Why would Romney want to be McCain’s VP?
posted at 11:55 am on July 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Why would anyone? Ruffini wonders:
Mitt Romney is already in line to be the nominee in 4 years if McCain loses under the GOP Law of Primogeniture. Why would he want to muck it up with a VP run? If McCain loses, it is all downside for Mitt. People would forget all the positive aspects of his Presidential run and remember his role on a losing ticket. (See Edwards, John.)
And even if McCain wins, Romney would face a tough road getting elected in his own right. Republicans are already facing voter exhaustion after 8 years in power. Could they win a third or fourth consecutive election even if they manage to pull it out in ’08? The possibility grows progressively unlikelier.
Follow the link for a refresher on the dismal fate historically of VP candidates, especially losing VP candidates, who reach for the brass ring. Anyone want to try floating a plausible scenario by which we’d see a Bush/McCain/Romney succession, even if Maverick only serves one term? Three men from the same party haven’t been consecutively independently elected since Grant, Hayes, and Garfield during the post-Civil War Republican stranglehold on government. (I’m not counting McKinley/Roosevelt/Taft or Harding/Coolidge/Hoover since both sequences involved presidential deaths.) Good luck replicating that with public opinion about the GOP being what it is. The only way you could conceivably do it is if McCain’s presidency was both a dramatic break from Bush and phenomenally successful, transforming the dynamic from three Republicans in a row to old Republican/new Republican/new Republican. But how phenomenal is his success likely to be with heavy Democratic majorities in both houses?
All of which is another way of saying that if Mitt’s hellbent on the presidency, he needs McCain to lose — which, ironically, makes him the Hillary to Maverick’s Obama, albeit even more so. As such, there’s no reason to join the ticket but plenty of reason, as Ruffini notes, to surf the VP buzz to raise his national profile. Exit question one: Is it really this simple, though? Mitt’s enough of a Boy Scout that if McCain went to him and said he needs him on the ticket for the good of country, he probably couldn’t say no, whatever the consequences for his ambitions. And even if he does stay off the ticket and McCain loses, he’s not in some catbird-seat position for 2012. Maybe he starts off as presumptive frontrunner, but conservatives will be looking for something fresh and an aging, fabulously wealthy patrician white guy who’s consistently underperformed electorally doesn’t match up well with Jindal and Palin. Exit question two: Per Ruffini’s logic, why would anyone want to be on the ticket this year? Thanks to their youth, Jindal and Palin are marginally better positioned than Mitt to re-create themselves later if they lose as VP now, but why make their 2012 task any harder than it is? McCain might find himself stuck with some Jack Kemp-type figure who doesn’t have any strong national ambitions himself, doesn’t really expect to win this time, but doesn’t have much to lose by saying yes.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
McCain is quite old and statistically Rommney has a good chance of being President before the end of his term.
Egfrow on July 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM
McCain’s mother is 96 and still ticking.
Sorry to disappoint, if not you but the people who would want this to happen, but I think that McCain has a good chance of surviving past more than 4 years on this planet.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Yeah, but “I’m on the ticket because I think the other guy might die” is pretty Machiavellian for Romney. I don’t think it would feature in his calculations.
vonspringer on July 18, 2008 at 3:41 PM
How true, but i am in that 1%.
No doubt Obama would be a disaster, but I am sick and tired of having to hold my nose as a Republican. I am done rewarding the RNC for shoving lame shmucks down my throat. I have had enough.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM
McCain is ok on judges, taxes, and is getting better on energy. It is not inconsistent with conservative principles to be against GTMO and waterboarding. The difference is that if McCain were in office in 2002-03, he would have had the Afghanis interrogate and disappear the GTMO guys for us; a President Obama or President Gore would have sent them for counseling!
Outlander on July 18, 2008 at 3:45 PM
There are plenty of really good people out there the RNC could solicit to run, but they don’t do squat.
The party needs thought leadership in a big big way, and they are asleep at the switch.
When they get off their fat asses and go to work to recruit some first class candidates, I’ll be back with them 100%
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM
not me. I’m sick of ‘moderate’ republicans, and will not vote for them under any circumstances.
right4life on July 18, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Then you don’t mind Obama being the next president? Wow! That’s so brave of you!
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Right on.
Look at the spending discipline of the Republican congress. Shamefull. Now on the heels of that, they expect me to suck it up and swallow amnesty.
Screw them and the jackass they rode in on.
Obama will screw up and flame out sooner rather than later. If I help reward the RNC, it will probably take 20 years to get right again. I just couldn’t look myself in the face and be true to my convictions if I caved in and voted for Capt’n Amnesty.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 4:11 PM
If you mean I wish him dead then that Bullshit and I don’t see how what I sad would show I want him to die. The age of the women in the family does not statistically have much bearing on survivability. You have to use the males. In such case his father only lived to 70. He died in 1981. His grandfather lived to be to be 61 both died of hear attacks. Nice try.
