McCain: I’m surprised Obama’s not blowing me out

posted at 9:55 pm on June 5, 2008 by Allahpundit

Just give him time. Heh. No, this is actually just a shrewd bit of expectations management, reminding the GOP faithful not to panic when Obama bounces out to an eight- or ten-point lead. We’re still well within striking distance. Had we nominated anyone else, we wouldn’t have been.

It’s also a reminder, of course, that not all of Maverick’s problems are Maverick’s problems. If you know what I mean, and I think you do. Exit quotation: “I have every confidence that if Senator Obama goes to Iraq, meets with General Petraeus, and the sergeant majors and the captains and the colonels and the corporals, that he will know that this strategy is succeeding and he would modify, would change his position, and support what’s being done over there, and bring us home, but bring us home with honor and victory, not defeat.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

aengus:

What difference does it make you takes Iraq’s oil?

What difference does it make if I knock you in the head and steal your wallet, after all I can spend the money as easily as you.

Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 11:46 PM

What difference does it make if Turkey, Iran or Iraq control Iraq’s oil wealth? It will go towards jihad in any case.

ya, it’s not like the Iranians would ever fund terrorists or anything. Are you for real?

Does not compute.

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:47 PM

It bothers me to hear McCain distance himself from Bush by allowing the trashing to go unrefuted. McCain certainly can assert that he is his own person and acknowledge the achievements of the Bush presidency at the same time.

Likewise, McCain could turn the interviewer’s remarks back with humor by saying, “Are you likening a McCain-Bush run to an Obama-Carter one? I think that the former (or my own) has the better interests of America at its heart.” Touche!

On the topic of Romney: The media did its best to trash him– probably out of fear of his electability as a moderate– well before most Americans knew him beyond the superficiality of the Mormon focus. Romeny’s strength is/was his being from outside the Beltway. He would have represented a change from Washington-insider politics.

We conservatives have to face the fact that at the presidential level, moderates are going to determine this election. Obama has to be revealed as the less-than-moderate than his history has proven him to be.

We should be directing our energies to support the best down-ticket conservatives on the slate in order to keep McCain honest.

onlineanalyst on June 5, 2008 at 11:50 PM

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Training in remote regions of Pakistan under constant attack from Drones, etc., can’t be compared to training freely in Iraq with plenty of resources. And what;s with your aversion to giving people a shot at being Free?

TheBigOldDog on June 5, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Well, right now the base is small. If you are just going after the dwindling conservative base, it would have been a landslide victory for th Dems.

terryannonline on June 5, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Maybe, but McCain would be wise to chill with his insistence on attacking the base. He’s already facing a juggernaut of a political machine that he’s ill equipped to face, and playing Maverick is gonna make sure his pool of donors and volunteers is even more pitiful still.

As Rove said yesterday, and something I’ve been warning McCainiacs and the GOP or Bust Brigades for months now, organization is critical, does make or break you, and McCain’s insistence on spitting fire at the people who man the phones, donate and knock on doors is an exercise in supreme stupidity, he’s sapping the walls of his own castle. It’s going to cave in if he isn’t careful, and the Democrats will overrun him.

doubleplusundead on June 5, 2008 at 11:50 PM

and aengus, allowing Iraq to turn into an Afghanistan or Somalia with oil would be incredibly stupid. Ofcourse AlQaida could get part of the oil, just like they got part of Afghanistan. And if several nations were fighting for dominance in the country it would cause all sorts of disruptions. If some rebel blows up a pipeline in Nigeria the price of oil can go up $3 in one day and two days later we are paying another nickel for a gallon of gas. Imagine what disruptions in the Gulf could do to world economy. It would only be a matter of time before the US would be in the middle of it anyway. We all know that.

Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Does not compute.

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:47 PM

That’s becuase you contradicted yourself. I was just pointing it out for you:

How can they when the Turks/Iranians are controlling it? Besides the oil fields are located in Shiite regions of a majority Shiite country. How are they supposed to get hold of it?

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM

TheBigOldDog on June 5, 2008 at 11:52 PM

aengus:

it computes, you are saying it is ok for Turkey and Iran to go into Iraq and take their oil. Now it is not ok for Exxon I am sure, but otherwise advocating thievery is exactly what you are doing.

Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 11:53 PM

What difference does it make you takes Iraq’s oil?

What difference does it make if I knock you in the head and steal your wallet, after all I can spend the money as easily as you.

First TheBigOldDog, now Terrye.

Is anyone actually reading my comments?

To reiterate: US policy in the 1950s was to capture British and French oil wells (those dastardly colonials) in the 1950s and donate them to the countries in which they were situated, Saudi Arabia and Egypt respectively.

Now the US’s policy is to occupy Iraq whilst having no input on oil production or policy. So if US policy is goin to facilitate the enrichment of Muslim nations by pumping oil for them then what difference does it make whether said oil is controlled by Turkey/Iran/Iraq considering they share the same religious doctrine which advocates war against unbelievers.

Is that clarifying?

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Ah, I see, this is the paleo goes so far right he is in bed with the leftie thing. Kind of reminds me of Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan.

Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 11:40 PM

It reminds me of the “Larry Craig is so straight that he could sleep with 100 guys and still be hetero” thing.

29Victor on June 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM

aengus:

The US was capturing British oil fields? This is so ridiculous.

First of all the Arabs and the Persians accuse us of conspiring to steal their oil and then we hear that we did steal it, but we stole it from the French and the Brits and gave it back to the Saudis. After all, it is all about us. The century or so that predated 1950 had nothing to do with it.

What a crock.

Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 11:58 PM

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Ya, clear as mud. The idea is to give them a shot at freedom in hopes that a free people with a stake and their country and with a hopeful future for their children will be less likely to fly planes into our building and using WMDs against the West. The idea is to try to change the game. Clear?

TheBigOldDog on June 5, 2008 at 11:58 PM

How can they [al-Qeada] when the Turks/Iranians are controlling it? Besides the oil fields are located in Shiite regions of a majority Shiite country. How are they [al-Qaeda] supposed to get hold of it?

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM

TheBigOldDog on June 5, 2008 at 11:52 PM

I was trying to belay the anxiety that al-Qaada would get a hold of the oil wealth. As for which Muslim country gets a hold of some other Muslims country’s oil wealth, I’m not justifying theft just saying that it doesn’t objectively make any difference to us in the West.

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:58 PM

No, this is actually just a shrewd bit of expectations management, reminding the GOP faithful not to panic when Obama bounces out to an eight- or ten-point lead.

Dude McCain pissed on the GOP faithful decades ago. This is McCain appealing to the Hillary faithful.

highhopes on June 6, 2008 at 12:00 AM

And no one is talking about us pumping oil for Iraq. Last I heard there were hundreds of contracts from scores of oil companies all over the world wanting to exploit and develop oil fields in Iraq. It would be much better for the country to be stable and open to commerce than to be in chaos. And it is not fair to assume that all that money goes to terrorists. That is not true.

Terrye on June 6, 2008 at 12:01 AM

McCain never pissed on me. I like the man. So speak for yourself highhopes.

Terrye on June 6, 2008 at 12:02 AM

aengus:

Yes, it does make a difference to us in the west. There is a big difference between the UAE where we have our naval forces based and Iran.

Terrye on June 6, 2008 at 12:03 AM

And what;s with your aversion to giving people a shot at being Free?

Ya, clear as mud. The idea is to give them a shot at freedom in hopes that a free people with a stake and their country and with a hopeful future for their children will be less likely to fly planes into our building and using WMDs against the West. The idea is to try to change the game. Clear?

The people of Iraq are not free and the US cannot free them. You can’t change the game. It would be nice if that were possible but it isn’t. They are votaries of an alien faith which calls for conquest of the entire world and building homes, holding elections and handing out candy to kids won’t change that.

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:03 AM

aengus on June 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM

Are you for real?

TheBigOldDog on June 5, 2008 at 11:45 PM

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.

Do you think that Dwight D. Eisenhower was for real?

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 12:03 AM

So basically if he loses, it won’t be his fault, it will be the ‘Republican brand’s’ fault. This guy will never take responsibility for anything.

I can’t imagine someone saying that he should be losing by much more. He says ‘I’m the most qualified, but I should be losing by much more’. Can you imagine Obama saying that?

No, Obama will say, ‘Since I’m black and we have a history of racism, and I’m so new, I should not be here, much less leading.’

For McCain it’s all about the Democrats. He MUST get Democrats to vote for him. He certainly doesn’t need the Republicans to vote for him because the brand is so bad. The brand so bad because of McCain. If republicans would stand for smaller government, there wouldn’t be a problem with the brand.

ThackerAgency on June 6, 2008 at 12:04 AM

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Back to using other people’s words I see. Good to see. Maybe some day you’ll learn how to actually speak for yourself and not rush off for a crutch quote as is your custom.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:06 AM

First of all the Arabs and the Persians accuse us of conspiring to steal their oil and then we hear that we did steal it, but we stole it from the French and the Brits and gave it back to the Saudis.

Well the French and British stole it and the US nobly returned it to the Saudis and Arabs. (It seemed like a good idea at the time.) I’m not saying that this was an immoral or bad policy, just that if you are assert that the Arabs have total control over the oil beneath their sand then you shouldn’t complain that they’re getting rich off it.

Same with the Suez Crisis. If you don’t want the Brits and French to form an alliance with Israel to deprive General Nasser of the Suez Canal then don’t complain when 12 years later Nasser is launching an aggressive multi-pronged war against Israel and the Brits and French are nowhere to be found.

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:08 AM

We’re still well within striking distance. Had we nominated anyone else, we wouldn’t have been.

Please explain.

bigbeas on June 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM

The people of Iraq are not free and the US cannot free them. You can’t change the game. It would be nice if that were possible but it isn’t. They are votaries of an alien faith which calls for conquest of the entire world and building homes, holding elections and handing out candy to kids won’t change that.

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Really? Somebody better tell most of Europe and Asia that. They actually labor under the delusion that we’ve changed the game several times and freed them.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM

So helping to create a stable government in Iraq is in our national interests and the interests of the global economy.

Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 11:40 PM

A “stable” Shiite government in Iraq that has Islamic law enshrined in it’s constitution and where our Generals have to grovel and kiss their #ucking evil Koran and that is much more a natural ally to Shiite Iran than to infidel America “is in our national interests”? That I really doubt.

“Interests of the global economy”? Then let the rest of the #ucking globe do their share.

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 12:12 AM

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 12:12 AM

You mean like Saudi Arabia?

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Really? Somebody better tell most of Europe and Asia that. They actually labor under the delusion that we’ve changed the game several times and freed them.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM

Okay the next time I see a European or an Asian I’ll them that the votaries of an alien faith (Islam) which calls for conquest of the entire world cannot be freed. What does that have to do with the liberation by the US of European and Asian countries? Nothing I’d venture.

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Problem is, you’re blinded by your hatred of their religion and it clouds your ability to think clearly. Your Buddy MB4 seems to suffer from the same issue. I could care less what they worship or what they base their laws upon. That’s up to them. What I do care about is how peaceful they are.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:18 AM

I could care less what they worship or what they base their laws upon. That’s up to them. What I do care about is how peaceful they are.

You and I think exactly the same on this point.

Spirit of 1776 on June 6, 2008 at 12:20 AM

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM

BTW, these same arguments were used against the Japanese.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:21 AM

I could care less what they worship or what they base their laws upon. That’s up to them. What I do care about is how peaceful they are.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:18 AM

I have a problem with this. If we fight a war, and we WIN, then we decide certain things about the ‘new’ government. ONE thing that is important is freedom of conscience. Islam and the Sharia law dictate that anyone who leaves Islam must be executed – that’s the law in Iran.

I think it would be in our best interests to make sure that EVERY Iraqi is free, not just the Muslims. If non-Muslims do not have equal rights, then our war effort has failed. We have wasted soldiers and money moving from one oppressive regime to another. If this is our policy, fight a war and just let the losers do whatever, then I don’t want to fight any more foreign wars.

ThackerAgency on June 6, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Problem is, you’re blinded by your hatred of their religion and it clouds your ability to think clearly.

