Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Top Advisers Leave McCain Campaign

Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign took another serious blow Tuesday when two of his top strategists left the effort, prompting a series of rumors that McCain may be considering a withdrawal from the race.

Terry Nelson, McCain's campaign manager, and John Weaver, the senator's longtime chief political strategist, have stepped aside.

"This morning I informed Senator McCain that I would be resigning from his presidential campaign, effective immediately," said Nelson in a statement. "It has been a tremendous honor to serve Senator McCain and work on his campaign."

Weaver echoed those remarks, adding: "I believe that most Americans will come to the conclusion that I have long known there is only one person equipped to serve as our nation's chief executive and deal with the challenges we face, and that person is John McCain."

As the news was breaking, McCain took to the Senate floor not to step aside but rather to speak about his recent trip to Iraq.

The McCain campaign has had money problems of late, reporting lackluster fundraising numbers for the second quarter of the year and laying off a number of campaign staffers.

In addition to Weaver and Nelson, The Fix has confirmed that deputy campaign manager Reed Galen and political director Rob Jesmer have also resigned their positions with McCain effective immediately.

Weaver, who has already issued a statement this morning, put out another one this afternoon:

"The Senator today decided to move the campaign in a different direction," said Weaver. After making that decision, the Senator asked me to stay in my current position, but given the fundamental shift, I could not do so. Therefore I resigned this morning."

Weaver went on to laud the efforts of Terry Nelson who also resigned this morning, calling Nelson the "finest campaign manager and most honorable professional I've worked with in almost thirty years in this business."

He also had words of praise for McCain who he described as the "right person to lead this nation."

The full statement is below.

********

To the McCain campaign family,

For more than a decade -- through victories and defeat (and even through sickness and through health) -- I have had the pleasure, honor and responsibility of serving as Senator John McCain's political strategist. For that privilege I will always be indebted to the Senator.

The Senator today decided to move the campaign in a different direction. After making that decision, the Senator asked me to stay in my current position, but given the fundamental shift, I could not do so. Therefore I resigned this morning.

I will reach out to each of you in the coming days, but please know it has been most gratifying to work with you on this endeavor. Terry Nelson is the finest campaign manager and most honorable professional I've worked with in almost thirty years in this business. For you young people working and volunteering in this campaign across the country, please look upon his conduct and bearing as traits to emulate.

America is at an historic crossroad. John McCain is the right person to lead this nation if we have any hope to win a broad and titanic struggle against evil internationally while at the same time shaking up the status quo in Washington and renewing the faith of the American people in their government.

I hope and pray that John McCain will be our next president. He will always have my support.

Best,

John

**********


Here are the original statements from Weaver, Nelson, and McCain:

**********

"This morning I informed Senator McCain that I would be resigning from his presidential campaign, effective immediately. It has been a tremendous honor to serve Senator McCain and work on his campaign. I believe John McCain is the most experienced and prepared candidate to represent the Republican Party and defeat the Democratic nominee next year." -- Terry Nelson, Campaign Manager

"As of today, I have resigned my position as chief strategist to John McCain's presidential campaign. It has been my honor and a distinct privilege to serve someone who has always put our country first. I believe that most Americans will come to the conclusion that I have long known there is only one person equipped to serve as our nation's chief executive and deal with the challenges we face, and that person is John McCain." -- John Weaver, Chief Strategist

"Today, John Weaver and Terry Nelson offered their resignations from my presidential campaign, which I accepted with regret and deep gratitude for their dedication, hard work and friendship. Terry is a consummate professional, who has ably lead this campaign through a challenging political environment. John Weaver has been my friend and trusted counselor for many years and to whom I am greatly indebted. In the days and weeks ahead this campaign will move forward, and I will continue to address the issues of greatest concern to the American people, laying out my vision for a secure and prosperous America." -- Sen. John McCain

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  July 10, 2007; 11:21 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Endorsement Elite: Michigan Republicans
Next: Where McCain Stands Now

Comments

Your site found in Google: http://google.com/search?q=ypc

Posted by: Visitor174 | September 5, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Your site found in Google: position141

Posted by: Visitor682 | September 5, 2007 11:40 PM | Report abuse

I have visited your site 985-times

Posted by: Visitor943 | September 5, 2007 11:40 PM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindnwh | September 2, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindbhk | September 1, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindzri | August 29, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindzri | August 29, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindzri | August 29, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindgny | August 27, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindplj | August 24, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindplj | August 24, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindqhw | August 23, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindqhw | August 23, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans in Texas.

All state offices are currently held by Republicans.Things they have accomplished.

2000 budget- 98 billion
2007 budget- 153 billion

Illegal immigration has increased.

New fees introduced and existing fees increased.

State Economic Fund- funds given to Cabela's, Toyota, Walmart, etc.

Smaller government and taxes,I don't think so................wake up moron

Posted by: #&$@*& | July 11, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I find the defenses here of McCain a little pathetic. They obviously don't know the man. I was in the same Navy McCain was in, at the same time, in the same theatre and the word in the fleet was that, as the son of CINCPAC, McCain was an arrogant twit who got away with a variety of crap because his daddy was an Admiral in charge of the Pacific and the Far East.