Egfrow on July 18, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I see Palin’s name bandied about frequently, but I have to
wonder why folks think she would be interested in being VP.
She’s a devoted mother, she has another newbie and that
baby is a special needs baby. I think folks are assuming a
lot if they think Palin would jump to hitch her political star
to McCain’s wagon.
poodlemom on July 18, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Of course I mind. But, his damage will be short term. Amnesty will cripple our country for many years to come.
I don’t think Obama has the juice to shove the Amnesty plague through, but McCain might.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM
yeah mccain will so thoroughly discredit ‘conservatism’ that it will be dead for a generation….which is exactly what he wants.
right4life on July 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM
I like McCain but both his father and his grandfather died around his current age and even younger. McCain may not survive and choosing a VP is just as critical as the choosing the him as President. No one ever considered what would happen if he were to pass in the middle of his freaking campaign! Then what?
Egfrow on July 18, 2008 at 4:16 PM
no I don’t. see I have this Friend who transcends presidents and politics…and no matter what they do…HE has the final word.
and there will be little difference between mccain and obama, but mccain will ruin ‘conservatism’ for a generation of people. by associating his liberalism with conservative republicans.
right4life on July 18, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Hence, why I said “if not you“ and also said “but the people who would want this to happen”and I have heard that already.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 4:18 PM
That lie has already been debunked several times. Obama is the most liberal senator in 2007 according to his voting record. McCain voting record was tabulated recentlyand the American Conservative Union scored him a “B”. Not a “F” or a “D”. They are no where near the same.
You have heard this, and you know this, and still you repeat the lie.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM
oh ok, so mccain will secure the borders and obama won’t huh??? right.
neither will drill in ANWR
mccain was against bush tax cuts
mccain is worse on free speech
mccain is aganist gun rights…mccain lieberman gunshow bill.
sorry there is not a dollar’s worth of difference between them…..except, mccain will ‘reach out’ to the democrats, and the republicans, those few that are left, will feel obligated to go along. with obama, at least the republicans might get some guts and oppose him.
right4life on July 18, 2008 at 4:25 PM
ah it used to be dime’s worth of differnce, but with inflation, and the devaluation of the dollar…..
right4life on July 18, 2008 at 4:26 PM
it comes down to the difference between being stabbed in the front (obama) or in the back (mccain)
I prefer the front.
right4life on July 18, 2008 at 4:27 PM
.
Oh, that’s right, Obama is opposed to amnesty, I forgot.
/sarc
Think_b4_speaking on July 18, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Maybe then someone fresh and clean player might rise like a phoenix and catch fire.
Obama is damaged goods. He aint presidential material and, in spite of my knowledge that the voting public is deteriorating big time in the common sense department, even dumb people will figure that out.
The only way Romney would tag up with him is if Romney believes McCain won’t finish his term. I think Romny knows that McCain is a 1 term president even if he survives, so the question for Romneyis is how bad will a McCain administarion be viewed at the end of 4 years?
If I was Romney, I wouldn’d do it. I’d bet McCain will survive for at least 4 years, but the public will be sick of him by then. If Romney runs then, Republican fitigue will be very severe.
On the other hand, if Obama wins, the public will be pent up to get those useless dems our of congress and the Whitehouse.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 4:28 PM
too bad it can’t be both. Several times.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Allah just can’t leave it alone. With Romney on the ticket, we at least have a chance. I am sure Romney feels that the country can’t handle an Obama presidency and would opt for the greater good. Unlike Allah…;-)
eaglesdontflock on July 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM
mccains mother wasn’t shot out of the sky and then tortured for 7 years.
peacenprosperity on July 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Obama is like a plankton in the current. He is for whatever he thinks the public wants. And, if he senses the public wants amnesty, he won’t have the moxy to get it done. The first sign of trouble, he will run off screaming like a little girl.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM
If McCain were not such a bonehead, and would listen to reason of why amnesty would be a disaster at so many levels, I might could change my mind about him.
The problem is he has a lot of juice in the congress, and can persuade congressional drifters to drink the koolaid.
McCain can pass Amnesty, I don’t think Obama can.
Thats why I am willing to endure the short term disaster of Obama better than I can endure the long term disaster of McCain.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM
You can get the tax and spend toothpaste back in the tube.
You can’t get the amnesty toothpaste back in the tube.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM
And how on god’s green earth do you justify that outlandish opinion that Obama isn’t going to pass amnesty?