I’m not blinded by hatred and its ridiculous to think you can determine my private feelings about anything on a thread largely focused on argument. I simply understand that the content of a particular religious doctrine – Islam – is not compatible with democracy, nonaggression and good governance.

BTW, these same arguments were used against the Japanese.

Shintoism is a religion of peace. /sarc

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:29 AM

I could care less what they worship or what they base their laws upon. That’s up to them. What I do care about is how peaceful they are.

They worship subjugation of others in the name Allah and base their laws upon persecution and war-making. Therefore if you care about “how peaceful they are” you ought to have an interest in the former.

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:31 AM

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM

BTW, these same arguments were used against the Japanese.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:21 AM

There is a huge difference. Japan also has a strong Buddhist tradition and so it easier to transfer Japanese sentiment into more peaceful aspects of Japanese tradition. There is no peaceful Islamic tradition–at all. In particular, the allegedly peaceful sufis aren’t.

thuja on June 6, 2008 at 12:40 AM

We’re still well within striking distance. Had we nominated anyone else, we wouldn’t have been.

I beg to differ. With the possible exceptions of the Fred Thompson (who was out of Washington for several years and was more of a “maverick” against both halves of the bipartisan Party-In-Government than McCain) and Ron Paul (who is the ultimate inside-outsider), none of the other major candidates had any real ties to the national GOP brand. Mike Huckabee was a governor. Mitt Romney was a governor. Rudy Giuliani was a mayor. Indeed, except for McCain and Paul (and the never-got-traction House Immigration twins), all the Republican candidates who made it to the beginning of 2008 were out of office for a while. Further, the only 2 who could be tied directly to either the Bush administration (Tommy Thompson) or the RNC (Jim Gilmore) never made it to November 2007.

The relative closeness right now is more of a function of the disunity among the ‘Rats than anything else. It is extremely dangerous to assume that will last, but that’s what pretty much everybody to the right of Leon Trotsky is left with.

steveegg on June 6, 2008 at 12:53 AM

We’re still well within striking distance. Had we nominated anyone else, we wouldn’t have been.

I’ve seen you write a few fairly ignorant things over the course of your stint at Hot Air, AP.

The above quote may take the cake.

Jockolantern on June 6, 2008 at 1:04 AM

McCain: I’m surprised Obama’s not blowing me out

Why McCain is in a hurry?

I’ll tell you why.

McCain is an old fart who don’t have the strength to go all the way to the first debate.

He’s rather concede the presidency in this very early stage of the race to save himself the fatigue and to catch the first Bingo game and make the early bird special at Deny’s here in Florida in the Fall instead of waiting until January.

Indy Conservative on June 6, 2008 at 1:07 AM

Those who do not know Islam will be destroyed by it.

Muslims are very peaceful if your holding a knife at their throats. Otherwise they are picking your pockets and stabbing you in the back. It’s not a matter of “hating” Islam. Islam by it’s very structure hates you, the unbeliever. It’s schizoid slaves are given the task of conquering the world for the gratification of Allah. They will die trying to do this seemingly impossible task and they will kill as many unbelievers as they can along the way. They have done this with greater or lessor sucess for 14 centuries. You can cow them but you cannot bend them unless you free them from Islam.

BL@KBIRD on June 6, 2008 at 1:41 AM

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 12:03 AM

Back to using other people’s words I see. Good to see. Maybe some day you’ll learn how to actually speak for yourself and not rush off for a crutch quote as is your custom.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:06 AM

You don’t like it when I use my own words and you don’t like it when I quote someone else, even if it’s a 5 Star General ! Just say so, don’t play vacuous name calling games.

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Problem is, you’re blinded by your hatred of their religion and it clouds your ability to think clearly. Your Buddy MB4 seems to suffer from the same issue. I could care less what they worship or what they base their laws upon. That’s up to them. What I do care about is how peaceful they are.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:18 AM

Still more vacuous name calling. Good grief, try to do better.

BTW, I think that you meant that you couldn’t care less.

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 2:01 AM

BTW, these same arguments were used against the Japanese.

TheBigOldDog on June 6, 2008 at 12:21 AM

Hello. We didn’t let the Japaneses enshrine their war like region in their constitution. Good grief. See Diana West. Maybe you can understand her.

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 2:04 AM

They worship subjugation of others in the name Allah and base their laws upon persecution and war-making. Therefore if you care about “how peaceful they are” you ought to have an interest in the former.

aengus on June 6, 2008 at 12:31 AM

There is a huge difference. Japan also has a strong Buddhist tradition and so it easier to transfer Japanese sentiment into more peaceful aspects of Japanese tradition. There is no peaceful Islamic tradition–at all. In particular, the allegedly peaceful sufis aren’t.

thuja on June 6, 2008 at 12:40 AM

2:10 Disbelievers are diseased.
2:99 Disbelievers are evil people.
2:104 For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:171 Disbelievers are deaf, dumb, and blind.
3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference of believers.
3:73 Don’t believe anyone who is not a Muslim.
3:48 Don’t be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you.
4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:63 Oppose those who refuse to follow Muhammad.
4:101The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
4:144 Do not choose disbelievers as friends.
5:51 Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
5:51 Jews and Christians are losers.
5:60 Allah turned unbelievers into apes and swine.
5:59 Jews and Christians are evil people.
9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.

MB4 on June 6, 2008 at 2:08 AM

Yes, the RNC is flushed with cash compared to the DNC but that’s because the Democratic voters have been sending all their money to Obama’s and Hillary’s campaign. They’ve both have had fund raising records. McCain is not doing that well.

terryannonline on June 5, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Err. This is your argument that the base is small? The base is ignoring McCain and giving to the party. Hence, McCain’s fundraising is in the toilet and the party is flush with cash.

And then there’s the little niggling matter of “integrity.” “Principles.” If you’re conservative, you’re conservative no matter what the media says the polls say.

If you aren’t, you sound a lot like Bambi on things like global warming, “tax cuts for the rich,” amnesty, restricting free speech rights, closing Gitmo…

Actually, McCain is to the left of Bambi on free speech, as far as I can tell.

misterpeasea on June 6, 2008 at 3:03 AM

I’m surprised McCain’s not blowing Obama.

Django on June 6, 2008 at 3:38 AM

McCain is too busy blowing Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Tim Russert, Lieberman, Feingold and every other liberal that he can kneel before…

sabbott on June 6, 2008 at 7:54 AM

To reiterate: US policy in the 1950s was to capture British and French oil wells (those dastardly colonials) in the 1950s and donate them to the countries in which they were situated, Saudi Arabia and Egypt respectively.

WTF?

You think Eisenhower did that?
You think the USA donated wells to Nassar?
You think the USA used the ’50s to take things away from Britain and France?
How on earth did you figure that?
What do you know of allies and NATO?

maverick muse on June 6, 2008 at 8:27 AM

Terrye on June 6, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Please be mindful of those who recognize McCain’s faults, having been at the brunt of his mistakes. As a native 5th generation Arizonan, bear along as I express my experience with McCain.

maverick muse on June 6, 2008 at 8:31 AM

sabbott on June 6, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Django on June 6, 2008 at 3:38 AM

You all are so witty, you sohuld go into comedy

Squid Shark on June 6, 2008 at 8:34 AM

maverick muse on June 6, 2008 at 8:31 AM

I recognize his faults, I choose to approach them differently.

Pehaps it is because of my occupation, which will be affected negatively and dramatically by Obama. Pehaps I am the eternal optimist. I would imagine if I were an Arizonan, I would have a different perspective than you on McCain.

Squid Shark on June 6, 2008 at 8:37 AM

and aengus, allowing Iraq to turn into an Afghanistan or Somalia with oil would be incredibly stupid. Of course AlQaida could get part of the oil, just like they got part of Afghanistan. And if several nations were fighting for dominance in the country it would cause all sorts of disruptions. . . . It would only be a matter of time before the US would be in the middle of it anyway. We all know that.

Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Terrye is right. We resumed the war against Saddam (begun in 1990) in order to “drain the swamp,” as Don Rumsfeld so aptly put it. Thanks to General Patreaus, we are succeeding. And John McCain is right to say we’ll be there for 100 years if necessary. Iraq will remain our forward base in the region for decades to come. If in the process we can midwife Islam out of the 9th century into some semblance of modernity, all the better.

As for Sen. McCain’s courtship of “independents and Reagan Democrats,” he is right to do so, but if he persists in alienating conservatives, he risks driving them to isolationists like Barr. The Senator needs to stop embracing the liberals’ chronic pessimism of economic environmental doom and gloom, and adopt a positive, Reaganesque, “morning in America” program: low taxes, cheap energy, fast growth, an invincible military: The American Century.

‘Reagan Democrats’ didn’t like The Gipper because he imitated the liberals; they liked him because he rejected the ‘malaise’ of Jimmy Carter in favor of avowedly pro-American optimism.

MrLynn on June 6, 2008 at 8:44 AM

Oh rats: Forgot to format Terrye’s quote as a Quote.

Why can’t we edit posts?

MrLynn on June 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Erratum: “economic environmental doom and gloom” should have been “economic AND environmental doom and gloom”

MrLynn on June 6, 2008 at 8:49 AM

So basically if he loses, it won’t be his fault, it will be the ‘Republican brand’s’ fault. This guy will never take responsibility for anything.

I can’t imagine someone saying that he should be losing by much more. He says ‘I’m the most qualified, but I should be losing by much more’. Can you imagine Obama saying that?

No, Obama will say, ‘Since I’m black and we have a history of racism, and I’m so new, I should not be here, much less leading.’

For McCain it’s all about the Democrats. He MUST get Democrats to vote for him. He certainly doesn’t need the Republicans to vote for him because the brand is so bad. The brand so bad because of McCain. If republicans would stand for smaller government, there wouldn’t be a problem with the brand.

ThackerAgency on June 6, 2008 at 12:04 AM

I was with you until your last statement. The Republican brand was ruined by these people, in this order:

Jack Abramoff
Tom DeLay
Bob Ney
Mark Foley
Trent Lott
Bill Frist
Larry Craig

I suppose you could say it got started with McCain uncovering Jack Abramoff’s rape of the Indian tribes, but that’s as close as you can get to pinning any of this on McCain, and McCain did the party a favor by expopsing that SOB. He has always stood for smaller government and lower spending – it was the rest of the greedy Republicans, led by Tom DeLay and Trent Lott/Bill Frist, who ran spending off the rails, and Geirge Bush who signed all of their massive spending bills. McCain voted against most of them.

rockmom on June 6, 2008 at 9:38 AM

rockmom on June 6, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Shhhhh the TC’s would rather put their fingers in their ears and pretend like the Brand is great. If they only started talking about abortion and deportation, America would love us again.

Squid Shark on June 6, 2008 at 9:47 AM

I won’t be “suprised” when McCain loses. At least I will have voted my principles by writing in Huckabee.

Vaporman87 on June 6, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Vaporman87 on June 6, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Huckabee is a principled choice?

Thats rich…

Squid Shark on June 6, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Squid Shark on June 6, 2008 at 9:51 AM

So rich that in great enough numbers it may end up costing McCain the presidency.

Vaporman87 on June 6, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Vaporman87 on June 6, 2008 at 9:58 AM

And when it is all over, I would like to thank you on behalf of my brothers and sisters in Iraq.

You can come over any time, Ill provide the ass kicking…

Squid Shark on June 6, 2008 at 10:05 AM

That is a pretty disgusting title to this post. I thought this blog was family friendly! Oh wait, the word ‘out’ changes the whole thing. Sorry.

Kevin M on June 6, 2008 at 10:49 AM

And when it is all over, I would like to thank you on behalf of my brothers and sisters in Iraq.

You can come over any time, Ill provide the ass kicking…

Squid Shark on June 6, 2008 at 10:05 AM

As much as you would like to believe that it would be MY fault that Obama would pull us out of Iraq, the fact is that I don’t make that choice. Sorry.

Vaporman87 on June 6, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Unless McCain crafts a short punch list – his contract – Obama will definitely start to blow him out.

Attacking Congress would be a good first step. From Kimberley Strassel’s column at the Wall Street Journal,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121210591693831163.html?mod=Potomac+Watch

“Today’s Congress is ripe for a shredding. The GOP kicked off an era of public disgust with its corruption and loss of principle, a reputation it has yet to shake. Democrats have, impressively, managed to alienate voters further with inaction and broken promises. Congress has come to represent the institutional malaise that so frustrates voters. That distaste explains this year’s appetite for “change.”

As the article indicates there are some Repubs against this. Good. Throw them under the bus as well. Most of the Repub Senate and House are useless. They are the ones, not the Dems, who pissed away a golden opportunity these last 10 years. Pigs all of them at the trough. Obama is part of that crowd as well, led by Clinton with her 3 billion in earmarks. By slamming Congress he tars Obama at the same time with his big spending and taxing resulting in more of the same, this time by Dems with their veto proof majorities. He has to pound the table on fiscal restraint and small government bias. Those are the only essential conservative values that everything else springs from. Under no circumstances can McCain argue minutiae with Obama. People idolize Obama not for what he says but how he says it. While McCain may win on the merits in those discussions people’s eyes will be glaze over. Meanwhile the MSM will castrate McCain with a continual stream of counter factoids allowing Obama to float above it all.

On another note he could do a lot worse than picking Sarah Palin as his VP.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp

She certainly is a better choice than I have seen so far. The question is can McCain handle her and would she even want it?

patrick neid on June 6, 2008 at 11:59 AM

I was with you until your last statement. The Republican brand was ruined by these people, in this order:

Jack Abramoff
Tom DeLay
Bob Ney
Mark Foley
Trent Lott
Bill Frist
Larry Craig

rockmom on June 6, 2008 at 9:38 AM

rockmom (is your ‘nom de net’ for igneous or metamorphic rocks?), how did you put poor old Bill Frist in there in front of Larry Craig (not a very good position to be in, I imagine)?
Strange – there seems to be a certain pornographic theme to this thread…

TexasJew on June 6, 2008 at 1:21 PM

On another note he could do a lot worse than picking Sarah Palin as his VP.

She certainly is a better choice than I have seen so far. The question is can McCain handle her and would she even want it?

patrick neid on June 6, 2008 at 11:59 AM

The answer is – not from that old hideous bastard. Not even for a free carbon credit…

TexasJew on June 6, 2008 at 1:28 PM

McCain: I’m surprised Obama’s not blowing me out

If you keep chasing dems and telling Repubs (not RINOs) to kiss your ass it’ll happen!

jwp1964 on June 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM

On another note he could do a lot worse than picking Sarah Palin as his VP.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp

She certainly is a better choice than I have seen so far. The question is can McCain handle her and would she even want it?

patrick neid on June 6, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Attractive as she is (in several ways), she would be smart to stay in Alaska, let her kids grow up, acquire two gubernatorial terms on her resume, and then think about national office. By then we’ll really need her, too.

MrLynn on June 6, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Vote for John McCain?

Nah Gah Dah, baby.

Let the apocalypse begin. I’ve got my bags packed and I’m resolved to us being in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights.

See ya ’round the campfire.

pabarge on June 6, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Mr Lynn,

Of course what you said makes conventional sense.

However if McCain loses she gets great exposure as the VP candidate and returns to Alaska. If by a miracle McCain wins she gets four years of exposure as VP plus she keeps McCain in line. She has already walked off one job. That’s why McCain probably won’t pick her.

I suggested Palin primarily for one reason only aside from her bona fides. I think McCain’s only chance of getting the nomination is via his VP pick. He has to placate the age question. We pretend to ignore it but it looms large.

The electorate knows virtually everything about McCain. The VP is the sizzle. As every salesman knows, that’s what you sell, not to mention she would give some conservatives something to look forward to.

But to repeat, putting politics aside I think, first and foremost, she is the best candidate so far.

patrick neid on June 6, 2008 at 10:45 PM

Minnesota will vote for Obama even if they find a video of him having sex with Al Franken while sharing a crack pipe with a 12 year old girl!

sabbott on June 6, 2008 at 11:29 PM

So we should be happy that the republican party nominated a liberal who has at least kept it close with this socialist?
Anything else you want me to sell out, or should I go back under my conservative rock now?
I suppose I will get a bone when he nominates a psuedo conservative like Mike Huckabee?

paulsur on June 6, 2008 at 11:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2