The fact that he got his butt shot out of the air has never impressed me or anyone else in the service that I've known. Sure, he had a tough go as a POW. So did many others who didn't try to capitalize on it. The mere fact that you've suffered hardships is not a qualification for elective office. If that were the case, every hard-luck dope dealer in the country would be running for president.

Posted by: Sam Thornton | July 11, 2007 2:29 AM | Report abuse

Is that wingnut "gadzooks" or whatever still chatterin'? I thought it'd be time for his meds by now. A historical (or hysterical) creationist...

Posted by: equals | July 11, 2007 12:47 AM | Report abuse

It was The Hug, John. John: it was The Hug.

Posted by: OOF | July 10, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"The best strategy for the president is to hold firm."

Let me quote another visionary, someone who actually deserved that label: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: ashamedtobeGOP | July 10, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse


'This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results.'

like the highest american death toll since the invasion and occupation began?

'The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not'

unfortunate choice of words, gopie. you bet he sees stuff no one else does -- because they're not there. he hears voices too -- like God telling him to 'smite Saddam'.

he wnt over the edge sometime ago, and i'm afraid you tiny-brained lemmings are destined to follow.

Posted by: julian | July 10, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"The president (Bush) still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary."

There is an equally good chance that he is the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, Bush's power to see what no one else can see -- like a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Or weapons of mass destruction.

I don't want to get into a prolonged debate about Iraq. Obviously there are folks out there who think we can solve a civil war by throwing more americans between folks who hate each other, and I'm not going to convince them otherwise. I would, however, note that this is not the first "surge" in troops that's been attempted. The level of troops has increased to close to the levels they're currently at before, with largely the same objective. The result has consistently been a brief improvement in the area with the surge, with rising levels of violence in the areas where troop levels remained the same or decreased. So I don't actually think it's necessary or useful to "wait to see how this works." But lets chat in September and see what's what. After all, what's a few more american lives when we have a "visionary" in office...

Posted by: Colin | July 10, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The president ordered the "surge," which only recently came to full strength and whose major operation has been going on for less than a month.

If he were not to give it a chance to work, he would properly be viewed as a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it. He will have asked our soldiers to go on the offensive, assuming greater risk of casualties--and then, even though the offensive is working better than expected, will have pulled the plug on their efforts.

If the president gives in now, he will not be credited with a statesmanlike compromise. He will be lambasted by the left for fighting a bad war, and by the right for fighting it badly, recommitting us to the fight, and then losing it.

The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?).

This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/859tvyhw.asp

The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not --but not if he gives in to opponents of the war.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 10, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

McCain does poorly - McCain fires staff. Seems logical to me, and while it is a sign of how bad the campaign is going for him it also shows that McCain has yet to give up.

Posted by: peter | July 10, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- The "trust the generals" thing isn't very persuasive to me, as the generals are tasked with implementing the goals they're given by civilian commanders. For better or for worse, the military in this country is run by civilians -- and that means the civilians are responsible for failed policies like Iraq.

With respect to invading Iraq, I don't even understand your question. Attacking the Taliban made complete sense after 9-11 b/c they were explicitly alighned with Bin Ladin. Our only mistake their was not using enough force. Iraq? It was a "threat," in the same way that North Korea, Iran, Saudia Arabia (you know, where all the 9/11 terrorists were from), and any other host of rogue states were a threat, but that had nothing to do with 9/11. Moreover, Iraq actually provided a counter balance to Iran's Shia dominated presence in the area, since it was predominantly Sunni and Sadaam was secular.

So what would I have done with Iraq? I would have mantained inspectors, who were ultimately allowed back in, and ramped up sanctions. Once we went to the UN, we had the leverage to further tighten the economic vice on Sadaam without ever entering the country. Heck, even with all the problems that DID exist with respect to the sanctions that were in place, we found out once we got their that Sadaam had been so weakened he didn't even control 1/3 of the country. Sounds to me like what we WERE doing there was working.

Finally, PLEASE explain to me why we invaded Iraq after 9/11 rather than North Korea or Iran, both of which posed a far more serious threat to the US even then and still do today. Relatedly, explain to me how, under your theory, we can EVER eliminate through force areas for terrorists to hide. We invaded Iraq, and they went to the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Or stayed in Saudia Arabia...with our "allies." Military force can't "win" this particular war by itself. That will actually require diplomacy to be used as well, so as to create a real consensus against radicals of all kinds.

Posted by: Colin | July 10, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Generalissimo Pelosi could take to her broom and ride across the DC skyline. she could write a smoke trail for all to see:

"Surrender George"

We will do without the flying monkeys this time around. The liberals in congress are sufficiently similar.

Reid could be the cowardly Lion, of course, Schumer would be the tin man and Kennedy will fill in for the scarecrow, if he only had a brain left.

Posted by: return to oz | July 10, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The voters have created a mess in the Senate. GOPs need to make an effort to help expose those responsible.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

colin, I think the generals deserve the first take on Iraq, not that they are infallible, but more so than pols.

If you didn't like Iraq, how would you have drained the swamp over there? In your reply consider that only US forces and allies respect national borders and limiting our operations to a specific country will not engage the enemy properly as we learned in Cambodia. We are currently in a war with Iran and not allowed to enter their country although they are killing us every day. If you advocate not entering Iraq and remaining only in Afghanistan, you would have had the same problem - the enemy hiding in neighbor countries - like Pakistan and Iraq. this is a sure way to fight on the enemies terms and take substantial losses.

what say you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many Americans understand that you can't pass legislation in America with 50% of the votes in Congress? How many of them understand that, outside of budget resolutions, you need 60 votes in the Senate? That a filibuster isn't a matter of Jimmy Stewart talking himself ragged for hours on end, but of merely declaring an intention to filibuster? And that this is done for all but the most routine matters? With the result that the 60-vote minimum is no longer reserved for occasional high-profile issues, but has been institutionalized for virtually all legislation of any consequence?

I figure maybe 2%.

It's why I think Dems really need to focus on exposing the Republicans' drive to block everything that moves. Voters hear Dems vow to tackle various legislative proposals, and then they hear that the bill failed. As far as Americans know, there's a Democratic House and a Democratic Congress -- why couldn't they pass the legislation they said they'd pass?

Senate Republicans, in the most cynical part of all of this, are basing their strategy on the notion that voters won't know better. They're counting on public ignorance and confusion to conceal their tactics.

The GOP has created a mess in the Senate. Dems need to make an effort to help expose those responsible.

Posted by: crooksandliars.com | July 10, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Philadelphia - July 10, 1776.
General Washington, now that we have officially declared our independence from Britian, we demand that you finish the war within the year, a prominent Democrat said.

It may take longer - Washington replied.

July 10, 1863 Gettysburg PA
Mr Lincoln, now that General Lee has been defeated, we demand that you end the war within a year, a prominent Democrat said.

It may take longer, Lincoln replied.

July 10, 2007 Washington DC
Surrender now - harry spineless Reid

Posted by: If Reid were there | July 10, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- you and I will have to agree to disagree about Iraq. I fundamentally view our decision to go to war their as a mistake. You feel differently. I would note, however, that a clear majority of the country currently favors a significant draw down of troops -- which is exactly what Bush is going to start doing in the near future. When that happens, I'll be curious to hear whether you support his actions or are consistent in labeling him as endorsing a "cut and run" strategy.

As far as Congress goes, the fun part is that we'll get to see who is blamed for the legislative blockade come November 2008. All I know is that their are a bunch of popular measures, passed with broad bipartisan support in the House, that the Senate minority is currently precluding from passage. Given that the GOP has far more Senate seats to defend in '08, I think that combo favors Democrats.

With respect to the House, some of the seats you mentioned will flip back to the GOP. However, the current Dem advantage in the house is LARGER than any enjoyed by the GOP in that body after the '94 cycle. They can lose 4-5 seats and still be in good shape. And that's not even counting the currently GOP held seats that I think they'll win. Again though, the '08 elections will let us know who was right on this issue.

Posted by: Colin | July 10, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

To think, McCain's campaign is floundering even after all of the right-wing extremist behind he has spent the last several months kissing in hopes of establishing his bona-fides with the knuckle-draggers in his party. He's been worthless since he rolled over for W back in 2000

Posted by: the crapture | July 10, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Rebuffing all such talk, President Bush said he won't succumb to political pressure. During a visit to Parma, Ohio on Tuesday, he reiterated that troop levels in Iraq "will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C."

"I fully understand that this is a difficult war. It's hard on the American people but I will once again explain the consequences of failure," he said.

One U.S. official said late Monday that the July report would push the administration to consider its next move. Another senior official, however, said that Bush and his advisers had already decided no change in policy was justified as yet because there was not enough evidence from Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

colin, I must take issue with your view of the world although it is not entirely without merit.
1. the situation on the ground in Iraq is perpetually changing, it is possible and likely that the surge has been effective. even the lefty BBC printed this fact today. hoping for defeat to advance the Lib cause seems un-american to me. no one ever claimed we wanted an ongoing high tempo action, but the enemy has other ideas and they are now dictating the level of effort required to win, not Harry Reid. I believe that about half the population desires a victory more than a loss and this half will not vote for Hillary.
2. the party that blocks legislation is never shouldered with the sin. It is the majority party that is responsible for advancing new laws. the voters understand this and have acted accordingly in past elections. Plus all the promises are still out there. all the corruption, all the business as usual. the line - give us more time and more power to keep doing what we did- is not too cute.
Regarding the presidential election - do you really think hillary is going to overcome the 52% negative rating to defeat rudy? not without a significant third party, like last time.

the Dems are going to have to defend 11 seats in congress they won on a fluke last time. these are R districts that will revert to R once again quite easily.

If you think I am harsh about hillary, just wait until Rudy starts to talk about her past history. there is more sludge there than can be dealt with in less than one election cycle.

don't confuse the six year itch with a permanant staus. the Lib star has been sinking fast. that was one last grasp before going under.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The international support for an invasion of Pakistan did not exist before 9/11. Without that support, if Clinton had chosen to invade Pakistan:

1. Bin Laden would not have been found. Even today, after supposedly hunting him for almost six years, we have no idea where he is exactly.
2. Pakistan would not have been supportive of the invasion of the country next door. Bin Laden could then have escaped to Pakistan and rebuilt Al Qaeda - as he is currently doing - and meanwhile, Pakistan itself would have become our enemy. You remember, nuclear-armed Pakistan...
3. The U.S. would have been even less popular, and other nations even less willing to cooperate with us than they are now.

Posted by: hey zouk | July 10, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

#1 Con Talking Point: When you have absolutely nothing to say, drag out some irrelevant Bill Clinton anecdote.

Always a crowd pleaser with the baboons.

Posted by: Sam | July 10, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

cons don't do intelligence.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- where to start. Lets try to take them in order:

1. Republicans are defecting on Bush's Iraq policy and, according to the raging liberal Bob Novack, the President is making plans to begin a troop draw down prior to the '08 election ramp up. Given that very little has changed on the ground, I feel comfortable stating that the draw down is therefore politically motivated. I am happy that Bush is finally coming around on the issue, even if for cynical reasons, but find it ironic that Boenher and others in the House (along with you)are still referring to Democrats as waiving a white flag even while the President is preparing to partially endrose the Democratic position.

2. Congress has low approval ratings. The Republican members of Congress have EVEN LOWER approval ratings. Not sure how that's a big plus for your team. Also, Bush has done more to destroy the GOP brand than anyone in recent memory --especially among independent voters. You know, the ones that tend to decide Presidential elections. That doesn't decide the '08 elections by any means, but I'd rather run against the spector or Bush in '08 than have to embrace it, as the current nominee candidates still are on the GOP side.

3. The Democratic Congress (51 votes in the Senate, by the way) has been foreclosed from passing legislation by the GOP minority, so again I'm not sure how that helps you. In fact, the GOP's blocking of popular legislation will make for a very nice campagin issue for Democrats in 2008. Once the Dems pick up 3-4 more seats, which I predict they will, along with the white house, then you'll get to see more legislation pass.

Posted by: Colin | July 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

nah, he's much stupider than an coulter. he actually beleives the crap he spouts.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

KOZ is really Ann Coulter.

Posted by: luvr | July 10, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

What about the consequences of continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

Hot where you are today?

Posted by: hey zouk | July 10, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

zOUK IS A FSCIST :).

Whated to add my two cents to this all important topic. Of mR. Irrelevant John "Shamesty" Mccain. Why talk about Mccain. He has been done since he started.

Posted by: RUFUS | July 10, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"Congratulations on speaking for the Republican National Committee."

Or so an angry former President Bill Clinton spouted to a member of the audience at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado over the weekend, after the person had merely questioned why the Clinton administration failed to stop Osama bin Laden before he reared his ugly head on September 11.

The Aspen Times newspaper, meanwhile, opined that the former president's "snap of temper was reminiscent of the September interview when Clinton accused Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace of carrying out a 'hit job' when he criticized Clinton for his handling of al Qaeda."

"Did I fail to get him? Yes," Mr. Clinton told the Aspen audience. "Did I try? Yes."

Posted by: Libs don't do terror | July 10, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

'Live Earth' Ratings On The Cool Side NBC's three-hour Live Earth primetime special, which included highlights from Saturday's global concerts, failed to generate much enthusiasm in the ratings

Posted by: Libs don't do ratings | July 10, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Fluorescent Light Bulbs Can Become 'Toxic Time Bombs' "They're very efficient, but once they're used up, they become a ticking toxic time bomb," said Leonard Robinson, chief deputy director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Posted by: Libs don't do consequences | July 10, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

koz, you're forgetting some of the classic rightie lines, like "god said it, I believe it, and that does it!" and "I said it, so that's a fact!" BTW, good divide and conquer move with the colin comment. Joe McCarthy would love you. He didn't have much use for factual info either.

Posted by: gamer | July 10, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

You heard about Vitter the LA senator who was caught with his, uh, pants down?

'When he was elected to the Senate, James Dobson's Focus on the Family celebrated his victory in its newsletter o its members, announcing: "David Vitter, the Christian Conservative, became the first Republican to win a Louisiana Senate seat since Reconstruction."

Vitter is not, of course, the first Fallen Christian Political Crusader from the Bayou State. This is how Vitter got his start in Washington politics: "Vitter won a special election in 1999 to succeed [Southern Republican] Congressman [and House Speaker] Bob Livingston, who resigned the House after an adultery scandal."

David Vitter stands aside other Towering Icons of the Great Social Conservative Movement, those moral stalwarts who are defending The Institution of Traditional Marriage in our country -- he stands with Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Thompson, and Vitter's chosen presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, about whom Vitter assured his worried Values Voter constituency: "it's very clear to me that he's not running for president to advance any liberal social agenda." From National Journal's Hotline: "We asked Vitter what 'a liberal social agenda' was, and he said it included 'social issues.'"

Posted by: rudy's boy | July 10, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

'I have to admit, I do like World of Warcraft. That game is addictive.'

for those who prefer fantasy.. perfect for chickenhawks.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

colin - are the the only Lib on this site with a mind. the others seem to perpetually inhabit a preK playground with no serious intentions whatsoever.

Bush is not running again, his popularity is irrelevant although high compared to the newly elected Dem congress who can't seem to pass anything but PO naming laws. Is this the promise of the next congress as well?

I personlly don't know about any plans to redeploy coming from Bush, I have seen that from the NYT on a daily basis but don't take their word for much of anything, which is pretty much their own fault for lying so often. but Bush always said we would reduce troop strength when the time was right. Are you going to call that flip-flopping regardless of the situation? that is akin to giving up regardless of the situation, just like white flag harry. Are you still stinging from your loss last election based on nominating the most flip-floppingest of Senators. now you are desperate to show that he is not alone? Is hillary a flip-flopper?

PS Prove me right by exhibiting your usual shenanigans. those pee-ons just can't help themselves. aren't you proud of your people? If these folks who participate in this ritual of lib smears and kiddie insults represent your best and brightest, you are in real trouble. Maybe that's why you can't pass any laws. Maybe that's why your congress is at all time record lows for approval. Maybe you should have stayed hidden in the minority where you could blame everything on the Rs. that blame game coming from Nancy last week just doesn't fly anymore. Except for the playground fools here who apparently will swallow amything from the left source.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I have no comment at this time.

Posted by: reality | July 10, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I have to admit, I do like World of Warcraft. That game is addictive.

Posted by: I have to admit | July 10, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

in re: "kingofzouk has been playing World of Warcraft and Grand Theft Auto so much he thinks that IS the real world."

He is frustrated by his inability to defeat those clumps of pixels invented by programmers who vote for Democrats.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I do not respond to Zouks like you.

Posted by: Kook | July 10, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, KOZ represents about 20-25% of our population; the "don't confuse me with the facts" and "my country, right or wrong". No progress, no improvement, just "stay the course". They vote, and drive on crowded freeways......

Posted by: element says | July 10, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk, wow, you are one angry hombre! Chill, don't bust a blood vessel!

Posted by: queen | July 10, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk: "I do not respond to kooks like you."

What a hypocrite.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I see the dimwit klunkers who reside here are gearing up for a smearfest. I can only guess that this is due to the severe level of impotence in their intellectual abilites and the paucity of thier positions. Prove me wrong by engaging in a proper debate. Prove me right by exhibiting your usual shenanigans.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk has been playing World of Warcraft and Grand Theft Auto so much he thinks that IS the real world.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Just to be clear, you think the GOP is in good strategic position right now? With a president whose approval numbers are at historic lows, whose congressional numbers are WORSE than the low numbers for congress generally? Even while Bush, who used to refer to plans for redeployment as "cut and run," now is apparently contemplating the biggest flip-flop of all time for political expediency with his plan for a troop draw down in March?

Hmm, doesn't sound like a very realistic position to me -- but to each their own. I would merely suggest that thinking your own views are correct does not = political analysis. Sort of like how slogans don't equal a strategy...well, you get the point.

Posted by: Colin | July 10, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

We GOPs
(literally, 'Grand Old Parties,' which makes no sense, but making sense is such a Lib thing anyway)
will continue to represent lower taxes
(on wealthy supporters, while the nation slides deeper and deeper into debt),
strong defense/offense
(at least until early next spring, at which time the money wasted and morale squandered on the Iraq fiasco will have done serious damage to the readiness of our armed forces to actually do anything useful),
limited government/regulation
(with the exception of legislating medieval morality in the 21st century),
school choice
(as an excuse to de-fund public education, and push the next generation of students into Pat Robertson Junior High),
private retirement and healthcare
(because we feel that our society bears no responsibility for those who are sick and/or old, unless they are wealthy), judges who read the law and follow it (finding legal justification for all of the above which was never intended by the those who wrote the Constitution),
liberty on sexual and reproductive matters ('liberty' as in 'Liberty University') etc."
(Here I do not specify our further agenda for fear of alienating those we hope to trick into supporting it.)

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I do not respond to kooks like you. surf around and steal something intelligent to post and let me know.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk:

Nope, I mean in your spare time, when not bravely fighting dragons, terrorists, etc. do you look at the actual world, see what is really happening, not what you're told to think by Rush O'Reilly and friends?

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


'kingofzouk:

Are you actually paying attention to what's going on in the real world??'

absolutely not.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk:

Nope, I mean in your spare time, when not bravely fighting dragons, terrorists, etc. do you look at the actual world, see what is really happening, not what you're told to think by Rush and friends?

Posted by: reality | July 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Harding (died 27 months into term) and JFK (died 35 months into term) are only two sitting Senators elected President. Odds are good that we'll have another Senator elected President in '08. Odds are also good that they'll die before their first term is out.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Don Key:

Well put.

Posted by: reason | July 10, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Are you actually paying attention to what's going on in the real world??

Do you mean the moonbat contrived world hopelessly skewed in here or the actual world where killers are trying to bomb us, kids are failing in education, retirement accounts are heading for bust, Dems lie to get elected, tax reductions spur the economy, health care is expensive, etc. Are you now going to quote some poll where x % of the population agreees with some far out lefty position based on tricky wording of a push poll? If that is so, why all the difficulty in congress passing one single campaign promise?

don't forget this blog is the moonbat mutual admiration society as evidenced by the comments above and more to come.


