Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

McCain's Strange Bedfellows

As if we needed more convincing that Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) is courting the Republican establishment that scorned him in the 2000 presidential race, an invite to a May fundraiser for his Straight Talk America PAC in Dallas found its way to the Fix inbox this afternoon.

The May 15 event is two-tiered: a 5:30 p.m. reception will be held at the home of Cinda and Tom Hicks and will be followed by a 7 p.m. dinner at the home of Rita and Bill Clements. The special guest for the night will be Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman. (Mehlman has been very careful about not taking sides in the 2008 nomination fight and we have been assured nothing should be read into his agreeing to be part of this event.)

Even so, the list of Republican heavy hitters on the host committee shows the depth of work that McCain (and his political guru John Weaver) have done over the past few years to woo deep-pocketed supporters of President George W. Bush.

Clements, the former governor of Texas, was an early Bush backer in 2000. Hicks, who bought the Texas Rangers from Bush, served as a "Bush Ranger" during the 2004 presidential campaign. Others on the host committee include: Jeanne Cox, the daughter of former Texas Sen. John Tower; Jeanne Phillips, a longtime Bush fundraiser and chair of the 2005 inauguration festivities who was deeply involved in the management of the "Pioneer" and "Ranger" programs; former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach; George Bayoud, a Dallas businessman who managed Clement's 1986 gubernatorial bid; and billionaire businessman Harold Simmons, who gave nearly $4 million to pro-Bush 527 groups in 2004.

The most interesting names on the host committee? Sam and Charles Wyly -- the wealthy Dallas-based brothers who funded and ran "Republicans for Clean Air," a 527 group that attacked McCain for his environmental record during the 2000 primaries. In the aftermath of his defeat, McCain specifically cited the group in his plea for more and better campaign finance reform, saying the groups were "making a mockery of existing campaign finance laws."

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 21, 2006; 6:40 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House: Mollohan Steps Down From Ethics Post
Next: Insider Interview: Democratic Pollster Pete Brodnitz

Comments

Monica, that person will probably be Romney. He can kiss the ring with out sounding hipocritical.

McCain's appeal has always been, "I'm not business as usual." I haven't listened to what he has actually said to the groups of the Rep right but I will before I make a decision.

If people get the feeling he is swaying right, he will get the nomination but will lose the the general.

If he doesn't convince people he is swaying right, he won't get the nomination. But he will still have the support of all the people in the middle who would need to write him in.

Funny how there is this HUGE party in the middle of moderate Reps and Centrist Dems who will have no one to vote for.

Now if only we could somehow get them all together and have a convention.

Posted by: Dan | April 25, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats fail to remember any wrongdoing by the Clintons, so we are blessed to have term limits to protect us from being stuck with that crooked man from Arkansas. The whole Whitewater investigation did lead to many convicted friends of Bill and Hillary and some went to prison as well. Before the Monica thing, Jim and Susan McDougal were already sitting in prison. The ignorant people continue to whine about poor Susan being sent to prison because she would not RAT on Bill. That is pure spin, she was already in prison people long before Monica in January 1998. If you want to defend corrupt people like the Clintons, at least get your facts straight.
How many chief of staff people did Clinton have? Mack McLarty, Leon Panetta, John Podesta and Erskin Bowles. There were also a bunch of press secretaries who got replaced every 2 years, George Stefanolopos, Dee Dee Myers, Mike McCurry, Joe Lockhart, and then some kid for the last year of Clintons term.
In fact, during the debate of the new people coming in during President Bush's 2nd term, no reporter has compared this stuff. Loyalty and dedication to serve President Bush is a factor for this administration, and if Bush wraps his arm around Condi as his heir apparent, all bets are off about McCain or Rudy running, or any other Republican, in my viewpoint.

Posted by: Wendy | April 25, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

McCain has been called the Maverick for too long in the media to become the rightwing hero now. The media just used him to clobber the President, since they love controversy and gloat about their power to undermine people in power.

McCain will not win the crown in 2008 unless he sucks up to the powers that be, who will determine if he has a chance or not. If Karl Rove still has influence with the Republican party, he will be standing behind the UN-McCain. If that is CONDI RICE, fine, if it is some other white guy, that is fine too. But there will be a candidate to challenge McCain, we just don't know who the people in Iowa and New Hampshire will be selecting.

Posted by: Monica | April 25, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Yes, if he has staked his whole appeal up til then on being independent and a maverick from that right-wing base of the GOP.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | April 24, 2006 9:40 PM | Report abuse

On McCain: Will somebody please tell me how any Republican will get that party's nomination without "Kissing the Ring" of the far Right?

Is McCain, any less ethical than the others when he does this, if he cannot get the nomination otherwise?

Nope!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 24, 2006 4:42 PM | Report abuse

On Che: I've finally given up on hoping that Che would actually show some responsibility and post something other than other peoples' work. Like what his own opinions are. But at least the sources receive credit.

Last week one blogger upbraided those of us who complained to Che, as trying to stifle free speech. [Not worth commenting on.]

Also, there's no sense in complaining about "the rules," because other than the "profanity, personal attack and other inappropriate comments and material" warning, there don't seem to be any rules.

The scroll key seems to be the answer. Che does provide telltale signs which clue us when to use it.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 24, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I got nothing against McCain...

I got something against electing a girl that used to be a man.....

he goes back to being a man, he'll get my vote...but he'll lose republican backing


they are the monied and corporate representatives historically speaking


remember.

the old days:

republicans feel that representatives must be from the wealthy landed people...the masses are too ignorant to vote intelligently.

democrats, the masses can and do lead from a position of justice not ruling by power-over or manipulation:

jefferson, franklin, adams, a few others


right now republicans and democrats don't represent you unless you're in the billionaire category....and it doesn't matter what country you come from they will represent you _if_ you're a billionaire...

you want a better government quickly

require them to obey the same laws that you


_have_

to

establish a Rudy Guilliani attitude towards our Congress, lawmakers, Administration and bureaucrats including NSA, CIA, FBI and Secret Service...


IF they break the law, any law, not in the line of duty...they get arrested.


parking ticket, tax evasion, hiring illegals, stealing, dui, etcetera...


WE need a group of people passing laws that affect them too,


that they are willing to abide by.....


for example we could start with this small change:

enforcing the law against illegal hiring of illegal aliens should be easy....


those that have to compete against them, can pretty easily point out the violations, perhaps we should have a bounty,

for
turning in those that hire illegals.


It's a lot easier to lock up a few hundred, violaters for a few months with a felony charge that radically alters their ability to bid on jobs or to vote or to not register with local law enforcement...


you wouldn't have to do it for very long...


keep the bounty in place for 5 years.


try it.


Guilliani found that if he arrested anybody commiting any crime in NYC about 10 years ago, that the felons that would have commited the most heinious crimes were already in jail because they were

_by_habit_

scofflaws,

sound like any congess peoples that you know?

cunning ham, deal aide, cheyney/oil-interests/futures market/$380,000,000 payoff.

partisan-ship is like believeing in professional wrestling

....it aint real, it's for the rubes...


crack down on corruption, as an ordinary thing, enforce the laws against your congress...

publish names.

.

Posted by: look Tim, | April 24, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats, liberals, and antiwar people who come in here and bicker about 9/11 and who flew the planes and WMD are examples of people who offer nothing in the 2008 debate.

McCain is trying to pick off the Bush Pioneers and big wigs who supported Bush in 2000 and 2004. The McCain trial balloon is being pumped up by the media, they love him for wise-cracking and using his Senate seat for jabbing at Republicans. He will be older than Reagan if he runs in 2008, so I just don't think he can pull off the classic Reagan comment, "I won't use my opponent's age and inexperience against him". McCain is just a senator, and other than campaign-finance reform (with a loophole for rich Democrats like George Soros to funnel millions into 527 groups), what else has McCain done? If he runs for president in 2007, he will miss votes in the Senate and that will be used against him like Kerry and Edwards and Lieberman and Bob Graham of Florida. Missing votes in the Senate in order to fly around begging money instead of doing their job for the people fo their state might be a KEY FACTOR why most Senators fail to become president. Only Warren Harding and JFK got elected to the White House from the Senate. All others failed to show a record to run on.

Posted by: Tim | April 24, 2006 3:19 PM | Report abuse

that's all she needs to do,

they learned that with

Regan

and Geo. W. Bush.


puppets for the power...


they do not want a leader in charge....


if McCain shows signs of being a leader, he'll be cut.

.

by allowing himself to be made into their "girl" he wins party support or protection....(prison metaphor)

Posted by: rice is being groomed to stand up to a crowd... | April 24, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

dems vs republicans

welcome to the WWF of politics.

McCain has gone from having an opinion to pandering, it's simple.

there's no bashing going on, try dealing with the truth.


like this:

there is no war, there is an occupation of Iraq.

can you deal with it?


then act like it. no WMD, no Iraqi connection...

only SAUDI and UAE pilots flew those WTC planes, except for one Lebanese...

17 pilots from Saudi Arabia predominately and the United Arab Emirates, with one Lebanese....

sounds like the CIA had some investment, now do you understand why I don't want the

same old same old going on?

I am a citizen, not a sheep....and you?

.

Posted by: what a bunch of childish nonsense.. | April 24, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Pretty funny - righties complaining about mean libruls - when they have made the word "librul" and epithet, and so hated Clinton they tried to pull off a coup d'etat using an affair to do it, since they couldn't get anything real on him, despite spending $50 million of OUR MONEY trying.

And the Swiff Boating of all Dems except those who bow to the right like Lieberman.

The righties have been smearing and lying about Dems and McCain for a long time.

They even used their favorite smear against both side - the "black child out of wedlock" smear - against Clinton, and McCain.

It's interesting that righties think that a white man having a BLACK child out of wedlock is much more evil than having a white child out of wedlock. Which is why they come up with that lie - to rally their racist voters.

They also are quite clear about women being morally suspect, and girly, who shouldn't have any control of their own organs, but must be controlled by men.

And then they think their voters would even consider voting for Rice.

Amusing.

Posted by: exredstater | April 24, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich Man spot on! McCain too, too old!

Posted by: JC | April 24, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"run as they are"

not speak to the polls, but create a mood like the old days.


wouldn't life be more interesting rather than

reacting to a willie lomax,

or responding to the impertinence of the (anti)christ ians?

stretch you r little minds a little remove the boxes of your

normal response and dare to live.

"that probably seems," outlandish to you?


doesn't it...pathetic.

.

Posted by: perhaps people could just | April 24, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Earned their turn, wow, I have not heard that phrase in decades. Gov. Bush worked hard to get the support he needed to win in 2000, the field was wide open and 10 Republicans were running. What office did Pat Buchanan or Gary Bauer ever hold? NONE, yet the media kept pumping them up in the battle for the hearts of the religious right. When Gov Bush outsmarted the media and used his own political skills, he defeated McCain and all the other candidates. Some of you might forget that Steve Forbes shelled out over $30 million to get his name on the ballots, build support in Iowa for the August straw poll in 1999 and he came in 2nd. McCain came out at the bottom and he badmouthed the voters in Iowa as well. McCain is more of a smart ass, and I just could not support him as president.
The establishment has no champion now, there is no one who has earned his or her place on the GOP ballot.
It has to be done by work, raising money to build support and win the nomination one state at a time. There was talk of a delegate battle in 2000 at the convention because so many diehard McCainiacs would never accept Gov. Bush. Well, the McCain delegates minded their manners at the convention and there is no movement for McCain as "it is his turn."
The entire GOP has to decide what they will be standing for in 2008, not selecting some candiate based on time served in office. That is probably the type of thinking that turns people off from getting involved in campaigns.

Posted by: Mike | April 24, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

are still trying to get their share by posting nonsense as truth...


thanks so much for your patriotic(not) contribution...

.

Posted by: it's nice to know that when America in trouble that party shills, | April 24, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

rise to a challenge in any other fashion except emotionally...

"and we need to stand behind the president and forget about our personal agendas,"

that's McCains speech..

how do you defend that?


or pandering to Oral Pat Robertson.

are you brain dead?

or just gutless.

thanks so much for you sad pathetic little mews...

.

Posted by: I see that you're not able to | April 24, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

An often-heard maxim of Republican Presidential politics is that the party nominates those who have "waited their turn". This has applied to every nominee since Ford, with perhaps the notable exception of George W. who had the "inherited mantle" exception clause working to his benefit. But Reagan, Bush Sr. and Dole were beneficiaries of the rule and it's hard at this stage to see how McCain won't be as well.

That's why it's the establishment party. You have to line up the establishment to win. If you want real grass-roots winners, look for a Democrat. McCain knows which side has to be buttered to get the nomination. Don't expect it will change the way he'd govern, which is...well, generally conservative with some independent streaks.

For more independent perspective from Oregon to the UK, visit us at the kazablog

Posted by: activist kaza | April 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

oh, and I agree, Che should just marry Condi and stop posting his long off-topic screeds somewhere else - try Red China, Condi would love that.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | April 24, 2006 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I used to back McCain as a straight-talking candidate who represented old-time Republican values of fiscal conservatism and responsible government, but recently have seen him step over to the dark side and start pushing extremist anti-American positions of the neocons and radical religious extremists.

He's dead to me now.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | April 24, 2006 11:26 AM | Report abuse

McCain would be ok as Defense Secretary. I'd prefer Lieberman though.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | April 23, 2006 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Nice thing about the scroll key, we can all just bypass the ranting from Che and others who keep posting long long clips.

Anyway, McCain was not scorned by the Republicans, he won New Hampshire, and Michigan, and collected delegates fair and square. He just failed to get the support of key GOP leaders like governors and other party chairman. Many voters put their trust in leaders from their states, and from that viewpoint, Bush has proven himself stronger than McCain as our leader.

The Sunday paper has a story about a group promoting Condi Rice for president. Nice to see the newspaper is finally reporting the efforts of people who are donating and working to make a difference for our nation. The piece also gave coverage of other possible candidates, as if they really needed it. We all know Hillary and Mark Warner will be in a face-off in 2008, so that is not really news.

But doing a review on Ask.com and yahoo, for Condoleezza Rice or Madam President Rice, and you find a wealth of information. Some of the best stories were written back in January 2005, and it is amazing the momentum has been churning out news about Condi as our next president ever since.

There is also a Marist poll from early 2006 showing Condi tied at 22% with Rudy and McCain. I wonder why the Wash Post failed to mention that stuff.

Keep it going, the news about McCain is that he would make an interesting Sec. of Defense.

Posted by: Julie Thompson | April 23, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I was at the dentist a few months back and there was an issue of Architechural digest that featured the McCain spread down in Arizona. He and his wife have dubious design asthetics to say the least. If i could name the mofit it would be "LSD-santa fe-packrat." And that's being kind.

We can go back and forth about McCain's fitness for prez. I believe a lot of good points have come before me. It seems like (us) liberal are kinda more weary of him now and perhaps that's cuz we fear he will win in 2008. fair enough.

But it's worth nothing that so much of McCain's cachet stems from him maverick status. And after kissing the fanny of his harshest critics for the past several years, it's hard to hold him in the same light. I used to like him just fine. and i am liberal as they come. But after seeing McCain cozying up to people who he's been courting lately, i see the same unsavory-looking political ambition that i've noticed so much lately in Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yuck to both. I hope neither runs for the Whitehouse.
http://einkleinesblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: jay lassiter | April 23, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Great post "che" - you showed that you can copy and paste well and avoid the topic really well too! Be proud you're such a sly cheat, it's all the rage it seems. .... Apparently you have no problems pitching your tent on already established sites, to heck with ethics or rules, huh "Che"? I suppose it is a lot easier than doing one's own marketing, spending one's own dime and obtaining one's own traffic. (i.e., working for what you want), but I suppose you can sleep alright at night huh? It seems like it doesn't bother you (or others who do stuff like you), that you are a cheat and theif. Not a problem is it "Che" - that you are lacking in class, manners and you are basically a lazy unimpressive propaganda pusher - What an ace representative of your party, super job - way to capitalize and really use people boy - go get em!

Posted by: Jackie | April 23, 2006 5:53 AM | Report abuse


FOR UNCENSORED NEWS PLEASE BOOKMARK:

WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM
WWW.TAKINGAIM.INFO
WWW.WSWS.ORG
WWW.GREGPALAST.COM
OTHERSIDE123.BLOGSPOT.COM

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

April 22, 2006 -- As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald meets with the Washington grand jury examining evidence against Karl Rove and others in the leaking of the name of Valerie Plame Wilson and her Brewster Jennings non-official cover (NOC) firm in a vendetta orchestrated by the Bush White House, WMR has been told by a very reliable source with high-level connections to the intelligence community that National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is now under investigation for the leaking of the names of two CIA "NOCS" to the media. One is Plame Wilson. The other was the leaking of the name of CIA officer Johnny "Mike" Spann, a CIA NOC officer who transferred to the CIA's paramilitary Special Activities Division after 9-11 and was killed during a November 25, 2001 prison riot by Taliban detainees in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan. According to the source, Hadley, who was then deputy to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, leaked Spann's CIA identity to galvanize American public opinion in support of the Bush administration's policies. In October 2003, Spann's father said his son's name, address, and CIA status were revealed before adequate measures could be taken to protect his son's wife and children.

Hadley reportedly involved in the leak of two CIA agents' names

But there were other ramifications. Spann, like Plame Wilson, had established his own network of informants through his covert activities as a NOC. Spann's network was put in as much jeopardy as Plame Wilson's counter-proliferation team. Spann had established a circle of informants and brokers in the Pashtun tribal areas on the Afghan-Pakistani border, among General Abdul Rashid Dostum's Uzbek forces in northwestern Afghanistan, Omani informants in the port city of Gwadar in Baluchistan, and Iranian intelligence personnel in Afghanistan who had operated against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. When Spann's name and identity were revealed, Al Qaeda and Taliban supporters knew who among their ranks and in Afghanistan and neighboring countries had been dealing with Spann. The White House leak of Spann's name directly led to the murders of some of these informants and agents of influence.

The Spann disclosure also involved Robert Novak, one of the journalists involved in the leaking by the White House of Plame Wilson's name. In a December 3, 2001 column, Novak tried to cover for Hadley by blaming the leak of Spann's name and identity on then-CIA director George Tenet. However, the actual leaker was reportedly Hadley, who may have been acting on the orders of more senior officials. Tenet only acknowledged Spann as a CIA agent after someone leaked the name to the media. That "someone" was reportedly Hadley. The White House leaks about the CIA's covert roles in Afghanistan began with the publication of a detailed story in The Washington Post on November 18, 2001 by Bob Woodward that put CIA covert agents in Afghanistan at risk. Seven days later, one of those covert agents was killed. It is not yet known if Hadley was a source for Woodward's story but it is a subject of Fitzgerald's current investigation. As with the Plame Wilson leak, the revelations about Spann triggered an internal CIA damage assessment. The Spann and Plame Wilson/Brewster Jennings leaks by the White House have expanded the Fitzgerald probe into an investigation of a massive conspiracy by the Bush administration that broke a number of national security laws and did irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.

In another development, the exposure of the Brewster Jennings team is continuing to have devastating effects on various informants involved in the A Q Khan nuclear smuggling network. One Turkish player in the network, Gunes Cire, head of Eti Elektronik, died suddenly in 2004 after his company was implicated by the Turkish Directorate General of Customs Control in the export of nuclear materials to Gulf Technical Industries in Dubai either directly or via Malaysia. From Dubai the materials were shipped to Pakistan and Libya. Another Turk, Selim Alguadish, head of EKA Elektronik and 3E Endustriyel Sanayi, was arrested in Germany for extradition to Turkey. Alguadish was linked to Urs Tinner, who was reportedly working with the CIA to provide faulty nuclear components to the Malaysian front for the A Q Khan network, Scomi Precision Engineering. Another Turk who was the focus of U.S. intelligence was Zeki Bilmen, the owner of Giza Technologies of Secaucus, New Jersey. Bilmen provided nuclear trigger spark gaps via a South African-Israeli named Asher Karni, the owner of South Africa-based Top-Cape, who then sent them to the A Q Khan network in Pakistan. With respect to Bilmen and Karni, when it was discovered that the A Q Khan network that was supplying nuclear components to Iran, North Korea, and, possibly, Saudi Arabia, had a potentially significant Israeli-connected component, the pursuit of that particular avenue by the CIA ground to a screeching halt.

The CIA's counter-proliferation work has historically suffered from exposures and interference from all the Bush administrations. In 1989, one of Valerie Plame Wilson's predecessor's in the CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division, Richard Barlow, was fired after he uncovered the involvement of the George H. W. Bush administration in facilitating the A Q Khan network and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration did not want to alienate Pakistan, a key ally in the mujaheddin war against the Soviet Union. One of the individual's involved in muzzling and punishing Barlow was then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney's Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy -- Stephen Hadley

Posted by: che | April 23, 2006 5:37 AM | Report abuse

MEOW! The whole bashing thing is getting old and tiresome, what is wrong with you people anyway, are you afraid he may somehow win the presidency and beat out a Democrat in 2008? The slamming I have read here, (including this "article/opinion"), is really just a lot of bitter people capitalizing and joining in on the current fad of disrespect and disregard.

If McCain wants to become president, he is going to try to get backing to become president. Candidates on the right and the left and all the little parties too, get backing, raise funds etc., what is this, a surprise to some of you?

Reading the very first paragraph in this "article" - where it says, "... Sen. John McCain (R) is courting the Republican establishment that scorned him in the 2000 presidential race..." PLEASE! If you think about it, that is a common thing, not an uncommon thing. This makes it sound like this weird off-the-wall evil (but that is how the left is dealing with any bit of any news at any time in any situation, so that is no shocker). And you bloodthirsty folk on the left commenting by using basically nothing of substance - had NOTHING REAL to say about this "non-news-worthy" bit of information either. The whole article and these posts were simply used the way most like articles/opinions/post boards are used today (political boards), and that is just another opportunity to "trash for your party", bash for the ego lift it provides and basically do what it is that the dems have done best in the last 5 years, (or better, 'do more of what they ONLY have done in the last 5 years).

If you recall, in recent history, --- > Kerry bashed Edwards and Edwards did the same thing to Kerry, < --- pretty badly on both ends as I recall. They ended up running as a team too - is that a shocker, or is this whopper more of a scandalous shocker to you all? And NOW DAYS, Edwards is back to putting down Kerry all over again and often too! Sounds like --- what ---- a flip flopper?

You dems should like McCain as a Republican candidate. He is a sincere person, a good man, (not that those particular things matter to you) who has "sided" with the people who her personally thought were doing or acting in the best interests of the country, a rare thing these days on both sides! He and Senator Lieberman seem to be disliked by their own party because they do that, side with what they think is good for the country from time to time -- and that's a bad thing on Cap. Hill! Goodness! If you run Hillary, you are bound to lose anyway, isn't it best that you at least have some regard for someone on the right who may be the next president or are we going to hear another four or more years of the same "brining down the house" music because you did not get the job again? (Temper tantrums are apparently not reserved for 3-year-old children).

Now not only do their respective parties dislike them for their disloyalty, (not to the country of course, to their own cut throat parties), but now we have the left bashing McCain because they are partisan, pride filled, desperate and frustrated, (not to mention led and fed into believing some incredibly wacko things) The same goes for Lieberman, too much of a traitor for his own "us us us only" party and too left for the right. So it is highly DOUBTFUL that either one of them could be elected as president JUST BECAUSE they try to do what is best for the country -- and we all can see, that move is political suicide. My point is, why go on and on about how horrid this man is; are there not enough politicians to go around, think you may run out of Republicans to trash --- golly - then what will the good dems on Capital Hill do for sport and what will you people do for internet fun?
In regard to the "he almost became democrat" whining I have read ... Okay, perhaps he did think of a move to the left several years ago, but SO WHAT? He did not go, did he? So what is the big bad point in that? Furthermore, he is human FIRST and senator / politician second and hey, maybe he was HURT after 2000, ever think of that? Is that a mortal sin or am I missing the whole scandal around that whole issue?
We have seen this icky crud for 5 plus years now coming from the left --- you have accusations that are later proven wrong, (and that part of course is left unreported, go figure), you have blocked bills so the left leaders do not have to tip their hands before this golden opportunity in 06, (like it worked in the other years, but oh well). You have constant bashing and feeding on one another's anger, (which is odd that it has become almost a fad of the day for many) and honestly, teaching our children and the country as a whole that it is an normal thing, an okay thing and a profitable thing to disrespect leaders and bash the opposition to win, is just sad. It is not done for freedom of speech, and most who are honest with themselves know that. And the candidates will continue to play more dirty politics, concentrating on who they can bring down, right or wrong, lies or not, and the days of campaigning on merit and vision, ideas and honest sincerity will be gone. They are going to do what they get the best results doing... they become more unethical and get more votes, they are going to do it ten-fold -- especially when their own recruited sheep are in the game playing in the same mud.
The power of desperation and bad pride is immense - only thing is, it's the easy road to take for everyone. The hard road requires a bit more strength, a lot of dealing with ones own personal issues and then the practice of perspective and logic again. One actually has to face their own cultivated pride and weaknesses, (an unpleasant thing to most), and then have the strength to deal with it. From there perhaps reintroduce perspective and logic... and what would be a real stunner - actually look up facts and try to avoid believing even the most convincing garbage that comes out of their own party, because lately, it needs to be verified - and partisan sites just do not do a great job of that. Seem impossible to you, it does to me too, but I suppose I had to at least voice my own opinion for all it's worth.

Posted by: l terhune | April 23, 2006 4:09 AM | Report abuse

how pathetic that last person is!! probably sitting around in his pajamas ripping real men and real leaders. Sad. Get a life.

Posted by: Jackson | April 22, 2006 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Dallas crowd,

the same one behind cunning ham and deal aide, right...

where did JFK die?


well, there' 's more than one way to die,


sometimes your character dies while the man keeps walking....

see a lot of that in Washington DC.

don't yah pee wee?

.

Posted by: so I guess this is where he gets into bed with the | April 22, 2006 10:04 PM | Report abuse

he would stand up for something besides..

same old same old...

he's asking to be accepted by it on their terms....


please massa, I'll be good...oh yeah, he's strong...

like limburger..

.

Posted by: I f he were a real man, | April 22, 2006 10:02 PM | Report abuse

now I feel pity.

in many ways, though he appears to be a man that is decisive and "in control" what he seems to be is a man,

bent on pandering.


he's already signed onto the bush team...


as a second stringer.

no vision, no voice,

same conspiracy.


America for it's leaders while the people rot....

kiss falwell's butt along with the Pat Roberstson....I'll sick gawd on you if you have an idea different from mine...


got bush's campaign manager...oh he's A-1.


smells like shite looks like shite tastes like shite...


it must be more of the same.

.

Posted by: I used to respect John McCain... | April 22, 2006 10:00 PM | Report abuse

If McCain's always been so conservative, why was he talking with Daschle and Reid about switching parties 5 years ago??

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | April 22, 2006 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Douglas is right. All this handwringing by liberals about John McCain is so predictible. He remains true to his principles, fights constantly for his values (and those of the American people, I might add . . . i.e. torture ban), and just as he's emerging as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination and likely to CRUSH Hillary or Kerry or anyone else...they proclaim he's a flip flopper or worse. You're going to have to do better than that to convince the American people!

Posted by: AMH | April 22, 2006 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Q Ball,

He's always been a conservative. That's what troubles you, I suppose. He hasn't moved on any issues to garner the support of Falwell; in fact, didn't he say he would continue to oppose the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (on Federalist grounds). Right now, he's leading the effort, against the nativist wing of his party, on immigration reform. And this after taking on the Bush Administration on torture, climate change and changing the filibuster rules in the Senate.

Posted by: Douglas | April 22, 2006 6:53 PM | Report abuse

McCain calls them as he sees them. He called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" and now he's playing nice with Falwell. Huh? He voted against Bush's tax cuts and now supports them. If he thinks he can move far to the right and then start up the "Straight Talk Express" again, he's sadly mistaken. After Bush, the right wing of the Republican party will demand that whoever gets the nomination be so conservative that they cannot possibly win the general election.

Posted by: Q | April 22, 2006 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Peter,

I'm sure he has his own self respect. He has no reason not to. McCain calls them as he sees them, is open and honest, and fights against special interests at all levels. You offer no rationale for your judgement. Sad.

Posted by: Douglas | April 22, 2006 5:49 PM | Report abuse

If McCain no longer has his own self-repect he no longer has mine.
As a fellow Vietnam combat flyer I am very disappointed.

Posted by: Peter L. | April 22, 2006 5:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain is courting the Republican establishment. I saw his game playing at Memphis, and he was not well supported at all by state chairs or delegates.
The endorsement by a governor or a senator might pull some weight, but serious minded voters will decide who to support because of their strong stand on national issues and international policy.
George Allen and Mitt Romney and Condi Rice are strong leaders for 2008, but if McCain can help the Republicans win some seats in 2006, he might win a more votes.

Posted by: Janice | April 22, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

The biggest thing the media can't seem to get straight is that the voters will be making up their minds soon, and the money race is not the real story. It is support in the state by state polls. Come on people, who gives a rip about a national taken of 2,000 voters this far out from the start of the 2008 cycle?
Look at the state polls like Iowa, New Hamphire, South Carolina, and Florida. The Republicans have an open race, and the top candidates for 2008 are Romney, Allen, Rudy, and Condi, and once in awhile, McCain gets strong support in a state poll.
Right now it is just a money race, and whoever gets the most money, so the MEDIA says, will win the nomination....as mentioned above in reference to Howard Dean. Whatever happened to all that $50 million mentioned anyway? Did Howard Dean have so many consultants that they sucked away the money or did he run TV and radio ads across the nation hoping to build support instead of getting a base of support in Iowa? I think the biggest thing that hurt Howard Dean was the fact his wife, (a doctor) seemed annoyed at the fuss about whether she wanted to be first lady or not, and whether she could still take care of her patients. Add the fact of Howard Dean and his big mouth, no wonder he lost. His ads might have worked if he would have stayed in the background, but he was such a smarta**, that he annoyed more Dems in Iowa instead of winning their support. McCain is similar, he has a terrible temper, and it is so weird the media calls President Bush "arrogant", "my way or the highway", and living in a bubble. In my opinion, McCain is more of all those descriptions than the President. McCain might be trying to win the Bush supporters, but until Karl Rove decides who will be the "heir apparent" in 2008, all bets are off.

Posted by: Helen | April 22, 2006 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The beauty of free speech lives in this blog, but I can't see why the MEDIA worships at the foot of McCain? Ok, he attracts support from some Dems and some independents, why how is that going to help him win the Republican delegates he will need from across the nation?
Iowa is the start of the 2008 season, and only the top 3 Republicans will have a chance of winning the nomination.
Since 1976, only the top 3 candidates have ever gone on to be on the ticket for any presidential race.
I think it will be Allen, Condi, and Romney out of Iowa, not McCain.
The 2008 field of battle will have 12 Republicans in hand to hand combat, while the 12 Democrats smash each other to see who can survive to do battle with Hillary on her white horse.
This is historic stuff, and we are living a time when the voters will be deciding who will best represent them in the White House.
Condi will be on the ballot as either President or VP. Fred Barnes and Wonkette are just part of the buzz promoting Condi, so it is exciting to watch now.
Wait and watch what happens after the election of 2006, it will be the launching pad of political rockets aimed at the Dems and the GOP, insider vs outsider, and it will be on our front pages and on our TV's.
A Real Soap Opera of the Gladiators.

Posted by: Tammy | April 22, 2006 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Che seems to be using this blog site to defend Condi, so he could just save our eyeballs and admit it instead of HOGGING all the blog space.

Anyway, over 200,000 donors for the Bush 2000 and Bush 2004 campaign seem to be up for grabs. Some are linking to McCain, others to Allen, and then Frist. I would like to know if any of the Bush people are donating to the Condi group, pushing her to run in 2008? Mark McKinnon has been quoted numerous times that he would not be working with McCain if Jeb Bush or Condi ran. So as long as McCain is getting headlines, the media will keep pushing him as the "front runner". Funny, it sounds so similar to the Howard Dean frontrunner status, as he sat on his mountain of $50 million from anti-Bush Dems and liberals that it was amazing to see Dean toppled for his childish behavior in Iowa. That is what the media is really wanting for, to keep building up McCain until the pressue makes his TEMPER pop out and that same media will bury him.
I have no time for McCain, he badmouths the President when it suits him and then kisses the Bush butt when it will give McCain headlines.
Cillizza came over the Washington Post from Roll Call, the newspaper of record.
Now the Washington Post allows him to spout off in support of McCain, but thank goodness, we in the blogworld, can tell how we will not support McCain for 2008.
And Yes, I served in Vietnam, too, but that has not clouded by judgement.
Condi Rice will provide the leadership for our nation, and as a male, I can tell you that she is a tough no-nonsense woman. She is strong willed, with determination to get her work done, and I will be following the efforts to get her to run for the next year. Boy, we need her to the ticket in 2008.

Posted by: Thomas | April 22, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

che,

please stop this, okay? you're making it very difficult for anyone else to use this space.

Posted by: Drindl | April 22, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I was wondering, J.D.

Why the commotion? McCain is a conservative, with strong views on a few issues that are outside the normal conservative orthodoxy. Nothing different from 2000. He still speaks with passion and honesty about the key issues of the day, be they Iraq (and Rumsfield's incompetence), "gang of 14," global warming, or out of control spending and government corruption. McCain is still the most accesible politician in America. Is this such a big change from McCain or the realization by some liberals that he could win the 2008 GOP nomination and trounce any liberal Democrat in the general election?

Posted by: Jules | April 22, 2006 7:46 AM | Report abuse

I should say, has not flipped on any issue. My apologies to the good Senator and your readers Chris.

Posted by: J.D. | April 22, 2006 6:54 AM | Report abuse

As far as I can tell, McCain has flipped on any issue. He continues to be the only authentic and brave voice in the Congress on issues ranging from torture to immigration to preserving the right of a minority to filibuster, all in the face of intense (ever listen to Rush, Lou Dobbs, or Hannit?) "right wing" opposition. The fact some of his detractors from 2000 have come to the conclusion he is a winner and therefore want to back him in 2008 says more about their character and nothing about his!

Posted by: J.D. | April 22, 2006 6:54 AM | Report abuse

How pathetic. John McCain is selling out to get the nomination, but by the time he pays the right wing's price, he'll be completely unelectable if he can even get the nomination. McCain is a flip flopper of the worst kind. He's willing to completely sell out everything he was for in 2000 in order to get nominated. Even in 2000, McCain was more of a media fascination than anything else. He got an upset in kooky little New Hampshire (which has what, under 1% of the US population--very representative), won Michigan because a bunch of Democrats showed up to sabatoge Bush, and got creamed everywhere else (except his home state). The media has an obsession with mavericks and is desparate to see one become president. But that won't happen because mavericks are unreliable, and the party faithful don't like them because of that. Feingold and McCain, like Tsongas and Brown will end up as footnotes of the next campaign. McCain's willingness to sell out his previous beliefs should tell people on the right, center, and left that he is willing to say or do anything to get their support. Is that the kind of president anyone wants?

Posted by: Q | April 22, 2006 3:57 AM | Report abuse

Paul Krugman and another columnist both wrote recently about what a conservative McCain *isn't*. After all he was in talks with the Democratic Senate leadership about switching parties in 2001.

And I won't stop mentioning his age--McCain will be 72 in 2008. He'd be 76 at the end of a first term and 80 at the end of a 2nd, breaking Reagan's record. Given how well it worked out the first time, I don't think we want to go there again. In fact maybe we should set a maximum age limit on presidents instead of a minimum.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | April 21, 2006 11:50 PM | Report abuse

McCain appears constipated these days when interviewed. He's sacrificed principle for the expediency of his ambition. As a result he's mealy mouthed and parsing his words instead of the blunt straight talk once associated with him.

Ironicallly, McCain has only served to undermine his ambitions. The Christian Right will never accept him as one of them. Yet he's sacrificed his veneer of authenticity and is exposed as a serial panderer. Hence he has the worst of all worlds. I respect the man's service and how he put the well being of his POW comrades above his own. Sadly though McCain today regards his own ambitions as more important than the nation.

I believe Johh Kerry is unfit to be commander and chief because he supported a war in 2002 simply out of expediency rather than conviction.

McCain is unfit because he's pandering to the GOP's apostles of hate and he knows better.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | April 21, 2006 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Sorry! That was supposed to be on the Governor's post.

Posted by: Christian Grantham | April 21, 2006 9:23 PM | Report abuse

What does that have to do with John McCain?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | April 21, 2006 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Here in Tennessee, the popular Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen, has his challengers. His biggest challenge are the renovations to the governor's mansion. Check this out. The governor is auctioning off his master bathroom toilet online. The auction ends in 13 days.

http://www.christiangrantham.com/blog/archives/000191.php

Posted by: Christian Grantham | April 21, 2006 7:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company