You know who else is “willing to endure Obama?”
Democrats.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Because I have been around a while, and I believe Obama is a lightweight.
You have to give him credit winning the dem nod, but that was like preaching to the choir. What he doesn’t know yet is the higher you go, the thinner the air and the sharper the knives. He just doesn’t strike me as a scrapper.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM
If Obama is a liberal, and he clearly is, then who, exactly, would he have to ‘scrap’ with if the liberals in the congress would also want amnesty?
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 4:55 PM
So far, Obama is a teleprompter kind of guy. When you catch him off his feet, without the puppeteers controlling his mouth, he always wades into muck.
You can’t be sa stick man on the one hand, and be a natural leader on the other.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. The sharkes will eat him alive.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM
You know, _man, I’ve told you, several times, how McCain has a better chance of getting amnesty passed than Obama. And you refuse to acknowledge it.
Does that make you a LYING LIAR?
But I’ll do it again, just to prove to these folks that they’re wasting their time arguing with a cheerleading fool:
With President Bambi, the Republicans will feel free to oppose amnesty not just because it’s a disaster for our country, but also because it’s a Democrat President and Democrats who support it. This will allow them to pressure the conservative Democrats who ran against amnesty in conservative districts.
On the other hand, with President McCain, the Republicans will feel pressure to go along with President McCain; even if they oppose it and won’t vote for it, they’ll mute their criticism of their own idiot President. And the more Republicans who vote for it, and the fewer Republicans who reject and denounce it, the more cover they give the conservative Democrats to go ahead and vote for it.
Oh, and _man? I notice you’ve gone from yammering about McSquish’s 82 rating wtih the ACU to yammering about his “B” with the ACU.
Neither changes the fact that he’s the ~40th most conservative Republican Senator out of the 49 Republican Senators. And the fact that you try to pass him off as a conservative when he disdains conservatives and prides himself on his mavericky moderateness is both dishonest and laughable.
misterpeasea on July 18, 2008 at 4:58 PM
hey, look mr. feces is here.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Just a few members of the other party can create all kinds of problems for him, not to mention the conservative dems. Guys like Byron Dorgan and many of the newer dems do not fit the “Ted Kennedy” or Patrick Moynahan model.
It is true the dems have made big progress in the hose, but many of them have run to the right of the republicans, and are new on the scene and are not in the limelight yet.
Make no mistake about it, there are plenty of Dems that don’t want amnesty.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
He can get me to hold my nose and vote for him if he chooses the right VP. crist, grahm or any similar limp wristed moderate wannabe and I’m writing in hillary.
peacenprosperity on July 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Here’s the problem with these arguments. Most likely, Stevens and Ginsburg will both be off the Court before 2013. With Obama at the helm and a filibuster proof Senate, rest assured Obama will appoint two uber-leftists to the Court, which will influence the Court for 20-30 years. Moreover, Obama will make us lose in Iraq, which will have political consequences for the U.S. that will also last 20+ years. McCain will not behave the same way.
Outlander on July 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Actually, Ed Morresy at 10:36 am on May 14, 2008 tried to ‘pass him off as a conservative.’ So, maybe you ought to take it up with him.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Perfect, _man. Absolutely perfect. You have no substance, no logic. Just name-calling and cheerleading.
I don’t think I have to tell the rest of you folks the risk you run in arguing with a fool.
misterpeasea on July 18, 2008 at 5:04 PM
That’s okay, saiga is willing to endure the disaster. So are about a dozen other people who regurarly comment here, bashing McCain in the hopes that enough conservatives don’t vote for him, and we get Obama as the next president.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM
No proof he will behave differently on the judges. He called Alito “over the top”. When his friends lieberman, feingold and kennedy tell him who to pick he will jump. Remember who gave us kennedy and souter, nothing is for sure.
peacenprosperity on July 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Whoa Nelly….
Do we have old buddies here?
I respect each of your point ovf view, but I do thinf Obama is a short term problem and McCain is a bigger, long term problem.
However, I am not FOR either one. The best thing that could happen would be a new fresh consevative face fall out of the sky and save the day.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
You’re actually denying that you try to pass him off as a conservative? Keep discrediting yourself.
And an appeal to authority. Precious. And coincidentally, in response to Ed’s earlier snark aimed at conservatives, I called him the McCain of conservative bloggers. So he’s not exactly a good authority to whom to direct your appeal.
You’re a fool, _man, but an entertaining one.
misterpeasea on July 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Are you also going to join with saiga and endure the disaster of Obama because … ‘mccain will be worse,’ right mr. feces?
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
You are denying the truth. To your own brain.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM
and you are a troll, Mr. feces. And this site needs to flush you.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Once McCain stacks the electorate with amnesty voters, he will screw up the court for a century.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Please, not so hatefull guys.
