New McCain ad: Democrats love a Maverick!
posted at 10:00 am on August 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The second ad in as many days to display the “Maverick” brand, part of his strategy to claim America’s new center-left median voter while nudging Obama towards the fringe. He’s taken heat for having a schizophrenic message but watching this reminds you why it’s necessarily so: It’ll take a wide, wide straddle between the GOP base and that median to win, so wide that he’s forced to tout endorsements aimed at one group that would actually infuriate the other. Which, incidentally, explains why this is available on the web only and not on TV in the south. If I were Team Obama’s web guru, I’d have my staff posting the link to it on every conservative bulletin board I could find.
Exit question: Which mini-endorsement here hurts Obama and helps McCain the most? The answer’s obvious. Intuitively it seems like flaunting kind words from Hillary would be ruinous to McCain’s standing with the base, but the schadenfreude involved in using her against Obama is so rich and satisfying that even most conservatives should snicker at it. It’s not really about her admiring McCain, after all; it’s about her being properly skeptical of Obama, no matter what she may say now that she’s in “good soldier” mode. Every reminder McCain can offer in that vein is worth offering, which is why it’s a pity he didn’t use that classic clip of her goofing on St. Barack’s messianism in his Moses ad last week. There are plenty of disgruntled, whining, Hillary-nut voters still left on the tree waiting to be picked. Pick ‘em, Maverick!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 3 Next »
another vid “no longer available” whats up with u-tube?
allrsn on August 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM
OUCH !
he he..
singlemalt_18 on August 7, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Okay, I am one of the conservatives who the maverick has been throwing under the bus over the years. How, exactly, is this supposed to make me feel better?
It’s kinda like meeting all the lovers your spouse has had on the side. Yeah, they all have wonderful things to say about your spouse, but, again, how is it supposed to make you feel better and secure?
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 10:06 AM
It works.
Spirit of 1776 on August 7, 2008 at 10:08 AM
It’s not about you.
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Great ad!
Not for us conservatives, but hits the message of who is best qualified and works with the other party.
jencab on August 7, 2008 at 10:10 AM
No, it more like you’ve been lost in the woods for days, your cold, tired, and hungry… you need a bath, and need to brush your teeth, and you’re bitten all over by mosquitos…
but at least you didn’t get a snake bite or poison ivy!
singlemalt_18 on August 7, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Someone should remind McCain that he wouldn’t have to pander for the moderate/Democrat vote if he would just run on a conservative platform. He’s making more work for himself than he needs to.
fourstringfuror on August 7, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Tasty.
hillbillyjim on August 7, 2008 at 10:11 AM
WOW! I was wondering how they were gonna use that Hillary clip. That was great! I’m still not thrilled McCain is the nominee but I love it when he hits the libs. That will be a very effective ad with independents.
D0WNT0WN on August 7, 2008 at 10:12 AM
awesome!!
trailortrash on August 7, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Ahhhhh, so suck it up and take one for the team.
Put all these clips together when McCain was screwing you over every chance he could, and remember, when you vote, it’s not about you.
It’s nice to see that Obama doesn’t have the only cult.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 10:14 AM
It works for the most part, and won’t tick off conservatives all that much, because those focused on the election now already know they antipathy between Obama and the Clintons. Running a Hillary sound byte on its own would anger people, but knowing the lines’ use will cause both a false “Rally ’round the Messiah” effort by the Democrats and new annoyances among the Obama people over Hillary having ever said that in the first place makes it worth the effort on the Internet level (where only the hard-core political junkies are going to see the video in the first place).
jon1979 on August 7, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Great ad!
drjohn on August 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM
This is also great battlefield prep for McCain, as most of those same people praising him in that video will start trashing him in the coming weeks, if they haven’t already, such as Kerry and Dean. Running this stuff now may help to tamp down a few of those attacks, or at least remind voters what hypocrites the left are.
(Though of course, that begs the question–shouldn’t McCain have known that before he reached across the aisle in the first place?)
Ed Driscoll on August 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM
“Someone should remind McCain that he wouldn’t have to pander for the moderate/Democrat vote if he would just run on a conservative platform.”
