Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Where McCain Stands Now

If you need to understand just how serious the damage is to Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign as a result of the resignations of two top strategists, you need only look at our earlier post on McCain's Inner Circle.

The first two names on the list -- Terry Nelson and John Weaver -- are now gone from the campaign, creating a leadership vacuum that will apparently be filled by another longtime McCain adviser Rick Davis.

In the immediate aftermath of the staff shakeup, reports pointed to considerable internal strife within the campaign that began long before McCain underperformed in fundraising in the first two fundraising periods of the year.

Seeking to avoid being cast as the Republican outsider -- a label that he believed cost him the GOP nomination in 2000 -- McCain (and Weaver) spent much of 2006 recruiting key cogs in the presidential campaign of George W. Bush. Nelson, who was Bush's political director in 2004, was seen as the crown jewel in that recruitment effort, a member of the Bush inner circle who was widely regarded as a strategist on the rise.

As more and more elements of the Bush campaign were added to McCain's operations -- especially on the fundraising side -- several members of the 2000 McCain Inner Circle left the campaign. Craig Goldman, who served as executive director of McCain's Straight Talk America PAC in the runup to the presidential race, was the first and was followed by longtime McCain finance consultant Carla Eudy who was dismissed from the campaign following McCain's disappointing first fundraising quarter.

Those who remained cast the departures as typical growing pains in a frontrunning campaign. But, as the campaign began to lose momentum the fissures within McCain's world widened and it became clear they were slowing the campaign down.

Davis, who had long been close to McCain but had been somewhat marginalized during this campaign, appears set to step into the breech. While Davis now reemerges as a powerful figure in McCain's political world, he enters the job in a decidedly unenviable position.

Following the news that he ended June with just $2 million in the bank, McCain instituted widespread layoffs in both his national staff and key early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. At the time, his campaign insisted that the senior staff remained largely in tact and that the campaign would continue.

But, any realistic assessment revealed that McCain's chances at the nomination had dipped badly over the first six months of the year and that he would now have to depend on a stronger than expected showing in the Iowa caucuses -- a state he spurned in his 2000 presidential bid -- to have any chance at the nomination.

Privately, strategists for rival campaigns note that focus groups and internal polling shows that McCain is well-known by likely Iowa Republican caucus voters but not at all well-liked -- a troublesome position for any politician. Public polling has also shown McCain slipping in Iowa.

With McCain's candidacy now largely marginalized, the top tier looks to be composed of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.), who ascended to number one in The Fix's most recent Friday presidential Line, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Thompson, a McCain ally during their time in the Senate, has largely focused on his conservative credentials in the runup to his all-but-certain presidential bid. Now Thompson could capture voters who were attracted to McCain's maverick image but worried about his ability to win.

Giuliani, who is by far the most moderate candidate in the field, now likely has a chance to consolidate that wing of the party behind his candidacy. For all of McCain's emphasis on his conservative bona fides, he remains most popular among liberals and moderate Republicans, who comprise, by the way, a significant number of potential voters.

Romney continues to sit in the cat bird's seat for the nomination. Romney has built the strongest Iowa organization and if McCain is reduced to second tier status in the contest, Romney's chances in the New Hampshire primary will rise. If Romney can emerge victorious in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be extremely hard to beat.

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  July 10, 2007; 1:07 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Top Advisers Leave McCain Campaign
Next: Another McCain Staffer Departs

Comments

Mark in Austin.... When McCain reaches across the aisle who does he reach for.... Kennedy.... and the two of them try to cram an amnesty bill down our throats for all the reasons that are wrong for America.

He pandered to the religious right for votes.... if that isn't pure George W. I don't know what is.

And, if McCain can't manage his campaign, or his campaign budget, how does this qualify him to manage a country on the brink of financial disaster?

But, regardless of all of that, I truly don't think he has a chance of winning the nomination.... too many of the GOP, even or especially Bush stalwarts, don't want him.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 11, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

I find 98% of the comments to be illiterate garbage but the remaining 2% are interesting and enlightening.
Jim

Posted by: Jim Brannon | July 11, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Mike you are a Fascist idiot who would gladly sacrifice additional thousands of American lives in a war that was lost a long time ago.
Jim

Posted by: Jim Brannon | July 11, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey John -- If you're going to slam Obama I would suggest perhaps doing ANY research first. Whether you agree with him or not, he's rolled out a detailed universal health care plan, ethics reforms, and educational reforms that among other things endorse merit-based pay. He's also taked in detail about the need to work towards real energy independence and reduce global warming.

Again, it's fine to disagree with any candidate. But arguing Obama hasn't proposed anything substantive? That's just not true. In point of fact, he has far more specific policy proposals than ANY GOP candidate. Quick, what are Rudy's plans beyond "staying the course" in Iraq? Heck, or McCain's for that matter. Now, at least relative to McCain I believe he DOES have ideas. But we haven't heard them thus far -- probably b/c it's July of 2007.

Posted by: Colin | July 11, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

McCain is the best candidate in the race on any side. He made a tragic mistake of trying to appease or appeal to the worst parts of the Republican party, who never could be conviced anyway(these people don't believe in evolution and voted for W. twice after all). Now McCain is left with the few of us who didn't get completely turned off by his attempts to appeal to the unappealable.
He is not done yet, look at Kerry or others in past elections but it is not looking good.

My guess is that it will be Rommney vs. Hilary.

Romney would sell his mother's soul to win among who knows what else. You core GOPers are better off nominating someone with conviction, like "crazies against rational thoughts like evolution" Brownback, who at least has conviction and some good points on Darfur etc....than a soulless convictionless opportunist like Romney.
But Romney is so slick and the GOP so blind to true statement that he will probably win the nomination.

On the Dem side Obama is all talk no substance...and zero experience. He could be the most brilliant politican and hand put forth great policies since Reagan or Clinton but we have no idea. Can anyone name any true policy statement he has come out for. All he talks about is "changing the nature of politics" or other such BS...wasn't W a "uniter not a divider"...and he is now uniting everyone against him...

Hilary runs circles around Obama in the debates. Richardson is a giant in all his past experiences. Obama has just been in office for some two years. He should not even be considered. Remember, we have a president now who came into office with basically no experience either and look where it has got us.

Hilary, for all of her real or imagined faults is calm, pragmatic, rational and experienced. She doesn't appeal to the populists like Edwards and has real depth and knowledge of the issues. She is my bet on who should be pres after McCain.

Posted by: John in NYC | July 11, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I can't find any good candidates to support. The wacked out republican candidates seem only to support the fantasy of Bush, refusing to even discuss his torturing, murdering ways. The democrats seem to almost as bad, saying we have to support bush because what might happen if we had oversight. A democratic candidate would have to assure us he/she would not step down right before the ballots were counted like Kerry did. Isn't anyone going to mention that we don't really get our ballots counted anyway because the ballot counting boxes are all owned by fantasy driven republicans?

Posted by: Don Joe | July 11, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

i think iraq has become a face saving operation for the republican party

Posted by: jw | July 11, 2007 1:29 AM | Report abuse

i think iraq has become a face saving operation for the republican party

Posted by: jw | July 11, 2007 1:29 AM | Report abuse

What America needs most in the future are candidates that are not wedded to ideology and have the ability to look at each problem pragmatically and with a long view. John McCain does this better than most. Although I was not a supporter of the rush into Iraq, I think John McCain is speaking from a deeper place than any of the other candidates currently in the field, and it is a measure of his courage that he can maintain his stance when the country is moving away from it. There is no simple answer for Iraq, and I don't trust any politician who treats it as simple. Why can't voters see the value of a strongly independent and practical candidate over the ones that ride the wave of expediency? I have never voted for a Republican before, but I would consider voting for John McCain if he somehow managed to pull out the nomination. If a democrat expresses a similarly nuanced view of the problem, then I might consider him or her, as well. John McCain, push diplomacy along with your commitment to remaining in Iraq, and you might win over some believers, even among the left.