I happen to believe that the long term effects of amnesty will endure for a long, long time. When you introduce 20 million voters that have been trained that lying, cheating, and stealing are the best way to achive your goals in the USA, they will vote accordingly.
That corrupt indoctrination McCain wants to perform will not be reversable, and will further corrupt the quality of the voting public to such a degree that our future as the worlds leader will be in jeoardy.
These voters will be unprincipaled by virtue of their ill-gotten voting rights, and our entire democratic structur could break down to the level of Mexico.
I don’t see how Obama can cause that much trouble.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM
It seems to me that Obama will do this. As McCain has threatened. I still don’t understand why you feel that Obama won’t, because hispanic voters usually skew heavily democrat. Unless you’ve somehow convinced yourself that McCain will, and Obama can’t to meet your personal view that McCain will damage the country worse than Obama, as a way to justify your vote.
I can see a tremendous amount of trouble caused by Obama.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM
No, I am not kidding myself to justify my vote because I am not voting for president this go around, only my congressman and senator.
I am so angry with McCain on this amnesty issue that i just can’t vote for him. If he or Obama wins, it will be without my help.
I have voted for President every election sense Nixon. I have made up my mind this time that if I keep on voting republican for candidates I don’t dislike as much as the other, it will just encourage the RNC to continue to float lame candidates. Then they will rightly conclude that I will rock along like the rest of the sheep and keep on supporting the kind of behavior I think needs drastic improvement.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Exactly. No personal responsibility is required.
Egfrow on July 18, 2008 at 5:38 PM
There are many damn good people in this country that would make fine candidates. We need new blood and thinking in the RNC, and continuing to support the same old slop won’t get id done. The RNC needs a kick in the head, and me going along to get along accomplishes nothing but to encourage more of the same.
saiga on July 18, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I would have liked to see who would have been the republican’s choice if they had a national primary vote day where it’s all done on one day instead of state by state over months of eliminating. I somehow believe it would not be mccain if it were done that way.
And what is this:
First, I don’t believe this for a second and Second, can’t even compare it to the numnuts edwards and john ticket. Both were far out there and incompetent dorks.
And this is just a plain dumb comment:
What? who says ruffini? Malarky.
diaphanous on July 18, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Yes we do. Absolutely.
I don’t see how ‘supporting the same old’ has anything to do with how the republican voters in the primaries pick candidates. More voted for McCain, understanding that his is not a very strong conservative.
If our own history is any judge, when Bush’s father broke his ‘read my lips, no new taxes’ pledge, a lot of angry conservatives wanted to punish him. Just like you want to punish McCain and somehow make it better for next time.
When enough didn’t vote for Bush, and/or voted for Ross Perot as a way to ‘send a message’ of their dissatisfaction, then the result was Bill Clinton winning the presidency. He was there for 8 years. and then after Clinton? Bush’s son was elected the next president. So how did that ‘kick in the head’ to Bush’s father and the GOP back in 92 work out?
Seriously, this is what happened as a result of people wanting to send a message to the GOP. The GOP does not appoint candidates. The republicans who vote in the primaries do.
If there was a way to influence them by shoving McCain to the curb and hoping that Obama won’t be that bad, then your plan might have some merit. But nothing of the sort that you want to happen, will.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Why would Romney want to be McCain’s VP?
As Allahpundit poses the question and answer,
Actually, Mitt’s enough of a great statesman that he loves his country enough to serve under McCain, whether he “wants” to or not. Mitt knows himself best, and realizes the good contributions he can make to help America, even as VP rather than top dog. And Mitt realizes that someone with experience and traditional values needs to be willing to accept the VP along with McCain at the helm. There’s integrity showing through some humility right now from Mitt.
He’d complement McCain as the two vary in perspective yet have the same desire to commit themselves to our nation’s secure survival, well being, and God willing McCain keep his hands out of the domestic realm, to our prosperity.
McCain really needs his private convention of supporting figureheads to hammer out his Cabinet membership sooner than much later. I’m glad he let the bat out from Gramm’s dark bank vault to let the fallout occur. It’s one thing to be advised, and quite another to grant a Cabinet seat to a Swiss bank mothball vs. a Constitutional stalwart. McCain’s shaky enough; he needn’t establish his policy on jello like Obama would. (Obama already has his cast named from above, just as he was named from above. Soros is merely the face we see fronting for the international insulated untouchables, the elite “ur”-source directing the managers of global politics.) These financial advisers of McCain’s need to pow-wow and debate together in private ASAP so that there’s time to go figure. So far, there’s Forbes, Gramm and Romney with the smarts on the dollar. Gramm always smelled a bit fishy while in office, paving the way for banking corruption via the feds as research shows.
maverick muse on July 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM
McCain will be worse than Nixon, and who was Nixon’s VP?
