Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mitt Romney, John McCain and the Fix endorsement hierarchy



Arizona Sen. John McCain received the endorsement of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Tuesday. AP Photo by Gerald Herbert

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney endorsed Sen. John McCain today, the latest in a series of high-profile endorsements for the Arizona Senator as he seeks to beat back a primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

"For years, I've been an admirer of John McCain," said Romney in a statement. "Then we became competitors. Today, I'm proud to call him my friend."

The central question posed by Romney's backing of McCain is -- what else -- how does it fit into the famed Fix endorsement hierarchy?

For the uninitiated, the Fix endorsement hierarchy is an attempt to catalog (and rate) the various types of political endorsements. (And, yes, it is a blatant rip-off of Bill Simmons aka the Sports Guy's "levels of losing" chart.)

Here's a quick reminder of our endorsement hierarchy -- ranging from the most important/influential to the least.

* The Symbolic Endorsement: Ted Kennedy backing Barack Obama during the 2008 primaries.
* The State-Specific Statewide Endorsement: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist throwing his support to John McCain just before the Sunshine State presidential primary in 2008.
* The Celebrity Endorsement: Chuck Norris for Mike Huckabee in 2008.
* The Newspaper Endorsement: Des Moines Register for John Edwards in 2004.
* Out-of-State Statewide Endorsement : South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint endorsing former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the 2010 Senate primary.
* The Obligatory Endorsement: Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran endorsing McCain's presidential bid in 2008.
* The Non-Endorsement Endorsement: Former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder passing on state Sen. Creigh Deeds in the 2009 governor's contest.
* The Turnabout-Is-Fair-Play Endorsement: New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) endorsing Rep. Bill Owens (D) in the 20th district special election.
* The Pariah Endorsement: Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (D) endorsing anyone.

So, where does the Romney endorsement fit in our handy-dandy chart?

It's an out-of-state statewide endorsement -- a sort of middle of the pack endorsement as these things go.

Romney's support does two basic things for McCain: it helps to affirm his credentials as a "real" Republican and it should give him a bit of a fundraising bump.

Romney is regarded as the current frontrunner -- in an admittedly wide open field -- for the 2012 Republican nomination and brings a sort of institutional/establishment heft with any endorsement he delivers. That gravity should help McCain -- at the margins -- push back on Hayworth's attempt to raise questions about the Arizona Senator's conservative bona fides.

Romney is also as well-connected in the fundraising world -- particularly in the business sector that he populated for decades as an executive at Bain -- and his imprimatur is likely to open a few doors for McCain that might otherwise have been shut. (Fundraising has not, to date, been a problem for the Arizona Senator who ended 2009 with more than $5 million in the bank.)

What the Romney endorsement does not do -- in all likelihood -- is sway any significant number of primary voters.

While many Republican voters in Arizona undoubtedly know Romney's name, it's rare that an out-of-state politician -- even one with the national profile of the former Massachusetts Governor -- winds up turning a large number of votes to the endorsee.

Why? Because most people tend to make their voting decisions not based on the advice of a particular politician but rather on more parochial concerns and feelings relevant to the people actually running for the office.

A more interesting debate in the Fix endorsement hierarchy is where to rank former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's support for McCain. (She will campaign around the state for her 2008 ticketmate on March 26-27.)

Does Palin, like Romney, fit neatly into the out-of-state statewide endorsement? Or does she rate two rungs higher: a celebrity endorsement?

Our natural inclination is toward the latter option as Palin, at the moment, is at much celebrity as she is politician. (For more on the politician-celebrity/celebrity-politician dynamic in regards Palin make sure to read Fix friend Liz Sidoti's terrific piece on the subject.)

Palin's endorsement -- and her trip to Arizona -- will draw massive amounts of national press attention, the sort of attention that Romney (or any other Republican politician) simply can't command.

But, we are always open to persuasion. Have a thought on where Palin fits in the endorsement hierarchy? Offer it in the comment section below.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 23, 2010; 3:52 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Endorsement Hierarchy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What happened to Kay Bailey Hutchison?
Next: Bob Menendez goes on offense

Comments

WOw, ignorance talks about a man's looks... The guy has been fighting for you his entire life...and fighting hard this past year!!!

Posted by: antidonkey | February 25, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney says it like he sees it..John McCain has worked his tail off against this liberal administration on issues that are so important like securing our Nation, standing up against the mounting deficit, refusing the govt run heatlhcare system. John McCain deserves respect and endorsement

Posted by: antidonkey | February 25, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

As a 21st century American I DON'T want a leader who believes in ghosts, spirits, goblins, market forces, Santa Claus, the power if prayer, or God.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 24, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Romney is a Mormom, but so is Harry Reid and it hasn't hurt him any...has it?

President Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim and it hasn't hurt him any....has it?

Although since elected President Obama just avoids church altogeth---or he may be watching ( He is like an uncle to me) Reverend (G.D. Ammerica)on line!

I think he is an agnostic but no one seems to care that he rarely/never attends any church. A man without any faith, sad! He needs some!

Posted by: passonfirstdown | February 24, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Republicans may have a theological beef with LDS but we should all have a political beef. Mormons don't believe in religious independence in politics any more than Protestant fundamentalists do.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 24, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

When Mitt's dad started to run in 1968 his Mormon background was never mentioned. He pulled out after his "Brainwashed about Vietnam" comment.

Since 1968 and especially after 1980 the Republican party has been captured by Evangelicals who seem to have a theological beef with Mormans. Forget sound policies for the country for them it's who's more religiously pure.

Reid does not wear his religion on his sleeve like many Republicans where it seems to be required.

BTW: Will Mitt be for Romney care that he passed in MA or will he runn away from it like in 2008.

Whis is it that everyone knows Romney's religion but not Reid's?

==

Posted by: MerrillFrank | February 24, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"Oh wait, maybe there are 5 small Mormon towns in northern Arizona - which could bring McCain 150 more votes."

Baloney. About 6% of Arizonans are Mormons. About 38% are registered Republicans. So Romney's endorsement gives McCain a pretty good lock on between 12 and 15 percent of likely Republican primary voters.

Assuming these votes would have been divided equally, Romney's endorsement probably gives McCain at least 5% margin that he wouldn't have otherwise had.

This is not to say that Mormons are political automatons. But Romney has an enormous reservoir of respect in the Mormon community. For them, Romney's endorsement falls into the "Symbolic" category.

Posted by: anon99 | February 24, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey, nutjob. If you want to be taken seriously around here them learn to capitalize correctly, learn to let wordwrap be wordwrap, and don't use Rasmussen as a source.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 24, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

So,yes indeed as WAPO the Official Print Voice of Marxist Dictator Barack Obama said
"Obama To Stay On The Offense"...I most certainly do find Barack Hussein Obama's
every damn lie and incompetent nonsense that comes out of his stinking lying big
mouth very offense as all Hell. Frankly I
feel it is high time to close that lying
hole in Obama's ugly face by Impeachment and Removal from office by Congress or time
we vote every single Incumbent Democrat and
Republican out of office in 2010 and 2012.

And as,proof of why Congress must Remove
Mad Man Barack Hussein Obama let me just offer,for now,a small sample of poll data,
that clearly supports my position,the Weds.
2-24-2010 Rasmussen Poll finds 42% of people Strongly Disapprove of Obama and his
job preformance,while only 26% Strongly
Approve of it,or that makes Obama at -16
here. And means a Vote of NO Confidence!

Additionally,Rasmussen found 71% say Congress is doing a POOR Job and only 10%
say Congress is doing a Good Job and in the
latest generic candidate poll the Republicans still hold a 9% Lead over the
Democrats with 45% would vote for a GOP
candidate and a lowly 35% for a Democrat or
-9 here. Wake up and Wise up Congress and
Remove Barack Hussein Obama the Marxist
Dictator from Kenya from the Oval Office or
we,the people will remove you from office,
on Election Days 2010 and 2012 if you fail
to make Obama gone and shipped back to
Kenya where Barack Hussein Obama came from
now then. Let me add,Arizona just joined a
growing list of States passing legistlation
that will require Presidential Candidates to provide their Birth Certificates before
Arizona and other states will allow their
names on the ballot! Bye One Term Obama!

Posted by: carleen09 | February 24, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Whis is it that everyone knows Romney's religion but not Reid's?

==

Reid isn't running for President..

Reid hasn't made his ptivate faith an issue in his public life

Posted by: Noacoler | February 24, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Whis is it that everyone knows Romney's religion but not Reid's?

Posted by: c_e_daniel | February 24, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I think the Palin endorsement is in a category that I would call "The Narcistic Self-Agrandizement Endorsement". It will do John McCain no good. It makes him look like a lapdog running after the far right and thus negates everything he thinks he stands for and for Palin it is screamin "See how loyal I am to my mentor and I will do anything to look like a team player". Is Palin getting a new wardrobe this time? The only word for McCain is pathetic. There goes the so called rock bed tested integrity. The only thing left for him to do is to participate in a photo op processing detained immigrants for their trip back to Mexico with crying babies hanging onto their mothers.

Posted by: aronsonmyers | February 24, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

So you think that this was a secret REPUBLICAN operative planted here AFTER McCain had a lock on the nomination?

"Mcsame is pure comedy......especially when he tells the jokes and lifts those tiny arms"

Posted by: Mcnuts | July 9, 2008 6:34 AM

==

that's one (1) poster on a blog, FEEB. You saying hw speaks for the entire Democratic Party, FEEB?

Statistics much? Logic much? Brain much?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 24, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure how many votes it will bring in, but Romney is a Mormon and there are quite a few Mormons in Arizona.

Posted by: JJLP | February 24, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

MerrillFrank:

So you think that this was a secret REPUBLICAN operative planted here AFTER McCain had a lock on the nomination?

"Mcsame is pure comedy......especially when he tells the jokes and lifts those tiny arms"

Posted by: Mcnuts | July 9, 2008 6:34 AM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/07/08/mccains_latest_iran_joke.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 24, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The only folks who mocked his service and trashed his family are Rove, Ralph Reed and the other assorted neo-confederate cabel R.S McCain (unrelated) who backed G.W. Bush over McCain in the foul 2000 S.C. Primary.

The folks who went to bat for him were the so-called liberal media Matthews, Maureen Dowd, TNR etc. He probably would have been a far better that W. Bush.

Does anyone else want to make fun of McCain not being able to raise his arms?

Posted by: JakeD2

Posted by: MerrillFrank | February 24, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

jeezus, this 37 person needs to take lithium. he's completely manic.

Posted by: drindl | February 24, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

On topic answer to q: Palin s/b considered a celebrity endorsement.

Off topic answer: Question is whether that sways any primary voters. If she backs McCain, signif that she is not backing the more conservative Hayworth. But it may be ineffective. Backing Hayworth she would be more significant -- she's more bang for the other guy's buck in this case. Therefore signif if she backs McCain.

Posted by: GTChristie | February 24, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The GOP has terminal cancer and it's called the Tea party. This ideological tumor festering in the vital organs of the Republican party is making it impossible for moderate Republican's to compromise with Democrats in order to effectively govern. Their ideological purity and inflammatory rhetoric has marginalized many GOP politicians making it impossible for them to work with Obama. Hopefully McCain can retain his seat with the help of once rival Romney but regardless of the outcome McCain will be forced to tack to the right in order to appease a loud and angry base. Where are the Republican's speaking truth to this racist minority of birthers and right wing extremists? If you are interested in reading more you can check out my political blog at:
http://dropdeadpolitics.com/

Posted by: dropdeadpolitics | February 24, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

"This bill is the biggest disaster in the history of the democratic party since the Civil War."

How did a discussion of endorsements provoke this hyperbolic insanity? Almost every other country in the civilized world has a health care system that is at least partially run by the government, and our statistics in comparison, particularly in lieu of the outrageous amount of money we spend as private citizens, are appalling. While some of the GOP ideas have merit and in fact, have already been incorporated into the bill, the idea that market based solutions alone are going to transform a system that every professional health care provider knows is simply unsustainable is a pathetic joke. Worse, in the face of the worst financial crisis since the Depression clearly shown to have happened as a result of greed, corruption and a profound lack of oversight, the GOP has the temerity to suggest private health insurance accounts as a panacea, and to continue to refuse to consider any regulatory action against an industry that is crippling the average American household by degrees.

All that being said and to get back to the subject at hand, it's hard to see how a Romney endorsement would hurt McCain, assuming that the citizens of Arizona have not caught tea party fever, a contagious form of hysteria, which disallows pragmatism even at the expense of an election. As for Palin, as her career is inextricably linked to McCain's, I think her endorsement represents the lesser of two evils. Had she withheld it, it would have reflected badly on both of them, reviving the pettiness that helped drown the campaign; on the other hand, her presence is a constant reminder to the voters that their Senator is capable of making reckless decisions that undermine him, and by proxy, his supporters.

Posted by: Koko3 | February 24, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Since it is an open primary in AZ, I look forward to voting for someone other than McCain. I will never forgive him for loosing Palin on the national political scene and any confidence I might have had in him prior to that is gone, gone, gone.

No, I don't really like Hayworth, but this is a vote for the lesser of two evils in my way of thinking. Time for McCain to be put out to pasture since he is nothing more than a professional politician and has become the poster boy for supporting term limits in Congress.

Romney's support? Doesn't mean a thing to me except to show that Romney, too, wants the status quo with no progress whatsoever.

Posted by: Utahreb | February 24, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Romney has Mormon credibility in AZ. There is a bit more strength to his endorsement than you have suggested, CC, IMO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 24, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Palin's endorsement is obligatory at best. For those who despise Palin, her endorsement has more the pariah effect. The question is whether or not McCain will lose more moderate and liberal voters than he will gain in conservatives because of her support.

==

McCain isn't going to get any liberal voters and precious few moderates, only conservatives, and probably fewer if them than in the past. Some conservatives still believe in getting tht nation's business done and McCain is too busy playing the sore loser to get any enthusiasm from them. And as feeble as he looks, questions about his fitness, political and physical, will now be prominent.

Palin's support is redundant, the rage vote is all McCain has and now he will be challenged by a teabagger. Splitting the GOP vote can elect a Dem even in a red state.

Your take on Palin seems predicated on the belief she's coherent. You should know better. She's a product, and as more and more lose interest in her she's only going to get nuttier. Her support is not good for people who want to win, only for people who want attention.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 24, 2010 2:33 AM | Report abuse

How about the 'Oh My God I Helped Create This Monster And Now I Have To Hope She Can Pull My Bacon Out Of The Fire, Although It Didn´t Work The First Time' endorsement category? Hasn't Palin already clearly aligned herself with the same sort of folks who are pushing Hayworth to run? Just sayin' ...

Posted by: joel18 | February 24, 2010 2:23 AM | Report abuse

How about the 'Oh My God I Helped Create This Monster And Now I Have To Hope She Can Pull My Bacon Out Of The Fire, Although It Didn´t Work The First Time' endorsement category? Hasn't Palin already clearly aligned herself with the same sort of folks who are pushing Hayworth to run? Just sayin' ...

Posted by: joel18 | February 24, 2010 2:23 AM | Report abuse

BB: as long as this has been going on, as bad as it is for discussion, there can no longer be any doubt that Cillizza is OK with letting 37th flood the blog with this trash. I understand you see him socially, any idea why he's happy with letting this moron dominate the blog while not conteibuting to it? I really don't want to believe that his own republican allegiances are so extreme that he's happy letting a GOP troll as stultifyingly stupid as 37th destroy the blog, but, well, there really is no room left for any other interpretation.

After all, Jake and zouk aren't much better at contributing and they've always gotten a pass.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 24, 2010 1:54 AM | Report abuse

If Obama wanted REAL BIPARTISAN NEGOTIATIONS, he had all year - he could have called up the Republicans and started talks at any time.

It doesn't have to be done in an OK Corral televisione style - in which both sides are concerned about a public SMACKDOWN.

Seriously, this is not bipartisanship - it is a complete FARCE. Obama has turned his campaign commitments into a FARCE - and by implication - Obama has turned his presidential campaign into a FARCE.


This is ugly - and it is embarrassing to see Obama act this way.

The democratics are in delusional group-speak right now - look at how they are talking about reconciliation. Reconciliation is for budgetary matters only - the bill is going to get stripped down until it barely makes sense.

This is like a bunch of children trying to cause as much chaos as they can - this is not a government in action.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 24, 2010 1:38 AM | Report abuse

>>>>>>>>>>

It appears that
37thand0street
is a teabagger of
the first order.

Congrats on that!

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Posted by: printthis | February 24, 2010 1:37 AM | Report abuse

No, I want a situation where individuals can present their views. I want a situation where one particular individual doesn't dominate any discussion. And post the same shyte dozens of times.

The new 37th (I presume who is someone without the creativity to create a distinct identity) is a narcissist who wants the comments section to be entire about him/herself. Why the Post thinks this is a desirable state of affairs is beyond me.

Ultimately, it's an issue with the IT department at the Post. 37th is irrelevant, a nonentity. Had I the time (I actually have a job, unlike 37th), I could create a dozen avatars and make the Fix all about me me me.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 24, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Fairlington and Naocoler


The only thing that is dead is your liberal cheerleading - Obama's program has been halted in its tracks and the World is a better place because of it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 24, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Politico writes:


The Democrats’ unstated goal, of course, is to make congressional Republicans look like a bunch of whiny, cynical, ideologically bankrupt crybabies who don’t have a plan of their own.

____________________


NOW how bipartisan is that?

Obama is making a JOKE out of his own campaign themes -

AND Obama is telling the American People that he regards them as a bunch of fools - for voting for bipartisanship - Obama gets elected - and look how he treats his commitments to the American People.


The other part is, of course, Obama didn't get what he wanted - so now he has to be the one whining and acting like a child and attempting to point the finger at the Republicans.

Anyway - Obama is risking exposing himself as a complete fraud again - the Republicans are not going to allow the smackdown Obama gave in Baltimore - and Obama will continue to sink in the polls.

Obama's job performance on various issues is at 35% for health care - and 36% for the economy.

Funny how the administration breaks down the polling for the health care issues - but not for Obama performance on various issues - why is that?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 24, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Fairlington and Naocoler


What is wrong? You want a situation in which your views dominate ???


You want a situation in which you mock and ridicule other posters until THEY leave???


What exactly is wrong ????

Nothing is going on that YOU TWO - along with a bunch of your friends - haven't already tried on this blog.

Hypocritical crocodile tears - give us all a break.

Defend your pathetic views.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 24, 2010 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, the comments section is dead.

==

not dead but mortally wounded and past any hope of recovery, unless Cillizza is able to find a nuclear powered hydraulic speculum to get his head out of his azs and recognize that there ate bigger problems here than "name-calling.". Talk about monomania.

It's called "trolling," Cillizza. It's what 37th does here. If you're not going to block this verbiagous cretin, at least have the bloody decency to give these comments a clean death.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 24, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, the comments section is dead.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 24, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama is now adding a MOAT to the new embassy in London - which will increase the price of the 1 BILLION dollar facility which will be located near a bunch of gay nightclubs.


At this point, Ron Paul is making a great deal of sense - cut the federal government down to the bare minimum.

So let me get this correct: Cut off dipomatic relations with the British, save a billion dollars.

Why not?

What does the Embassy in London do anyway - just call them every once in a while.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 24, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD


They said you are a woman with one tooth - is that true ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

So did Obama really dump the Stupak Amendment and allow illegal aliens to buy insurance ?

How in the world does Obama think he is going to get the democrats to vote for that bil ???

Obama has got to be kidding - this health care bill has been bungled from the start of last year - now all he wants to do is call the Republicans in and point fingers at them for not supporting his massive spending and massive tax plans.

What is that all about?

Can we have the adults back? Can we have people who know what they are doing running our country?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Man, is 37+o working on his dissertation too? Why in the world is he spending so much time at the computer?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 23, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney can win 2008 blue states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Florida. Romney will also win every state Bush won in 2004. We need Romney!

Romney is right: The Senate would be a sad place without John McCain.

Posted by: amyhass35 | February 23, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

The liberals think there is some way they can get the Republicans to agree with what is in the bill.


To have a true bipartisan conference, Obama has to be ready to compromise - meet the Republicans in the Middle.


So far, we see NONE of that - we see threats - we see that Obama wants to make the Republicans look bad.


This is not a genuine attempt at bipartisanship.


When will you realize that Obama has violated his own campaign themes - and that he let down the American People by not concentrating on the economy all last year.


This country has been HURT by Obama's arrogance and inexperience.


AND it is people like you who are responsible for putting a guy in there who can't do the job properly.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wants to run up the national debt - how about this compromise.


Have the democrats sign up - and they can be responsible for paying off Obama's debt.

Everyone else is off the hook.


Spend your own money !


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

The bunch of people complaining about the filibuster - they have no idea how the DEMOCRATS HAVE RELIED ON THE FILIBUSTER.

First, the democrats used the filibuster over Civil Rights.


Then the next big increase in the use of the filibuster was in 1995-96 - WHEN THE DEMOCRATS USED IT WHEN THE REPUBLICANS GAINED A MAJORITY.

Then the next time was when THE DEMOCRATS USED THE FILIBUSTER TO BLOCK VOTES ON BUSH'S COURT NOMINATIONS.


Who is kidding who? The filibuster has always been a democratic play.


This is ridiculous - Obama and the democrats have no idea what they are doing - we have a bunch of idiots running the place.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

The bunch of people complaining about the filibuster - they have no idea how the DEMOCRATS HAVE RELIED ON THE FILIBUSTER.

First, the democrats used the filibuster over Civil Rights.


Then the next big increase in the use of the filibuster was in 1995-96 - WHEN THE DEMOCRATS USED IT WHEN THE REPUBLICANS GAINED A MAJORITY.

Then the next time was when THE DEMOCRATS USED THE FILIBUSTER TO BLOCK VOTES ON BUSH'S COURT NOMINATIONS.


Who is kidding who? The filibuster has always been a democratic play.


This is ridiculous - Obama and the democrats have no idea what they are doing - we have a bunch of idiots running the place.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

"Earlier you asked about organized psychiatry's gravy train, the Diagnostic and Statistical manual. It represents the professions desire, its relationship between its work and the money.

Posted by: shrink2"

What do you mean? I'm not following.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 23, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wants to run up the national debt - how about this compromise.

Have the democrats sign up - and they can be responsible for paying off Obama's debt.


Everyone else is off the hook.

Spend your own money !


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

The best part about putting the health care bill up again in the House - the democrats get a second chance to vote against it.


That is true.


This bill is the biggest disaster in the history of the democratic party since the Civil War.

It is a sad, pathetic attempt at an Obama ego-trip.

The American People do NOT want this bill - it is time that Obama starts working for the People, and not his EGO.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I just want to know if Palin-McCain are going to go all "mavericky"?

Posted by: chucko2 | February 23, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

"His mouth is stretched in a little slit."

Earlier you asked about organized psychiatry's gravy train, the Diagnostic and Statistical manual. It represents the professions desire, its relationship between its work and the money.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 23, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the one who went around the country for two years telling everyone that he could get the bipartisan compromises in Washington.

Astonishing that Obama hardly tried to move HIS POSITION to get any of those compromises.

NOW the whole country has to watch Obama attempt to blame someone else???

Are we dealing with children here?

How in the world can all this be happening in front of our eyes?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

It is Obama who refused to offer a Bipartisan Compromise ALL OF LAST YEAR - not the Republicans.


It is Obama's fault.

Obama knew all along what the parties' positions were - the outlines of where a compromise laid was always CLEAR.

NO Obama wanted a far-left program with a massive goverment program and massive taxes.


A compromise in the MIDDLE GROUND HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE FOR OBAMA - ONLY HE DIDN'T WANT IT.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

I just saw George Bush on TV. Did he always look like he had tetanus? His mouth is stretched in a little slit.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 23, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

McCain is not a conservative, JD is.
Even if McCain wins (he probably will--sadly) you blew your creds. Too bad.

==

if McCain, one of the most conservative members of the Senate is too liberal for you, then you should probably move to Pakistan and join up with the Taliban. Your kind of people, feeb.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Bad mistake Mitt siding with McCain over JD Hayworth.
McCain is not a conservative, JD is.
Even if McCain wins (he probably will--sadly) you blew your creds. Too bad.
The Obama worshippers will like you for it though. They won't vote for you, but they love Republican losers who always want to get along and work together, something they never do.

Posted by: armpeg | February 23, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I hate to be off topic, but I read that Joe Biden wished Dick Cheney well today. I commend him for being professional and doing so. I even heard that Joe offered to go duck hunting with Mr Cheney after he recovers.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 23, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Does Obama really understand the reconciliation process? The democrats are talking like this is a real option available to them.


Who at the White House knows what they are talking about?

What is going to happen is that provision, by provision - the health care bill will be stripped apart until just the budgetary items are left - nothing else can be passed under reconciliation.


It is hard to imagine how Obama believes he actually has an option here.

This conference is all about Obama acting like a child - he didn't get what he wanted so he is going to blame everyone else.


This is ugly - it is partisan - it really looks bad -

It is foolish for Obama to highlight his failures and weaknesses. That is the best way to put it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

With health insurance surpassing mortgages as an expense to claim HCR isn't important enough to be a priority indicates that 37th isn't just playing an idiot, he really is one.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

The Romney and Palin endorsements of McCain mean nothing other than that McCain is in serious trouble. Yes, Palin will draw huge crowds for McCain, but the people will be there to see her, not the creep McCain.

It will be interesting whether Palin even mentions JD by name. She knows he is the more conservative candidate. Her speech will be nothing more than telling us that McCain is a war hero. She won't dare attack JD.

Romney will do the same. Neither Romney or Palin want to anger the real conservatives.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 23, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are looking at Obama - Obama spent two years running around the country telling the country that he was the uniter - he was the one that was going to bring bipartisanship to Washington.

Obama didn't do it.

Now Obama is ready to pull the Republicans into a room, and point a finger at them for not being bipartisan. But it is Obama who said he was going to bring bipartisanship to Washington.

If Obama wanted to be bipartisan, and bring a new spirit to Washington, doesn't it make sense to start with issues which he knows the Republicans are not against ??

Obama chose the most partisan issue - the one that no one wants - AND his attitude is "if you are not with him, you are not being bipartisan."

Pretty Orwellian.


Obama is a joke - no reasonable person can take him seriously anymore.

It is time for the ADULTS to step in and take control of the situation.

Obama is really hurting the country by not concentrating on the economy - and instead dragging the nation through is own ego trip.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Mr Cillizza, it’s interesting that you would follow an article on Kay Hutchison with one on John McCain. Isn’t Kay just John McCain in a skirt? Personally, I think they should put McCain and Hutchison in an Apollo Rocket along with (miss) Lindsey Graham and blast them into the outer space of RINO-land. Put Rick Perry and JD in charge of Mission Control.

Kay to Mission Control: Houston, we have a problem.
Perry: No we don’t!
JD: hehehe

Posted by: SuzyCcup | February 23, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"People do NOT want to talk about health care - they want to talk about the economy."
37th&BozoSt.
-------------
Seeing how health Insurance premiums are set to rise by 39% this year for hundreds of thousands of Californians (and that is just in California) I think I can safely state that it IS an economic issue.

Get it?, your health insurance rate is spiking therefore it costs you more money, therefore it is an economic issue.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 23, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Someone was saying Kay Bailey Hutchison didn't look robust, and here we have another pol looking a might frail.

I think we need another endorsement category. The Dont-Let-Go! Endorsement: two guys looking to fall off the power mountain and grabbing ahold of each other to try to stay there just a little longer. Romney is getting stale on the shelf, and he has another 18 months to get staler; McCain's party sees he's a loser and moves away from him.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 23, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews - keeps asking how does each side score a win -


Like there are two sides and one has to win and one has to lose

That is not being bipartisan.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

It is absolutely amazing that Obama is the one who is NOT acting in a bipartisan way - but he is the one who is ready to start pointing the finger at the Republicans for not being bipartisan.

Obama's little joke which has been going on all year - it is pathetic.

This stance of Obama has caused many thinking people to lose all confidence in Obama - it is the kind of thing that makes people want to get rid of Obama and never hear about him again.

NOW Obama has been doing this all year, and many people have been doing their best to ignore the hypocrisy of it all - but now OBAMA WANTS TO DO IT ON TELEVISION.

It is just so wacky - it show so little respect for the legitimate positions of the other side. However the basic truth is that Obama is the one who is NOT being bipartisan - he is the one who ran all over the country making this commitment - SAYING HE IS THE ONE WHO COULD DELIVER.


Well, that turns out to be a lie, Obama could not deliver.

But now, it all seems to be everyone else's fault.

It is like a bad joke - no one laughs and just an awkward silence -

Is there any way the moderate democrats can just tell Obama straight up that they are NOT going down this road with him ???


THAT might save their re-elections.


Obama should resign - he is not a leader - he is delusional more than anything else.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic congressional leaders confronted the reality Tuesday that they may not be able to pass the comprehensive health care overhaul sought by Obama . . .

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said comprehensive reform would be best but it's not all or nothing.

"We may not be able to do all. I hope we can do all, a comprehensive piece of legislation that will provide affordable, accessible, quality health care to all Americans," Hoyer said at his weekly media briefing. "But having said that, if we can't, then you know me - if you can't do a whole, doing part is also good. I mean there are a number of things I think we can agree on."

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Only the blinkered and deluded want bipartisanship. Most of us are waiting for Obama to grow up and forget that naive idea and start getting sh|t done. Jack bipartisanship. Jack the GOO.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
J.D. Hayworth is a right-wing ideologue. I can't imagine the people of AZ would elect him over John McCain.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | February 23, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


Your foolish response assumes the Republicans agree with what is in the bill.

To have a true bipartisan conference, Obama has to be ready to compromise - meet the Republicans in the Middle.

So far, we see NONE of that - we see threats - we see that Obama wants to make the Republicans look bad.

This is not a genuine attempt at bipartisanship.


When will you realize that Obama has violated his own campaign themes - and that he let down the American People by not concentrating on the economy all last year.

This country has been HURT by Obama's arrogance and inexperience.


AND it is people like you who are responsible for putting a guy in there who can't do the job properly.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Still, I think McCain's time is past. He's served his country well, but it is time for new, perhaps more conservative faces. I don't know Hayworth, but I'd give him a shot. Furthermore, McCain's presence is a painful memory for those of us who voted in 2008 and saw a loss. (Admittedly, I wrote in Romney.)

It would have been fascinating to see Romney endorse someone to the right of Palin's choice...

==

jeez guy why don't you just fly an airliner into the Pentagon if you want to harm your country so badly

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Still, I think McCain's time is past. He's served his country well, but it is time for new, perhaps more conservative faces. I don't know Hayworth, but I'd give him a shot. Furthermore, McCain's presence is a painful memory for those of us who voted in 2008 and saw a loss. (Admittedly, I wrote in Romney.)

It would have been fascinating to see Romney endorse someone to the right of Palin's choice...

==

jeez guy why don't you just fly an airliner into the Pentagon if you want to harm your country do badly

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

JedMerrill1:

Are you suggesting that any endorsement in particular is depriving Arizona voters of the ultimate decision in this regard? Do you also think that there should be no campaign advertisements?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I think the majority of Republicans would be at peace with this if Glenn Beck were not consistently labeling John McCain as a Progressive Republican.

My question is, is Sarah Palin, as one who is obligated to help her former campaign mate, more justified in the endorsement than Mitt Romney?

Do we give them a pass because they are in agreement? Do we condemn them both because they are conservatives backing a "progressive?"

Is John McCain a Progressive at all?

The right answer to this question would seem to be leaving the decision to Arizonans. The people of Arizona know best who will give them what they want.

Posted by: JedMerrill1 | February 23, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I see Sarah Palin's endorsement of McCain as more of an obligatory one than a celebrity endorsement.

Romney, on the other hand, is trying to mend a very divided party. Last week, he extended "amnesty" to George Bush as part of his CPAC speech. I am not surprised to see him extend a hand to McCain as well.

Still, I think McCain's time is past. He's served his country well, but it is time for new, perhaps more conservative faces. I don't know Hayworth, but I'd give him a shot. Furthermore, McCain's presence is a painful memory for those of us who voted in 2008 and saw a loss. (Admittedly, I wrote in Romney.)

It would have been fascinating to see Romney endorse someone to the right of Palin's choice...

Posted by: JedMerrill1 | February 23, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

John doesn't look well, does he? Must have been all that caviar he had at the Hanoi Hilton.


Mitt looks so perfectly polymerized - what was he dining on while McCain ate caviar?

Posted by: tlfamm | February 23, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

What I don't get is this: the democrats act as if the Republicans have to have the same goals as them.

The democrats are - ok the goal is covering 45 million people - you tell us how to get there and we will agree !

The problem is the Republicans DO NOT want a massive government program with massive new taxes.

The democrats still pretend - the democrats want a TRILLION dollar hand-out and they want someone ELSE to pay for it.


AND the democrats want all the credit - they want to go into the next elections saying they brought everyone health care.

It really is a joke.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

It is also hard to work with people who are being given tons of campaign cash to keep the status quo. Obama at least is not a sell out to American people are like to the GOP is to the heal care lobby.

Posted by: Brainny | February 23, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Luckily, the rest of us elected Reagan (twice) even though he looked old.

==

Reagan looked a whole generation younger than McCain looks now.

Anyway, Reagan got elected at a time when disco was the rage, Dallas and Dynasty were on TV, the shallowest period of the whole century. People wanted a chuckling avunculer old fool full of snappy one-liners. Someone who could assure them it was morning in America without anything to back it up.

He wouldn't win again now. He would lose to Barack Obama.

Every passing year the myth grows. Reagan was a lousy president. But not as lousy as Bush.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are throwing a tantrum because they are not getting their way, The lost the election for a reason. The Democrats tried bipartisanship and all they got was Chuck Grassley from Iowa with " they might as well pull the plug on grandma". The Republicans will never work with Obama.

Posted by: Brainny | February 23, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"the Republicans are not going to be there just to be props for Obama - so Obama can make them look bad."

It's all just a trap, A TRAP!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's a pretty easy trap to avoid, though. Just come up with decent health care proposals that aren't already in the bill!

Posted by: DDAWD | February 23, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Only Obama can turn a conference aimed at bipartisanship into the most PARTISAN undertaking --

This is completely ridiculous.


Obama AGAIN is violating his campaign promises - and turning himself into an UGLY FRAUD.

Is Obama governing - or is he just off on his own ego trip - trying to make the Republicans look bad over Obama's failure to get what he wanted ?

This conference on Thursday is looking more like a tantrum than anything else.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama is trying to deal with the mess that Bush and the GOP left him. This bill is actually pretty moderate for what Obama is pushing for. Conservatives should put down their Ayn Rand books and stop think about Rand's " me first" or free market delusions all the time and actually think about all Americans, not just the richest. By the way I have read works by and biographies on Ayn Rand.

Posted by: Brainny | February 23, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris, how about a new category of endorsement? The Mutualism Endorsement where an aspirant for higher political office inserts himself into high profile races via endorsements to bolster his own credentials. I don't know if the Romney one counts, but I'd have to say that Palin's endorsement of Rick Perry or Rand Paul counts as she is clearly using these endorsements to increase her own exposure.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 23, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

This bill has just been poorly sold by Democrats. All the GOP can do is cry, scare people and look out for the richest 3 percent. If we did not fight endless wars then we could afford health care, but the GOP always needs a boogey man, Remember the "welfare mother".

Posted by: Brainny | February 23, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama has created this whole mess himself - the Republicans are not going to be there just to be props for Obama - so Obama can make them look bad.

The thing that Obama does not understand is that the American People do not want the health care bill - so if Obama tries to make the American People and their sentiments look bad, then there is a real problem.

Obama is completely delusional - he is not helping himself - and those are the kinds of people who are dangerous - they are so wreckless they hurt themselves and everyone around themselves.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"Are they going to re-name the country Never-never land too?"

I wouldn't put anything past them.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/is_health-care_reform_popular.html

More evidence showing that the provisions of the HC bill are far more popular than the bill itself. All Republicans have right now are control over the messaging. If they lose that somehow, they are absolutely screwed. They are REALLY fortunate that Obama has decided to watch from the sidelines so far. If he ever gets really involved, the way he was with the stimulus, Republicans are going to be in trouble.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 23, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

People do NOT want to talk about health care - they want to talk about the economy.


What is Obama doing again? health care.