Disagree, there are not enough voters at this point in history who are willing to vote for a straight conservative platform (one which I would completely support, however).
I like this ad because it is about winning. Anything that keeps Obama out of the White House is a good thing.
NoDonkey on August 7, 2008 at 10:16 AM
The ad is great!
elduende on August 7, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Good, good, GOOD! No direct McCain nastiness, kinda lighthearted right up to Hillary’s zinger ~ very deft touch.
tree hugging sister on August 7, 2008 at 10:16 AM
The last quote from Hillary is pretty blunt. I like that bit.
The ad might irritate some, but it should be effective with the middle in the close states.
forest on August 7, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Genius!! And for those conservatives who don’t like the “Maverick” moniker and don’t feel like he’s addressing you enough – remember – this is a political campaign. He needs to seal the deal with those who haven’t voted for a Republican and yet can’t bring themselves to vote for Obama. Although McCain isn’t our first choice, is any conservative not going to vote for him and risk an Obama presidency with a Democrat congress?! If so, think SCOTUS.
foxforce91 on August 7, 2008 at 10:18 AM
He did. I’m not sure he cares much, though.
fourstringfuror on August 7, 2008 at 10:19 AM
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 10:20 AM
America’s median voter is center-left?
According to what poll?
MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Comfort yourself with those words when McCain really starts reaching across the isle and all those McCain backers on this list start posting things like “THAT SOB SCREWED US AGAIN!!!!”
A fool is one who thinks that past performance should not be considered when predicting future actions.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I never said America’s median voter is center-left. Actually it’s probably center-right. However, it’s still more to the center.
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 10:25 AM
From what I’ve seen on another thread, the cult of A. Lincoln seems to be going strong.
MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM
His earthy new approach to blue collar voters appears to be working; if the polls are right.
J_Gocht on August 7, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Tell me again why I should vote for McCain? Oh that’s right. The Democrats love him.
Do me a favor McCainiacs, remember this ad the next time you blast a conservative for pointing out the Mavericks RINO history.
The good news is I should stop hearing about how we have to vote and support McCain to stop the Democrats. He is one.
Snake307 on August 7, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Using the key democrats own words was a nice touch. Does Obama have the same clips from the right? Give it about two hours and we may find out. :)
Nelsa on August 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM
terryannonline,
I never said that you said that.
The quote is from allahpundit.
MarkTheGreat on August 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I think this ad might not just be aimed at independents and Reagan Democrats, but it is another ad aimed at getting under Obama’s very thin skin, with the hope that he won’t react well.
And quoting Hillary only helps deepen the rift (see Drudge) between the Clinton and Obama camps.
Operation Chaos, Stage 2!
Wethal on August 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Absolutely! Captain Amnesty IS A democrat! Must not let that democrat win, and do nothing while that other democrat wins! That’s the winning strategy, comservatives!/
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM
For all the talking heads that say McCain’s team is in shambles: take note, where would ANYONE else be right now against Obama?
The last time the media said he was in shambles, the guy started winning primaries left and right.
This time, he’s caught up to Obama in the polls, and now he’s going for the juggular. Did I spell that right?
His media guys are a bit more shrewd than people think.
Vincenzo on August 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Answer: SCOTUS. Two appointmeents, maybe three.
Do you want more Robertses and Alitos? Or Breyers and Ginsbergs? Not to mention the appeals openings that Leahy is holding hostage.
Wethal on August 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM
All the whiners are out again. I have told u people to go vote for ur messiah…and leave McCain to us real conservatives who want to win. My parents used to tell me…that a devil you know is better than an angel you don’t know.
I know McCain. I know where he is coming from, and Obama scares the crap out of me, and I’m black. You see the poll where they talk about the 6% of blacks for McCain, I’m one of them.It pisses me off when the whiners come in here and try to mess up my good felling about an awesome ad.
Please go donate to the messiah, and support him, and let us have fun laughing at his hubris.
Chudi on August 7, 2008 at 10:32 AM
This ad reminded me of what I don’t like about McCain. At the same time it should remind democrat voters what they once liked about McCain.
When I talk with democrats I explain how McCain is closer to left of center while Obama is outside the left frame.