Posted by: CA voter | July 10, 2007 11:44 PM | Report abuse

For that matter, including Romney and Giuliani.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 10, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I was responding to the anonymous poster at 6:23 and 6:27, not to you.
I actually agree with your assessment of McCain, for the most part... I was ready to vote for him in 2000 (I REALLY didn't think Kerry was the one to beat Bush), but by 2006, he was hard for me to recognize as the same person. But he is (was?) the class of the GOP field - the only one of them with the smarts, experience, and decency to do the job well. Unfortunately, I don't think he's electable now - maybe he wasn't from the beginning, I don't know. Can't stand Romney and Giuliani, and the other Republicans are not ready for prime time... yes, including Fred Thompson.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 10, 2007 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon, the next Prez will have a mountain to climb before getting a resolution authorizing military force, I suspect... .

Do you have a critique of my McCain comment at 10:40P?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 10, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"Only problem is that they never bother to think through to the consequences."

This statement must refer to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rove cabal as they decided to invade Iraq, never bothering to consider the window of opportunity they were opening for Iran and al Qaeda.

I mean, it's obvious, right?

And this is classic:

"So, we've lost 3,500 so far. You call that a loss?"

-Actually, I think I join most Americans in saying, yes, it's a sad, tragic loss. And it didn't need to happen. I wonder if you would put that question to the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq - ?

"How many Americans died in the Civil War? Wouldn't you say that was worth it? Wouldn't you say that was a war worth fighting?"

-How can you possibly equate this unjustified, poorly planned, incompetently led war of choice ENTIRELY in a foreign country - motivated at least in part by foolish dreams of ceding control of Iraq's oil to Halliburton - to one of the defining struggles of U.S. history? The Civil War was justified by disputes over federalism and what Southerners claimed was their right to own other human beings, and was led by men whose names we still respect today. Look side by side at the Gettysburg Address and ANY of Bush's semi-literate, inconstent, anti-intellectual babbling to the press over the past six years, and you will be ashamed of yourself for having made such an utterly stupid comparison.

"If fighting for our very existence as a free and sovereign people isn't worth going to war over, sir"

-Sure, that would have been worth it. However, as the entire Administration knew FROM THE START OF THE WAR, Saddam DID NOT have "WMD." He DID NOT try to buy uranium from Niger. He HAD NO CONNECTION with 09.11. And HE POSED NO THREAT to "our very existence as a free and sovereign people." He didn't even have an army that was willing to fight!

"then I would like you to answer 1 question.

What is worth going to war over in your mind, if anything?"

-That's a very good question. Not securing oil rights for American companies, that's for sure. Finding bin Laden was a good reason, but we didn't find him, or rather, we knew where he was but for some reason didn't go after him, and now he's gone again.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president, although recent presidents have always seemed to find some legal justification. Given the arrogant, incurious, gullible, and superstitious simpleton we currently have in office, it may be time to insist on stricter adherence to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

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

Truth, to me, it is not truly fair to equate McCain, who exposed the crooked lobbyist Abramoff, who fought the good fight on torture, and who is the 57th most liberal or 44th most conservative Senator, with GWB. I know he deserves criticism for pandering to the social conservatives, who hate him anyway, and for backing off his principled position against the second round of Bush tax cuts with the lame excuse that if they expire it would be a tax increase.

All that said, he is the only candidate from either house of Congress who did not even submit any earmarks, as a matter of principle.

He deserves better than to be painted with the same brush as GWB.

His campaign has foundered on his support of the surge and his support of the immigration bill and his inability to control the burn rate of his money. He remains the only R who has any foreign policy experience and the ability to reach across the aisle to Ds.

If you prefer another R as your 50% chance of becoming the next Prez, please justify your reasoning to me because I will take you seriously. I promise.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 10, 2007 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Remember people, this is in the middle of the 07 summer break. The only people who care about politics right now are political junkies, like all of us on this blog. The first actual voting comes in January 08'. People don't care about politics yet. When they begin to pay attention, around September, we will then see how things go. But, that's when money really will come into play. This favors Romney and Obama, which is easy to forget. We will see how things turn out as endorsements (helping Clinton and McCain)and money (helping Romney and Obama) takes affect. I believe in the end, money will be more important than endorsements, although both will matter.

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

The problem with the politics of this country is that everybody has their own idea of how best to solve our problems and handle our issues, and practically nobody is willing to listen to those they might disagree with.

The last 20-30 years have seen the nature of American politics turn darker and meaner. Rather than an a true effort to bring people together and gain more of a consensus on the issues, politicians and operatives on both sides have made their bones dividing people, making them afraid of anyone who doesn't agree with them, and throwing enough mud to shame their opponents.

The result: the politicos win 51-49, and the American people lose. They lose because they are not given a chance to hear the facts from all sides, but instead are bombarded with one side or the other's attempt to make their opponent(s) look as bad as possible.

Posted by: JamesCH | July 10, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

McCain was admired as a rebel.... true, a media made myth, but it sold.... so, what did he do?

He got in lock-step with the Team Bush on Iraq.

He kissed up to the religious right.

He took the side of illegal immigrants who are overrunning even his own state.

So, is anyone surprised the wheels are coming off of his Straight Talk Express.

McCain started smoking whatever Bush is smoking and lost his way. His reach has exceeded his grasp... of where the country is.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 10, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

"rufus: the gutless ignorant coward to whom i refer is the one who starts posting at 6PM without a screen name.""

I don't blame you Loudoun Voter. The scared coward zouk using so many names it''s impossible to knwo who's who in here. Why would he need to do that? Sabotage? Just like the GOP. Without sabotage/treason what are they? Irrelevant. That's why I misspell words. So they have something to talk about. The subject/issues will never work, for them.

Fascsist cowards

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

What else you got brave blank poster? So brave he/she can't even bring himself/herself to use and ANONYMOUS name.

That's what I thought. Who's the coward? WHo's the liar?

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"you mean like hillary and Nancy? and Harry spineless Reid"

Lets research shall we.

HilDOg- Ok show she's republican posing as a dem. Ok
"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

HArry Reid- Ok. He's from northern nevada( you can count the dems on one hand up there. You know he cares about money (land scandel). Sure sounds like a republican to me. Hasn't done a whole lot.
"Reid is a converted member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[4] and is married to Landra Gould, a Mormon convert from Judaism.[5] Her father, whose name was originally Israel Goldfarb, emigrated from his native Novograd, Ukraine in the early 1900s.[6] Reid and his wife have five children, one of whom, Rory Reid, is an elected Commissioner for Clark County, Nevada, and another who recently ran for municipal office in Cottonwood Heights, Utah."

Don't know a whole lot about speaker pelosis. From maryland. First woman speaker, maybe she doesn't want to push to hard. Maybe she wants to play it down the middle being the first female. Not sure why she's not doing much.

Either way they look like plants. Plants to give these gop'ers talking points.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 10, 2007 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Until Fred Thompson became a possibility, I figured I would be sitting home on the evening of the 1st. Tuesday in November, 2008, watching SHillary getting Coronated. I consider myself a Middle of the Roader and McCain and Giuliani are too far to the Left and Romney is way too far to the right. But............Hey!!! Thats just me.

Posted by: ET | July 10, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"rufus: the gutless ignorant coward to whom i refer is the one who starts posting at 6PM without a screen name."

That's not true. The blank poster is zouk. I am a "liberal"/"radical/revolutionary. I am not a coward. I alwys post with a name. It's either rufus or JKrish.

YOu got somethign to say or are you just coming in here to stir up truble a la zouk?

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 10, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I see these right coast cowards won't continue. I will. If only for the man/woman who is to scared to post, but reads.

Don't listen to their lies. Research for yourself. Fox "News" makes their money off oil and defense contractors (like lockheed and boieng). That is a serious conflict of interest for people that are supposed to be giving you un-bias news. We are a self-government. In a self-govenment we need all the real news and none of the fake. If we are getting lied to daily have can we vote on issues. Think about it.

The GOp is sabotage. They don't dispute facts. They can't they do that they lsoe everytime. What is their alternative? To discredit. To lie. To take the subject away from facts and "what is". Why do they do this? Do they do it for their country? Do they do it for OUR children. No. They do it to line their pockets. They trade you brothers blood for little pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents on it. THen they call it "free trade"

We can change the world. It starts by SILENCING the saboturs. I know it's have. They put on such a happy face. They pretend to be christians while preaching the opposite of christian teachings. Tehy claim to be patriots while selling their children's blood for money. They say "show me where treason is illegal." Nevermind treason USED to be punishable by death. Now it is a legal minefield to be navigated. If they to then there is nothing wrong. Tehy are good americans, they didn't get caught.

I know you peopl edon't think we can change. I know you don't think we can stop them. YOur whole lives they have said "this is how the world works".

If that was the case they would need to lie. They lie to get you believing that. We can beat them. It starts with elections. Vote them out. If democrats pull the same stunts. VOTE THEM OUT. Independant if need be. As many parties as need be.

Again. If they were legit. They would need tolie. They do need to lie. If they don't they are done. They people now see. YOu have been lying for years. We now have the internet. YOur time is up. The truth is at our fingertips.

Your time is up. Get back in the basement.

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

rufus: the gutless ignorant coward to whom i refer is the one who starts posting at 6PM without a screen name.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 10, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"Once again, not mature enough to understand that this is what our enemy most desires"

I know you beleive that mike. But if Bush's mission was legit, why would he have to lie? Why would people be pleading the fifth and not testifying if that was true. Why all the secrecy? Because he is not just. Halliburton. Oil $$$$$. Silencing anything but conservative talking points. Why if bush and his cronies are on the side of the US.

Do some research for yourself mike. I know for a fact Fox "news' rush/hannity/oreilly have been lying to you. I know that. I hope WHEN YOU FOUND THAT OUT THEIR MOVEMENT would be done.

The more I hear from you people the less I blame them and the mor eI blame you.

God will be your judge

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Who Loudoun Voter?

Zouk or Rufus? Whos the coward?

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"Is that a threat? Is george bush going to strap it on you himself?"

Once again, not mature enough to understand that this is what our enemy most desires.

Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I see the night-shift rightwingnut ignorant coward is back on duty, right on schedule. What a tool.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 10, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"I guess it's going to take a nuclear strike on an American city for you to understand that victory is more than just "babbling" - it is necessary."

Is that a threat? Is george bush going to strap it on you himself? Do you think that will win for the gop. AND THEN YOU CLAIM YOU ARE NOT TREASONOUS SELL-OUT TRAITORS THAT HATE YOUR COUNTRY.

We get attacked again. The people will look at who. It WILL come back to you GOP.

I saw at Jerry Faldwells funeral a gop'er was making bombs to somehow protect people. Tim Mcveigh. YOU CANNOT THREATEN THE WROLD AND TURN EVERYBODY INTO CONSERVATIVES. Not how the world works. You cannot strong arm you political ideology. THAT IS CALLED FASCSIM

Posted by: RUFUS | July 10, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"tHE GOP IS A PARTY OF COWARDLY MEN WHO LET THEIR WOMEN WEAR THEIR PANTS.

you mean like hillary and Nancy?
"

Again. How does that effect you. I'm talking about your people on the streets. You know those are just ploys. You know the reason you gop'ers only have old white men running is because it gives YOU manhood. A lie. YOU GIVE YOU MANHOOD. Not the gop leaders. You people are funny. Your wife thinks your a joke. She said you were a worthless wet noddle didn't she. You got angry and decided to take it out on the fix. :)

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Winning to me would be out of Iraq (they are their own country) and getting the Bin Laden and his leaders. How have you done on that GOP? Not very good on both fronts. What about other enemeis.

How are you handling China? Rupert Murdock is China's puppet.

Ok. North Korea?

Ok. Iran?

Ok. The Saudi's, the peopel who bombed us on 9/11? What. Your allies with them?

What about domestic. Housing? Job pay rate? KAtrina nd other disasters.

Your battin, what %.008. Not very good. Gop/zouk. You guys aren't doing much right.

You think you have a chance as continuing as a legit party in post 2000 america.
HAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"It's possible to keep babbling about winning "

Further proof that you don't understand the gravity and truly consequential times we face. We face an enemy that hates us, that is determined to kill us, and yes, even you liberals are their targets.

Winning this war is not just a bumper sticker victory that we are "babbling" about.

I guess it's going to take a nuclear strike on an American city for you to understand that victory is more than just "babbling" - it is necessary.

So, we've lost 3,500 so far. You call that a loss? How many Americans died in the Civil War? Wouldn't you say that was worth it? Wouldn't you say that was a war worth fighting?

If fighting for our very existence as a free and sovereign people isn't worth going to war over, sir - then I would like you to answer 1 question.

What is worth going to war over in your mind, if anything?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

since I don't have an honest bone in my body and thinking really hurts my pea-brain it really bothers me when someone changes all the ds to rs to expose my hypocrisy. Not that I have an answer for it, I'll just whine about it instead. Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah! Shoot the messenger, ignore the message.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

tHE GOP IS A PARTY OF COWARDLY MEN WHO LET THEIR WOMEN WEAR THEIR PANTS.

you mean like hillary and Nancy? and Harry spineless Reid. and Breck girl edwards. which are the manly ones? Oh yeah, its hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

It's possible to keep babbling about winning but have absolutely NO unambiguous data to support the claim that we are currently winning. Maybe truth and honesty are ideas that are too complicated for a GOP mind to understand. Reality has a well known liberal bias after all.

Posted by: ashamedtobeGOP | July 10, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

since I don't have an original bone in my body and all that thinking really hurts my pea-brain I will revert to my old trick of cutting and pasting someone else's stuff and changing all the ds to rs. aren't I smart? I bet you never saw this before or could think of it on your own. I did this all by myself.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

There's a reason Cheney is at 13% approval. It's because the American People do not accept treason, war profiteering, sacrificing their children for oil, and lying to start a pointless war.

Or maybe that's too complicated an idea for a 'conservative' mind to understand. I'm pretty sure it is, in fact. They don't do complex.

Posted by: Pat | July 10, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

tHE GOP IS A PARTY OF COWARDLY MEN WHO LET THEIR WOMEN WEAR THEIR PANTS. They are a cowardly party who allows their women to mock them non-stop. It is a joke amonst the new generation.

hide in your storm cellers from a bunch of goat herders. Look out your windows all day. I know the woprld is a scary place. "Everybody's after you." All the brown people scare you do death, but your not racsim. The world is against you.

This mentallity only works in small town america. John wayne and elvis are dead. Have been for decades. Your movement is done. The Bay Area is going to spread like a volcano. Wejust have to stop the sell-out sabotur GOP'ers who hate American freedom but love it's money.