What part of this does not have disaster written all over it ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Please, that is like Perot endorsing Bush 43. The Republican Party just keeps recyling that same crap- 1. rhetoric 2. ideas that favor the richest 3. endless war. Romney also made his forutne by firing workers and loading companies with debt whiel working in the private sector. He also is running away from a health care plan he made in MA. The federal one is very similar to it.

Posted by: Brainny | February 23, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Shrink, have you heard anything about a DSM-V? I was reading Science and they mentioned a lot of the changes being considered.

Nothing in there about whatever is afflicting Mark Sanford or Tiger Woods, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 23, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Arizona has the 5'th highest percentage of Mormons among the 50 states at between five and a half and six per cent, and I'd guess about 80 per cent of them are Republican, so the LDS vote there could conceivably be 11 per cent of the total Republican vote - and a disproportionately prosperous portion at that.

Aside from that, I'm thinking this endorsement is more important to Romney than McCain, showing how well he "plays nice" with the party's leading lights. That's probably more important in Republican than Democratic politics. Nixon did a lot of playing nice this way between in 1964 and 1966 and it played no small role in his securing the 1968 presidential nomination.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | February 23, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Luckily, the rest of us elected Reagan (twice) even though he looked old.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

It is simply amazing that Obama and the democrats have decided on the strategy of completely ignoring that the Massachusetts election ever took place.


Are they going to re-name the country Never-never land too?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Careful, 37th, or he might just accuse you of being me again ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

You are delusional if you think that Obama's numbers will go up - because he passes a bill that no one wants.

The height of arrogance - we know better what you want - AND you will be happy when we give it to you.

Don't know what to say - except - are you typing on your keyboard while in a straightjacket ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I tend to agree with Charlie Cook that the Dems will be losing BIG TIME this go around

==

since you're also cretinous enough to think Sarah "Unfit To Lead" Palin has a shot, your belief is entirely without value and of no concern to anyone.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Cheney is fine - he is up and around - and he can still spear a fly with a toothpick.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

It should also be interesting to see if Sen. Byrd (D-WV) changes his mind on reconciliation (he stated it was not applicable to Hillarycare). Regardless, not all of Obamacare could legally pass under reconciliation, and if the Dems were going to do it this way, they should have done it last year (because Congress can only use reconciliation once per year). LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

When McCain got out of the POW camp yes unable to raise his arms from their being broken and badly healed, he was still a relatively young man.  His current decrepitude owes nothing to his captivity.  He looks as bad as he does because he’s done a lousy job looking after his health.  And call it ageism or whatever floats your boat, this is politics, fool, and the appearance of vigor matters.  
 
McCain shot himself in the foot with impulsive gestures like the phony campaign suspension and choosing an barely-literate bimbo as his VP was rock-solid evidence of bad judgment.  Stir that into the pot with his alarmingly frail appearance and you have a guy who is absolutely going to lose a lot of votes to people, NOT all young, who will think, correctly, that it’s time for him to go.
 
Shoulda eaten more salad, John. And less steak.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

While this thread is not about Obamacare, per se, NONE of the bills as passed or his latest proposal goes into effect before the November elections, so good luck selling your sunshine / shinola to the masses.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

I tend to agree with Charlie Cook that the Dems will be losing BIG TIME this go around ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Jake, when HRC passes by reconciliation, two things will happen, one immediately, one over the next few months
 
1)       Obama’s approvals will jump 20 points.  Disaffection from independents and Democrats will vanish overnight as important things start getting done.  Republicans will scream and tear at their breasts but hey, who cares.  They had their shot.
2)       As people without access to medical care get it (30 million votes in Obama’s pocket, guaranteed) and others who’ve been denied on spurious ground get covered (double that number), his approval will go to Bush post-9/11 levels.
 
If you think anyone but you jerkoffs are going to resent reconciliation that does great things, you’re even stupider than your posts, and that’s hard to fathom.  What a dumb loser you are.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

True Lieberman would have cost him more, but the TARP histrionics and the Palin histrionics came together to hand Obama the "No Drama" vote at a time when that meant an enormous amount to the undecided. Now of course, people seem to want more drama, or at least more evidence of emotional involvement from Obama, but fickle is the rule for the electorate.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 23, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else want to make fun of McCain not being able to raise his arms?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

A cunning reciprocal endorsement.

Where does McCain go...if Palin and Romney are Republican presidential candidates in the 2012 primary?

Logic would show that McCain would lean to Palin and a rejection of Romney considering the past presidential election...selecting Palin as his VP candidate over Romney.

It would be another mistake of McCain...the man that let Obama off the hook, campaigning as a gentleman, against a radical Chicago politician, who had a controversial resume, in the last presidential election.

Yet, McCain may not survive a Hayworth challenge...a mute point.

Posted by: adamscar | February 23, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

McCain looks like he has a *grandson* who's 73.

Seriously, he looks like hell. Byrd looks mote hale at 90.

There are 73-yos playing tennis. McCain looks like he'd get a coronary from a game of checkers. Call it whatever you like, troll, he looks infirm enough to lose a lot of votes.

Sarah is starting to sag too.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

McCain would have lost by twice as many votes had he gone with Lieberman as his VP candidate.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Please PLEASE force Obamacare down our throats using reconciliation, doing away with the filibuster, murder if need be.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"...choosing her cemented the "bad judgment" meme for him."

That plus his TARP histrionics.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 23, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Nice agism (McCain is only 73 years old vs. Byrd who is 90) and comments about how he looks. What's next, making fun of his arms again?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/reid-gop-should-stop-cryi_n_473572.html

Reid: GOP Should 'Stop Crying About Reconciliation'

Heh, looks like the former boxer and mob target still has some fight left in his last term.

I do think HRC is getting done.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 23, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, even Sarah Palin was not able to save John McCain's campaign last year. If she can't again, this time in his own home state of Arizona, no one can.

==

you really should stop smoking those little white rocks, Jake. Put down the glass dick and go talk to a treatment specialist.

Palin took John "Reverend Cane" McCain from a narrow loss to a solid one because choosing her cemented the "bad judgment" meme for him.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

That's it. I'm moving to Arizona for the primary.

Posted by: JakeD3 | February 23, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

You know Mitt Romney's chance in 2012? About as much as Putney Swope. He is the same guy to the GOP.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 23, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

steveboyington:

Ha ha, how funny (NOT!). Romney has never endorsed a candidate one day, and then less than a week later endorse that candidate's opponent. That sounds more like something Slick Willie would do.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is just as toxic as the jobs bill to the Tea Party base. Romney will suffer as much for backing McCain as Scott Brown has for bucking the GOP's filibuster.

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

Posted by: parkerfl1 | February 23, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

McCain looks more like the old guy from Poltergeist II every day. Wow.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 23, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

demtse:

Are you talking for President in 2012? This thread is about McCain's SENATE seat this year.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Keep your eye on Romney for the next couple days. He may sneak off and endorse the other guy, too. It is in his character.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 23, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Palin's endorsement is obligatory at best. For those who despise Palin, her endorsement has more the pariah effect. The question is whether or not McCain will lose more moderate and liberal voters than he will gain in conservatives because of her support.

However, given that McCain is facing a primary against a more conservative candidate right now, Palin's endorsement is welcome. Come general election time, he probably won't need or want it talked about as much.

Still, given that Palin is mostly making an obligatory gesture, whether or not any voters on the right or left believe that Palin's endorsement means anything about who McCain is is highly questionable.

What is more interesting to me is what Palin's endorsement does for Palin. It hurts her conservative credentials in many respects, but it does earn her a degree of loyalty within the party. The endorsement is also something that Palin has to do because of the many recent reports about how disliked she was within the McCain campaign. Solidarity with McCain counters such stories.

Posted by: blert | February 23, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, even Sarah Palin was not able to save John McCain's campaign last year. If she can't again, this time in his own home state of Arizona, no one can.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

PLEASE! PLEASE!PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE! RUN JOHN McCAIN WITH Sarah Palin as your running mate!!!

Posted by: demtse | February 23, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Hahaahah what happened to President Palin, Jake? You were SO CERTAIN only a few days ago. Now it's The Mittster in the shiny suit.

What a dreamer.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

And we liberals will be popping corks and clicking heels if Sarah takes a dump on McCain's reelection and gets the daffy old coot turned out to pasture.

You guys will be popping aortas and clicking off.

Sarah Palin, il baccio del morto

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

You won't be laughing so much on January 20, 2013.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"Mitt Romney will be moving into the White House on January 20, 2013."

LOL

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | February 23, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

nhà thống kê

==

Nghĩa ở đây là gì?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

he = her (darn Spellchecker)

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

captgrumpy:

If it weren't for McCain, you wouldn't even know the name Palin (so the rest of us conservatives who admire he don't mind if she stays loyal to him ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 23, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"...helps McCain secure voters who really are undecided - a group [to] which McCain does not have natural appeal."

So true.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 23, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

nhà thống kê

Posted by: leapin | February 23, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I think that if Sarah endorses McCain ,her credability is stuffed. McCain is as conservative as Rahm. Lets do what she said and vote incumbents out of office.IF she did then the Dems would see that if we get rid of Mccain then we must mean business.
Sarah,get rid of McCain.

Posted by: captgrumpy | February 23, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha "enemies"

the Legion of Super Heroes is on the case

what kind of loser needs to feel the nation is in peril to feel important?

We have no enemies, just some really core-rotten allies like Israel and a gang if criminals hiding in caves

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney will be moving into the White House on January 20, 2013.

Posted by: hz9604 | February 23, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

This is silly - the Romney endorsement does virtually nothing for McCain - it doesn't help McCain get any extra votes.


Endorsements need a reasoning given the field of candidates.

Someone who would normally appeal to Hayworth voters would be much much stronger for McCain - or someone who helps McCain secure voters who really are undecided - a group which McCain does not have natural appeal.

Romney does nothing for McCain.


Oh wait, maybe there are 5 small Mormon towns in northern Arizona - which could bring McCain 150 more votes.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 23, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey CC zouk's namecalling doesn't bother me, if anything it makes me laugh, the impotence of the rage and all that, but do you really want your blog loaded with pedophilia talk? Every day?

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama's one year anniversary. his magic has worked its way through the system.

Consumer confidence at 27 year low. unemployment just as miserable. Inflation on the rise. enemies getting confident.

Cause and effect.

Posted by: drivl | February 23, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I'll bet the TeaBaggingPatriot thinks astigmatism is the libretardcommunostatist plan to give free medical care to disabled people.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 23, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The blog functions pretty well with Ped and BJ absent.

now if we could only get rid of dribbl.

Posted by: drivl | February 23, 2010 3:42 PM


Watch as the level of intelligence is sucked out.

the interest and diversity of the posters is inversly related to the number of Ped posts. by midnight, he will be here all alone, railing at the moon for shining.

Posted by: drivl | February 23, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"Romney's support does two basic things for McCain: it helps to affirm his credentials as a "real" Republican and it should give him a bit of a fundraising bump."

it's helps romney or mccain?...lots of people thinnk romney's gop credintials are as real as his hair...

LOL

Posted by: newagent99 | February 23, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney would look more believable if he did not use a whole can of gloss black spray paint on his dome. This guy is in his sixties and he only allows that theatric, playing a doctor for a drug ad, antero-auricular "Touch of Gray". What a fraud.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 23, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh god YES let the teabagger split the knucklewalker vote, that would ROCK.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

AMNESTY-JOHN is clearly the ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE.

JD Hayworth, who will WIN THE ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PRIMARY AND BECOME ARIZONA'S NEWEST SENATOR, is THE PEOPLE'S CANDIDATE.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | February 23, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Considering how McCain said about Romney in the primary last year.. it is big of Mitt to help McCain out. Of course if McCain wins I'm sure he will help Romney in 2012...

Posted by: sovine08 | February 23, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Ped!

how was chuckee cheese?

Posted by: drivl | February 23, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

And wouldja getta loada that suit on Mittens. Like he stepped right off the cover of Business Week from a fawning review of some CEO creep poised with suggestive self-importance before a backdrop of corporate luxury with skyscraper steeples showing through a huge "boardroom" window.

Repubs must be moistening their seats.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Yesssssss please endorse Mr. Magoo, Sarah, go for it. I would love to see Arizona go blue

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Wow McCain looks AWFUL. Like he's 90 years old and not a "good" 90 either.

Posted by: Noacoler | February 23, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company