Romney and the conservatives would be better off to start a third party, a conservative party, than they would to hitch up with McCain.
There is a real chance the democrat party will go openly socialist, the republican party would try to appeal to the muddled middle, and the conservatives will be on the side lines wondering what to do next.
rockhauler on July 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM
McCain the Conservative:
Voted on Senate floor in favor of amendment to kill border fence in 2006, the Manager’s Amendment (SA 4188).
Voted in favor of bill to increase immigration and grant amnesty to illegal aliens in 2006, S. 2611.
Voted on Senate floor against amendment to bar certain criminals from United States in 2007, the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1184).
Cosponsoring bill to reward illegal aliens with in-state tuition and amnesty in 2007, S. 774, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors [DREAM] Act of 2007.
Voted on Senate floor to kill amendment to prevent Social Security for illegal aliens in 2006, the Ensign amendment (SA 3985).
Cosponsoring massive guestworker-amnesty bill in 2005-2006, S. 1033, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.
Voted against amendment to provide funding for additional Border Patrol and ICE agents in 2005, the Byrd Amendment (S. Amdt. 516).
But at least he voted against a Democrat Amendment!
misterpeasea on July 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM
What outstanding reasons not to vote for McCain in the republican primaries you’ve got there!
In case you’ve not heard, the primaries are over. And this next phase of the election cycle is the part where we pick one of two candidates, McCain or Obama. Millions of people are going to be voting for Obama, and Obama might be the next president. The day before the election, are you going to come here and copy and past a bunch of lines that tells us all that McCain isn’t a very strong conservative as he should be? Because we already know that.
The fact is that McCain won the republican primaries, and you are either going to support Obama, or McCain. And if you don’t support McCain, and Obama wins, I predict that you are going to be one of the people whining the loudest about what BS Obama is doing here, or how he is f*king us all by doing that, and I will find every one of your anti-McCain comments here and past them for everyone to see that you were part of the problem that helped to get us all into this mess that is president Obama.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 5:57 PM
wise_man :
I’m with you. I often ask those Republicans who stayed home in 2006 to “to prove a point” how all that is working out for them.
If for nothing else you would think the potential Supreme Court appointments should have conservatives flocking to the polls in November.
loppyd on July 18, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Sorry Allahpundit, I disagree.
Yes, while there ARE potential downsides to Romney being associated with a possible failed McCain attempt – or even a failed McCain presidency – he would be prominent over this time…time which I consider worth its metaphorical “weight” in gold (…or gasoline..heh).
I think it’s a benefit to conservatives for the election and to a degree (as VPs only have so much “say”) during 2009-2012…and very much so for 2012. I’d also say it’s a tilt to the benefit of Romney regarding 2012, were he to be in the number two slot from 2009-2012.
Lockstein13 on July 18, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I love how Mitt Romney’s chances are questionable compared to Jindal’s. I mean the latter are really negative.
freevillage on July 18, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Of course Allah’s entire premise is based on McCain losing. He could win and Romney could deliver Michigan to help make that happen. If he ends up not going for a second term due to his age, Romney will be there. I don’t think the historical record of consecutive terms for Repubs and Dems apply any more. That is unless the Dems re-invent themselves in the Scoop Jackson mold. They are so far left right now I think they could lose for years to come.
echosyst on July 18, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Get your spin straight. Is he a staunch conservative with a B and an 82 from the ACU, or is he a squish who believes in the global warming hoax and amnesty for tens of millions of illegals?
And for loppyd’s benefit, I’ll once again state the case for not voting McCain. Feel free to address it.
McCain and Bambi agree on a couple of very big and very stupid mistakes: global warmism and amnesty. McCain, for the reasons I detailed above, has a better chance of getting stupid and costly legislation passed on those two subjects than Bambi does.
So: President McCain is more likely than President Bambi to run our economy into the ground and explode entitlement spending.
Now, assuming that huge global warmism taxes and bureaucracy come to pass, and assuming that we give access to the welfare state to tens of millions of newly amnestized illegals, who do we want to get the blame for those stupid and costly policies, President McCain, or President Bambi?
Also: the party with the Presidency loses seats in the mid-term elections. The Democrats control both houses of Congress now, and are predicted to gain seats this election. Do you want them to gain even more seats in the mid-terms, or would you rather the Republicans gain a few back?
Like saiga said, Bambi is a clueless idiot, and will do damage to the country; I think America can survive Bambi, and if he discredits liberalism while screwing up, I’m willing to endure short-term damage for long-term gain.
