Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

More Departures From McCain '08

In a widely expected move, Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) press department resigned en masse today.

Communications director Brian Jones stepped down, along with deputies Matt David and Danny Diaz. Research director Brian Rogers and South Carolina McCain spokesman Adam Temple are also leaving the campaign.

None of the depatures is surprising, as Jones, Diaz, David and the others were seen as loyalists of campaign manager Terry Nelson, who resigned last week. Sources familiar with the campaign insisted the departures were not acrimonious, pointing out that Jones and David will stay through the week to help ease the transition.

Jones's likely replacement is Jill Hazelbaker, who has been handling New Hampshire press for McCain. Prior to her work for McCain, Hazelbaker worked press for the 2006 Senate campaign of New Jersey state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R). Sources cautioned that the Hazelbaker deal was not official yet but that the conversation appeared to be moving in that direction.

The reality of McCain's new campaign is that he simply does not have the financial capacity to maintain the sort of broad national staff that he maintained over the first six months of the year. Whether or not Nelson (and former chief campaign strategist John Weaver) had stayed on after last week, McCain would have been forced to scale back his staff to correspond with his campaign's financial woes.

Will this be the end of the departures from Team McCain? From what we hear, it should be. So, starting today the new McCain regime must start rebuilding what was once a top-tier campaign. They've got until Jan. 14, 2008, to do it.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 16, 2007; 10:23 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bill Richardson: Slowly But Surely
Next: Mitt's Many Metaphors

Comments

iyzopg kroei hxvyb tbspjqa slzumvxif rfxku lesza [URL]http://www.siadkup.gjps.com[/URL] nieyqzh wqltcifv

Posted by: xiydrlnvo rwtjbl | August 14, 2007 2:24 AM | Report abuse

pocambe bsqyerign jorgmscaf hpwdvito hvwtzras wfmxc pvljrea [URL=http://www.odtxbkew.tbjlr.com]jgwqhsfd ngmsx[/URL]

Posted by: chtf uyqktpr | August 14, 2007 2:23 AM | Report abuse

tjrsu cavnim iojkwaen zdwmrfc clsgykoh gynu mgieujd ksjqiw esuaz

Posted by: xwjf lxqemd | August 14, 2007 2:22 AM | Report abuse

zhnmdiglu fezcp zigqsae urjmqf ytmhu mzakehrwy wteucpv

Posted by: rswj fhervgla | August 14, 2007 2:21 AM | Report abuse

McCain isn't dead. This was a huge victory for the Republican's today in defeating the dems. surrender plan. This will give the surge until September to make progress. Over that time, McCain will valiantly fight the good fight in defense of General Patreaus and the US military. I believe the surge will show significant progress and the war in Iraq will re-gain some public support as people realize this war must be won, and is still winnable. McCain's poll numbers will go up as this happens and make him a viable contender in this race.

Posted by: reason | July 18, 2007 10:36 PM | Report abuse

I think we should fight the war in Iraq until all the insurgents are eliminated or killed. We are morally right, we have superior technology, we have very well equipped soldiers, & GOD is on our side. How do I know? I live in 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. My neighbor is the greatest US President of all times & as neighbors we talk frequently. Just like President Bush talks to GOD & tells us what GOD told him to tell us, then we should listen to the President, because the words really came from GOD through President Bush. That is exactly the reason the US Main Stream Media is supporting President Bush left & right. Got to go to talk to my neighbor, he is calling me over the fence.

Bye.

General W. Buffoon.

Posted by: General W. Buffoon | July 18, 2007 2:42 AM | Report abuse

"He should have picked a position (maverick or conservative) and stuck with it."

Exactly. But I have NEVER heard a Republican criticize him on supporting the war - that's the Dem fantasy that Republicans don't like McCain because he isn't more like Democrat!

No, we don't like him because we have learned we can't trust him. I can understand how for Democrats that would be hard to believe, they would trust Kim Jong Il if it made them look good politically... oh wait...!

Posted by: sherlock | July 17, 2007 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Lets face reality Sen Amnesty John McCain
self-destructed his own 2008 GOP Presidential Campaign,by co-sponsoring the
Bush-Teddy Kennedy-Amnesty John McCain
Leave No Illegal Alien Behind Instant
Amnesty and Free US Citizenship,Cheap Labor
US Chamber of Commerce Corporate Welfare
Plan,and that has got McCain and Two Face
Jon Kyl and on-going Recall against them
in Arizona,and McCain insane backing Loser
in Chief George Witless Bush War in Iraq and McCain Kissing Bush's Butt Destroyed
McCain and his 2008 GOP Presidential Bid!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | July 17, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Lets face reality Sen Amnesty John McCain
self-destructed his own 2008 GOP Presidential Campaign,by co-sponsoring the
Bush-Teddy Kennedy-Amnesty John McCain
Leave No Illegal Alien Behind Instant
Amnesty and Free US Citizenship,Cheap Labor
US Chamber of Commerce Corporate Welfare
Plan,and that has got McCain and Two Face
Jon Kyl and on-going Recall against them
in Arizona,and McCain insane backing Loser
in Chief George Witless Bush War in Iraq and McCain Kissing Bush's Butt Destroyed
McCain and his 2008 GOP Presidential Bid!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | July 17, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Please click below to watch the new Romney ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RFY3GYDEbg

:)

Posted by: Jas | July 17, 2007 1:17 AM | Report abuse

The signs of MaCain's setbacks in his campaign is a sure voice of America people's disapproval of the war in Iraq. Although a crucial stepback in McCain's compaign, there are still more important issues concerning America and the world today that needs to be addressed. As to date, $450 billion dollars has been spent on the meaningless war in Iraq. Americans are put more at risk for violence since the start of this war. And our attention of preventing and stopping international terrorism has lead us into a war under false pretenses and meaningless as this one. More importantly the government has allowed extreme poverty to grow in America and in Iraq with thousands of refugees and people under extreme financial distress. The US is part of the UN's Millennium Development Project, which has the goal of eliminating global poverty. However by examining the conducts of our government, no poverty is reduced. Rather, poverty has increased. According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to fight global poverty, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually stop world hunger and poverty. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been put into the Iraq war at a rate of $2 billion dollars per week. Our government needs to realize that it is indirectly funding poverty, violence and hunger, the three things that it pledged and vowed to eliminate. It is time for a change.

Posted by: Mstessyrue | July 16, 2007 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to "NONE OF THE ABOVE"?

Give us back our rights as Americans to choose.

The game is rigged from the get-go. Candidates are required to raise enormous amounts of money. That limits the playing field significantly. It's not a new thing, even George Washington was a wealthy landowner.

It's time to turn to public funding for presidential candidates. We need the best president, not the best fundraiser. It's time to take all misperception of possible influence off the table away from our elected representatives.

It is NOT a choice to have the same old party hacks and retreads (D & R are both equally guilty) feeding from the campaign-financed institutionalized shakedown, special interests, and quid pro quo crowd.

There is no new blood out there because the two parties deliberately exclude and marginalize anyone who poses a threat to their undue influence. You'd better believe that elephants and donkeys look around nervously at other democracies that offer multiple political parties from which to choose. They don't want to open their arms to new voter blocs only to be Darwinized out of the food chain.

The two parties have perverted our system of govt from the original design of our founding fathers to perpetuate its own power base. Their candidates are all corruptable, unworthy, or incapable.

Only a nutjob or a crook would want to be President in a world that's going to hell in a handbasket.

Let's take back our country in 2008 and kick the leeches out!

NONE OF THE ABOVE!!

Posted by: NOTA | July 16, 2007 10:49 PM | Report abuse

What happen to the money?

just recently McCain had over $22M but now has around $250K and very little has been spent on advertsing. If I was McCain I would be asking lots of questions - maybe he doesn't want to know what happen to the mnoney?

Posted by: Rich Gansemer | July 16, 2007 9:53 PM | Report abuse

With his contemptible, ridiculous, "moral & political" about-face, McCain has consigned himself to the trash heap of history. Couldn't have happened to a nastier guy. The old style GOP is over.

Posted by: Jasper Vaughn | July 16, 2007 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Jill Hazelbacker is a first-rate cracker. When she was with the Kean campaign in New Jersey in 2006, she was caught falsely plantly opposition blogs for the Kean campaign. It was traced to her computer.

And now she is heading up the effort at McCain.....call in pall bearers.

Posted by: Mart in NJ | July 16, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Eat me!

Posted by: President H. Sandwich | July 16, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I just called "Public Strategies" and they will not tell me if they are still involved in the McCain Campaign.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 16, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I think people, especially liberals, need to pay attention to what we hear from femiinists. They ARE NOT necessarily liberals nor progressives and there are quite a few liberals who are confusing feminists with liberals. Hillary Clinton is a case in point. She is a pro-business, "friend of the wealthy" corporate type, who is very much a feminist. On forums, such as this one, when a liberal posts something critical of Ms. Clinton, they will often be subjected to attacks by femnists. It took me a bit of time to figure this out and I simply want liberals to understand what ythey are getting into with Ms. Clinton and her crowd.

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"And what exactly did Kerry stand for, other than being the libs alternative to the one man they would vote for a ham sandwhich to defeat - George W. Bush?"
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 05:22 PM

I just looked it up on the dictionary site for Tahcreepistan, and John Kerry actually does stand for ham sandwich.

Posted by: Carlos Slim | July 16, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if ex-cocaine dealer, and now media advisor to McCain, Mark McKinnon, who is also head of Public Strategies in Austin, is still working for McCain and if his cocaine dealing has anything to do with his position?

Posted by: Gary Rasp | July 16, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

If Bush and/or Cheney et al were assassinated, and if I were called to serve on the jury and the testimony of the assassin was that he was upholding the Constitution and protecting us from regime that had overthrown us, I would absolutely, positively vote "not guilty" and I would then proceed to start dancing in the streets, something I haven't done in decades. That's in case any Republicans out there are listening.

Posted by: Annie Miller | July 16, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

My hope is not that Bush and Cheney are assassinated, but that they are captured by some foriegn entity and taken to one a' dem extraordinary rendering plants and tortured so we finally get some truth out of them. Unless Al Qaida gets his hands on them, we'll just never really know what happened.

Posted by: Mcat | July 16, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

If Bush and/or Cheney et al were assassinated, and if I were called to serve on the jury and the testimony of the assassin was that he was upholding the Constitution and protecting us from regime that had overthrown us, I would absolutely, positively vote "not guilty" and I would then proceed to start dancing in the streets, something I haven't done in decades. That's in case any Republicans out there are listening.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"And what exactly did Kerry stand for, other than being the libs alternative to the one man they would vote for a ham sandwhich to defeat - George W. Bush?"

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 05:22 PM

As much of a loser as Kerry was, I find it amazing that anyone would not support a ham sandwich instead of Bush today. I'd rather see Osama bin Laden running our country, than Bush and Cheney. I'm serious.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Some of us thought John Kerry would make a good president, actually. Not so hot on the campaign trail, but then again -- maybe we ought to start looking for someone whose strength isn't focused on slogans rather than governance.

As far as what Kerry stood for, a change of course in Iraq would be a good place to start. A return to fiscal discipline, new economic priorities with a focus on progressive taxation, and a commitment to addressing the health care crisis were also high up on the platform.

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if ex-cocaine dealer, and now media advisor to McCain, Mark McKinnon, who is also head of Public Strategies in Austin, is still working for McCain and if his cocaine dealing has anything to do with his position?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

And what exactly did Kerry stand for, other than being the libs alternative to the one man they would vote for a ham sandwhich to defeat - George W. Bush?

Hypocrit

http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- the knock against feminism is pretty ridiculous and makes you sound ignorant, which I know from other inciteful posts you are not. Lots of women do support Hillary b/c they're anxious to see that particular glass ceiling broken down. Just because you and I don't think that particular virtue outweighs her substantial negatives doesn't mean those folks are irrational or whatever charicature of feminism you have in mind.

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"Reading this thread I am saddened to see how Republicans are determined to vote AGAINST someone (Mrs. Clinton) rather than FOR a candidate "

Hey no-name... not only are you wrong, but you're a hypocrit.

Think back to 2004. Libs would have voted for a ham sandwhich to get Bush out of the white house.

What exactly does John Kerry stand for, anyway?

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Reading this thread I am saddened to see how Republicans are determined to vote AGAINST someone (Mrs. Clinton) rather than FOR a candidate who's views they find disgusting (Mr. Romney, Mr. Thompson). I wonder when the GOP fellow travellers will wake up to the sad fact that they are out in the cold and no one exists who can (a) win and (b) lead them in their march to narrow-shallow-bigoted nirvanah. We need Rocky again.

I suppose it's a measure of "dangerous" that these fools find themselves parsing. Mrs. Clinton is more "dangerous" because she has a consistent stand on issues they find horrific, while the Romneys, etc., are not quite so dangerous because they change their views change like hemlines.

When will these people start thinking for themselves and cease demanding to be spoon fed by dreadful people who are using them?

I wonder.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Karen, Kren - This is about what we can expect from the rabid clodhoppers riding the Clinton bandwagon. As I said before, any liberal, anyone with brains, will oppose her candidacy and question her so obvious disconnection with working men and women. Spend a few minutes, at least, reading those NYT researched sattements of hers before you blather some knee jerk support for Clinton again. Just a couple of examples: No Republican candidate has advocated removing *all* limits from guest worker visas, but Clinton has. No Democratic candidate has advocated taking unilateral and "re-emptive" military action against Iran, but Clinton has; along with her ideological fellow, Dick Cheney. I take it that you two are feminists and not not liberals. If nothing else, your blind support for the Clinton diaster serves to disabuse liberals and progressives that feminism is rational or liberal.

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

'During a campaign tour of Iowa this past weekend with Bobby Schindler, brother of the late Terri Schiavo, Sam Brownback stood by the federal government's attempt to intervene in the case two years ago. "Her life remained sacred to the very end," Brownback said. "Whether it's a child in the womb or it's somebody that has had a very difficult situation ... she nonetheless remains a person and she shouldn't be artificially, or by humans, terminated. Instead, we should protect these lives."

-Of course Brownback didn't say one word or take any action when people were dying in New Orleanes (Hurricane Katrina).

Posted by: Admiral Komack | July 16, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

His entire campaign has been to suck up to Bush. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. In any event, he's an idiot regardless.

Posted by: Timmy | July 16, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

His entire campaign has been to suck up to Bush. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. In any event, he's an idiot regardless.

Posted by: Timmy | July 16, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: thanks for responding. Unfortunately, I second the comments of Karen: You are insane. No wonder the rightwingnuts on these boards have such a field day with so-called liberals.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

'Now, the European press *IS* reporting this and *IS* reporting the links between Clinton and these weapons sales.'

Care to provide any evidence for this -- or just making sh*t up?

Posted by: Karen | July 16, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

'I think her views are so dangerous, even more dangerous than Bush's, that I would vote Republican simply to deny her any chance of winning.'

I was right, you are insane. There is probably no one IN THE WORLD as dangerous as dick cheney.

Posted by: Kren | July 16, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

'Colin - Clinton is *far* more tied to corporate interests than is any Republican candidate. She is far more extreme in her support for outspurcing and guest workers than any candidate from either party. In addition, she is far more corrupt.'

This is the stupidest comment on the board today. There is nobody in the universe more tied to corporate interests than Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney. You must be nuts.

Posted by: Karen | July 16, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

spartan

I believe that Thompson is not under the same reporting standards as the avowed candidates.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 16, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Colin - I was referring to *legal* guest workers. Clinton, at a meeting with Indian officials late last year, proposes removing any limits on the number of Indian guest workers entering this country. She would open the flood gates to Indian and CHinese workers entering this country to take *any* and *all* jobs from Amercin workers. Go back and read those press releases. Hillary Clinton is flat out dangerous.

And, Loudoun Voter, I cannot envision any circumstance under which I would vote for Hillary Clinton. I don't trust her and neither will any genuine liberal. I would likely do as you suggest and throw my vote away on a third party candidate. But, I would take a very close look at any Republican running against her. I think her views are so dangerous, even more dangerous than Bush's, that I would vote Republican simply to deny her any chance of winning.

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain is stuck! He can't turn on Bush/Cheney, the hardrock GOP will dump on him. He can't turn on the war, the hardrock GOP will dump on him. He can't turn on immigration reform, the GOP will not dump on him for doing so but they'll call him a flip-flopper.

McCain believes that people will consider him steadfast against the prevailing political winds and therefore reward him. This thinking falters when we see that he's actually very willing to turn in the direction of those winds. He's a tired old man and should go home to rest now!

Posted by: Roofelstoon | July 16, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- I understand the anger at Hillary. Although you and I have different views on immigration, it's primarily b/c I think we can unionize the immigrants who are still entering the country now illegally. Either way, and I know you disagree with me on that, I think both of our focus is on helping US workers -- and Hillary isn't the best candidate to represent those interests. But she's not worse than the Republican candidates, in my opinion.

With respect to the issues you cite, she is in favor of Universal Health Coverate, as are all of the Democratic candidates. For me, that's a pretty huge difference. Relative to Iraq, she's still probably the most hawkish Dem and her proposed plan would still clear more than 50% of our soldiers from the Country within 6 months. Again, that's a big difference in comparison to ANY of the Republicans.

Anyway, not trying to beat a dead horse. I've criticized Hillary more than anyone and am certainly not trying to preclude you from doing the same. I just don't think it's fair to say she's worse on the issues than any of the GOP candidates. Faint praise, I admit.

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Correction to my last post: Replace "parties" with "candidates."

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: Bottom line. Would you vote for Clinton if she is the Dem nominee?

Surely you won't fall into the Naderite idiot's trap of "oh, there's no difference between the two parties." Surely Bush's Supreme Court nominees have disabused most people of that notion.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I don't know much about "progressive issues", I'm an old fashioned liberal, not ashamed of being called one, either. I'm for universal health care coverage. Something simple, like national HMO, administered along the lines of the Scandinavian systems. Ditto for universal retirement coverage, 5 weeks paid vacation for all workers, government oversight of corporations and corporate practices, and an increasing tax rate that would rest heavily on the wealthy. Clinton is for nonse of these things. Richardson fails pretty miserably, too. The candidates who do stand for these things, or most of them, are Gore, Edwards and Kusinich. Obama seems to be coming around, but he is too much like a neocon right now for my tastes. I simply think liberals need to slam the Democratic candidates. Clinton and the rest of them have gotten away with criticising Bush while proposing the many of the same policies. Clinton is actually far more of a fanatical free trader than Bush or McCain. She proposes removing caps from H1-B, L1 and L2 and similar guest worker visas which would further the damage already inflicted on the Middle Class by the "Bushies". She is far more wedded to Indian owned outsourcing firms than any candidate announced or under consideration. Moreover, she has the same insane ideas about pre-emptive military action that got us into Iraq. I am, frankly, flabbergasted that she is even taken seriously by liberals or workers.

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

McCain is being set free. He is losing supporters who were mere hirelings, supporting him because he paid them to. This is good news. McCain will win because he tells the truth.

Posted by: Erik Ronneberg | July 16, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

2nd Q fundraising info
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

democratic canidates

obama 33m
hillary 27m
edwards 9m
richardson 7m

repubican canidates

romney 20m
rudy 17m
mccain 11m

no fred thompson? curious since that he has yet to announce but he's still raising money. a potental fec violation?

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain is McDone!!!

Posted by: TennGurl | July 16, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain, in addition to all the other problems noted in the comments above, is occasionally off his game, coming across as a little confused or befuddled about his own policy positions.

It looks like the very earliest stages of Alzheimer's.

That may explain some of the organizational disarray we're seeing in his campaign. More importantly - even if he can put his campaign back together - if such moments of confusion continue or increase, McCain will lose the independents. They won't want to elect for four years a president already showing signs of forgetfulness, especially considering McCain's advanced age in comparison to other candidates.

Posted by: jgabriel | July 16, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Here's the answer to my question about Cindy McCain's Cash:

"'The dire financial situation of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign has some observers wondering why he doesn't dip into his family's fortune,' the Arizona Republic reports.

McCain, unlike rival Mitt Romney, 'isn't independently wealthy. His household is wealthy thanks to his wife, Cindy McCain, who inherited a lucrative Budweiser beer distributorship from her father, the late Jim Hensley.' Her assets are value in excess of $24 million.

But McCain flatly ruled out such a move: 'I value my marriage too much. I have never thought about it. I would never do such a thing, so I wouldn't know what the legalities are.'"

http://www.politicalwire.com/

To tell the truth, I respect the answer. Although I'm somewhat surprised that he's taking that option off the table.

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- I didn't disregard the information you cited, I simply noted that -- although factualy correct -- its a copy of oppo research that Obama GAVE reporters. As such, its facts are spun to make Clinton look as bad as possible.

Honestly, read what I wrote again. I don't LIKE Hillary and I didn't dispute the accuracy of the info I cited. What I said was simply that she is NOT worse than McCain on any of the issues you cited. You haven't actually addressed that COMPARISON at all.

Look, I prefer Obama and John Edwards to Hillary. Heck, add Richardson to the list of Democrats I'd prefer as well -- although I think he's really running for VP at this point. But Hillary is better on essentially every issue than McCain or any of the GOP candidates if you really do care about progressive issues. How you can argue otherwise is absolutely beyond me. Look at the economic policies Rudy is advocating for if you want to see what a continuation of the Bush administration would look like. Likewise, McCain as now adopted all of the Bush policies as well. Unless you think that somehow leting Karl rove run US economic policy going forward is a good idea, it's just impossible to argue that Hillary is somehow more tied to big business than a single GOP candidate.

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

did anyone notice that Jim Gilmore called it quits?

nope not really.

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Jim Gilmore, the man who made Mark Warner what he is.

Thank you, Jim!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

MikeB | July 16, 2007 12:57 PM.

You are wrong about Hillary supporting the war like John Mc Cain does. McCain just got back from a shopping trip to Baghdad. Again, we are making great progress but he still requires 100 troops to guard him. McCain is losing because he is no longer the darling of the MSM. They have always given John the benefit of the doubt in everything and always enjoyed interviewing him.

Even the MSM has now come to the conclusion that he is not the maverick he says he is. He is a 100% supporter of the WORST President in US history, GW Bush.

I have lived in AZ and know alot of inside information on his involvement with the Keating 5 and the savings and loan rip offs. Many, many people lost their life savings as John was very busy holding the federal government at bay when they tried to shut down the pyramid scheme of Charles Keating. Mc Cain is not to be trusted, ever.

The glow is off and now the real John "Bomb Iran" McCain is OUT OF THE RUNNING. Maybe he can now go back to his full time job as US senator (although it is another vote for anything else the Boosh crime family wants).

Posted by: azbill | July 16, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

did anyone notice that Jim Gilmore called it quits?

his campaign was a joke but he did come up with the somewhat clever "Rudy McRomney" moniker for the three (at the time, anyway) top tier GOP candidates.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 16, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Colin - Those cites are from the NYT! The Obama campaign used them, to be sure, but I am troubled that you would so casually disregard them. Clinton DID makes those comments about India and the Indian government and Indian corporations HAVE given her millions of dollars in campaign donations. What ought to also trouble you is that the "Senator representing Indian" isn't saying one word about Indian's selling weapons systems and technologies, including nuclear, to countries like Burma, Brazil, Argentina, etc. The just announced sale of attack helicopters by India to the brutal dictatorship in Burma is flat out sickening and Hilary's providing cover for this sort of garbage is outrageous. Now, the European press *IS* reporting this and *IS* reporting the links between Clinton and these weapons sales. Where is the U.S. press? And, where is the outrage from the Amercian left? Hillary Clinton is just about the worst candidate running right now and I am astonished that my fellow liberals aren't taking a close look at her and her record.

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The writing is on the wall for Sen. John McCain. Financial problems and his support of the Immigration Reform Bill (thanks to conservative talk radio) has doomed his chances to win the White House in 2008.

McCain's staffers are departing a sinking ship. Who can blame them? I wouldn't be surprised if they jumped on former Sen. Fred Thompson's campaign bandwagon.

I predict McCain will bow out of the presidential race by early fall of this year.

Posted by: Merri | July 16, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- you simply linked to the oppo research Obama's campagin dumped about Clinton. My point isn't that she's supported "fair trade" throughout her tenure and -- in many instances -- has therefore received corporate cash. It's that McCain is even WORSE on every one of those issues, which you haven't addressed. The difference is that Hillary, even if for cynical reasons, has at least STARTED to talk about the need to scale back free trade agreements. Plus, she's not horrible on issues like progressive taxation and investment income taxation.

Oh, and you didn't explain how she's just like McCain on Iraq. I remember you being very anti-Iraq war, so that statement is particularly curious to me given McCain's continuing stance as even MORE hawkish than Bush on the war.

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

WFS.... Exactly. And, don't forget his sponsorship of the immigration "amnesty" bill. Say "goodnight," John.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 16, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Generally speaking, I've always leaned towards Democrats, and most likely would not have voted for McCain, anyway. But, in 2000, I thought he was a man I could at least respect and trust. However, his cozying up to Bush after having been the victim of the Bush campaigns attacks changes all that. I suspect that many of the independents and moderate republicans who supported him at one time feel the same way. His stance on the war just solidified his non-chances after that.

Posted by: WFS | July 16, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

McCain has no money, no real staff, no big "mo" and his base doesn't trust him or his pet issues.

Add to that... the MSM has abandoned him. They are now beating him about the head with their "It's Over"-type of headlines.

Maybe we can't blame them, in 2000 the media bought into his Straight Talk "maverick" shtick and almost propelled him all of the way.... only to find out later that he was like all of the other toadys.

Insofar as money is concerned.... I read between the lines that Cindy has become more influential in his campaign. Is that because she has the big $$$$? I don't remember her having such influence in his 2000 campaign.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 16, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by Chris:

"It was only a "top-tier" campaign because you media people kept saying so. McCain never had any real support outside of the Newspapers and Cable news shows.

What I wonder is why you all now seem intent on keeping his dog and pony show alive.

I was most amazed by all the post-debate coverage. Real people thought he was sad, pathetic and hopelessly out-of-touch, yet all the media declared him a winner with his strong performance."

Well said, Chris.

I was shocked when the pundits declared him the victor after the Fox debates, when, by votes, he was what, in 4th or 5th place? Even Mike Huckabee made him look like a sad old man who had lost touch with reality.

The truth is, McCain has no chance, and never had a chance.

Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Colin - Clinton is *far* more tied to corporate interests than is any Republican candidate. She is far more extreme in her support for outspurcing and guest workers than any candidate from either party. In addition, she is far more corrupt. Read these!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo2.pdf

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

In a related matter, Shakesville reports today that the fake Giuliani ads floating around YouTube are linked to the GOP consultants who did the Swift Boat ads (Stephens, Reed, Curcio, Potholm), who are (or were) under hire by the McCain campaign. Here's the link:
http://www.shakesville.com/2007/07/swift-boat-ad-firm-hired-by-mccain-linked-to-viral-videos/
There's also a third ad up today that definitely seems to point to McCain-istas. The boat may be sinking, but maybe they're not quite going without a fight.

Posted by: constanteen | July 16, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

It was only a "top-tier" campaign because you media people kept saying so. McCain never had any real support outside of the Newspapers and Cable news shows.

What I wonder is why you all now seem intent on keeping his dog and pony show alive.

I was most amazed by all the post-debate coverage. Real people thought he was sad, pathetic and hopelessly out-of-touch, yet all the media declared him a winner with his strong performance.

Posted by: Chris | July 16, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It was only a "top-tier" campaign because you media people kept saying so. McCain never had any real support outside of the Newspapers and Cable news shows.

What I wonder is why you all now seem intent on keeping his dog and pony show alive.

I was most amazed by all the post-debate coverage. Real people thought he was sad, pathetic and hopelessly out-of-touch, yet all the media declared him a winner with his strong performance.

Posted by: Chris | July 16, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

McCain committed political suicide when he went to Iraq and claimed that he could walk around the markets there just as easy as if he was in America. What a pile of sh*t that was. He's a flip flopping fraud who flies off the deep end with his wild temper. Could you imagine him as the next "puppet of the elites and Israel", aka President of the North American Union, err I mean the United States?

Posted by: Darin Barrows | July 16, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Mickey Kaus in Slate basically said the same thing - it's not the Iraq war, so much, which killed McCain's chances. He has roughly the same position as HRC, as has been noted (although their paths to get there are different). Rather, it's the 'other I'...Immigration. He took a very stupid position on it, the wrong one IMHO. And that subject is very emotional and motivating among the Repub base; far more than Iraq I suspect.

So, he made his bed and now gets what he deserves. He has Darwinized himself right out of the race. I wouldn't be surprised to see him as VP to either Fred or Rudy though, since he adds the important gravitas factor (and pro-life stance in Rudy's case), plus has good geo balance for either.

Posted by: JD | July 16, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Spartan -- My understanding is that Cindy is worth at least 100 million. If that's true, and he has a legal share in at least some of that amount, you would certainly think he'd be able/willing to pump 5-10million into his campaign. Not sure what it says if he doesn't, although I too would wonder if he remains in the Senate if his POTUS chances evaporate completely. For what it's worth, I'd like to see him hang around w/out presidential ambitions factoring into his votes. Then he could get back to pi$$ing everyone in both parties off. :) I liked that McCain a lot more than this version.

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- I don't particularly like Hillary either, but you're COMPLETELY wrong in saying that her position on Iraq is the same as his, let alone that she's more tied to business. And I say that as someone who will definitively NOT vote for Hillary in the Primary and is praying she doesn't get the nomination.

First, as to Iraq, she's finally found religion and advocates pulling out the overwhelming majority of troops by March, 2008. In contast, McCain wants even MORE troops sent to Iraq and adheres to the President's "strategy" of staying till...well...just staying.

With respect to business interests, Hillary is certainly not the most populist crusader in the Democratic camp -- but she's a lot better than McCain. On your personal issue of choice, McCain is the SPONSOR of the immigration legislation you hate. He's now in favor (after a flip-flop) of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and on investment income. Hillary was and is opposed to both of those give aways.

In summary, please do a little research before you make accusations that simply aren't true. I've got no problem with you favoring a conservative republican, like McCain, over Hillary -- that's your perogative. But don't try to pretend it's b/c they have the same policy positions when that's simply not true.

Geez, I cant' believe I just defended Hillary. That's gotta be a first...

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

colin-i dunno if my last post came thru or not but ill repeat what i said.

i dont want to speculate on how much money he has. McCain has investements, a pension from the millitary and his senate pay. he could at least refinance his house and come up with at least 10mil injection for his campagin. perhaps this is his last shot at the white house, with his age it might be time to speculate if he's going to retire in 2010?

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

2008 is not 2000 and McCain can no longer ride the 'Straight Talk Express' to victories in early primaries. As SWB aptly points out, his support for the administration on Iraq has burned his bridges with the moderates and independents who were the bulk of his supporters in 2000. He performed best in 2000 in primaries that allowed cross-over voting. He was never that popular with Republican conservatives. His putative front-runner status was due to the Republican tendency to anoint the "establishment candidate". With George Allen self-destructing and Bill Frist's bumbling as Senate majority leader destroyed his chances, McCain appeared to be The Establishment Candidate. However, his support was a mile wide and an inch deep. He tried to appeal to the conservative base but the immigration imbroglio cut the legs out from under that attempt. I believe that the Fred Thompson phenomenom was the final blow. Many conservatives were supporting McCain because they thought he was electable and because they could not stomach Giuliani's social liberalism and doubted Romney's conservative bona fides. Thompson gave these people another option. I do not see how McCain revives his candidacy.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 16, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

He should have kept it REAL -- like the "straight talking" McCain of old!

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | July 16, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

The collapse of the McCain campaign is only part of a trend that is becoming clearer by the day. People are thoroughly disenchanted by the message of the Republicans in Washington. Not the party in general, just those who claim to represent them. 56% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the GOP right now, as opposed to a 36% favorability rating, at a time where the country is splitting almost dead even between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

The president has a job approval of 29%, Congress is similarly in the mid to high 20s. But just over half of Americans (51%) think that the Democratic Party is doing a good job, and 55% would vote for the Democratic nominee for president, regardless of who it is. On top of that, 53% are leaning toward voting for the Democrat in their congressional district as well.

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Democratic Party is winning. I think we need to do more than we're doing, but Americans in general are responding. If we push a strategy change in Iraq (not a full withdrawl, Dick Durbin's right), it will only solidify the Democratic shift.

Posted by: JamesCH | July 16, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

McCain is finally seen for what he realy is and that is not the HERO he has been made out to be.
He is simply an old man who kisses up to anyone to get an advantage and the people are smarter than that in 2008 after 6 1/2 with the Bush Administration.
Most people I know lost all respect after the 2000 run when horrible stories about his wife and kids came up and he in turn kissed up to Bush and never defended his own family.
HE IS NO HERO!!!!!

Posted by: Karen | July 16, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

RickO - I'm surprised to read posts from people like you who claim that McCain is loosing because he continues to support invelment in Iraq. Hillary Clinton's position on this issue is almost exactly the same as McCain's. Moreover, she is even more fanatical in her business ties and support for outsourcing, guest workers, more corporate excess, etc. If anything, McCain appears to be a saint when compared to Clinton's crooked excesses. So, where do you and other posters come off criticizing McCain, while supporting morons just as bad...or worse?

Posted by: MikeB | July 16, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Here's a question for anyone that might know the answer. My understanding was that the McCains, especially through his wife, are actually VERY wealthy folks. Given that Senator McCain has dedicated the last 8 years+ of his life towards attaining the presidency + his advanced age, isn't it logical to think that he would inject his campaign with whatever amount of personal money is necessary to stay in the race?

Now, maybe I'm wrong about the amount of personal wealth the McCains possess, but if I'm not it strikes me that the alarms of McCain's imminent departure from the campaign are overblown. Kerry probably wouldn't have made it to Iowa without loaning his campaign 6.5 million, but once he got there he won the nomination. Why can't McCain do the same thing?

Anyone have a thougt?

Posted by: Colin | July 16, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Romney is nothing but a flip-flopper

Posted by: Alice | July 16, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Now that these folks are out of a job, how do they plan on paying for $20 BJ's?

McCain doesn't need any press agents because he doesn't have a campaign.

He is the Sally Kellerman of Presidential candidates.

Jack Jett
www.jackejett.com

Posted by: Jack Jett | July 16, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

McCain is still a maverick. He's managed to take highly visible leadership roles on the two issues that are non-starters on both sides - incessant support for this idiot war burns any opportunity with the left, moderates and independents and immigration reform which is a non-starter for the right-wing base.

Who in their right mind does this? He could have taken the opposite tact and been a very, very strong candidate.

Posted by: SWB | July 16, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Poor McCain. As Bill Paxson said, in "Aliens":

"Game over man...game over"

Posted by: JD | July 16, 2007 11:23 AM

or to quote a certain governor of califorina.....

"Hasta la vista,baby!"

Posted by: spartan | July 16, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The next 'resignation' needs to be
McCain himself. At this point it's
all a waste of time. He could throw
his support to Gov. Romney, which
would not be inappropriate. It does
not really matter, because Republicans
are going down in flames in 2008,
anyway! (I hope!)
mrmyster/santa fe

Posted by: MrMyster | July 16, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

McCain relinquished all claims to moral courage when he took a stand against torture and then disappeared while Bush cranked out another signing statement allowing it.

Posted by: Tim B | July 16, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

George Will summed it up over the weekend. There is no comeback story here because this isn't about personality, it's about policy and his McCain-Kennedy immigration and McCain-Feingold campaign finance positions don't work when you're pretending to be a conservative. He should have picked a position (maverick or conservative) and stuck with it. Instead he just looks desparate.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone remember the vile smear which the liar-in-chief did on McCain in the 2000 election? That was McCain's time to play the hero and fight back. That was his moment to save us from the present pack of jackals. He didn't. He lost. And he's losing again. Time's up. Move on.

Posted by: AW | July 16, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Of course one historical example is when Ronald Reagan got rid of Sears. His fortunes turned much for the better after that.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | July 16, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

So is McCain done, or what? I always feel it's too difficult to just count him out entirely. Never know if he'll burst into maverick mode again.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | July 16, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The people leaving realize the campaign is dead, because it is out of money, and cannot raise money, because McCain's pro-war message is out of touch with the nation.

Posted by: Bill | July 16, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

It's so sad to see McCain flounder like this, where's the dignity? Before the week is over, he'll be driving his bus himself and eating at McDonald's. It's time to give it up, man. As for the Terri Schiavo comments, it's a non-starter. Hospitals don't even want to take care of the non-comatose patients unless they have the financial ability to pay. You can bet the feds or state governments won't take on the cases of unlimited comatose patient care.

Posted by: Lois | July 16, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Being McCain's communications team must be like doing play-by-play from the deck of the Titanic. Sooner or later, the only thing left to say is, "Glub!"

Posted by: barbara | July 16, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

If John can muster up enough moral courage to turn on Cheney & Bush, he will be doing American's the greatest service.

Lose the ego John & help this country re-gain it's moral compass.

Posted by: paul t | July 16, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I give McCain till September, then he drops out. He'll be out of money and the country will be out of patience with anyone who still supports his primary campagin theme; continuing the war in Iraq.

Posted by: RickO | July 16, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Late last month, The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Bell reported that the administration has in mind a "world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism ... a war of such reach and magnitude [that] the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future."

In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. So events that may seem negative--Hezbollah for the first time targeting American civilians; U.S. soldiers preparing for war with Syria--while unfortunate in themselves, are actually part of the hawks' broader agenda. Each crisis will draw U.S. forces further into the region and each countermove in turn will create problems that can only be fixed by still further American involvement, until U.S. troops rule the entire Middle East.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Poor McCain. As Bill Paxson said, in "Aliens":

"Game over man...game over"

Posted by: JD | July 16, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Interesting footnote to the fundraising story, but from the Republican side. NPR reported this morning on "All Things Considered" that Romney has 12 million in his war chest. However 9 of that is made up of personal loans the Mittster himself has made to his campaign. Without that cash infusion, Romney would have slightly more than McCain does at this point & most likely be circling the bowl with him.

Posted by: Allie | July 16, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

'In a new ad entitled "Ocean," set to begin airing today in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Mitt Romney takes on the proliferation of sex and violence in popular culture -- even citing an old Peggy Noonan column that blamed low culture for the Columbine shootings.'

And which TV channel has the most sex and violence? Fox. amazing hypocrites, these so-called conservatives. As if sex and violence were less in red states -- quite the opposite is true, in fact.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

'During a campaign tour of Iowa this past weekend with Bobby Schindler, brother of the late Terri Schiavo, Sam Brownback stood by the federal government's attempt to intervene in the case two years ago. "Her life remained sacred to the very end," Brownback said. "Whether it's a child in the womb or it's somebody that has had a very difficult situation ... she nonetheless remains a person and she shouldn't be artificially, or by humans, terminated. Instead, we should protect these lives."

Brownback says people shouldn't be 'artifically' terminated. Should they then be 'artifiically' kept alive when they are braindead? Should the govrnment then force families to keep their loved ones alive, even when they have been in a coma for 15 years? Should the families then be forced to pay for this? Or if the government mandates this, will taxpayers be forced to pay for it?

I think CC, that you reporters really ought to be asking these kinds of questions, if candidates insist on taking these ridiculous stands.

Posted by: Sam | July 16, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The replacement is the sock puppet from NJ, right?

Posted by: tom | July 16, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Does he have any campaign staff left?

Posted by: Arlen | July 16, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

McCain said he is better fit to run the sort of underdog campaign he did in 2000. Problem is, he is not the McCain of 2000. The American people know him better now, and see he is no outsider. He is not a maverick, he is just slightly different from the average. In the past seven years he has been sucking up to Bush, sucking up to the religious right, sucking up to whoever he had to in laying the groundwork for 08. Then came Romney and Guliani...
These internal power struggles are just another sign of McCain's collapse.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company