The GOP represent liberty on sexual and reproductive matters? Really?

I was specifically referring to Rudy and my own views but if this statement is extended to include liberty for the almost born, then yes. We have some candidates who may not follow this path, but our diversity is strengthening, your monotheism to government is stifling.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I may be in the minority, and I would not have voted for any Republican in the general election in any case, but I do respect John McCain far more than any other Republican running. He was right on campaign finance (although it didn't go far enough), and agree or not, he was the one Republican willing to take positions and live with them even when they became unpopular. It says sth about the current state of Republican politics, I think, when candidates are celebrated more for their hair/width of their shoulders (the Mittster) or for being in the right place at the wrong time (Rudy) than for an impressive and often courageous resume (McCain.) Giuliani and Romney are in it for ego reasons, and Thompson was basically told to run by the national party - Ron Paul also seems genuine, but I'm still not sure "genuine WHAT?"

Interesting article in the NYT today about an author advocating that Democrats appeal to voters' "gut" as well as making logical arguments on policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/arts/10west.html?ref=washington

I'm not sure I agree - votes governed by gut reaction, as opposed to logic, are what got us in the Bushie pickle we're currently in... but interesting nevertheless.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 10, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: Send my regards to Feldman and the rest of the guys in Bizarro World. You're truly a freak.

"liberty on sexual and reproductive matters" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 10, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris, one wonders if the end is not really in sight for McCain's campaign? Along those lines, one has to also wonder what happened to the Maverick that many people, like myself, admired of the old McCain.

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/07/trouble-in-mccainland-as-two-key.html#links

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | July 10, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

It is time for John McCain to step up and lead, starting with his own campaign. Now is the time. Losing a few paid consultants will give him more freedom to tell the truth. This is good news.

Posted by: Erik Ronneberg | July 10, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Let's hope he bows out of the race and takes his stinking amnesty bill with him!

Posted by: bryan2369 | July 10, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

The GOP represent liberty on sexual and reproductive matters? Really?

Posted by: Blarg | July 10, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what the numbers are, but sitting Senators very rarely get elected as prez. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were/are all Senators, but they haven't served as such long enough to get stale. It seems that within time, Senators often keep winning elections as they simultaneously become more litigious and out of touch with reality. Kerry's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" is probably a perfect example. It's in the spirit of the current administration, but more, uhhhhhhhhhhhh, cerebral. McCain is a good guy, but when Bush Jr. ripped him a new one in the 2000 primaries, that was it. By definition, Repubs tend to be more hierarchical than Dems, but they've finally learned that the electorate is getting younger. McCain reminds me too much of Bob Dole - served America well, but simply is too far removed from the average Joe Schmoe. And forget about McCain being a maverick. He does some non-Republican-like things, such as supporting the pardoning of that African-American boxer (name alludes me). But when he lambasted the religious right and then spoke at Liberty Univ., that did it for me. Republican "mavericks" don't give speeches at Repub wingnut institions of wingnutness.


Posted by: Dr. Don Key | July 10, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk:

Are you actually paying attention to what's going on in the real world??

Posted by: reality | July 10, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what the numbers are, but sitting Senators very rarely get elected as prez. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were/are all Senators, but they haven't served as such long enough to get stale. It seems that within time, Senators often keep winning elections as they simultaneously become more litigious and out of touch with reality. Kerry's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" is probably a perfect example. It's in the spirit of the current administration, but more, uhhhhhhhhhhhh, cerebral. McCain is a good guy, but when Bush Jr. ripped him a new one in the 2000 primaries, that was it. By definition, Repubs tend to be more hierarchical than Dems, but they've finally learned that the electorate is getting younger. McCain reminds me too much of Bob Dole - served America well, but simply is too far removed from the average Joe Schmoe. And forget about McCain being a maverick. He does some non-Republican-like things, such as supporting the pardoning of that African-American boxer (name alludes me). But when he lambasted the religious right and then spoke at Liberty Univ., that did it for me. Republican "mavericks" don't give speeches at Repub wingnut institions of wingnutness.


Posted by: Dr. Don Key | July 10, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Far more people died in Ted Kennedy's car......

Posted by: reason shmeason | July 10, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

It is most amusing to see all you moonbat Dems offer your opinion on John Mc Cain. Like he was going to win until he did X, which is typically something conservative. the reason you all liked him was he was NOT conservative, hence the dislike among the R primary voters. We will not forgive him for McCain Feingold, raising taxes or immigration. the only thing he had going for him was his war stance. but he shared that with others who don't have the other pro-Lib baggage.

the result is that the GOP has moved on to the new century, unlike the throwback flat-earther clinton supporters. We GOPs will continue to represent lower taxes, strong defense/offense, limited government/regulation, school choice, private retirement and healthcare, judges who read the law and follow it, liberty on sexual and reproductive matters etc.

If you like these things vote for Rudy. If not you will be forced to vote for hillary or stay home. It is really that simple.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 10, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

It's over. McCain needs to recognize this.

Posted by: Hernova | July 10, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

It's over. McCain needs to recognize this.

Posted by: Hernova | July 10, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

To Reason Schmeason
You may disagree with Sen. McCain, but to call a man whose life story is one of courage and duty to his country a coward is beyond disgraceful.

Posted by: JTC | July 10, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Losing Terry Nelson means McCain is all but done.....

Posted by: Wilbanks | July 10, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Please McCain stop wasting our taxpayer money and time. Take another shopping trip to wonderful downtown Baghdad and let the taxpayers know how pleased you are with the progress Bush's war of choicee is making and then get in line for your frontal lobotomy with the rest of the neo fools.

Posted by: Frank | July 10, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

McCain's people just told CBS radio that he fired those guys. Maybe there can be a Congressional inquiry as to how they spent all of that $$$$!

Posted by: Steven | July 10, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Only a matter of timing as to when McCain folds his tent.

Posted by: lylepink | July 10, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I liked McCain in 2000, but his flip-flopping unnerved me. I liked what Bush campaigned as, but not what he became. I will now be voting for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Michael Davis | July 10, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

OMG why does the so-called national news media even waste our time by still trying to promote that phony Bush shill and butt kisser loser Amnesty John McCain? And why hasn't Washington Post and other National Newsmedia Besides of all people FOX News reported on the "Arizona Recall Of Senators
Amensty John McCain and Two Face Jon Kyl instead? I bet ya'll didn't even know McCain and Kyl face Recall In Arizona did
you folks? McCain Is A Political Has Been!

Posted by: Claudine1000 | July 10, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"Bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb McCain."

Posted by: Beach boy | July 10, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Kind of sad watching it play out, but it's as though a Greek chorus has already foretold it. If McCain hadn't shot himself in both marching feet by embracing the agents of intolerance then his 100-man stroll through Baghdad markets finished them off.

He's still a Senator. That's not bad.

Posted by: Chris Fox | July 10, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain has flip flopped so much its scary. Voters see flip flops for what they are, cheap political expediency, hallmark of a floundering loser. Doubtful he can overcome this situation. Biggest letdown for me was when he went to Roanoke and sucked up to Jerry Falwell earlier this year, after referring to Falwell (and other evangelicals like Robertson and Dobson) as "agents of intolerance." He all but called them the devil in 1980 (he was right), now this year he sucks up to them. Gimme a break! He's toast. Dead meat. Further, did anyone see that silly grin of his on that debate, where he said he'd follow Bin Laden to the end of the earth? To me, that stupid forced grin for the camera was the equal to Howard Dean's "scream" the other year. It's over.

Posted by: Mike, now a DEM | July 10, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The Kerry analogy is being pushed way too far. Kerry never had such serious money problems. He never got anywhere near as low in contributions, and he was able to bail himself out from his lesser troubles by borrowing from his own rich wife. McCain has no such escape valve, so he won't be able to spend himself back into the race like Kerry did.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

If McCain is bowing out, I will miss him. I don't normally support conservatives, but he is still the best candidate the Republican has, even after Fred enters the race. It's just better for us as a country to have the best candidates stand on all sides ...

And yeah, 'hmmmm' - McCain would have been a FAR better president in so many ways. Better than Bush, or Gore, or Kerry ... Still would be. I would have voted for him in 2000, if he had gotten there - no question.

Posted by: Gonzo, MD | July 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton administration always had some reason not to take up the challenge of the war the enemy was already fighting: the desire not to upset American Muslims, a hoped for rapprochement with Iran, the delicate balance required for the holy-grail of Israeli/Palestinian peace negotiations, etc. Americans kept getting killed, and al Qaeda kept getting bolder as its leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, pointed repeatedly to American fecklessness -- congratulating growing ranks of terror recruits on joining the "strong horse," which had its sights trained on the "weak horse," the one without a stomach for the fight.

So now Mrs. Clinton wants to be president, and it's the same old song.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmY0MjRkZjM3YzRiYWM1YTljYjJhMGYyMjAwM2I2MTk=

Posted by: white flag harry | July 10, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"there is only one person equipped to serve as our nation's chief executive... John McCain."
The "only" person? Such hyperbole should be reserved for elegies. Then again, its use may be appropriate in this situation.
The problem with the McCain campaign may be that he DID speak his mind and say what he believed. Unfortunetly for him he said it over and over again when a large part of America came to believe in other truths: on Iraq, immigration, campaign finance reform, etc. It wasn't so much then that John McCain changed on key issues, as that the public changed on those key issues. And given his image of telling hard truths, he would not or could not convincingly change as well.

Posted by: Barton Keyes | July 10, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The vitriol here is pretty shocking... McCain is not pathetic, a loser, or a beast. He is a decent man who possesses a different point of view than some of us. Throwing these epitaphs at him makes the person seem akin to the right-wing fanatics that believe Hilary Clinton was involved in some sort of murder conspiracy around White Water...

All that being said, I think McCain made a major miscalculation by playing up to the religious right which always viewed him suspiciously. Everyone who followed him knows he is conservative, but not a right winger culture warrior. It seems to me he is that rather rare politician not afraid to see the other side's point of view. I think if McCain stuck with his 2000 campaign (where he, like many, was vilified by the Bush operation) themes he would have had better success. Perhaps he should have run as an independent and avoided the primary problems. Regardless, it will be difficult for him to make up lost ground, but he can do it by portraying his unique strengths (vast experience, bipartisian appeal, foreign policy experience, respect for the law [e.g. no torture/clean up Gitmo], and combat experience to name a few). As an independent leaning Democrat, he still seems the best bet to win the nat'l election for the Republicans...

Posted by: Sean | July 10, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Is it possible that they were pushed out the door by McCain?

Posted by: Shirley | July 10, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

A strong case can be made that the GOP made a mistake in 2000 by nominating Bush instead of McCain. While we still may have invaded Iraq, the war almost certainly would have been waged more effectively.

Posted by: hmmm | July 10, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Ha! You stiffies can keep him, we progressives don't want to have anything to do with him! He's a coward! How many other politicos have been thoroughly humiliated by an opponent (Mc v W, 2000) and snuggled up to them 4 years later??

Posted by: reason shmeason | July 10, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

McCain has raised less money than Paul -- which is a real shocker to me. His support for open-ended commitment to occupation, while perhaps genuine, is hung around his neck like a dead skunk.

But I still feel sorry for him... he is a war hero and the so-called conservatives are kicking him while he's down.

Posted by: drindl | July 10, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain's problem is that he is not conservative. He'd probably make a good Democrat candidate, but is not an acceptable candidate to most Republicans. His lack of success has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Most Republicans simply don't trust his efforts to portray himself as conservative.

Posted by: Bill | July 10, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain instantly becomes the hottest free agent for an endorsement!

John McCain, not a king, but a kingmaker!

Posted by: Michael | July 10, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Intrade futures market now has McCain trading at the same level as Ron Paul. If this keeps up, McCain will be in 5th place behind Paul. Kerry had some problems, but was he ever that far down in the field?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

McCain's a loser, always has been, always will be. He's an "Anybodys". Anyone who votes for him is not paying attention to anything other than spin. I feel sorry for the guy, that his life has come to this after his earlier sacrifice. Pathetic........

Posted by: reason shmeason | July 10, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

We won't have Walnuts to kick around anymore. Who's going to be the new senile bloothirsty beast candidate?

Posted by: Vincente | July 10, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

If he leaves, it should be interesting to see whom he endorses, if anyone at all. This could also just be a move to redo his floundering campaign, though I don't see how that would have much effect.

Posted by: Jeff | July 10, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

hey, maybe he'll throw his support behind someone else who doesn't have a snowball's chance... like duncan hunter... since he also loves to see us drop bombs on others.

Posted by: corbett | July 10, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Let's not forget the nearly identical position John Kerry was in before coming from behind and winning both Iowa and NH on his way to the nomination. He was trailing by nearly 20 points in most polls for the Democratic primary behind Dean and Edwards and replaced his campaign manager at around the same time prior to the first primaries as McCain is doing now. It's still very early and McCain is an experienced campaigner. Will I vote for him? Absolutely not. But I won't underestimate him either.

Posted by: Sak | July 10, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I haven't been here in a while, and I come back to some of the typical uber-partisan attacks at CC. As if he wouldn't report on the Republicans???? Is he only supposed to report on Democrats??? Wake up people. Its called reporting and analyzing.

I definitely agree with most posters that McCain is in deep trouble. When your two top staff leave, that is an awful sign for his campaign's future. I will be curious to see what kind of spin McCain uses to deflect the damage.

Posted by: Political Junkie | July 10, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Do you think all of McCain's money people are going to be wooed by all of the other republican candidates?

Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I guess Nelson & Weaver didn't like working for free after all, did they!?!? Is McCain back from Iraq yet or did they send him an email?

McCain is toast. All of his supporters must be getting calls from all of the other GOP candidates.

Posted by: Rick | July 10, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

last time I checked we lived in a democracy

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

poor old McCain. going out a loser.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 10, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Why are we talking about republicans still? Do they have any chance at all? No. What a waste of time. CC is part of the right-wing noise machine. Why does Olberman give this man ANY air time. What a waste of time

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 10, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Too bad for McCain. He should've accepted Kerry's VP offer in 2004...

Even so, the GOP still looks angry, fragmented, and incompetent. Me likee.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | July 10, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps McCain's people are leaving, but McCain is now going back to the McCain of 2000. He tried to play the political partisan game, but couldn't do it. He's in 4th place in Iowa, 1st place in South Carolina, 2nd place in New Hampshire and 3rd in Nevada. He's not out yet, and cannot be counted out yet. I think McCain will rebound and win New Hampshire, and probably South Carolina. Romney wins Iowa, likely. I think Romney will win Nevada as well. If it becomes a 4 horsed race, anyone could win: Romney, Guiliani, McCain or F. Thompson. Frankly, I'm not even certain who will get my vote yet. I am certain that many other conservatives feel as I do.

Posted by: reason | July 10, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

that ship is sunk.

Posted by: peter | July 10, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company