I’ll still hold my nose in the voting booth but this ad will work.
shick on August 7, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Another racist ad. No blacks in it. Oh wait, Obama’s in it.
How can Obama play the race card this time? They’ll figure something out.
roninacreage on August 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM
McCain’s playing to his base.
It’s the Democrat vs the Marxist this time out. We have no dog in the hunt.
Mojave Mark on August 7, 2008 at 10:34 AM
To quote Neal Bortz, regardless of who wins in November, American’s had better stock up on personal lubrication, your going to need it.
And, let’s also be honest, the republican party didn’t nominate McCain, the left did. Remember all those democrats and “independent” voters who came out and voted in republican primaries? Or did that go down the McCainiacs memory hole?
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 10:34 AM
They should run this and run this and run this!!!
mimi1220 on August 7, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Then go to the convention and present your evidence to all of the delegates and get this ‘democrat’ McCain kicked to the curb so we can have a real conservative take their rightful place as our nominee.
You do have some sort of evidence that this happened, don’t you?
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 10:37 AM
We really do need less partisanship in Washington. Once upon a time, committee memberships and leadership were based on expertise on the issues of the committee, not balanced first by controlling party. Can you imagine that happening today?
kc8ukw on August 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Tell me Mr. Real Conservative, were you also praising McCain at the same time all those clips were taken when the democrats were fawning all over your “real conservative”?
Why were they fawning all over him? Because he is one of them. He just wasn’t a threat at that time to their power.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Dude!
Swinehound on August 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM
This is going to send them over the edge – bwahaha!
TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM
OMG…..the best one yet!!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!
How many of you believe that Hillary will pull the lever for McCain in Nov.? Duh!
Winebabe on August 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM
The assumption is, you’re smart enough to know what the alternative would be like and when push comes to shove, you’ll do the right thing.
TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2008 at 10:43 AM
NY Times endorses McCain, do you still need more?
Also, how long have you been on this board? Do you recall all the stories being posted about democrats and independents turning out for McCain?
Remember how the dems got all faux-outraged when Republicans came out for Hillary, and how they got silent when Rush reminded them about how they all turned out for McCain?
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I’m sorry.
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM
That’s making quite an assumption, TheBigOldDog.
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM
McCain should run this ad during the DNC convention, especially in Pennsylvania. It is perfect inoculation against the “McSame” argument from the Left. Daschle is Chairman of Obama’s campaign committee and using the footage of him is especially good.
As a conservative this does not offend me at all. George W. Bush effectively used actual endorsements from Texas Democrats in his 2000 campaign.
rockmom on August 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I am sure you will be among the ones crying the loudest when the McCain you “know” become the McCain you “thought you knew”.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Still waiting for ‘proof’ that the claim: “the republican party didn’t nominate McCain, the left did. Remember all those democrats and “independent” voters who came out and voted in republican primaries?” is true.
Facts would be appreciated.
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Do what you’ve got to do, Maverick.
JammieWearingFool on August 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Perhaps but you can’t say this about McCain:
* Speeches in stadiums filled with mesmerized, adoring audiences – Check
* An uninspiring background before meteoric rise – Check
* Creates his own new symbols of power – Check
* Associates with racists, hatemongers and violent radicals – Check
* A propaganda machine willing to show him only in the best possible light – Check
* Uses, “glorious leader” style Agitprop posters common in totalitarian nations – Check (see German campaign poster for example)
* Wants Secret Police force – Check
* Somebody powerful people think they can control – Check
* Often dismissed as a light-weight by his opponents – Check
* Seeks to replace God with the State – Check
* People adopting his name as their own – Check
* Inspires adoration art – Check
* Appropriates symbols of past German glory – Check
* Never plans on giving up power – Check (Obama to be president for the next “eight to 10 years”)
* A narcissistic megalomaniac – Check
* Brazenly Takes credit for other people’s accomplishments – Check
* Wants to build “youth” movement through State service – Check
* Acts as if in power before he is – Check
* Some followers believe him to be divine – Check
* Worshiped and aided greatly by the media – Check
TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2008 at 10:48 AM
As Larry (the Cable Guy) would say,
“I don’t care who you are…that’s funny right there!”