McCain has no excuse, other than wanting to be popular with the liberals in DC, and he’s going to damage the country, and has a greater chance of doing long-term damage than Bambi. And I don’t want McCain to discredit conservatism.
I’d rather 4 years of Bambi and 15-20 years of liberalism in the wilderness than 4 years of McSquish and 15-20 years of conservatism in the wilderness.
So McCain apologists who insist that he’s a conservative are only adding to the potential damage he can inflict.
Apologize for McCain, but please don’t say he’s a conservative.
misterpeasea on July 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM
I’m not “apologizing” for McCain, I am merely correcting your lies.
And he is a conservative. The ACU gives him the rating of “B”. Ed reported on this here at hotair.
And according to the national journal, McCain received a conservative score of 59.
So you are, again, lying.
And as I have to mention, again, that this is now a race between McCain and Obama. And in a choice between McCain and Obama, you can either choose, .. McCain … or … Obama, just like the rest of us.
Or you can choose not to participate. And if you don’t participate, then don’t bother whining about Obama if he is the next president while you had an opportunity to deny him the whitehouse, and you did nothing.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 8:10 PM
There you have it ladies and gentelmen, “misterpeasea” wants a democrat to be the next president. And just like all the other democrats who will be voting for him, he and they will celebrate if Obama wins.
How does a conservative web site handle someone who wants the democrat to win the election? Good question. Here’s how I would not like to see us treat this person, by letting him continue to advocate Obama to be the next president. If he wants to do this, there are many liberal web sites that also want Obama to be the next president that would love to take him in.
Please regard this as your invitation to continue posting there. Intelligent conservatives that don’t want the democrat to win the election have no use for a court jester telling all of us not to vote for the republican candidate against the democrat.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Back to your
oldtricks: anyone who disagrees with you is a LYING LIAR WHO LIES ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!!Point out my lies, would you, instead of making naked assertions. You can cut and paste, you know.
And I just laid out a case for not voting for McCain, and you completely ignored it, again, and repeated your same old talking points.
No substance. Just sound and fury.
misterpeasea on July 18, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Hey democrat, get the hell out of here. Go to a liberal blog where you can chat up and agree with everyone else there who wants Obama to be the next president.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 8:19 PM
You are just trying to create a MDS camp when you suggest that there are people hoping McCain is going to die. That just isn’t the case and shame on you for your slander.
That being said, you can’t get beyond the fact that McCain’s age is an issue. Not only his years on planet but his stale 1970s thinking that shows no vision for the future. You are in serious denial when you attack critics instead dealing with the issue in a forthright manner.
P.S. pointing out Mom McCain’s age is not dealing with the issue any more than your name calling.
highhopes on July 18, 2008 at 8:30 PM
You’re laughably stupid. And embarrassingly childish.
misterpeasea on July 18, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Because McCain might not make it to the election……..
Seven Percent Solution on July 18, 2008 at 8:45 PM
You know what’s laughably stupid?
If you want Obama to be the next president, then will you vote for him, or just leave it up to chance that the democrat you are backing will win without your support.
No, I’ve got it. Your plan is to make comments here for every day until the election in the hopes that you can get as many conservatives as possible not to vote for the person who is running against the democrat.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM
my first time being threatened on hot air!
I thought only liberal weenies did that…guess the truth hurts doesn’t it fat boy?
but I’ve noticed the people who issue internet threats are just typical gutless wacko libs.
hopefully you’ll be banned for this.
right4life on July 18, 2008 at 9:52 PM
what makes you think mccain will nominate anyone that Uncle Keg (Teddy) doesn’t approve of? wishful thinking on your part.
as far as Iraq, expect him to make a ‘deal’ with the democrats….as he will in every other area.
right4life on July 18, 2008 at 9:54 PM
He’s a moderate Republican, which is why he’s looking at conservatives for a vp pick – ie to pick up the party of the party that’s not his own base.
Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2008 at 10:06 PM
“part of the party”, I mean.
Spirit of 1776 on July 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM
you have such a vivid imagination, right4life.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Whoever will be VP, it’s time to pary a little.
Entelechy on July 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM
wise_man, comments and talking is what has made America strong, as a conservative voter as of 1976. I still cannot and will not vote for John Mccain. And I’d wager most Republicans who have followed Juans political career will kinda sit back.
AMartinez on July 18, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Absolutely incorect. What is done cannot be undone. Carter gave the world Ayatollah Khomeni and Mugabe. Because of that, there are insolent teen girls and young gay iranians hang in the town square, women are stoned when they get pregnant out of wedlock, and the devastation and human suffering Mugabe has brought to the African continent is immeasurable.
Don’t fool yourself for a second thinking that Obama can be undone. Time does not move backwards.
JustTruth101 on July 18, 2008 at 11:56 PM
GHWB was a moderate Republican. McCain is a conservative Democrat seeking cover under the GOP label.
highhopes on July 19, 2008 at 1:42 AM
So you won’t respond substantively, you repeat the same talking points over and over and over, you truncate a quote from me and cut and paste it over and over even though the full sentence is there for all to read. And you think you’re making some great rhetorical point. Then you call (more) names and tell me to get the hell out of here.
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. You’ve got to be about 15 years old.
misterpeasea on July 19, 2008 at 3:13 AM
There won’t be any walkbacks if Obama secures the presidency and is supported in his Utopian plans by a Democrat-dominated Congress. The damage will be exponential and long-lasting.
Those who think that McCain will not be conservative enough should direct their energies and their campaign contributions to conservative candidates running for congressional seats. There are a number of them seeking support; my mailbox gets solicitations from conservatives every day.
onlineanalyst on July 19, 2008 at 6:25 AM
If Obambi wins with the expected Dhimmi blowout in both the house and the senate not only will he fast track an amnesty bill, he’ll also propose fast tracking the famous 12 million already here for citizenship. The argument that he’ll put forward is that these poor souls have paid their dues and been political pawns long enough. This will insure Dhimmicrat majorities for at least the next two generations. In this scenario it does not really matter who McCain’s VP is and, in particular, Romney can go back and make some money in the private sector during socialism’s first years because later on it won’t be possible.
Annar on July 19, 2008 at 7:00 AM
“AMartinez” and “mr.PC,” most people here try to IGNORE TROLLS. As the latter insists upon being persistently disruptive, the suggestion of “wise_man” – that you take your daily constitutionals by The People’s Kos-sack - is fully reasonable.
Lockstein13 on July 19, 2008 at 7:04 AM
McCain’s mom didn’t spend 5 years as a POW.
That has to be the toughest duty around and kudos to John for surviving this long.
csdeven on July 19, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Attempting to get you to understand that the republican primary is over and this is now a two man race that you have to decide if you want Obama as the next president or McCain while you constantly nit pick about McCains record is not “talking points” it’s the truth.
And this is a conservative site, and you are advocating that we don’t elect the republican candidate, but you want the democrat to have the whitehouse.
You repeat the same liberal talking points over and over. You might as well be a democrat because you advocate the sane things that they want to happen, and you are surprised that someone here objects to your spamming this site with your BS.
Unbelievable.
wise_man on July 19, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Exactly. Yet so many anti-McCain/pro-Obama people here downplay the dangers of an Obama presidency to all of us in the hopes that we do as they suggest, and not vote for Obama.
wise_man on July 19, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Mitt was always my choice and I could have voted for him without a backward glance. Not to be though. Am teaching myself to accept McCain since Obama is out of the question.
jeanie on July 19, 2008 at 9:17 AM
To the extent that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds water, there is no room to support Obamarx via purism purging pollution. Tolerating or advocating Honor Killing is wrong. To advocate pro-Obama in order to purge evil welcomes one’s annihilation in a fatalistic search for heaven. Careful what you wish for, because you may leave behind more sh*t than you endured, and certainly more sh*t than the Constitution deserves to endure on account of some purist foolishness.
maverick muse on July 19, 2008 at 9:41 AM
He has been pro-life and strong on national defense. He is no Democrat. He has two major flaws I think – he has Senatoritis, he likes bipartisanship over principle, and he has an overinflated view of his own judgment which causes him to cross the Constitution and his party.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Wow. For once, I totally agree with you.
misterpeasea on July 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Keep digging your grave here, misterpeasea.
wise_man on July 19, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Keep being an idiot here, _man.
misterpeasea on July 19, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. I’d just be glad to see an end of the ‘go to kos’ or ‘go to huffpo’ diatribes. That’s pretty juvenile debate.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2008 at 3:53 PM
and when that ‘opinion’ is to suggest that we all not vote for McCain and when they would rather have 4 years of Barack Obama, then they are not advocating conservative and republican ideas on a conservative and republican web site. There are sites that would openly accept and embrace people who want Obama to be the next president. People like this piece of trash need to be with the rest of their kind.
And that is not here.
wise_man on July 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM
This argument, of course, is flawed. Commentor thinks to determine nature of site. It just doesn’t work that way.
This site has long been one of robust debate. It’s not shied away from that AT ALL. It used to be HA tradition to have an atheist/religion debate on Fridays. (to which you might scream: “Not on a republican site! we might alienate social cons or athests!”) This site isn’t what you think it is, or more accurately I imagine – what you want it to be, an echo chamber.
If you think people should fall in lockstep behind McCain because he is the nominee, then I suggest you start with Michelle, the owner of this site, before you dictate who or what opinions can be expressed here.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2008 at 4:46 PM
why would Matinee Mitt want to be VP? Maybe because everybody needs a job?
Monkei on July 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Isn’t Sam Nunn pro-life and strong on national security? Of course, he’s probably not welcome in the Democrat party anymore.
And McCain has waffled on his abortion stance. He’s spouted the “coat-hanger abortion” line to defend Roe. Fidelity to the Constitution is not exactly a strong point with him, like you say.
You don’t think those two flaws you mentioned are enough to disqualify him?
Additionally, if the Democrats can hang global warming and amnesty around McCain’s/Republicans’/conservatives’ necks, they’ll use it to justify their own loony policies on those issues and to discredit Republicans and conservatives.
And the amount of money that potentially will be poured down those two ratholes is mind-boggling. Which kinda-sorta puts the lie to McCain’s fiscal conservatism.
I’m not willing to risk 15-20 years in the wilderness for a squish. Not much potential upside, huge potential downside.
misterpeasea on July 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I don’t think Nunn would be comfortable in today’s Democratic party, but I can’t speak for him, of course. But as it stands, abortion is largely the litmus test for Democrats.
I do agree with you re: his waffling. And I don’t like to judge one person by another, his daughter is significantly more liberal on social issues then McCain’s votes, which would indicate that they aren’t opinions so strongly held as to be ingrained in his children. That could mean nothing, but still interesting.
I see Mac is a guy who used to be more conservative then he is now, but he’s still a moderate; he’s not liberal [yet].
To be blunt, though, I don’t see what good he can do. Conservatives are going to have to fight him from day1 on amnesty and global warming, and as regards the war, we will have won in Iraq by then. So we’ll have a commander in chief that will have been good for the war that’s done. And I expect that Rumsfeld’s view of the world will be the applicable one in the remainder of the w.o.terror, so we will have anti-thesis of that in office.
It’s a disheartening choice between the two nominees, to be sure.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2008 at 6:15 PM
I think that when conservatives discuss what the conservative party is doing and the different issues of the day, that this is indeed a place with robust debate. I am not asking everyone to like McCain. What I take offense to is the people who are lying about another republican. This is what democrats do. It shouldn’t be what one of our own does. And they are breaking Reagan’s 11th commandment when they do. McCain is obviously not a very strong conservative, and the republicans who voted for him over Romney, Huckabee and Thompson knew that.
I would have no problem with an atheist/religion debate of any sort because being a Christian or not an atheist is not a republican owned issue. I do not, at all want this site to be an echo chamber as you believe. It is a conservative site. As the huffington post is a liberal site. And when people decide to deviate beyond conservative issues, I don’t think that they should be surprised to find themselves getting pushback from the members.
Not all republicans were in lockstep behind Bush and I wouldn’t suspect that they will be behind McCain either. Everyone has different beliefs within the region of conservative and republican thought. And we express these differences of opinion all the time. When someone advocates supporting a different candidate in the republican primaries, then this is expected, and welcome. After the primaries are over, then we move into the next phase of the election where we decide between a democrat and a republican. For someone to advocate the democrat is to betray the republican party, of which conservatives is the largest identifiable group within.
And as far as Michelle goes, I recall that she has stated previously that she is planning on holding her nose, and voting for McCain. If Michelle has decided to endorse Bob Barr, or thinks that she would rather have 4 years of Obama as the president – then please direct me to the posting so that I may stand corrected. She obviously and justifiably has a problem with McCain’s stance on immigration and amnesty. As do I. And she opposes McCain for these reasons. As do I. And I suspect that she holds no illusions that Obama will be better on the subject on immigration and amnesty. Unlike our friend here who would rather Obama be the next president so he can punish McCain for not being conservative enough. When – Obama becomes the next president, and there is no guarantee that he will only serve 4 years, and more likely 8 just like Clinton, that he will do more damage to this nation and by also appointing supreme court justices, will have a negative impact on America for decades to come.
Again, our misguided friend has no problem with this at all. When you say things and advocate things that are in lock step with the majority of postings at the huffington post, then it is not me who is attempting to dictate what opinions should be expressed here, but suggesting a more appropriate venue for anti-McCain pro-Obama views. Because that place is crawling with them. And pro-Obama views shouldn’t be part of the debate, in my opinion, on a conservative website.
As well as the type of outright lying and slander being done to McCain, in an attempt to sway as many real conservatives here to not vote for McCain, to the benefit of Obama, who our friend has clearly said before that he would rather have Obama as the next president.
wise_man on July 19, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »