April 18, 2007 7:26 AM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

The Virginia Tech massacre--social roots of another American tragedy
By David Walsh
18 April 2007

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

A day after the mass killing at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, along with grief and dismay, some reflections on life in the US are clearly in order. The event was horrifying, but no one who has followed the evolution of American society over the past quarter-century will be entirely shocked. Such psychopathic episodes, including dozens of multiple killings or attempted killings in workplaces and schools, have occurred with disturbing regularity, particularly since the mid-1980s. A timeline assembled by the Associated Press and the School Violence Resource Center lists some 30 school and college shootings alone since 1991.

Official reaction to the Blacksburg deaths, one feels safe in predicting, will be as superficial and irrelevant as it has been in every previous case.

The appearance of George W. Bush at the convocation held on the Virginia Tech campus Tuesday afternoon was especially inappropriate. Here is a man who embodies the worst in America, its wealthy and corrupt ruling elite. As governor of Texas, Bush presided over the executions of 152 human beings; as president, he has the blood of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Afghans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on his hands. His administration has made unrelenting violence the foundation of its global policies, justifying assassination, secret imprisonment and torture.

Speaking of the Blacksburg killings, Bush commented: "Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they're gone--and they leave behind grieving families, and grieving classmates, and a grieving nation." If he and his cronies were not entirely immune to the consequences of their own policies, it might strike them that they could be speaking about the masses of the dead in Iraq, who have also done "nothing to deserve their fate."

The president, in his perfunctory remarks, appeared anxious, above all, to put the events behind him. Bush's comment that "It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering" comes as no surprise. He recognizes instinctively, or his speechwriters do, that considering the "violence and suffering" in a serious manner would raise troubling questions, and even more troubling answers. When the president concluded, "And on this terrible day of mourning, it's hard to imagine that a time will come when life at Virginia Tech will return to normal," he said more than he perhaps wanted to. This is an admission that something has gone terribly wrong at Virginia Tech--and in this regard the university is a microcosm of the larger social reality--and will not easily be put right.

In general, those speaking at the gathering--school officials, politicians and clergy--seemed in haste to get past the event. In some cases, this may stem from a sincere desire to console and to lift the community's collective spirits. However, a major tragedy, with broad social implications, has taken place and it needs to be considered.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/tech-a18.shtml

Posted by: che | April 18, 2007 4:08 AM | Report abuse

nice flyer. where do i sign up?

Posted by: egalitaire | April 18, 2007 2:12 AM | Report abuse

nice flyer. where do i sign up?

Posted by: egalitiare | April 18, 2007 2:11 AM | Report abuse

windrider: Your comment points out the majority of folks are looking for something to get done that effect their daily lives. This "Idiot-olgy" is slowly but surely coming to an end. I find the comments by others about Hillary as expected, nothing new.

Posted by: lylepink | April 17, 2007 11:54 PM | Report abuse

EVEN IF McCain captures the nomination, he cannot win the general election with only conservative Republican votes. Since few Democrats are likely to cross the line to vote GOP in 2008, that leaves independent voters who, on the most critical issue (Iraq) are closer to the Dems than the Republicans. Romney or Guiliani have a better shot at pulling in independent voters and maybe even some Democrats than McCain. But conservatives are more interested in ideological purity than with winning elections, which is why their ship of state keeps taking on water and sinking lower and lower on the horizon.

Posted by: windrider | April 17, 2007 11:15 PM | Report abuse

The flyers were true, so why not bring forth the truth? Obviously many of you who responded are liberals, so why do you care about the Republican primary? You have your own battles in Dem. primary and don't have a clear nominee, either.

Now, McCain isn't my preferred candidate. He believes the myth that we as people cause global warming, he supports embroyonic stem cell research and he believes in censoring how much people can donate to people and causes they believe in when elections are concerned. These are not positions I'm in tune with and nor do I like them. Although, they beat the flip-flopping pro socialized healthcare tune Romney presents. Guiliani is a socially liberal Republican as well. Supporing gay rights, abortion, embroyonic stem cell research and gun control. I don't know the positions of Guiliani or Romney on global warming, but I"m sure Romney's will now be the conservative one "wink, wink." I think McCain is the best candidate we have, and barring some great governor (Perdue-Ga. or Riley-Alabama) getting into the race, I'm supporting McCain. I had high hopes for Pawlenty (Minn.) or Sanford (SC) but both have already backed McCain. Either one would be a great VP.

Posted by: reason | April 17, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I sure hope that Sen. "Maverick" McCain's training as a pilot included prevention of vertigo. The way he's flip-flopping, back-tracking and turning summersaults to appeal to the right me thinks this could be a problem.

And you have to love it after all the umbrage over dubya's anti-McCain fliers in SC back in 2000...but I regress.

New on EWM: Yeah, Imus has a pair all right.
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/whats_new.php?p=260

Posted by: The Eyewitness Muse | April 17, 2007 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
"McCain's Negative Flyer". What kind of title is that? Horrible. Your piece fails to explain exactly why you consider this negative. Isn't the definition of running a campaign contrasting your position against others you are running against? While many of the quotes might not have the full context of the discussion, it seems to me that these represented the positions that Romney and Guiliani held (well, at that time anyways). And really, how hard is it for a conservative to run to the right of these positions?

Posted by: Dave! | April 17, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

More and more I have this notion that McCain is trying to run his own polling down as a way to drop out of the 08 race. I have been saying he would do something like this for a long time now for reasons stated earlier.

Posted by: lylepink | April 17, 2007 8:04 PM | Report abuse

running to the right is a losing proposition in '08

Posted by: fulch | April 17, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

*Geez, what a loser!*

Would you sell your soul to win an election?

Or just the kids?

Posted by: Gary Masters | April 17, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I just *this week) decided to work on a web page for McCain and raise some money. That should have more impact than these words.

Posted by: Gary Masters | April 17, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Jane Stern, your post was silly and in extremely bad taste. You are definitely in karma receivership now, better look both ways before crossing.

Posted by: JD | April 17, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

lumping Hugh Hefner in with Rosie and Jerry Springer is quite a stretch, I must say. Although Hef might be in the same boat as far as giving money to Hilary, not that I can see what that has to do with this article, I think it's comparing apples to oranges. Not the same thing at all.
As to Mr. I'll do what worked for Bush 6 years ago because I think it'll work for me now, he must have some real buffoons at the helm of his campaign effort. I personally am unable to think of a worse agenda to promote as to why he should be president. Gee, george bush is currently the most unpopular president ever, or close to it anyway, and I think I'll run on a "I'm just like him platform. And since the war is extremely unpopular, the other primary part of my message will be the Iraq War is a good thing." Yeah, that'll work. He's going to lose anyway and badly. Can't he do it with some dignity? He's going to lose the campaign, his dignity and all respect from most. He must be a smart guy, but he sure looks like a complete and utter moron at the moment. And he's not smart enough to realize it, EVEN THOUGH IT'S REPORTED IN THE PAPER ALMOST EVERY DAY. Geez, what a loser!

Posted by: smith | April 17, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

This is the same guy who approved of torture, right? I'd like to see the quote from the Christian Science Monitor on that one...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Fas as I know, none of the above people ever called young athletes 'nappy-headed hos'...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Maybe McCain should take a page out of Hillary's book....

From http://www.solidpolitics.com

Hillary Clinton spent last week ripping Don Imus, but she didn't think twice about taking campaign contributions from other media circus clowns like Jerry Springer, Rosie O'Donnell and Hugh Hefner....

Posted by: William | April 17, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't have any problem with the flyer. All of the quotes, if accurate, are from reputable news sources. Seems to me that all of these candidates have some 'splainin to do.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

It is bad enough that McCain is pandering to the reactionaries now, but his support for Iraq will doom him. I just hope he gets the GOP nomination so he can self-destruct in the general election.

Posted by: Louis of NOLA | April 17, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

how i pray that mccain gets the nomination. with his bush-ness (and flip-flopping) growing by the hour, he will not stand a chance against any democrat in the pool after the general campaign.

Posted by: dc voter | April 17, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

good post, filmex.

Posted by: drindl | April 17, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

'In BushCo's endless quest to debase, corrupt, embarass, ruin and dumb down everything they touch:

The Defense Department directed a private contractor in 2003 to hire Shaha Ali Riza, a World Bank employee and the companion of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense, to spend a month studying issues related to setting up a new government in Iraq, the contractor said Monday.

The contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC, said that it had been directed to hire Ms. Riza by the office of the under secretary for policy. The head of that office at the time was Douglas J. Feith, who reported to Mr. Wolfowitz.

Ah Doug Feith , the "stupidest f*cking guy on the face of the earth." Everyone has their own favorite Doug Feith story, mine is how Feith tried to force Jay Garner -- in charge of Post War resonstruction in Iraq -- into the waiting arms of Ahmed Chalabi:

Garner asked Feith for copies of planning documents that had been drawn up in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the U.S. government. Garner said Feith told him that nothing useful existed and that he should develop his own plans. Feith's hope, as articulated to others in the Pentagon, was that without a clear blueprint for political transition, Garner would turn to Chalabi and his band of exiles. Feith would get the outcome he wanted without provoking a fight ahead of time with State and the CIA, both of which regarded Chalabi as a fraud and possible Iranian spy.'

Posted by: figures | April 17, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a pathetic Bush toady. He doesn`t have a chance of being president, and he`s making a fool of himself in the process of proving it. I can`t imagine who would support such a completely out of touch nitwit.

Posted by: Mark F. | April 17, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

This is an appropriate day to publish McCain's position against an assault weapons ban. Just imagine how many more people Cho Seung Hui could have killed at VA Tech if he had been using two assault rifles instead of two nine millimeter pistols.

Posted by: Jane Stern | April 17, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Just over two years ago, McCain said he had no problem with Roe v. Wade, and could not see a day when doctors and patients would be imprisoned for practicing choice.

Now the BS master has come full circle, hammering his opponents for sharing his own beliefs, and distributing hit-sheets in the very state where Bush subterranean goons hit him for supposedly having a black child out of wedlock, collaborating with his VC captors, and accusing his wife Cindy of being a pill-popper.

In that McCain recently hired many of these same subterranean goons, that worked on both the South Carolina smear campaign as well as the Swiftboat campaign against Kerry, it is clear McCain IS the Manchurian candidate, having clearly lost his soul along with his reason.

Posted by: filmex | April 17, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

That straw poll says to me that even South Carolina Republicans believe the Iraq War is over and further believe that McCain believes what he says about said War and consider his stance a losing proposition in the General Election.

Posted by: A Hardwick | April 17, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

sen. McCain has to keep his is pro-war stance until after he captures the GOP nomination, then he can pull out the peace flag and capture the middle. It is almost what Humphrey did in 1968. With Rudy out in Iowa telling Republicans not to pay attention to social issues they will have to question why they are politically involved to begin with. Romney has the same problem as Kerry. The only recourse will be John McCain.

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel | April 17, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain is the Manchurian Candidate.

Posted by: Progressive | April 17, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

McCain is riding the 'BS' Express ... at the rate he is going it looks like he wont see the Iowa caucus.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I am glad to believe that McCain's efforts to be a substantial candidate went down shortly after he lost his maverick soul. He knows it, I know it!

Posted by: william harrison | April 17, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

It looks like Mitty Hairboy is going to take the nomination.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | April 17, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company