Classical Values :: "How are we going to manage to lose this time?"

"How are we going to manage to lose this time?"

Dick Polman thinks the Republicans have "lucked out" because despite opposition from the conservative wing, they might have managed to pick a candidate who can actually beat the Democrats.

The Republicans have lucked out. They appear poised to nominate a guy who can actually win the presidential election in November - a possibility few Republicans had seemed willing to entertain, given the heavy baggage of George W. Bush.

And yet, party conservatives seem apoplectic about John McCain's surprising rise. Shrugging off his electability, they are fixated on his ideological impurity. For all their professed fealty to Ronald Reagan - a name invoked so often it has been shortened to Runnarigin - they are willfully violating the Runnarigin Rule, which holds that "the person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally."

The purity enforcers don't realize how good they have it. Barring a near-miraculous late surge by Mitt Romney, the party will wind up tapping a hawkish career conservative who has pull with independent swing voters. Nobody else can do that, especially not this year. Nobody else has the heroic life story. Nobody else has the chops to beat Hillary Rodham Clinton - who, Obamamania notwithstanding, is still the most likely autumn finalist for the Dems.

Well, it's human nature for people not to realize how good they have it, and there's an instinctive aversion some people have to having it good. What I mean by that is that there are deeply rooted psychological factors at play which go beyond opinions and positions on political issues. It's as if there's a sort of unconscious death wish among many in the party that it's time to crash and burn. They've been riding high for too long, they've become corrupt, and because pride goeth before the fall, a Democratic administration is needed in order to teach them a lesson so they can buckle down and get back to the business of being Republicans. The GOP has had its 1920s boom, and now it's "time" (for lack of a better word) for the bust of the 1930s. That way, the moralists can gain the upper hand with recriminations, blame, and promises of new hope -- provided, of course, that the errant show remorse and agree to mend their ways. This sort of morality play is primal and childlike, and it has a way of resurfacing in almost everything -- whether politics, economics, the Culture War, or even sports. In many ways, I think this country is locked in an endless repetition of the 1920s versus the 1930s. The cycle is reenacted and reenacted, and I think some of the antipathy towards McCain derives from an unacknowledged unconscious need to crash. It's as if winning again is unnatural and unholy. That McCain might be the guy to lead them to victory only heightens the quasi-sacrilegious, perverse nature of an undeserved victory. I think this might heighten the irrational and obviously desperate comparisons of him to Hillary. For reasons that go beyond politics, a sizable chunk of the party simply doesn't want to win.

As to Reagan's rule that "the person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally," I see a serious problem with invoking that because it is a logical and mathematical rule, and this is about pure emotion. 80 percent means nothing if the disagreement goes to emotional hot-button issues.

Let's take three: abortion, homosexuality, and the latest hot button, immigration. Pure red meat conservative ideologues tend to have strong positions on all three of these. If you are a Republican and you disagree with the red-meaters on even one, you will be regarded with suspicion, as a possible RINO, or maybe even a heretic. The degree of suspicion, of course, depends on the level of ideological commitment to that issue. People who adhere to single issue litmus tests are of course the worst. I talked to a man who is running in the GOP primary in a state I will not mention who told me that merely for allowing that Republicans should be allowed to disagree on abortion that he was called immoral, and a "supporter" of murder. And he is against abortion, and calls himself pro-life.

Ditto immigration. Take the position once held by Ronald Reagan position and you're a vile RINO who wants to destroy U.S. sovereignty and usher in the North American Union. And of course, there are the "homosexual agenda" people, the anti-pornography people, and innumerable other single issue types.

Even I have to plead guilty to being a red-meater where it comes to the Second Amendment. I had lunch with a Republican businessman not long ago, and when he started talking about the need for reasonable gun control measures, I felt myself getting queasy, and I a chorus of "RINO! RINO! RINO!" went through my head. Yet I admit to being a RINO myself.

Another hot button issue for me is the First Amendment, and as I explained in detail here, I see McCain as beyond the pale on that one. Really, on some things, the actual percentage of overall agreement can become trivial by comparison. If someone says to me "We agree on 99% of every issue, except I don't believe in free speech," or "We agree on 99% of every issue, except I think all Jews should be expelled from America," the disagreement is so appalling that the other 99% is beside the point.

So this is complicated, and while people who agree 80 percent of the time might be friends and allies (and certainly their support is needed in an election), the devil is in the details. The fact is, that twenty percent you disagree on could go to the very core of what many Republicans consider their most important principles.

This will not be easy to overcome. 80 percent agreement on political issues aside, in the minds of many there is a strong emotional need for Romney to win the primary regardless of whether he wins in November. Better to lose with honor than to win dishonorably. And that 20 percent disagreement is seen as highly dishonorable.

The problem is that if Hillary wins, the entire country will be placed in a state of extreme dishonor, and it won't much matter what the Republicans think or say.

In addition to the gratuitous advice for Republicans, Polman has a grim warning by way of a nightmare scenario for Democrats:

...here's the nightmare scenario for Democrats: Hillary and McCain square off. McCain wins the independents, many of whom are sick to death of the Clintons. McCain cancels out Hillary's "experience" argument, because he has more. McCain trumps her "toughness" argument, because he has the more hawkish pedigree and spent five years in a POW cell. McCain trumps her on "authenticity," for reasons already mentioned. McCain even pulls away Hispanic voters in key states, thanks to his early championing of a path to citizenship. And he's buoyed by a united conservative base, because nobody galvanizes the base better than Hillary.

That would definitely sound chilling to me were I a Democrat. McCain beats the Clintons by being more appealing, being of better character, and by giving the Clintons a dose of their old triangulation medicine.

The only hope for the Democrats would be if McCain loses, or if enough of them did what the Republicans seem to have been doing, and voting for someone more likely to win. Polman does not say who that might be, but hints slightly that it might be Obama:

Democrats, even with the wind at their backs, have been asking each other, "How are we going to manage to lose this time?" Barring Obama's nomination, the scenario above is how. But it won't happen unless the conservatives park their grievances and unite behind McCain. As the old saying goes, even when Republicans don't fall in love, they win by falling in line.

I know that Obama's record is to the left of Hillary, and because he is younger (and black) he is automatically given a certain amount of credit for being further to the left. He is to the left of her on the war, but on economic issues like health care, as well as his opposition to Hillary's twice repeated threat to use the presidency to control monetary policy, Obama has done something very unusual in primaries. He is already appealing to the center, and running to the right of Hillary. If he keeps doing this, might he attract enough independents and GOP cross-voters to not only derail Hillary, but possibly derail McCain?

I don't know, but the possibilities are intriguing.

Even more intriguingly, the question "How are we going to manage to lose this time?" seems to be on the minds of many voters in both parties.

What if the Democrats have an unconscious death wish too?

If only both sides could just take a deep breath...

(And then exhale slowly. Isn't each breath a reminder that we're all losers, doomed to death by Global Warming? Don't we all deserve to die?)

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all.

Your comments and opinions are appreciated!

(This missing link added above.)

MORE: Please bear in mind that I have until April to decide between McCain and Romney.

MORE: Andrew Sullivan thinks the Democrats might be blowing it. Again:

Will Democratic voters realise that [Obama] is now their best bet against McCain or will inertia and fear keep Clinton alive? One thing I've learnt in American politics: never underestimate the capacity of the Democratic party to screw it up.

UPDATE: Gerard van der Leun has a great post (and bumpersticker) on the subject of "Republicans, they thirst for death," and he asks some good questions:

I know I am shoveling seaweed against the tide here, but I would ask those people, for but a brief moment, to consider these two potential line-ups:

Clinton/Obama 2008
or
Obama/Clinton 2008

This is, for so many reasons, the Democrat dream ticket and the pure Conservative's worst nightmare. Not the least because it means, at the outside, the potential of 16 years of a Democrat with a big socialist jones in the Whitehouse. Let's spell that out: S I X T E E N - Y E A R S.

Give one party sixteen years in power and you could, dare I say, appoint every single justice of the Supreme Court. Especially if you've got congress on your side.

"Not voting" to register a protest is also, in this case, not an option. A "not vote" counts as two against you; the vote you did not cast and the vote you did not cancel.

So, what the Republicans have to ask themselves before signing off on the No-McCain purity test is, "Do you feel lucky? Well, punks, do you?"

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Neo-Neocon has more and I like her analysis of the backlash folly:

...they are willing to throw over the good of the country and all the gains made in Iraq in order to set up some sort of backlash to a Democratic administration, a corrective reaction that they believe will finally lead to the election of a true conservative. The logic--if you can call it that--is to allow the nation to hit rock bottom, somewhat like an alcoholic, in order to finally see that its true salvation lies in electing a conservative purist.

As I explained here, today's Hillary backlash theory reminds me of the left in the late 1960s

Comments

To me, it isn't inconsistent that McCain polls well with independents. He's a better Democrat moderate than the Democrats being run.

I don't measure a candidate on where they voted the party line -- I measure then where they break with the party. Hillary broke with the party on the war (supporting it.) McCain broke with the party on supporting corruption, foolhardy immigration stances, and most importantly, against strict constructionist judicial nominations.

I would agree with any McCain supporter that he votes his convictions rather than the party line. It is his convictions that cause his rift with me.

Phelps · February 3, 2008 03:28 PM

The so-called 'conservatives' who want ideological purity are idiots - on par with leftists who support Kucinnich.

Reagan himself had 3 major violations of conservative ideals :

1) He granted Amnesty to illegals in 1986, so at worst, McCain is merely going to do the same.
2) He appointed 2 moderates to the SC - Kennedy and O'Conner. He appointed just one conservative - Scalia.
3) He raised taxes late in his Presidency. Sure, he cut them at first, but raised them in the end.

Thus, no President has ever been a pure conservative.

Also, McCain is solid on Iraq. Those who refuse to vote for him can no longer claim to be supporters of national security through thick and thin.

Lastly, it is the job of a political party to win elections and get more than 50% of the vote. It is not the job of a party to be ideologically pure and never get a majority of the vote. Just like the Democratic party is no longer a place hospitable for Lieberman, the Democrats are electorally poorer for it. It would be stupid to make the same mistake in the GOP.

As Iraq is my main issue, I support McCain, and I actually like him more now than 1 year ago.

GK · February 3, 2008 04:23 PM

Congratulations. Your take on the purist bunch that lusts to lose this election is right on target.

Steve-o · February 3, 2008 04:24 PM

TO: Eric, et al.
RE: McCain???!?!?

"He is already appealing to the center, and running to the right of Hillary. If he keeps doing this, might he attract enough independents and GOP cross-voters to not only derail Hillary, but possibly derail McCain?" -- Eric

I know a number of professional military personnel who would not, repeat NOT, vote for McCain.

Something about and oath we all took to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemeies; foreign AND domestic".

With McCain-Feingold 2002, McCain attacked the Bill of Rights. And thusly became an 'enemy, domestic' of the Constitution. In other words, an oathbreaker and a traitor.

Or oath, identical with the same one he took, is to fight such. NOT vote them to become the chief executive of the United States.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 04:34 PM

I'm sorry, but there are no words harsh enough for a man who would mortgage our freedom of speech because he can't handle criticism. I have a ton of respect for Lt. McCain and Mr. McCain, but not an iota for Senator McCain. Yeah, Hillary's worse, but that's a sad reason to have to vote for someone.

keithemerson · February 3, 2008 04:34 PM

I'm going with Ann Coulter -- if McCain runs, vote for Hillary. Reasons being that,

#1 Republicans will NOT support a Clinton's spending plans and other craziness. While, with McCain's economic nuttiness (Global Warming, etc.), the Dems will vote for him, and so will the squishy Republicans. Our economy is going to tank with him in there - he will NOT be able to fund his support of the war (or have you forgotten what the Dem Congress did to S. Viet Nam, despite the President's pleas).

#2 Hillary Clinton will NOT allow Iraq to turn into a bloodbath so long as SHE will reap the oppobrium that will follow. Right now she'd be happy for Bush to withdraw, but she ain't going to, and she'll twist arms until Congress backs her. McCain can't twist Dem arms, and his promissory notes cannot be redeemed - if he's elected, Iraq is returned to the extremists.

And a bonus: Hillary's Presidency is going to put the Dems out of the running for a good long time - their hold on Congress may not even hold in 2010, and for sure in 2012 the Republicans will return....just pray that the genuine conservatives are the ones to benefit, and not the fakes like (a genuine war hero) Senator McCain!

Earl · February 3, 2008 04:36 PM

TO: Phelps
RE: Think or Thwin

"Also, McCain is solid on Iraq. Those who refuse to vote for him can no longer claim to be supporters of national security through thick and thin." -- Phelps

So. Just become some popinjay is 'solid on Iraq', you can overlook that he was a principal in a direct attack on the Bill of Rights.

How....er....'discriminating' of you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If you support such attacks on the Bill of Rights, you're an enemy of the Constitution too.

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 04:38 PM

That is fine, if you are only interested in one election. I am interested in the future of the Republican Party. The McCain success is one wing of the Pary, the moderate/lib, wing trying to cast the hard conservatives out.
Nor do I believe McCain can win this election. The Press will turn on him and the Religious Right will not work for him.
When Dole lost in '96 it was because one wing of the Party stayed home on election day, just as they will this election.

Peter · February 3, 2008 04:43 PM

TO: Peter
RE: Hey!

"Nor do I believe McCain can win this election. The Press will turn on him and the Religious Right will not work for him." -- Peter

Don't forget the military professionals who remember their oath of office better than McCain does his.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I'm not only a retired Army officer, I'm co-chair of the Republican Party precinct in my county.

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 04:46 PM

MDS Conservatives do not want the GOP to win. They want us to suffer under a Clinton Adminstration so that Americans will see the light and run towards them.

Roy Mustang · February 3, 2008 04:54 PM

the GOP DID NOT lose the senate and house because of Iraq or Bush.

it was foleygate
maccaccagate
and abramoff/conrad burns.

without these MINOR scandals PUMPED UP INTO MAJOR ONES BY THE MSM

the GOP holds on to Congress.

even with war/bush fatigue and outta control domestic spending/earmarks.

therefore: we don;t need to do to much to win.

stay aggressive on the GWOT.
on LOWER taxes.
be against AGW and carbon taxes.
support conservative judges.
and freemarket solutions to healthcare/health-insurance issues.

mccain does worse on these issues than mitt.

both do better than the dems.

and people will respond to the GOP message.

kerry looked good and bush bad until the choice was there on the table.

the nation chose bush.

in 2008, the nation will once again choose the GOP.

reliapundit · February 3, 2008 04:56 PM

Amusing development: the anti-McCain folk sound a lot like the Ronulans! "He wants to DESTROY the CONSTITUTION! He's an ENEMY of the REPUBLIC! WHY WON'T YOU FOOLS LISTEN!?!"

sigh.

captial L · February 3, 2008 04:56 PM

Think strategically, not tactically.

McCain wins, we could have eight or more years of a statist in the White House.

Clinton wins, the House and Senate will be solid Repub in '10 and the White House will go to Romney (or other good candidate) in '12.

Hey, and it ain't just conservatives who dislike McCain. I'm a libertarian Repub and can't stand the guy. Plus, I ain't so sure Romney won't yet prevail this go-round. GOP voters might come to their senses.

Charlie · February 3, 2008 04:56 PM

Chuck Pelto, what has McCain-Fiengold prevented you from doing?

I don't like it either but to compare McCain-Fiengold to treason is....a little far fetched.

Roy Mustang · February 3, 2008 05:02 PM

If McCain gets the nomination, and Hillary wins the general election because you guys either stay home or vote for her, I will hold you personally responsible for the damage that is inflicted upon our country. I am wavering about changing my party affiliation to "none", because I don't want to be associated with people who put the welfare of their political party above the welfare of the country.

May you reap all that you deserve from the Clinton (II) presidency.

John S. · February 3, 2008 05:06 PM

Obama and Clinton will be an absolute disaster for the 2nd Amendment. McCain becomes the lesser of two evils at that point.

Pete · February 3, 2008 05:06 PM

It's not that McCain strays from orthodoxy on one point or another. It's that he seems willing to stray on a whim, out of petulance, or if it appears Chuck Schumer is about to come between McCain and a camera. Not only will he stray from a point or two, but he strays from many. The reason so many dislike him is because he's gored most of the oxen kept by most people who find themselves voting Republican. Campaign finance reform is a great example; McCain Feingold has basically gutted national level Republican issues advocacy, which has long been based on grass roots fundraising, while enabling the big institutions comprising the Dems (unions, bundlers, limousine billionaires) to game the system. Conservatives (and Republican Party functionaries in particular) are supposed to rally behind this guy who may have shut them out of the political process, long term?

So what do you want to do, Eric? Do you want your principles to have a chance of being implemented, or do you just want to ensure that whoever it is that wins, has an "R" after their name? Personally, I'm in it for the principles, and while I'll compromise on one or three or five, I am not willing to (1) gamble on a guy who compromises in a way that makes his compromises appear to be based on a likelihood of fawning press coverage; and (2) take the risk of further encouraging the MSM and those within the Republican Party that the way to win elections is to be Dem Lite - all the socialism, 50% less tinfoil asshattery.

When it came out this week that McCain was in serous talks with the Dems about switching parties in 2001 "because of how Bush treated him in the primaries" I wasn't shocked at all. That's like him. It makes me wonder what he would do as Chief Executive, out of fits of pique and temper.

Al Maviva · February 3, 2008 05:08 PM

Hillary or Obama wins and 6 months later we have Hillarycare as the rule of law, and unfortunately federal entitlements are as immortal as it comes in this country.

So if it makes you guys feel better letting McCain go down with the ship, I hope you are feeling the same way every time you are waiting in line for a mandatory check up or seeing your wages garnsished for your mandatory health insurance. If you really dont think there will be any difference between McCain and HRC, well you may just get the chance to find out. Childish petulance because you cant get everything you want in an republican candidate may cost this nation everything conservatices are SUPPOSED to be guarding against.

Mark Buehner · February 3, 2008 05:11 PM

Dear Mr. Schieie: I'd be more impressed with posts like yours (Victor Davis Hanson's on National Review's CORNER are another outstanding example) if they were written after the nominating conventions. Right now, it is still possible for Mitt Romney, whom I support, to get the nomination. I admit the odds are against this, but not insuperably. Why the rush to coronate McCain? It is nine months to Election Day. A lot can happen in those months. The only reason I can see is that McCain is claimed to be more "electable" on the basis of polls, the same polls that roared Obama was gonna crush Hillary in New Hampshire, and had McCain not just dead, but in the dissecting room last summer. Pollsters are not in the business of looking for truth. What is wrong with waiting for the conventions? Don't you want to know who the 72 year old McCain who has had a bout with cancer and recovered is going to choose as his running mate? Don't you want to know who the Democrats are going to put up? What sort of coverage is the press going to put out? Such swine as Dick Polman are already getting their articles on the Keating Five and McCain's treatment of his first wife ready to be published, no encouragement from the Democratic National Committee necessary.

Winston Churchill is a popular figure these days, so it is worth noting what his close friend Lord Birkenhead said of him:

"Winston was often right, but when he was wrong, well, my God."

I expect that there will be a lot of My Godding in a McCain administration. Buyer's remorse has no remedy in a presidential election. John Kerry was declared more electable than Howard Dean in 2004. In the three times in American history when a successful two term President has been succeeded by someone from his own party (Jackson by van Buren, T. Roosevelt by Taft, and Reagan by Bush 41) the successor has been beaten into a grease spot when HE tried for a second term and the party he's belonged to has been badly split. What skills does McCain bring to the party building process? I can see McCain making a deal with the Democratic majority in Congress to get his way on the war, and ceding everything else to the Democrats. That leaves a Republican minority in Congress, already held in low public esteem, to fight a Republican President. Want to bet on the outcome of that fight?

It may be that all this will come to pass anyway. But why the rush to join the lemmings and swim for it?

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Gregory Koster · February 3, 2008 05:13 PM

Also, this "let Hillary win, and then Congress will go R in '10 and the White House in '12" is ridiculous. It's pie-in-the-sky thinking. It's not going to happen. If Hillary wins, she will absolutely win two terms. Unless Ronald Reagan himself rises from the dead and runs, there is no question about it. And I don't know if you've noticed, but there was a huge rejection of Republicans in '06 because of ethical issues. Unless we shape up on that front (and I have seen precious little evidence to substantiate that), we will get trounced again and again. People will vote for candidates that they like first, candidates that they trust second, and candidates that will get them the most largess from the government third. If we don't want to become Democrats and go for #3, we'd better insist that our elected Republican officials make a significant change.

John S. · February 3, 2008 05:14 PM

80% of the time? I'm not "right" enough to feel comfortable registering as a Republican. I would characterize myself as a social moderate and fiscal conservative, leaning small "L" libertarian. The ONLY thing that McCain and I have in common is a realization of the Islamist threat. I am against his positions on every other issue I can identify.

And I can't remember the last time I voted for a Democrat. Come to think of it, I never did. But I see Ann Coulter's point--if the president is going to screw the country up after the next four years (which McCain, Clinton, and Obama would), I would rather it be a Democrat than a Republican.

Rex · February 3, 2008 05:14 PM

"Clinton wins, the House and Senate will be solid Repub in '10 and the White House will go to Romney (or other good candidate) in '12."

Carter was in office for 4 years. We still haven't sorted out some of the things his administration screwed up on.

It isn't a game. You can't win it in the second half. It's the conduct of the country.

Anonymous · February 3, 2008 05:19 PM

I'm getting really tired of these Republican insiders like Mr. Polman insisting that the only reason us Republicans oppose Sen. McCain is some sort of demand for ideological "purity." These are the same rationalizers that felt free to label a certain segment of the Republican base[*] racists for opposing "comprehensive immigration reform" amnesty, or who called us sexists for opposing that sad mediocrity Harriet Miers. {*Footnote: I believe that percentage of the Republican base to be, oh, roughly 55-60 percent of us.]

It's a damn label meant to end all discussion. It's no way to unify a party, as Bushrovehitler found out in the above two fights.

There are very legitimate grounds for opposing John McCain and not being slavishly devoted to party. On the issues, he's a sworn enemy of the first amendment. He swallows the whole global warming fallacy. He wants to give al-Qaeda unilateral Geneva convention rights. But, even worse than the issues, he wholly lacks the temperment to be an effective executive. His anger and self-righteousness make for a very dangerous combo plate. (His smug performance in the last debate is Exhibit FFF.) He is a person who may be good as 100 of a legislators, but not to be the one chief executive.

Finally, I agree with Ann Coulter in that, with a Democratic-controlled Congress (which is assured after this election, even if the Republican wins big in the presidential election), McCain will implement the Democrat agenda wholesale. It will fail. And Republicans will most of the blame, as presidents get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they don't.

Sorry, but that's a whole lot of reasons other than "ideological purity," Mr. Polman. That dismissive, patronizing tone isn't going to get an election won.

Rhodium Heart · February 3, 2008 05:19 PM

"Clinton wins, the House and Senate will be solid Repub in '10 and the White House will go to Romney (or other good candidate) in '12."

Carter was in office for 4 years decades ago. We still haven't sorted out some of the things his administration screwed up on.

Furthermore, you have no idea if Obama or Clinton would be out of office in 4 years. Maybe they just do well enough to squeak out another term. Stranger things have happened.

It isn't a game. You can't win it in the second half. It's the conduct of the country.

capital L · February 3, 2008 05:21 PM

Conservatives are not being unreasonable regarding McCain.

Let's look at a few facts.

1. McCain on free speech - he is against it if it challenges the establishment - please recall a certain bill passed with a uber liberal

2. Illegal immigration - he refuse to recognize a material problem - again who is co-sponsoring wills with - hint a uber liberal

3. Tax cuts - He opposed tax cuts - please note who he sided with

4. Remember Keating Five - McCain was one of them

5. Anti-business - he attacks businesses without understanding economics - like other uber liberals

McCain is a LIBERAL who happens to be a Hawk.

McCain will support Hillarycare so that smoke screen is not getting me to bite

The real question is what make McCain different from the uber liberals he would run against other than he is too old and likely too sickly to serve his entire term?

I have yet to hear from the fools like you as to why vote for McCain. He will be destroyed by Hillary or Obama. We are in a primary my friends where the objective is to find the best possible candidate not settle for the oldest liberal in the bunch.

Please respond with facts and reason.

bee · February 3, 2008 05:22 PM

The press likes McCain, so they have not asked the important question of his true involvement in the Keating 5 scandal. Just like Kerry, who was loved by the press and thus not asked the tough questions during the primary, so too will fall McCain. It won't be too hard to attack his credability due to this scandal, which will be his "swiftboat". He won't see it coming, won't be prepared to react, and will falter. Hillary wins 52-48. Four of the SCOTUS are replaced by Hillary with 18-year old law interns so that they will last 60 years on the court.

Pablo Panadero · February 3, 2008 05:25 PM

"Clinton wins, the House and Senate will be solid Repub in '10"

Magical unity pony.

Roy Mustang · February 3, 2008 05:27 PM

Within the past few days, McCain has said both that "social issues" aren't important to him, and that he has no understanding of economics (beyond a leftist-instinct-revealing attempt at capitalist-baiting Romney, which shows he's telling the truth: economic instinct is leftist; economic thought is rightist).

So having nothing to offer either social- or econo-cons, his appeal is only to name-recognition Pavlovians and to Napoleonic "National Greatness Conservatives," who aren't conservatives. Nor am I, but still: there is nowehere near an 80% McCain/conservative overlap, so there's no "Reagan rule" violation in conservatives' shitting on McCain. He's just not one of them.

Also, Reagan's amnesty was premised on a follow-up enforcement crackdown that was bureaucratically undermined. The effect of McCain's preferred policy might be the same (any enforcement effort will be bureaucratically undermined), but Reagan's is not McCain's position, no matter what McCain and his apologists say now. (I don't care about that, either, but still.)

And the apparently near-universal idea that McCain can beat Hillary is preposterous. Their core voting blocs overlap almost entirely, and self-described "independents" and "moderates" in Republican-incumbent elections (which this one rhetorically is) swing heavily toward Democrats when it's voting time.

There are no "independents" and "moderates" -- only self-satisfied liars. There are extra-partisans to the left of Democrats, and to the right of Republicans, but none between. There's no space there to occupy, except a psychological one; it's a type people want others to believe they are. No one is. Hillary wins them hugely.

guy on internet · February 3, 2008 05:34 PM

TO: capitol L
RE: Romulans?

"the anti-McCain folk sound a lot like the Ronulans! "He wants to DESTROY the CONSTITUTION! He's an ENEMY of the REPUBLIC! WHY WON'T YOU FOOLS LISTEN!?!"" -- Capitol L

You've been watching ENTIRELY too much Star Trek reruns, as opposed to following politics.

I recommend growing up.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Kill your television.

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 05:35 PM

TO: Roy Mustang
RE: Far Fetched?

"Chuck Pelto, what has McCain-Fiengold prevented you from doing?

I don't like it either but to compare McCain-Fiengold to treason is....a little far fetched." -- Roy Mustang

Are you saying that because we cannot criticize an incumbant member of Congress, thanks to McCain-Feingold, within so many days of an election involving that member....

....no harm had been done to our Freedom of Speech?

REALLY??!??!!?

No harm...no foul????!?!?!

Interesting understanding of English you've got there.

Where'd you get it? Some English-as-a-Tertiary-Language course?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 05:39 PM

P.S. As for being 'treason', what constitutions 'treason'?

Is it not one of 'betraying ones country'?

Is not breaking an oath to "uphold and defend the Constiution of the United States....and bear true allegiance to the same", betrayal?

Not so far-fetched as you might think....if you DO actually 'think'.

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 05:44 PM

Why have two parties that nominate Democrat candidates? Sure McCain might win some Democrat voters, but Hilary can do that for us already.

Mass Immigration gets top money from your business backers, so to hell with the little people? Then you are out the business mister, permanently, and that goes for your crummy little party too.

That's what democracy is supposed to do to fraudulent enterprises like the Republicans have become.

alan143 · February 3, 2008 05:46 PM

Right now, there's no way I can support McCain. There are some things like the war that I think he's good on, but there are other issues like CFR that he's bloody awful on. And even the issues I think he's been pretty decent on, I don't think he can be trusted not to turn on a dime just to spite people he's pissed at.

IF it comes down to Hillary or Obama versus McCain, then I probably end up voting for McCain. I don't think he's actually electable, though. Personally, I think he'll start to crack when the pressure's on and the press who fawns on him now suddenly starts dumping on him. He'll have a Dean-scream moment or three and lose.

I'm beginning to feel like I'm in the South Park episode where they're voting for a new school mascot and the only choice is between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

Larry · February 3, 2008 05:51 PM

The media and the Dems want McCain because:

1. He's a fellow senator. America doesn't elect senators as president, not at least since JFK and LBJ stole the 1960 "election." We elect Governors as president. So Hillary or Obama both want a Republican senator in the race.

2. McCain is old. I mean OLD. He's older than Hillary, and who wants an old woman as president?

3. McCain has a record that the Dems will kill him with. Sure, they love him now, but just wait. Honestly, do you really think the NY Times would EVER vote for McCain against any Democrat? Why the Slimes even bothered "endorsing" McCain is a mystery. They hate Republicans. I doubt there is a Republican on the staff except for a couple of token columnists.

4. McCain/Feingold. Leave it to the Dems to write a law that restricts political speech. I still cannot believe Bush signed it. Absolute violation of the 1st Amendment, yet good for the Dems to control the process via 527's.

Koblog · February 3, 2008 05:57 PM

God help me, but Anne Coulter is right. You sir, are wrong.

bc · February 3, 2008 05:59 PM

"As to Reagan's rule that "the person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally," I see a serious problem with invoking that because it is a logical and mathematical rule, and this is about pure emotion. 80 percent means nothing if the disagreement goes to emotional hot-button issues"...

So what was that alledged 80% the Manchurian Candidate agreed with conservatives on?

juandos · February 3, 2008 06:13 PM

Show me the 80 percent of issues on which McCain agrees with conservatives. Besides the war, theres... what? I don't understand why he calls himself a Republican.

Dean · February 3, 2008 06:28 PM

TO: bc, et al.
RE: Not Just Ann

"God help me, but Anne Coulter is right. You sir, are wrong." -- bc

Check out Bill Quick...

http://dailypundit.com/?p=29500

....it's an impressive list of reasons to vote for Hillary instead of McCain....even if you're a Republican.

I will not, repeat NOT, hold my nose and vote for a traitor to his oath.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 06:29 PM

For those who have forgotten, or were not aware in the first place, I have posted a fairly extensive list of reasons why I won't be voting for John McCain.

Bill Quick · February 3, 2008 06:39 PM

For those who have forgotten, or were not aware in the first place, I have posted a fairly extensive list of reasons why I won't be voting for John McCain.

Bill Quick · February 3, 2008 06:41 PM

Chuck Pelto: "Ronulan" is a derisive term for Ron Paul acolytes. Which I suppose you would know if you spent more time paying attention to the SERIOUS BUSINESS of internet political discussion instead of thinking about a 60's television program.

(I suppose I'd better point out that "the internet is serious business" is another piece of internet humor, as you seem to have a stick so far up your rear end that's it's poked out your humor gland.)

capital L · February 3, 2008 06:55 PM

TO: capital L
RE: Ronulan vs. Romulan

""Ronulan" is a derisive term for Ron Paul acolytes. Which I suppose you would know if you spent more time paying attention to the SERIOUS BUSINESS of internet political discussion instead of thinking about a 60's television program." -- capital L

I'm not a supporter of 'isolationism'. As a professional military officer, I've studied history and know that isolationism, as espoused by Ron Paul is a hopeless cause.

As for your claim that I'm such, you're behaving like one of the more ignorant and/or stupid people I've encountered on the web in this sort of discussion.

Hope that helps....but I have serious doubts about that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Grow up.....

P.P.S. When, if ever, did YOU swear to lay down your life for the Constitution?

There IS something of a matter of 'commitment', as opposed to ignorant rhetoric, whether we're talking about politics of television.

Don't you think?

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 07:05 PM

Chuck Pelto:

To quote myself: "Amusing development: the anti-McCain folk sound a lot like the Ronulans!"

Now where in that am I saying that you are a Ron Paul supporter? I'll save you the trouble of thought and unpack the claim for you: Many of those who are currently freaking out about McCain are doing so in a manner which reminds me of the wide-eyed, over-dramatic, "the sky is falling," insanity with which the supporters of Ron Paul mistakenly considered "convincing logic."

And if you are suggesting that I am not fit to talk politics on the internet unless I've served in the military, well then I don't really know how to talk to you.

Hope that helps, doubt it will.

P.S. Postscripts in typed format scream: "Don't take me seriously."

capital L · February 3, 2008 07:37 PM

Years go I saw a cartoon drawn by Alexix A. Gilliland, a former federal bureaucrat. In it, an American is explaining to a man from Eastern Europe how our system of government works:

"Well sure, the government lies. And the newspapers lie, too. But in a democracy, they aren't the same lies.

If the Democrats win the presidency in 2008, and especially if the Democrats keep Congress ... they will be the same lies. I don't know how well our freedoms can withstand a concerted assault on the truth by the party in power and the mainstream media for four years.

I sure won't vote for him in the primary election, but if McCain is the Republican nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him rather than the Democrat. And I'll hope that his VP is a more worthy successor to the office if McCain decides not to run in 2012 or if something happens to him before that.

Mike G in Corvallis · February 3, 2008 07:40 PM

TO: capital L
RE: Hardly

"P.S. Postscripts in typed format scream: "Don't take me seriously."" -- capital L

They're afterthoughts and taglines.

You can take me as seriously as you like. It matters not to me, compadre.

What matters to me is how far are you willing to go to defend this country...this way of life....this Constitution.

As for calling me a 'Ron Paul supporter'....

....I seem to recall you alluding to people who say McCain is a threat to the country as being 'Ronulans'.

Or are you trying some silly evasion here? Looks like it to the reasonably prudent observer.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. As I said above....grow up.

P.P.S. I notice you don't seem to have done anything to defend this country, vis-a-vis doing honorable military/naval service during your short span here on this ball-o-dirt.

[Every man thinks meanly of himself for never having been a soldier or a sailor with hard duty at sea. -- Samuel Johnson]

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 08:21 PM

P.P.P.S. As for the "don't take me seriously" business....

....I propose that you're 'projecting' here.

Chuck Pelto · February 3, 2008 08:23 PM

Now, I think that that is a *LITTLE* over the top. I think it's closer to say that there are a lot of people on the Right who feel betrayed by the Bush presidency.

Social Conservatives are upset that he nominated Harriet Miers and that abortion is *STILL* happening. Defense Hawks are pissed that "Shock and Awe" was relatively restrained and if he had only done what Shock and Awe promised in the first place, we wouldn't be on the road we're on now! Fiscal Conservatives... well. Who gives a crap what they think. Where are they going to go, the Democrats? SAME TO YOU, LIBERTARIANS!!!!

Anyway, there are a lot of people on the Right who feel that Bush dropped the ball.

They are hoping for a Presidential Candidate who will cater to them, this time. Social Conservatives want someone who will put an end to this abortion and gay marriage crap once and for all. Defense Conservatives want someone who will Kill The g-darn Terrorists. You know they had an honor killing in Toronto the other day? God damn shame... something should be done!Fiscal Conservatives want something done about earmarks (the gateway drug to overspending). Libertarians want a Presidential Candidate who has read past the 2nd Amendment. And before it, preferably. Paleocons want separate drinking fountains.

And all of these guys want an ideologically "pure" candidate. Socons see Huckabee as their guy. Defcons see (or saw) Giuliani as their guy. Fiscons see Romney as their guy. Paleocons see Paul as their guy. And if they can't have their guy... well, the party deserves to lose.

It's not that they *WANT* to lose. It's just that winning on a RINO's terms is worse than losing because the opposition to the RINO is so bad that you have to defend the guy even if he does some dumb-assed thing. Better to be part of the team attacking something mostly wrong than part of the team defending something mostly wrong.

If you know what I mean.

Jaybird · February 3, 2008 08:29 PM

In addition, John McCain has a list of scandals in his past a mile long. None of them are really deadly scandals, and none of them really stop him running for the Senate...

But I can guarantee you that the mainstream media and whatever Dem candidate is against him will so trumpet them to high heaven over the next year that you'll be sick to death of it.

The MSM is just keeping quiet on them now, so they can destroy him later.

luagha · February 3, 2008 08:30 PM

Bush is a good example of someone whom conservatives supported, even though they disagreed with some of his policies. Supporting him has never meant supporting 100 percent of his policy positions or 100 percent of his Supreme Court nominees, but they have supported him, nevertheless. He won re-election, didn't he? To try to imply that conservatives demand 100 percent agreement is disingenuous. Again, what are the 80 percent of conservative issues supported by McCain?

Dean · February 3, 2008 08:51 PM

"I seem to recall you alluding to people who say McCain is a threat to the country as being 'Ronulans'."

Well we're in a thread here, so you could have easily scrolled up and read what I wrote (not that you seem to have taken much time to have read it the first time.). I already repeated it once, no harm in quoting myself again: "Amusing development: the anti-McCain folk sound a lot like the Ronulans!"

As this was apparently misleading, I further explained: "Many of those who are currently freaking out about McCain are doing so in a manner which reminds me of the wide-eyed, over-dramatic, "the sky is falling," insanity with which the supporters of Ron Paul mistakenly considered "convincing logic."

This explanation seems to have done no good so I will make it as clear as I possibly can: some of the "arguments" against McCain seem motivated by hysteria which, when combined with certain overblown rhetoric regarding the constitution and treason, reminds me of the sorts of things Ron Paul supporters say. This does not make such people Ron Paul supporters.

An analogy: Natural Light Beer reminds me of Milwaukee's Best Beer in that they are both pretty crappy beers. However, I don't therefore imply that Natural Light is the same as Milwaukee's Best.

Somehow I doubt any of this will make my intent clearly to you, as I'm appearntly an enemy of the constitution.

capital L · February 3, 2008 08:59 PM

Here's my presidental voting record: Bush, elder over Clinton; Clinton over Dole; Gore over Bush; Bush over Kerry. My future choice would be McCain over Clinton or Obama. I have my opinions about abortion, homosexual marriage, capital punishment, campaign financing etc, but if others have a different opinion, well, I have a history of being wrong about many things and I am willing to go along with the majority. The one thing I know for certain is that the caliphascists are very bad people and that John McCain is the best available leader to defeat them.

william · February 3, 2008 09:36 PM

Let's not forget this by John McCain when he ran against George W. Bush in 2000.

"On Sunday, on CNN�s �Late Edition,� McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion �litmus� test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees. He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, �we all know, and it�s obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.�

and of course

"But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

Those who think that electing John McCain would give us another Roberts or Alito are dead wrong. These statements combined with his proclivity to work with Democrats tells me quite clearly that McCain would take a list of acceptable candidates submitted to him by the Democratic Senators and choose from it for his judicial nominees. The best we could hope for would be a Sandra Day Oconner.

Baggi · February 3, 2008 09:39 PM

Capital L, everyone who is not "Ronulan-like" got it the first time around.

Roy Mustang · February 3, 2008 09:54 PM

Ah, so Bush stole that "I do not have a litmus test for abortion" thing from McCain.

You're certainly right, Baggi. Anyone who would say such a thing could never give us Justices like Alito and Roberts.

Roy Mustang · February 3, 2008 09:58 PM

I am going to vote for whoever is on the Republican ticket in November but since Fred dropped out I don't care much which ass hat that is. I will be voting in the Democrat primary this year for Obama in order to keep the Clintons out of the White House.

Look at the bright side of a McCain presidency. He might be crazy enough to have George Soros killed.

Mark in Texas · February 3, 2008 10:40 PM

I am not a republican or democrat. I believe in lower taxes, smaller government, freedom of speech, equal rights for gays and women, repeal of most drug laws, access to abortion, public support of the arts, measured immigration. I'm sort of a small-L libertarian.

I don't want a democrat in the White House as long as we are in a war with Islamofascism. I don't want anyone in the WH who doesn't like or understand the military, who wants to hold summit meetings with terrorist regimes, who insists on seeing Iraq as a failure even when it's not.

I don't think Romney can win. I think McCain can. I don't care if McCain is more a dem than a pub. All this talk about what will happen in '12 is pie-in-the-sky. We can't afford the 4 years inbetween - as someone said we are still trying to fix the things Carter screwed up.

We simply cannot afford - as a nation - to have someone in the WH who will piss away our gains in the GWOT. So McCain makes deals with Dems. Did it occur to you that maybe he will be able to get them on his side on issues you care about? Why assume it only goes one-way, that he will always be pulled to their agenda.

Frankly I don't care if a McCain win "destroys" the republican party. (Which it won't.) I care if we stand up to or appease Islamofascism and the soft transnational progressive fascism which enables it. That is the most crucial issue of the next 4 years.

If there was a dem I trusted on this issue, I would vote for them. Look at all the dem debates. When foreign policy comes up watch what they say.

Yehudit · February 3, 2008 11:28 PM

Also Eric's psychological analysis is spot-on - thanks, Eric!

Yehudit · February 3, 2008 11:29 PM

"That way, the moralists can gain the upper hand with recriminations, blame, and promises of new hope -- provided, of course, that the errant show remorse and agree to mend their ways."

I believe you've got the moralist's shoe on the wrong foot here, my friend.

JM Hanes · February 4, 2008 12:09 AM

We cannot let the Democrats nominate the next two or three Justices to the Supreme Court.
We cannot let the Democrats nominate the next two or three Justices to the Supreme Court.
We cannot let the Democrats nominate the next two or three Justices to the Supreme Court.

It is also important that history show that the American people repudiated the Clintons. It will be hard to convince the future that his presidency was bad if his wife is elected.

Boff · February 4, 2008 03:59 AM

"Shrugging off his electability, they are fixated on his ideological impurity."

That statement would ring true only if McCain agreed with conservatives on a number of issues. No one here defending McCain has tried to show that "80 percent." Or even 10 percent.

Dean · February 4, 2008 08:43 AM

Heh heh, I think the McCain folks are the ones running around calling anyone that doesn't like their man a "purist". That is silly. I doubt the majority of repub voters are single issue "purist" voters.

I'm not a purist... I don't require 100% alignment with the folks I vote for. But, I would like someone that doesn't go out of his way to kick me in the teeth on most issues and McCain certainly seems to do that with relish. There is little outside of his position on Iraq that I can agree with. PURIST! PURIST! Heh heh. Okay, I guess I'm guilt as charged.

I agreed with Clinton when he signed NAFTA, but I sure wouldn't vote for the guy. Aww heck, guess I'm a dirty purist. DOH!

All of this purist talk strikes me as a way to shut down debate similar to the "racist" epithet. If you don't support my man they you are a close-minded "purist" and there is no point in debating the issues.

Personally, I have not yet decided what I will do should McCain win the nomination. The final deciding factor for me may be judicial nominations, but there is much to consider.(heck, he ain't even the nominee yet and might not be) There is a possibility that my conscience won't allow me to vote for McCain.

Oh well, I guess I just bought a one way ticket to purist hell. ;)

for your consideration:
I find it interesting that no one seems to believe McCain, especially his supporters, when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. Everyone seems to take it for granted that he is simply giving lip service to the security first/strong enforcement crowd, but that he has no intention of actually following through on his promises.

Joe · February 4, 2008 09:02 AM

The suggestion that many conservatives actively desire the temporary collapse of the GOP as a punishment and purge to attain a greater ideological purity rings true. It is a wise observation, and I thank you for it. That it is a fanciful and misguided approach you also deal with quite nicely.

Assistant Village Idiot · February 4, 2008 09:16 AM

LOL, LOL!
This is simply the last attempt by the "conservatives" to drive the moderate/lib wing out of the party. We have one of us having a shot at the nomination, and they say they won't vote for us. The implication is that we either shut up and vote for their brand of GOP, or we leave.
Otherwise they essentially commit secession.

I don't plan on leaving my party. If you RINOs wish to abandon the Party it is your perogative. But don't let anyone fool anyone that you are RINOs, only voting for the Party man if he toes your line, your particular wedge issue, single issue line.

All the crap you throw at McCain would stick to Reagan or Goldwater as well, as each disagreed with the various Talk Radio/Pundit types on various issues.

McCain is strong anti-spending, fiscal conservative, and strong on defense, and GWOT.

So he's not your guy on the environment (funny, geesh Republicans founded the National Parks, we pushed the Clean Air act through...you know what, Conservation is Conservative), campaign finance, or some social issues (the man is a pro-lifer).

But you'd figure he'd be conservative enough for ya on most issues.

The insanity coming from y'all is quite annoying. We moderates and fiscal conservatives stuck by GWB when he was being an idiot on various issues. We voted for him to avoid the worse option.

Sure give Hillary or Obama the right and power to appoint 3 Ginsbergs on the Court. See what that does to your precious causes.

Let Hillary or Obama cut and run in Iraq, and give up on the GWOT.

Let them, like Bill did, savage the defense budget.

Let them implement the Mandated Health Care/Socialized Medicine, repeal the Tax Cuts...

and push this through a Dem dominated Congress.

Say hello to gun control.

Soon we'll be trying to fix up their mess for generations as we still try to fix LBJ's and Carters idiocies.

Have fun for that, and we'll be thanking your asshattedness as we pick up the pieces for the next 40 years because y'all could not compromise one bit, and y'all couldn't think strategically.

Shoot man, with you guys, Goldwater and Reagan would be too far left. I don't recognize the Party any more if its spokesmen are the examples. I am a Reagan Republican who is now a "moderate" by your standards. I'm a Goldwater Republican, and I'm a "moderate" by your standards.

You make me sick.

Anonymous · February 4, 2008 10:27 AM

from Anonymous � February 4, 2008 10:27 AM:
"I don't plan on leaving my party. If you RINOs wish to abandon the Party it is your perogative. But don't let anyone fool anyone that you are RINOs, only voting for the Party man if he toes your line, your particular wedge issue, single issue line."

ROFL - yup, you should vote for folks that don't support your views folks. Oh man, I love this. :)

People join political parties that share their views. If either the party or the individual changes than it is perfectly understandable if the two would part company. Sure, there are some single issue folks out there, that is nothing new, but I think a lot of folks have profound disagreement with McCain on issues spanning trade/economic, enviro, free speech/campaign finance, immigration, views toward business, and taxes to mention a few.(these are some of the issues I have with McCain) These are not really single "wedge issue" folks. If he is what the party represents then there are probably quite a few folks that will look elsewhere to vote.

"The insanity coming from y'all is quite annoying. We moderates and fiscal conservatives stuck by GWB when he was being an idiot on various issues. We voted for him to avoid the worse option."

Heaven forbid! Someone has a different view - they must be insane! Why bother debating someone who is nutters? Heh heh. Again, as I mention in my previous post - it seems a lot of McCain supporters just want the opposition to shut up. This makes sense when considering McCain's views on freedom of political speech...birds of a feather...

As I said before, I don't know how I will vote should McCain win the nomination, but name calling isn't a good way to win folks over. Explain to me why voting for McCain is a sound strategic decision and you may convince me, but calling folks insane or purists when the evidence clearly doesn't support such a claim will win you no support. It will however make me question if I want to be part of a group that would behave in such a way.

Joe · February 4, 2008 01:09 PM

"Explain to me why voting for McCain is a sound strategic decision."

Explain to me why letting Clinton or Obama have 4 years minimum at the helm is a sound strategic decision.

I suppose you believe "Oh but after that the REAL conservatives will win," but in my estimation it's not a good gamble. I'm concerned with sound strategy for the Nation, not the Party.

capital L · February 4, 2008 04:59 PM

TO: All
RE: [OT] An 'Interesting' Development

Seems that in Pueblo County, Colorado, the on-line system for validating voter registration has gone.....'off line'.

This just a few days before the state-wide county caucsuses....vis-a-vis...Super-Duper Tuesday.

As co-chair of my party's 6th precinct in this county, I've contacted my County Clerk/Recorder and the 'rep' for the Colorado Secretary of State, Elections Division, about this odd happenstance.

Eyebrows are 'raised'. People are 'investigating'.

The last data we have is dated about 45 days ago.

According to reports from the Colorado Secretary of State, Election Division, registration for a 'ballot' cuts off at 28 days prior to the ballot.

So....

....my FIRST question is....

...."Why this disconnect on the eve of the caucus?"

....My SECOND question is.....

....who is so 'stupid', or 'worse' to try such a thing at this 'gate' in the general election cycle?

....My THIRD question is....

....how do we remove this 'cretin' from such a position?

Regards,

Chuck Pelto
Co-Chair, 6th Republican Precinct
Pueblo County Republican Party
Pueblo County, Colorado

Chuck Pelto · February 4, 2008 07:11 PM

TO: All
RE: capital L

""Explain to me why voting for McCain is a sound strategic decision."

Explain to me why letting Clinton or Obama have 4 years minimum at the helm is a sound strategic decision." -- capital L

Can I provide a BETTER example of evasion than THIS?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Half a truth is often a great lie. -- Benjamin Franklin]

Chuck Pelto · February 4, 2008 07:56 PM