Capitailism is not america gop. Freedom is. The future is America. You cannot live in 1962 forever. You kids reject you, don't they. It's not easy raising greedy racist treasonous little pigs. The internet is here. Being a racist is not ok anymore. Treason is not good business. Look at china. How do thye handle treason. Most countries handle it the same way. The gop has been in control to long (undercover for 60 years). Your time is up. You fascist have shone your face and it was ugly. Your children will reject conservatism when givin the choice of FREEDOM.

You are done for a lifetime. Say what you want zouk. We all know the gop is scared to death. You party is about to be dissolved. And your pushing your chest out

What's the saying.

"Before losing all control a fascist regime always tightens it's gripe."

You tried and fail;ed. You showed your face. Now get back in the closet for another 100 years. Sell-outs. Fakers. Treason is not ok.

Pat Tillman. Your people killed him. They killed him because he was against the iraq war. He just joined the army to get bin laden (something you STILL haven't done). Your people killed him. Your people burned the evidence. Your people lied to his family and covered up the story. Then you attacked his family as "defeatist" "cowards" when they questioned.

Your time is up gop. What have you done right the last ten years? Really? And you expect to get elected. I deal with you all day in Reno. Same Poo. You do nothing but sabotage and expect you will hold your job. ONLY IF YOUR BOSS IS GOP. If not your all getting fired. In the political world you are gettign voted out. For good.

Your party is done. You knwo it I know it. Get back in your strom celler and wait it out FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES.

Posted by: RUFUS | July 10, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

the war is like a campaign to Libs. They will promise all sorts of things to gullible followers. then if enough dummys agree, they will enact catastrophic policies. Only problem is that they never bother to think through to the consequences. What will happen if we leave Iraq now? what will happen if we pass all sorts of dumb laws.

thankfully we will never know the infamy of the Lib agenda, revoked after Carter and clinton destroyed our nation with similar appeasement, weakness and surrender.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

What do you mean we can't needlessly kill and support the troops at the same time? all we need is a catchy phrase and we are off to the races. If you don't like "stay the course" or "stand firm" we will find another. We are all about selling snake oil to the dumb R voters. We don't ever get called on it because we have the press in our pockets.

If we don't live up to a single campaign promise ("I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.") we will blame it on the Dems, Antonio is already starting this management of failure. We are such frauds we have a whole department ('Justice' is it's name) set up to fool people into thinking our failures belong to someone else. thanks Antonio.

Did anyone hear about Fred Thompson getting arrested next week for campaign fraud. No? wonder why, that sounds like a big story to an honest person. but when the R's are involved these stories emerge every day to shrugs from their supporters. so what if we're corrupt. we're R's.

Posted by: ashamedtobeGOP | July 10, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

No you don't understand

Just because we haven't been attacked in 5 years doesn't mean we're safer.

It just doesn't.

Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The score so far:

Terrorists killed during the Clinton admin: zero

Terrorists killed during the Bush administration: too many to count

Succesful queda mass exterminations planned during Clinton era - one big one, lots of litle ones

Succesful mass extermination planned during Bush era - zero

OH, woe is me. lets go back to the days of being defenseless, ignorant and happy, the intern years.

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

"Coming down on all sides of the 'terror' issue doesn't make for a strong argument."

You're right. It's not possible to say that just because we are facing a very real threat (aka, not just a bumper sticker), doesn't mean we can't win, and aren't currently winning.

Maybe that is an idea that is too complicated for a liberal mind to understand.

Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is fulled with elderly cowards. Old women looking out the window snitching on their neighbors. Fascism is ok with them "because all I do is stay home anyway."

They're ok with fascism because they life is over. They live in a conservative box. They do whatever their (false prophet) preacher tells them to do. Even if those tenants go AGAINST their religon.

They claim to be patriot's while selling the blood of their brothers and sisters to line their pockets. Hid ein the basement? Who's the party with %80 eldery retired who have no job so can listen to Rush/Hannity ALL day long? Your movement is over. I just curious what scares you most. What WE'RE going to do with America in the future. OR YOUR OWN SHADOW

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

What do you mean we can't surrender and support the troops. all we need is a catchy phrase and we are off to the races. If you don't like redepolyment we will find another. We are all about selling snake oil to the dumb Lib voters. We don't ever get called on it because we have the press in our pockets.

If we don't live up to a single campaign promise we will blame it on the GOPs, Nancy is already starting this management of failure. We are such frauds we have a whole department set up to fool people into thinking our failures belong to someone else. thanks Nancy.

Did anyone hear about hillary's finance director getting arrested last week for campaign fraud. No? wonder why, that sounds like a big story to an honest person. but when the clintons are involved these stories emerge every day to shrugs from their supporters. so what if we're corrupt. we're Libs.

Posted by: The Libs | July 10, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"We can beat them. We are beating them. By the truck-load."

"WASHINGTON - U.S. counterterror officials are warning of an increased risk of an attack this summer, given al-Qaida's apparent interest in summertime strikes and increased al-Qaida training in the Afghan-Pakistani border region"

Geez, can't you wingnuts get together and come up with a consistent set of delusions? Coming down on all sides of the 'terror' issue doesn't make for a strong argument.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Hooah Mike! You are absolutely right about the defeatist politicians.

They would like an exit strategy, a respectable exit strategy (how sickening, along the lines of the proposals of the Iraq Study Group. They embrace that group's recommendations--ignoring all the evidence that those recommendations are neither feasible nor desirable, and in any case have often been overtaken by events.

None of them speaks of the fact that, in Iraq, we are fighting al Qaeda. Nor do they discuss the fact that we are fighting a proxy war in Iraq against Iran.

Nor do they see that we have a strategic interest in changing the status quo ante in the Middle East. They are pre-9/11 Republicans.

Semper Fi

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 10, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - U.S. counterterror officials are warning of an increased risk of an attack this summer, given al-Qaida's apparent interest in summertime strikes and increased al-Qaida training in the Afghan-Pakistani border region

but not us Libs. we want to spend the summer in our basement anyway. the war is just a bumper sticker. The 55/40 ratio is what we expect in the next election. A clinton rarely gets over 45% of the vote anyway. we will sue for a few months after we lose, same as always.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

A Senate appropriations panel chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., refused to fund $4.8 million in the vice president's budget until Cheney's office complies with parts of an executive order governing its handling of classified information

One investigation every 1.5 hours since January. no wonder they don't have time to pass any laws. If they get even 10% convictions for anything, they may catch up with the most crooked admin in history - the clintons.

Posted by: instead of passing laws... | July 10, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

USing differant names doesn't count you coward zouk. What are you afraid of? Be a man. "man up. It's that you fascists cowboy's say?

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I've heard of Thompson and Giuliani, who's this Runyon guy? Some guy with a nice haircut? Let the Dems try to nominate one of those, the GOP has real men to nominate.

Posted by: Mike G | July 10, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The link I just posted did something weird. If it is broken for you, you can find the article by searching on

Associated Press
Fred Thompson Aided Nixon on Watergate
By JOAN LOWY 07.07.07, 12:24 PM ET

Posted by: Golgi | July 10, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say.

All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion.

The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.

For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40 percent increase over 2006.

The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates.

The $12 billion a month "burn rate" includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. That's higher than Pentagon estimates earlier this year of $10 billion a month for both operations. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion.

Among the reasons for the higher costs is the cost of repairing and replacing equipment worn out in harsh conditions or destroyed in combat.

But the estimates call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September." Digby

"It's a great time to be an american" though right zouk? I know your stocks are high now. Where do you think these hundreds of BILLIONS are coming out of. Do you think it is just going to vanish. You high stocks may be making THE RICH money. IT'S cOSTING NON-sell-out americans billions

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of surrender monkeys and white flaggers...

Any of you who claim to support the troops by wanting to retreat immediately are liars.

I am a US Marine who joined after graduating with a masters degree in finance(to take a considerable pay cut), and I support the troops - to victory, not defeat.

I'm so tired of hearing the left wave the white flag of surrender and dress it up in new phrases like "re-deployment".

You mean to tell me the greatest fighting force the world has ever known can't beat a group of Islamo-Nazi thugs? Of course not. We can beat them. We are beating them. By the truck-load.

What we can't beat are the defeatist politicians who are willing to sell us out (and in doing so claim to support us).

There's a reason Congress is at 18% approval. It's because the American People do not accept defeat, retreat, surrender, or "re-deployment".

Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Kerry loaned his campaign 6.4 million dollars in Dec of 2003 by mortgaging a house he owned with his wife. There were questions raised about that. He put all his chips in doing well in Iowa and then NH. He bet correctly.
McCain I don't think is personally that wealthy and cannot self-finance to weather the storm. The problem with McCain is that he has nearly a 100% burn rate. A person who is running on fiscal responsibility and getting rid of pork in Washington cannot himself run a tight campaign. How ironic.

Posted by: gomer | July 10, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey Rufii, how about staying on topic?

Posted by: JD | July 10, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is a fascist. Have I said that today?

Zouk is a fascist. just to make up if I haven't

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I am a coward. My name is zouk, which means party. I go to school on the short bus. My only sense of strength is coming onto this site and buddying people. I know nothing of politics. I just think this is great fun. I graduate from elementray school next year. Then I'll be a big boy and talk about real issues. Until then it's PLAY TIME. This is fun. I don't care about this country or the thousands killed. I just like to have fun

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey JimDinFL,

What about Nixon's opinion of Thompson? Nixon called Thompson "dumb as hell," and "expressed concern that Thompson was not 'very smart.' 'Not extremely so,' Buzhardt agreed. 'But he's friendly,' Nixon said."

Here is the article that those quotations come from
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/07/ap3891484.html

I guess there might be some bias there on Nixon's part, because Nixon was extremely smart but not very friendly. Still. What if Nixon's character assessment of Thompson was accurate?

We have a president now who some (not me, but some) routinely called friendly but dumb during the primaries. Yet this president is currently quite unpopular.

Posted by: Golgi | July 10, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Still, 55% say Congress should wait to develop a new policy on Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, delivers a promised assessment in September; 40% say Congress should act now.

So you surrender monkeys and white flaggers are still in the minority.

Posted by: USA today | July 10, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON, July 10 (Reuters) - These are tough times for the Democratic-led U.S. Congress, where partisan battles have led to little progress on big issues and have made lawmakers collectively less popular than President George W. Bush.

Congress, typically never all that popular to begin with, starts the second half of 2007 with an anemic job approval rating of about 25 percent, down from 43 percent in January, with one Gallup poll ranking lawmakers at 14 percent.

There has been little to show on other priorities, including a change in Social Security and other entitlement programs that will run out of money in the years ahead, in addition to overhauling a health care system that has left millions uninsured and a broken immigration policy.

Democrats drew a line in the sand over Iraq in the spring, using a $100 billion war spending bill to try to force Bush to accept a troop withdrawal date.

The effort failed miserably, with Bush finally getting what he wanted with no strings attached, and the White House saw the fractious debate as taking time away from work on other priorities.

"They've proven that they're not capable of taking on big issues," an administration official said.

Posted by: Reuters | July 10, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

You're more than right. This is a non-story.

"Hate" for John McCain among republicans is an understatement. The Illegal Amnesty Bill was just the nail in the coffin.

Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

How about that enormous suicide bombing the other day, claimed by Al Qaeda?

I thought it was a civil war with all of al queda in Afghanistan?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I think that Thompson has the potential to derail Romney's march to the nomination. A lot of conservatives are uneasy with Mitt's all too convenient and all too recent conversion. There remains a significant number of voters on the religious right who could never vote for Mormon. If Thompson mounts a credible campaign, I think he will pick up McCain supporters who bail on their candidate. Thompson is the main beneficiary of McCain's problems IMHO. I also see Thompson and Romney splitting the anti-Giuliani vote. Depending on how many Republican primaries are still winner-take-all for delegates, Giuliani could get the nomination on a string of 35% showings.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 10, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

U.S. cruise missile defense said possible in 14 months

not if we can help it - the Libs

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I am a former Army Infantry soldier 11B. I too have never supported this war because it is for oil. It is for fascsim her ein america.

I got love for the ARmy Rangers. A ranger taught me that fear and pain doesn't exist. He saved me in the process.

Pat TIllman. Remember that name gop. I'm going to burn that name on your mentals. I'm going to shove that name down your throuts.

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I will destroy any gop'er in here verbally. And I'll do it with facts. I'll do it all day long if you have the courage.

You gop'ers don't want that. You will look like morons. continue the haircut attacks. Continue the clinton attacks. You don't want to talk about the gop. That much is obvious.

Blank poster/zouk is a coward and a fascist.

Peace. When your ready to play for real zouk, let me know. I'll make you a laughing stock. More than you already are.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 10, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, you are possibly the only human being not competing for the GOP nomination for president who sees "progress" in Iraq. How about that enormous suicide bombing the other day, claimed by Al Qaeda? or did you miss that? And how about the one earlier last week? But because Maliki claims progress, you believe him?

Did you believe "hidden bio/chem/nubear weapons" too? "links to 9/11"? "Mission Accomplished"? How about "last throes"?

And before you accuse me - yet again - of bias, let me say that I support the troops. My cousin is an officer in the Rangers, and has been to Iraq twice - so far. And I have several other friends who have served or are serving. NONE of them think that this deployment is or ever was a good idea.

I support the troops.
I do not support stupidity and poorly-motivated deception.
And I cannot understand how anyone with a brain can support this president.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 10, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

coward

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

BABYLON and on and on

finally something rufas knows about.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

finally a small amount of progress. How many years? And your excited by that. It's not that the dems don't want to win. It "why are we there". And "how to get out"

What would you do is Russian/Canadian tanks were rolling down our streets. I might fight them. I might throw bottles. Iraq is not America. As much as you want it to be gop. IRAQ WAS BABYLON. Now NY is BAbylon

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Baghdad - Iraqi forces will be ready take charge of security in the southern city of Basra from the British military in September, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told British lawmakers overnight. Mr Maliki made the promise during a meeting with visiting members of the defence committee of the British House of Commons in Baghdad, according to a statement released by his office.

What's a dem to do? you bet everything on losing the war.

Posted by: don't look now - progress | July 10, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

No more "I plead the fifth". What about Taylor. Can you FORCE someone that's wants to tesitfying to not? Not sure if that's legal. I'm sure Bush and the parrot-heads here will make up laws and tell us why he can. Fascsits.

"Miers will appear before House Judiciary Committee after all
The House Judiciary Committee has just confirmed that former White House counsel Harriet Miers will appear before the committee as scheduled on Thursday.

In a letter sent to the committee Monday, Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning, said,

"Ms. Miers is, of course, respectful of her obligations to respond appropriately to the subpoenas issued and served upon her. In these circumstances, however, as I am sure you know, Ms. Miers has no choice other than to comply with direction given her by Counsel to the President ... Accordingly, and with all due respect, I must inform you that in light of the President's assertion of Executive Privilege, Ms. Miers cannot provide the documents and testimony that the Committee seeks."

In a response sent today, committee chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said they were writing "to confirm, as you told committee counsel yesterday, that your client Ms. Harriet Miers will appear to testify ... I understand from your letter yesterday that Ms. Miers may decline to produce documents or answer certain questions ... those claims will be considered at the hearing, but it is of course incumbent on Ms. Miers to appear."

On Monday, a spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary told Salon that the committee has heard from the lawyer for Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, and that Taylor will appear before that committee as scheduled tomorrow. Salon has still not been able to confirm that with Taylor's lawyer, W. Neil Eggleston, who did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Separately, Conyers and Sanchez also announced plans to hold a vote after Miers' appearance Thursday on whether to issue subpoenas against the Republican National Committee, because the RNC "has failed to agree to voluntarily turn over all the emails relevant to the investigation" of the U.S. attorneys scandal, from which this latest fight between the executive and legislative branches stems. "

Posted by: It's answer time. UUTTT OOHHH | July 10, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

'There are no good Democrats because they are all socialists, empty suits or political operatives or all three.'

It's truly amazing the level of stupidity of movement cons. I'm sure none of them has any clue what the world 'socialism' actually means.

And 'empty suit' = mitt romney. the man is such an idiot and has such a tin ear, he'll never make it. anyone who thinks nearly killing his dog is funny is just not a good campaigner. he's weird... and i had nothing against mormonism until i started reading about and now i have realized we would be crazy to elect anyone who's beleives this crazy sh*t. it's a cult.

and rudy.... rudy is a real fascist, the genuine article, who despises the first amendment. he's also a war cheerleader and profiteer. but mostly he's a real jerk-- a bottomless selfish and monstrously egotistical jerk.

Posted by: julian | July 10, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Some interesting insights by most of the people here. I'm really surprised the number of people who think it will come down to Romney vs. Giuliani for the GOP nomination. There was an interesting piece about a week ago (maybe a bit more) that talked about a Thompson vs. Giuliani fight for the nomination. As a Giuliani supporter myself, it will be interesting to see how things play out and what a Giuliani nomination will mean for the direction of the GOP. Here's the article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_070626_republican_2008_pres.htm

Posted by: Hard-Core Troubadour | July 10, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Great comments by everyone here. I'm really surprised the number of people who think it will come down to Romney vs. Giuliani for the GOP nomination. There was an interesting piece about a week ago (maybe a bit more) that talked about a Thompson vs. Giuliani fight for the nomination. As a Giuliani supporter myself, it will be interesting to see how things play out and what a Giuliani nomination will mean for the direction of the GOP. Here's the article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_070626_republican_2008_pres.htm

Posted by: Hard-Core Troubadour | July 10, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Just for you Stewart -- we do have an antiwar candidate who is also a true conservative....as I said above..

Posted by: NH | July 10, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Any Republican vs Any Democrat = GOOD vs Evil.

There are no good Democrats because they are all socialists, empty suits or political operatives or all three.

Among Republicans there is only one true conservative with the record to prove it -- Congressman Ron Paul.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Posted by: NH | July 10, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul won the first NH straw poll by 65% and will likely win NH.

But you have yet to mention him.
He has more money than McCain.

Posted by: NH | July 10, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Quick McCain take:
It probably means Rick Davis is taking over. He had run the campaign last time, but had no day-to-day responsibility this time and had been pushed upstairs. Then, John Weaver brought Terry Nelson in to run the campaign. As one strategist puts it, "They ran it into the ground." So this was a fight between Weaver and Davis that Davis won. That at least is a quick interpretation from one plugged-in Republican.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmVmZWRiNjE3MDc0MWFkOGRmYTA5ZDBkNWVkYTNhZDU=

Posted by: Rich Lowry | July 10, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Obama is currently only 3 Intrade points behind Hillary. Talk about making headway up the conventional wisdom ladder.

It is going to be a major story when the Obama Intrade price crosses the Hillary Intrade price.

Posted by: Golgi | July 10, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe this "story" was even a story at all. Shows how out of the loop the Beltway MSM is. McCain has NEVER had a chance at winning the GOP nomination. The only way he could have won it would have been if it were decided by David Letterman. Most Republicans hate McCain. Hate. Whether it was McCain-Feingold, the "Gang of 14" or the recent border NON-control farce, he has been as wrong as he has been arrogant & condescending. McCain has been Democrats' favorite Republican. BFD. They'd still vote for any Dem nominee over McCain in the general.

Romney will win IA, NH & SC. The "mo" from those states will propel him to victory in FL & IL. Sure, there are plenty of pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-marriage people in FL, IL & CA. They're called Democrats. Romney will win the nomination.

The only drama left is whether the Democrats will be smart enough to nominate Obama, who could garner some GOP votes. But they'll probably nominate the witch.

Posted by: GOP caucus goer | July 10, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Maybe these resignations will spur on McCain to quit the race and politics altogether... and perhaps buy a little retirement home in Baghdad where he can go for a nice, quiet evening stroll.

Posted by: Mark | July 10, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Way too early to count anyone out. But I agree with JMBSH that McCain's pandering to the evangelicals has lost him support from many independents and Democrats, who liked him as a maverick. However, now that the "straight-talk express" is a local, "I'll tell you what you want to hear," his cred has disappeared.

Still, he's more honest than Mitt "I'll say whatever it takes" or Rudy "Bernie Kerik for Homeland Security chief." These guys make Fred Thompson look like the Republican saviour--no matter how shallow and inexperienced he is. It should rename itself, the Desert Party, because it's candidates have so little fertile ground between them.

So many people have decried how early the campaigning has begun. But I think it just gives more people the opportunity to see the differences in the candidates of both parties.

No wonder the Democrats are raising more money; they actually have breathing, vociferous candidates who have been listening to the populace.

Can any of them lead? Chances are, we'll find out. After all, how do you do worse than the "torture president?" What a coward!


Posted by: pacman | July 10, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Some big and properly timed national headline like "Giuliani concedes Iowa and moves staff to New Hampshire" might be the best thing for him, especially if it's done early on and he's able to maintain his significant national lead. The people of New Hampshire will love him and he'll have a good chance of stopping the Iowa winner's momentum there and in Florida.

Posted by: Jared | July 10, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The offhand comment from one of Bloomberg's insiders last fall was that he would run if it turned out that the race was "Hillary v. not McCain".

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I think this is the best thing that ever happen to McCain. The Bush folks he brought in were trying to make him something that he isn't, a front-runner. McCain is and always will be a maverick, and he is now realizing that. Note to Rick Davis, take the gloves off and don't try and handle McCain. The people like him because he is tells it like it is. Have more townhall type settings, and press conferences.

Also all those who think that this is the death kneel of McCain '06 are crazy. The VAST majority of voters don't give a rats you know what about this kind of stuff, and most people still have a very positive opinion of McCain.
I think what your going to see in 08 is Edwards vs McCain.

Posted by: Andy R | July 10, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

And how is it exactly that Ron Paul raised more money than any of them last quarter? And won't this DC Madam sting hurt Giuliani, since yet another one of his campaign leaders is in hot water?

Posted by: dc voter | July 10, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

McCain's demise should be good for a second tier candidate, like Mike Huckabee, if a second tiered candidate could raise some $$$.

Posted by: Harlan | July 10, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

You want to talk money. Let's talk treason, or selling out your country for money. Look how they deal with it in china.

"China executes ex-head of food and drug agency
Zheng sentenced to death in May for taking bribes to OK substandard drugs"

Lucky for bush and the rest of you treasonous republicans. Not the same rules apply here. They did at one time

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani just needs to win Florida and hope that no single candidate wins all of the other early states. Then with big wins in California, New York, and some other states on February 5th, he'll have a good chance at winning the nomination. I've felt for a month or two now that it's going to come down to Romney vs. Giuliani. No other candidates have a clear and attainable path to the nomination.

A lot of it is going to come down to what happens in Iowa. The only candidate who can afford not to win Iowa is Giuliani. If either Giuliani or McCain wins Iowa, the nomination will be locked up. If Romney or Thompson wins Iowa, they'll be in a two-way race with Giuliani.

It's hard to see how Romney loses Iowa, so it's hard to see how the race won't come down to Romney vs. Giuliani. The boost Romney will receive from winning Iowa will be incredible. The only way to lessen it would be if Giuliani finishes a strong second or if he concedes the state early on and lets the other candidates fight over it while he pours time and money into the other early states.

Posted by: Jared | July 10, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"On intrade.com, you can bet on the 2008 elections.

Clinton is ahead of Obama and Guiliani is slightly ahead of Thompson.

McCain is 3.0. That means if you bet $3 on McCain, you will win a $100."

Frickin republicans. Is it possible to NOT think about money. For one day

Posted by: rufus | July 10, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

For once, I agree with MikeB - although probably for different reasons.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 10, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Hey stewart - What are the intrade #'s for clinton and obama?

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

As much vitriol as she elicits, I still see Hillary pulling this one out, even though I am not a huge fan and understand much of the turn-off. She is just too dang skilled at campaigning and insanely good at winning people over. People who have attended her rallies to express disgust have left writing her checks. And if Obama ends up teaming with her, no Republican in the country can beat them, not in this election or the next. (And JimD, once again I agree completely with your insight of what is to come for Giuliani. I think McCain still has the best chance of any of them for today's Republican party.)

Posted by: dc voter | July 10, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

If Chris' analysis is correct, then our "choice" will boil down to Hillary vs. Romney. That, just thinking about it, makes me want to vomit.

Posted by: MikeB | July 10, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

On intrade.com, you can bet on the 2008 elections.

Clinton is ahead of Obama and Guiliani is slightly ahead of Thompson.

McCain is 3.0. That means if you bet $3 on McCain, you will win a $100.

Posted by: stewart | July 10, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I encourage EVERYONE to stand up against CNN for their ludicrous and inaccurate hit piece on Michael Moore and Sicko.

Watch:

www.michaelmoore.com

PLEASE WRITE TO CNN after watching the piece on Michael's site. Write to CNN here:

Situation Room
www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?65

Wolf Blizter
www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?2

Sanjay Gupta
www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?82

Please demand (nicely) that they correct the record, apologize to Michael, and apologize to the CNN viewing audience.

We need regular folks to stand up to finally demand accountability from our corporate media that would rather provide spin and misleading "news" than tell the truth for once. Thanks all.

Posted by: F&B | July 10, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Unpopular Iraq war...
Need a credible Republican candidate....
Lugar for President???

??

Back from 1996!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"the top tier looks to be composed of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.), who ascended to number one in The Fix's most recent Friday presidential Line, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani."

Three candidates saddled with well-documented flip-flops on abortion. With the "top tier" is so compromised, it's obvious that quite a few chickens have come home to roost in the GOP henhouse. Reaping what you sow.

Maybe McCain should stay in; he'll likely win the primaries once the mud starts flying and the average right wing single issue wingnut holds his nose and tries to figure out who to vote for.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 10, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Why do the Republicans need a candidate at all?

This war is so unpopular, that the Republican candidate will get crushed in 2008.

Bush and the Neoconservatives have already lost the House and Senate. In 2008, they will be responsible for losing the White House to the Democrats.

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

I actually can envision Giuliani winning the nomination, especially if Thompson and Romney split the hard core conservative vote. However, he could never win the election. The reason is that his nomination would result in one of two things - a walk-out by the religious right who then run an independent candidate or such a sell-out to them by Giuliani that he torpedoes his moderate image, opens himself to Kerry-style flip-flop charges and loses a great deal of his appeal to swing voters.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 10, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Chris--

You were the same persion who kept putting George Allen in as one of the top contenders for the Presidency, until he imploded.

Romney is seriously overrated. He may have registered temporarily in Iowa (until people figure out he doesn't stand for anything), but there is little sign he is racking up support elsewhere. The whole primary process next year is serious accelerated-- Iowa & New Hampshire will not matter as much as they used to.

Alternately, I think in some critical ways the departure of the Bush "insider" advisers may be just what McCain has needed--by all appearances they have been lethal to his campaign so far.

Guiliani and Thompson have their stengths--they also have their weaknesses, which have not been seriously tested yet.

Posted by: TRM | July 10, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama vs. Giuliani = good vs. evil

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 2:39 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 2:35 PM | Report abuse

There is absolutely no possible way Giuliani is going to be president. None. Nada. Zilch. He makes a pretty sounding candidate now, but as soon as the negative campaigning starts, he is toast. That's why I don't see him lasting for the Republican nomination. The level of hypocrisy required to nominate the corrupt Giuliani with three wives whose own children cut him off is too much for even the Republican party of today's standards.

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

Rudy will take the nomination and the general election in '08. Democrats are a sure loss nominating either Hillary or Osama.

Posted by: John | July 10, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

This is rather tragic, actually. McCain is a good man; he used to be a respectable politician, too. McCain, in 2000, was the first presidential candidate I actively supported. Now, in 2008, he's the last guy I'd put my support behind. And I look seriously at candidates from both parties; I'm an independent.

America loves to watch great people fall. The political climate sponsored McCain's unconscionable, opportunistic change. But he was complicit in all this by choosing to change, so I do not forgive him.

My current prediction for the general election is Obama v. Romney. I think that McCain's current situation should prove sobering to those who trumpet Clinton's inevitability. Not all "inevitable" candidates prove to be winners. Especially when their presumed inevitability is a substitute for appeal.

On a related note, what kind of a campaign manager compares their own candidate to Walter Mondale?: http://mydd.com/story/2007/7/9/20424/11757#commenttop

Posted by: Antigone | July 10, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain is here for the long haul

Its now setup like this

Giuliani with McCain backup (best in the big states)

vs

Romney with Thompson backup (wins Iowa South Carolina and other conservative and early states will it carry them?)

Most people agree it will be Giuliani vs Romney with the other two as more spoilers if either of the other two frontrunners falters

Posted by: novamiddleman | July 10, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Time for another comparison: Giuliani vs. Dean. Two candidates with a reputation for being somewhat hot-headed and undisciplined on the trail. Two candidates who believed that winning Iowa was not critical to the nomination.

Will Guiliani have an equivalent "scream" moment that hurts him? Probably not. But could he lose IA, NH *and* SC and still expect to romp on February 5? I doubt it. Unless he has strong second place finishes and no single candidate wins all three of those first states.

If Romney wins IA, NH and SC, it will be very hard for Giuliani to execute his Super Tuesday strategy. Not impossible certainly, given the front-loading this year but very, very hard.

Posted by: Bud Omsman | July 10, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

It will be an (yet another) embarrassment to our country if a Mormon is the nominee of one of the major parties. Read up on this religion, folks--not the fringe polygamist groups, just the basic tenets of the religion--it's completely insane.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Get ready for a wave of regrets "Oh, McCain was actually the best Republican candidate! I guess I just never said so. Oh well."

That will only hurt the whole R field.

If McCain is actually dropping out, I hope it is for health reasons and not out of a sense of despondence. He would have a chance.

Posted by: Golgi | July 10, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Even if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, and South Carolina for that matter, Giuliani just has to hold out until February 5. By the end of the night on February 5, Giuliani's strong showings in Florida, New York, Illinois, and California should mean that Rudy will be ahead of Romney in the delegate count.

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

Razorback: Good point about Kerry's wife and her bank account. Do you remember how much money either he or she loaned the campaign prior to Iowa? I didn't think it was a huge sum at that point, but would stand to be corrected.

My purpose in making the McCain/Kerry comparison was the 'electability' factor should a front-runner or two falter. He could be a safe choice for GOP'ers to fall back on if some combination of Romney/Giuliani/Thompson stumble.

Also, I would add a third item to your list of why McCain is faltering (or possibly toast) -- his support of immigration reform. Frankly, I think that was more damaging (at least in the primary season) than his position on Iraq.

Posted by: Bud Omsman | July 10, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn't have 6 billion and one things that Kerry had in 2004: One wife with 6 billion dollars.

McCain is toast for 2 reasons:

1. McCain made continuation of the Bush policy in Iraq a centerpeice of his campaign. While the war itself is more important than any political calculations regarding the war, proposing a large world wide net to stop Marshians from invading earth would be a better political strategy than proposing to continue the bush policy in Iraq.

2. McCain also made one of the most critial and basic mistakes that you rarely hear mentioned in discussions of politics, he has failed to manage his overhead.

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

I just can't see Romney getting the nomination. But I also just can't see Giuliani getting the nomination. If Fred Thompson really does jump in and McCain falls out, will Thompson get it? I don't know. But the more I can't see a Republican getting the nomination, I definitely can't see whoever IS nominated having a ghost of a chance at the White House. This primary season is much too long for my taste. Hurts campaigns everywhere. (Though I guess it gives Gore more time to change his mind.)

Posted by: dc voter | July 10, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

DST said: "Clinton vs Romney in '08. Heard it here first."

Well, I think I've heard that in just a few other places before. Now if you had said Gravel vs. Paul in '08, then you'd truly be breaking new ground.

Posted by: Bud Omsman | July 10, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I will support any candidates that recognize there is a need to put a stop to the funding and continuation of the war in Iraq as well candidates that addresses the important issue of global poverty. All $450 billion dollars that has so far has been poured in this meaningless war can be used in other national and global issues that can ultimately eliminate violence and the "necessity of war."
According to the Borgen Project, which aims at reducing global poverty, an annual spending of $19 billion dollars can prevent a year of world hunger. Hunger and poverty cause rise in several problems in this world such as disease, violence and poor education. By reducing a fundamental problem such as poverty, we can prevent the use of violence as well as increase the economy of a country in poverty and our own.
It is time to bring our troops home and end this war. It is time to support a presidential candidate that is willing and will do so.

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

I will support any candidates that recognize there is a need to put a stop to the funding and continuation of the war in Iraq as well candidates that addresses the important issue of global poverty. All $450 billion dollars that has so far has been poured in this meaningless war can be used in other national and global issues that can ultimately eliminate violence and the "necessity of war."
According to the Borgen Project, which aims at reducing global poverty, an annual spending of $19 billion dollars can prevent a year of world hunger. Hunger and poverty cause rise in several problems in this world such as disease, violence and poor education. By reducing a fundamental problem such as poverty, we can prevent the use of violence as well as increase the economy of a country in poverty and our own.
It is time to bring our troops home and end this war. It is time to support a presidential candidate that is willing and will do so.

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

Is McCain's campaign trouble impossible to fix? See: Kerry, John, circa 2003.

Posted by: Bud Omsman | July 10, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else getting sick of CC the parrot continuously reporting on the gop. All day everyday. Trying to get rid of the "liberals" or what. What a tool. i hope they're paying you hefty.

Propooganda piece. You and your buddy can write haricut pieces until your red in the face. Doesn't mean your a real journalist. You are irrelevant. The posts are what make this blog, most going off topic.

ZOuk and cc are the same person. They are the borg. Fascsits. propogandist. You have a couple months. What will you do when you are irrelevant?

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 10, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Clinton vs Romney in '08. Heard it here first.

Posted by: dst | July 10, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

does anybody stay on topic anymore these blogs have so much potential but always fall flat

Posted by: Jeez | July 10, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

McCain never seemed to learn that he couldn't have it both ways--be Bush's opponent or ally. Pick one and stick with it. He lost his true supporters when he--the Straight talk guy--- stated waffling on positions. He would have been far better off sticking with his gut principles. He ended up with No one really trusting him because he went from maverick to waffler.

Posted by: jmsbh | July 10, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

McCain would be president now but he listened to these same hacks in 2000 and sucked up to South Carolina evangelicals (Bob Jones "U") and rednecks (the rebel flag fiasco). Lost there, and then lost in PA and MI where bashing South Carolina and Catholic-haters would've found very receptive audiences.

Posted by: Swift Sword | July 10, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I think it will be a tough war between the Horde and the Alliance. Just not sure who is going to win. Azeroth is the likely battleground.

Posted by: Horde v Alliance | July 10, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Bush doesn't want to set a withdrawal date, because that would be too valuable intelligence to give to the terrorists.
Watch, though... he will have no problem detailing his 'secret plan' for audiences composed of wealthy Republican donors.

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

From the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll:
5. From what you have heard or read, do you think President Bush was right to commute Libby's sentence, do you think he should have gone further and granted him a full pardon, or do you think he should not have intervened at all on Libby's behalf?
Right to commute sentence - 13%
Should have granted full pardon - 6%
Should not have intervened at all - 66%
No opinion - 15%

As usual, the true "fringe" in our country are Bush followers and their establishment media allies. Compare that fact about American public opinion on the Libby matter to this, from Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC: "They're going to try to really tamp this down and appeal to the polling which indicates that most people think, in fact, that [Libby] should be pardoned. Scooter Libby should be pardoned."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post National Political Reporter Shailagh Murray opined on Monday:

Washington: What can possibly be gained by congressional hearings into the Libby commutation? Clearly Bush had the authority to do this, and he did it. Q.E.D. I'm old enough to remember when President Ford appeared before a congressional committee to explain his pardon of Richard Nixon. But Bush is no Ford, and unlike the Ford pardon, I don't think this action is going to look better over time.

Shailagh Murray: YAAWWN. That's my view of the Libby flap. What on earth did people expect Bush to do?'

YAAWWN. What could possibly be more boring or irrelevant than the President of the United States protecting one of his most powerful aides, now a convicted felon, from going to prison, thereby ensuring that that aide has no incentive to disclose what he knows? Can we get back to what really matters to Americans, like John Edwards' haircut and probing investigations of his stylist?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"We've got a plan to lead to victory," Bush tells a Cleveland crowd.'

Wonder if it's a secret plan, like Nixon's?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Marginalized???
Isn't that going a bit far?

Just 6 months ago everyone was saying that McCain was a juggernaut, but I said the case wasn't that strong. Now, everyone moved to the other side of the deck, he's a triple ultimate loser, but I think you guys are overshooting.

If anyone has the right personality for a low-budget campaign, it is McCain. And his 3 rivals (Romney, Giuliani, Thompson) all have in common a scent of emptiness.

Substance is the key word for the primaries.

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

I have always thought that McCain's support was a mile wide and an inch deep. It was mostly due to his presumed inevitability and electability. That aura has been decisively punctured and his candidacy is collapsing.

With McCain fading out of the picture, I believe that Thompson will seriously hurt Romney's chances. The true believers will be looking for a candidate to Giuliani's right and Thompson fits that role better than Romney. However, I do not expect Romney's candidacy to fall apart any time soon. The longer it is a 3 way race, the better Giuliani's chances.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 10, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Can we officially say that McCain '08 is now on its last legs? Is this the beginning of the end for McCain?

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

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

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company