Doug on August 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM
That was true in some states, but McCain won the South Carolina and Florida primaries fair and square without Democrat votes and against full-out conservative opposition from Fred Thompson. I know it kills a lot of people who can’t stand him, but the guy is genuinely popular with a lot of rank and file Republicans.
rockmom on August 7, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Not in the slightest. I know what he is and I know what Obama is and I’ll take McCain over him any day of the week. Obama is the most dangerous man ever to run for President in my lifetime and I’d even vote for Hillary 10,000 times before I’d vote for him once.
TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I’m a conservative and while John McCain infuriates me on many levels, I have no problem at all with this ad.
Buy Danish on August 7, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Robert, McCain did not run as a hard-core conservative. But right now, Barack Obama is a hard cre liberal, this is very clear when you look at his voting record. Right now, he’s attempting to appear tp move to the center so he can pick up more votes from moderated and independents. This election will be down to two people. If you look at their voting records, Obama is clearly a far left liberal. And McCain is not. You can either vote for McCain, or against Obama, it’s your choice.
I don’t personally believe that McCain is going to lurch left after the election if he is the president. He has an will seek compromise. But for today’s democrats, ‘compromise’ means ‘give it all to me.’ I think McCain (was senator, and if president) will see that his ‘compromise’ is impossible with these same people. Just as compromise with the democrats in the legislature with Bush was also a waste of time. Just my opinion. And since you offered yours, I wanted you to understand mine.
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 10:52 AM
That’s right, it’s all about the “real conservative” drama queens.
Oh boo hoo, McCain was mean to us.
Listen to the “real conservative” drama queens, GOP and you can consistently win 10% of the vote. If Ronald Reagan were running today, he wouldn’t past muster with the drama queens (he signed an amnesty bill).
NoDonkey on August 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I’m no fan of McShamnasty, but he does have convictions and sticks by them.
Perhaps if what is going on in DC now with energy, the Republicans can shift the country away from voting for the empty rhetoric of the dhimmicraps, we just may be able to sweep the elections this November.
McCain doesn’t cotton to excessive spending and earmarks which is what soured the voting public on Republicans in the first place.
Also, Republicans wont tolerate McShamnasty’s views on illegals and Global Warming either due to their constituents going bananas as we have before.
Hey, a man can dream can’t he…
Swinehound on August 7, 2008 at 10:56 AM
“Far left liberal,” is being kind to Obama:
Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism
TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Would they really matter? I could print all the names and it still wouldn’t change your mind.
The NY Times is good enough for me. All the people showing up to vote for McCain when there were more people then registered republicans in most states. NAwww, doesn’t mean a thing.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Sigh…nice ad McNumbnuts…sigh…
sabbott on August 7, 2008 at 10:58 AM
So what are you going to do, vote for Obama, stay home, what exactly?
TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Wait …
Jaibones on August 7, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I respect that, and I share the same concerns.
I don’t share you optimism. Again, past performance, future indicators.
Amen!
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Yes. It would matter. Because I asked for proof. Not anecdotal stories that help to shape your opinion.
The Newspaper New York Times does not prove your claim that democrats voted for McCain. As rockmom pointed out, McCain won South Carolina and Florida. No democrats participating there. The time I saw in the news that democrats wanted to vote in our primary, it was the daily kos guy. And he told his minions to vote for Romney. And McCain came in second.
Look, you can have your opinion that no republican voted for McCain or it was all about the democrats cheating us out of the real conservative that should have won, but if it’s only based on what the New York Times says, then it’s only as good as the foundation it’s based on. That’s all I’m saying.
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I was wondering the exact same thing.
Swinehound on August 7, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Umm.. I didn’t say that ‘bush was a waste of time,’ I said: “Just as compromise with the democrats in the legislature with Bush was also a waste of time. ”
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 11:05 AM
“Wrinkled old white dude” Paris.
J_Gocht on August 7, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Really? Then where is the link?
Please tell us who would have won the nomination if it wasn’t “fixed”?
I’m thinking probably Romney or Huckabee, and I don’t see most of you “real conservatives” being all that enthusiastic for them either.
Particularly if they said and did what’s needed to beat Obama and that’s capturing at least some of the moderate or even Democrat voters.
You guys wouldn’t have voted for Reagan if he was running today. Attempting to please you self-proclaimed “real conservatives” is a dead end street, which is why McCain has been able to continue to ignore you as he rises in the polls.
NoDonkey on August 7, 2008 at 11:05 AM
If the Left had been able to select the nominee, they would’ve stuck Republicans with someone like Ron Paul, or maybe a schmuck like Tancredo who would guarantee a Democratic win in November. McCain might not have been the first choice of conservatives as far as policy goes, but he was obviously one of the strongest candidates for the general election, and many people voted for him based on his ability to win. Also, the Republican party is not a conservatives-only operation, and there are a significant number of moderate and liberal members. This can happen because there is no ideological test for registration, nor should there be. Finally, some states had open primaries, allowing independents and voters registered in a party to vote in either party’s primary election. Both Republicans and Democrats are subject to this (remember Operation Chaos?), and it is a calculated risk taken by the parties to ensure that the far left and far right do not have too much power in the selection of nominees.
Big S on August 7, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I liked that ad.
Torch on August 7, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Stay home.
Now, don’t give me this BS, MTV rock the vote crap about if you don’t vote, than you can’t complain nonsense.
For years we have been putting in the lesser of the two evils, and all they have done is become more evil than they were when we put them in. Why did we put them in office? We couldn’t have a democrat. That is what it all came down too, we couldn’t have a democrat.
I like Rush’s take on it. We had to suffer a Jimmy Carter to get a Reagan. Maybe that is what we need. Maybe we need total democratic control that will foster a new breed of conservative republicanism….old school republicanism.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/01/24/new-york-times-endorses-mccain-clinton/
Didn’t say it was fixed.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Believe me, they tried. Oh god they try.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:16 AM
A la Danish, I am a Christian conservative, and there are lots of issues on which I differ from the GOP, and I have no problem with this ad.
But also, on the subject in the WSJ headline which suggests the deep south Alabama district which could elect a Democrat, this has nothing to do with anything other than that a conervative local white guy is running as a Democrat out of political opportunity. He’ll get most of the Democrat votes by default, and all of the Republican votes of people who know him and like him and don’t much care about party, which is a lot.
He can’t be beaten from the left, because there is no left there. So his opponent will have to tar him with the leftism of the national Democrats, which would normally be easy, except this guy has a lifetime of proof that he isn’t Barbara Boxer.
Jaibones on August 7, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I think someone some are missing is, all those in the video now says negative things about McCain. They say the negative things because of politics. You cant take back the good words you said when you were just being honest.
I think the video lets the average viewer see what the other sides says about him and I also find it a poke at them for changing their stance on McCain.
WoosterOh on August 7, 2008 at 11:19 AM
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM
foxforce91 on August 7, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Well, to in reply to your comment, There is no guarantee that this will work.
As an example, after Bush’s father’s first term, a lot of republicans were angry at him for breaking their ‘no new taxes’ pledge, some of them either didn’t vote, or voted for Ross Perot. And what was the outcome? Not just 4 years of Clinton, but 8 years. And how did that work out for us all. And to top that off, Bush’s son won the presidency after that. Again, how well did that cunning plan work.
I’m just mentioning this to you because you brought this up. 2008 is not 1976. And there is no magic that will make a conservative Ronald Reagan win in four years.
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Of course it is about them. It is always about the T.C.’s that is what they have been told for the last 28 years.
Squid Shark on August 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Yeah because history always repeats itself exactly the same. Right?
The funny thing is I don’t think Ronald Reagan would fit the “new breed of conservative republicanism” mold. He had a Democratic Congress he was willing to work and compromise with.
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Like I said, all the whiners should go vote for their messiah.
Chudi on August 7, 2008 at 11:21 AM
We knew we had Ronald Reagan in 1976.
If you can name me the next RR in the audience, I will give you a cookie.
Squid Shark on August 7, 2008 at 11:22 AM
There’s a “real conservative” for you.
I love Rush and he talks the talk better than anyone.
But he doesn’t walk the walk. His lifestyle is anything but conservative and even he would admit that.
With his $400 million contract, HE might be able to wait for pure conservatives to take office, but those of us with families and who don’t have $400 million at our disposal, cannot.
I don’t want to have to go through an Obama Presidency, with a Pelosi House and a Reid Senate, all for the purpose of some pie and the sky scheme of electing “real conservatives” some day.
NoDonkey on August 7, 2008 at 11:22 AM
You can see a parallel in the ‘democrats statements on Saddam Hussein’ links from before the 2003 resumption of military operations from the 1991 cease-fire. After Bush went in, the only way to remove Saddam because he repeatedly violated the terms of the cease-fire, the democrats came out with the ‘oh you didn’t have to go in’ and ‘Saddam wasn’t a threat, we had him contained’ and ‘he was just a pain in the neck and a bad person,’ ‘there never were any wmd’s at all’ comments from democrats.
Very similar. “You cant take back the good words you said when you were just being honest.”
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 11:25 AM
You mean like Protectionism, Civil Service Reform, and the Bloody Shirt?
Maybe we could re-brand the Dems as the party of Rum, Romanism and Rebellion while we are at it.
James G. Blaine in ‘08
Squid Shark on August 7, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Thank you, Senator Clinton. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Bigfoot on August 7, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Maybe, maybe not.
Most people don’t learn from wisdom, they learn from experience. People who keep putting the same RINO’s in office and think that they will do fine are the same people who keep crying the loudest.
Maybe conservatives need to suffer under a democrat nation. That would be a real wakeup call wouldn’t it? Than any republican that would even try to run for office and had the faintest aroma of liberalism would be ran out of town on a rail.
Yes, Reagan did work with a democratic congress, he did try, and he got screwed as he did with the amnesty back in the 80’s.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Pssst. Pardon me, but your class envy is showing.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM
What you have been doing all these years has been working real great for ya. Keep it up.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I’m a conservative and I think this ad is excellent. I know what I am getting when I vote for McCain, and I will do it happily because I fear what I will get if the other guy wins.
D2Boston on August 7, 2008 at 11:35 AM
The thing is there are certain things you can’t undo. If we get universal health care it’s done. We can’t go back. Do you think the American people would elect a candidate that says “I’m taking away your health insurance”?
terryannonline on August 7, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Democrats should follow the words of their leaders. GO McCain or go home.
originalpechanga on August 7, 2008 at 11:37 AM
The New York Times
January 25, 2008
Editorial
Primary Choices: John McCain
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.
Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?
That man is not running for president.
The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.
Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.
The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.
The other candidates offer no better choices.
Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is an affable, reassuring Baptist minister who talks about a softer Christian conservativism. His policies tell the real story. To attract Republican primary voters, he has become an anti-immigrant absolutist. His insertion of religion into the race, herding Mr. Romney into a defense of his beliefs, disqualified him for the Oval Office.
Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.
In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.
That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.
RobertInAustin on August 7, 2008 at 11:38 AM
What the hell are you talking about?
I’m just saying having a $400 million contract, and living in a gated mansion, insulates oneself from the consequences of a complete Democrat takeover.
I also serve in the military. I don’t want a gelded, anti-military pacifist as a Commander in Chief.
I make enough income to have all that I need, thank you. Put this clown Obama in the White House, along with a Pelosi/Reid Congress and that might not be the case.
Rush/Ingram/Hannity will have plenty, however.
NoDonkey on August 7, 2008 at 11:42 AM
So if the lesser of two evils is not the way to go, Should Bush have been defeated, and we allowed Al Gore to be president? How would our reaction to 9/11 been like? And if the lesser of two evils was not the way to go four years later, should we have allowed John Kerry to win? A near successful Iraq would look nothing like it does today if Kerry removed all of the troops, and there was no surge, and someone like Muqtada al-Sadr toppled the democratic elected government.
We could play political chess what-if like this all day in this conjecture of not supporting the RINO and only supporting the absolute conservative that passes the purity test. Since you advocate the ’supporting the lesser of two evils brings us more evil’ theory.
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Good lord. You said it, you’ve linked it and now you have to copy and paste this NYT crap on this page??
Good bye.
wise_man on August 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »