Careful what you ask for...

[Larry Gude]

...you just might get it.

WashPost, I give you the partisan among partisans, EJ Dionne.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301461.html?nav=mb

For the lazy among you, the gist is that, as EJ understands it, W's dream is to keep the rightward national political alignment going. This requires a GOP President in '08. The key, goes the story, is a GOP President who supports the war on terror and the administrations goals in Iraq.

Now, set aside all the names we've been floating; Rice, Rudy, Arnie et al.

Here's what EJ hears: McCain/Bush, as in Jeb who said he isn't running for president. He didn't say anything about Veep.

The idea is that it is understood that McCain REALLY wants to be President and he can't do it as a Democrat and, therefore, must have the solid support of the outgoing CIC which he would get in in return for putting Jeb on the ticket.

McCain is gold on terror and Iraq. W's support and Jeb's assistance gets him through the hard right minefield of the GOP primary.

So, winning for both trumps any personal hostility.

Now, it is my suspicion that EJ is writing this because he is a Bush hater among Bush haters and anything that would presumably irk W is fine by EJ. This small minded pettiness is a defining characteristic of modern libs so, it's no stretch in thinking this is his motivation.

What it means is that EJ is fine with another Republican President. Whether EJ has thought about this or not, I don't know but I delight in the fact that he will rather likely get his wish and that he and his ilk will have done much to bring it about.

Consider:

People like Dionne (which is French for "Works for Karl Rove", btw) have written more pieces in support of McCain, either thinnly vielded or nearly outright endorsements, since the '00 primary than they have of any Democrats.

You know the line:

"Why, I'd go for McCain over W given a chance. He's such a great moderate!'.

"I only voted for Kerry because McCain wasn't running".

"In todays CNN anchor people poll, wherein we, the stars, tell you who we like, McCain beats President Bush, hands down, for 200 weeks in a row..."

"McCain would have beaten Gore, we think, handily had only the GOP not been so far right to exclude St. John..."

"EJ says W sucks and McCain is God."

Etc.

Now, of course they don't mean it. Those comments have been directed at the undecideds in an attempt to weaken and divide the GOP. People always point out the virtues of an opponents intra party antagonists to some degree or other knowing full well they would no sooner support Mr. X than the front runner in the general election.

The thing is the major media and punditry support of McCain has been very, very public and very, very extensive since 2000. John McCain will not need any new press to run his campaing. He need merely to run old Dionne columns and the like. CNN, Mathews, any number of scribes, ex DNC chairmen, the whole mess of people who sang the praises of McCain at every step, they can't undo the escess support. It's matter of record and you be damn sure McCain will point it out and be calling in chits every step of the way; he wants to win.

So, what of the GOP disfavor of McCain? Calls of 'RINO!"???

Wanna make a RINO look like an elephant? Stand it next to Hillary Clinton.

Or John Kerry.

Or any potential candidate from the Democratic party who will have to tote around Al Sharpton, Howard Dean and the like.

For every rightward person who refuses to vote for McCain, there's a moderate who will and a few Democrats who will along with the solid majority of Republicans who will grow find of Johnny Mac as November '08 draws near. At the end of the day, he IS a Republican and WILL be loaded up with all manner of GOP style personel and would likely coat tail larger majorities in both the House and Senate.

I had thought 2008 was gonna be a barn burner what with the possibility of a Rice/Hill cat fight. The only person I could see winning comfortably was Cheney who, like it or not, impresses people as a leader when they see him for himself in debates un-fogged by the images the left try to use agaisnt him.

So, if not Cheney, then the McCain mutiny. He'd win so big it wouldn't be funny.

Dionne would get his 'wish' and we'd have another Republican President. After all, we're more interested in winning than personal animus. That's what Democrats are for.

Thanks EJ!

 

[ylexot]

But who's going to vote for him in the primaries? I think he'd get called out on his RINO status pretty quickly.

 

[Tonio]

I liked McCain in 2000 because he seemed to have few ties to the religious right. In 2008 I'd like to see him run against a "DINO," preferably a candidate who believes that the Democrats' irrational Bush-bashing is wrong and unproductive. Unfortunately, right now I don't see any Democrats who would be likely DINOs. Bill Clinton claimed to be one in 1992, when he blew smoke about being "independent" of the Jesse Jackson-type activists who claim to speak for blacks. His criticism of Sistah Souljah seemed forced and staged.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think that I have a better chance of winning the nomination than McCain. The Left is so hungup on the religious people, they forget that contary to their beliefs the zealots have a very visibel presence in the party, but not a true majority one.

McCain is pro-abortion, which kills him with the zealots and a large segment of the moderates. He's also all for gun control, which is why I, and many other 1,000s of Republicans, would never vote for him. So, you take out the religious, abortion, and gun voters, and who's left? I also think McCain burned a lot of bridges by being behind this no-fillibuster boondoggle that gave the Democrats everything they wanted and left the Republicans with nothing they shouldn't have already had. Guys who can make deals like that aren't the kind of guys we want as President. If we wanted Democrat principles running the government, we would vote for a Democrat.

I'm planning on seeing President Rice being on TV in 2009.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think that I have a better chance of winning the nomination than McCain.

And THAT is the problem with all these predictions. Rice, McCain, whoever have to make it through the primaries first. You can't just say a McCain/Clinton brawl-for-it-all because he'll never make it through the primaries. Democrats may like him, but they don't vote in a Republican primary - Republicans do. And Republicans don't like McCain.

 

[Larry Gude]

Perhaps...

I'm planning on seeing President Rice being on TV in 2009.

...but in any event, light a dollar.

 

[Tonio]

the zealots have a very visibel presence in the party, but not a true majority one.

I think that's accurate for the most part. While the religious zealots are a minority in the GOP, they have enormous leverage because their fund-raising and communications efforts are extremely well-organized.

So, you take out the religious, abortion, and gun voters, and who's left?

Hopefully, people who believe in small government and low taxes.

 

[tomchamp]

To me John McCain is the Zell Miller of the GOP! Just thought I'd throw that in there!

 

[Tonio]

To me John McCain is the Zell Miller of the GOP! Just thought I'd throw that in there!

What would you think of a McCain-versus-Miller election?

 

[tomchamp]

Tonio!

I'm a registered repulican...and would vote for the dem..Miller on that one in a heart beet...besides he's Irish!(j/k) I do have alot of respect for JM..ever see the film about the fire on the USS Forrestal. The first plane hit by a zoony rocket from an F-4 was JM's (sitting in his A-4).
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv59-forrestal/forrestal-fire.html

 

[rraley]

McCain is pro-abortion, which kills him with the zealots and a large segment of the moderates. He's also all for gun control

Bru...absolutley wrong.

McCain is rated 0% by NARAL Pro-Choice America. His position on abortion rights is exactly the same as President Bush's stance: overturn Roe v. Wade but maintain rape and incest exceptions.

McCain, meanwhile, has a lifetime A rating from the NRA.

As for this RINO bs...John McCain has a lifetime 9% ADA rating. The average ADA rating of a Republican in the Senate is 20%. RINO...ah, riiiiight. Seeing Republicans call McCain a RINO makes me understand that the Democratic Party is not the only place where those who are not perceived as ideologically pure are outcasted. Big tent...gotcha.

I would vote for John McCain because he's a great American, principled, and he works to bridge the partisan divide. He does things because they are good for America, not because they are good for his party. He wants to be president to serve America, not to create a political realignment. He would have my vote, but there is no way he would make it through the GOP primaries.

 

[soul4sale]

Now, set aside all the names we've been floating; Rice, Rudy, Arnie et al.

Anybody else here read the Constitution? No? OK, check out the part about presidential candidates and then lookup Arnie's bio. Or just skip all that and check out his poll numbers...

People like Dionne (which is French for "Works for Karl Rove", btw) have written more pieces in support of McCain, either thinnly vielded or nearly outright endorsements, since the '00 primary than they have of any Democrats.

See, you get so close to making a point, and then it all goes sideways. Are you alleging a vast right wing or left wing conspiracy? I realize that once the money gets flowing, it's hard to tell. Still, all this cloak 'n' dagger seems a tad complicated for the likes of the DNC, GOP or even EJ Frenchie. Too subtle and complex to be hamfistedly on message.

The only person I could see winning comfortably was Cheney who, like it or not, impresses people as a leader when they see him for himself in debates un-fogged by the images the left try to use agaisnt him.

Impresses what kind of people? Vampires? The man has zero personality, a bad ticker and a millstone imprinted with a big "H" around his neck. Fugettaboutit.

Hulk Hogan '08, baby. I'll bet the 401K on it.

 

[Bruzilla]

Bru...absolutley wrong.

McCain is rated 0% by NARAL Pro-Choice America. His position on abortion rights is exactly the same as President Bush's stance: overturn Roe v. Wade but maintain rape and incest exceptions.

McCain, meanwhile, has a lifetime A rating from the NRA.

As for this RINO bs...John McCain has a lifetime 9% ADA rating. The average ADA rating of a Republican in the Senate is 20%. RINO...ah, riiiiight. Seeing Republicans call McCain a RINO makes me understand that the Democratic Party is not the only place where those who are not perceived as ideologically pure are outcasted. Big tent...gotcha.

I would vote for John McCain because he's a great American, principled, and he works to bridge the partisan divide. He does things because they are good for America, not because they are good for his party. He wants to be president to serve America, not to create a political realignment. He would have my vote, but there is no way he would make it through the GOP primaries.

rr, let me give you a bit of forbidden insight into Republicans (you might want to write this down and share it amongst your fellow Democrats... it might save you'all from embarassing yourselves so often.)

1. We don't care about anything that NARAL says, writes, or does. His position is not the same as Bush's because we know that Bush doesn't change his position to make others happy, McCain does.
2. We've been sold out by politicans so many times that we don't care about what a pol has said or done. What we look at is what they might do in the future. For example, while McCain has voted for gun owners, he has also said that he's open to more gun control laws and restrictions.
3. There has been a major rift in the NRA since 1984, when the leadership went against the rank and file, and decided not to oppose the May 85 NFA, which resulted in the banning of selective-fire weapons and set the precedent for the AWB. So the NRA can rate a pol any way they want to, but gun owners still vote based on what they think the pol will do in the future.
4. I think a lot of Republicans know that McCain really, REALLY, wants to be President, and a man like that is more likely to be a sell out than someone who runs, but runs reluctantly. I think that a lot of the stuff that McCain does that gets him labled as a RINO are stunts designed to get him publicity. He makes all kinds of noise about having second thoughts, changes of heart, doubts, etc., about things so that he can get his mug on TV, then he goes ahead and votes with the Republicans because he doesn't want to lose voters. Many of us see through that crap, and couldn't care less if Ronald Reagan came back from the dead and announced his support for McCain... we wouldn't vote for him. I just wrote a post about the importance of dependability in the Democratic Agenda string, and I think that same sentiment applies here.
5. I also think we know that everything McCain does is for himself, not for the Republicans and not for Americans. He's working to bridge the partisan divide right now because it makes people like you feel the way that you do. Have you noticed how low he's keeping his profile since the fillibuster debacle? He thought he was going to look great and was all over the news, but once the Dems went back on their word and started talking fillibuster again, McCain is suddenly unreachable by his office.

There were a lot of guys on the "Forest Fire" who did courageous and dangerous things, and Vietnam POWs, but they would have no business being President.

 

[Tonio]

3. There has been a major rift in the NRA since 1984, when the leadership went against the rank and file, and decided not to oppose the May 85 NFA, which resulted in the banning of selective-fire weapons and set the precedent for the AWB. So the NRA can rate a pol any way they want to, but gun owners still vote based on what they think the pol will do in the future.

I don't know much about the NRA, but I've read accusations that the NRA leadership is bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers, whose interests many not always coincide with those of gun owners. Is this accurate? The 1984 rift sounds like the leadership sold out the rank and file to appease not just politicians, but manufacturers scared of bad press.

 

[Tonio]

Vrai has said a few times that McCain is liked mostly by the media. What do you think of this guy's theory?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/10/DI2005061001520.html

Marc Fisher:You're right that the outsider candidates, such as McCain, Schwarzenegger, Ventura, Weicker and now Potts, tend to be media darlings. That happens in good part because the stuff they talk about tends to track the issues in regular folks' lives far better than do the phony issues that the two major parties devote much of their time to. And the primary system is stacked against the interests of the vast middle swath of Americans who either don't vote or don't follow party politics. The country is far more moderate than our polarized political debate would lead you to believe, and these outsider candidates are among the few who speak to that vast middle. Their big problem is that those folks tend not to vote, and certainly not in primaries.

 

[vraiblonde]

That happens in good part because the stuff they talk about tends to track the issues in regular folks' lives far better than do the phony issues that the two major parties devote much of their time to.

Yeah because, let me tell ya, Americans are just losing sleep over campaign finance reform.



I think this guy is FOS. Moderates obviously vote. Marc Fisher is just trying to pretend that George Bush is some frothing radical right-winger who only won because of frothing right-wing religious zealots (defined by liberals as "anyone who believes in God and voted for George Bush").

 

[Bruzilla]

The 1985 NFA was based on the conclusion that banning the manufacture and importation of selective-fire/automatic firearms (machine guns to use the popular term) would have a minimal impact on anyone because very few shooters wanted them and there were plenty already in circulation to meet demand. This was an argument that was agreed to by many in the NRA, but the issue was that this would be the first time that the anti-gun lobby had tried to ban firearms by categorizing them. For years they had tried to ban guns, rifles, handguns, etc., to no avail. Now they were giving up on attempting sweeping bans and instead trying to segment firearms into categories and ban them that way.

The NRA leadership wanted to appear to be reasonable, bi-partisan, open, etc., and went for the politicaly friendly option rather than what the membership wanted, which was to resist any attempts to ban any firearms. We knew once that door was opened it would be very difficult to close. The NFA passed, and after being told in 1984 not to worry about our semi-auto rifles because the ONLY guns getting banned were selective-fire and automatics, we lost our semi-autos in 1994. Classic divide and conquer move. Then in 1994 we were told not to worry about our other guns because the government only wanted to ban semi-autos... where had we heard that before.

 

[Bruzilla]

Here's another example of why McCain will never get the vote. The Democrats are making all this racket about how mean were being to terrorists at Gitmo, obviously in order to make Bush look bad... despite the fact that I think most Americans wouldn't care if you skinned those MF'ers alive. And here comes John McCain. Rather than state the obvious, which is that these guys are not POWs, they are not due the rights of POWs, and they shouldn't be granted the rights of Americans, he instead once again tries to ingratiate himself with the Democrats and the peace activists by saying he thinks that these guys should be treated as ordinary criminals and given trials.

McCain stands for nothing!

 

[Larry Gude]

soul4sale...

Anybody else here read the Constitution? No? OK, check out the part about presidential candidates and then lookup Arnie's bio

It would appear you missed the current events surrounding Arnie. It's been discussed as a matter of common knowledge what would be required for Arnie to run for Prez. Or so I thought. If you don't keep current, you'll continue to struggle around here and sound like you just woke from a long nap.

See, you get so close to making a point, and then it all goes sideways. Are you alleging a vast right wing or left wing conspiracy?

Of course, conversely, perhaps you came close to getting the point? Dionnes column helps the GOP. His motivation is his own. Working for Karl Rove is simply an easier way to understand the motivation of Howard Dean, EJ Dionne and others who consistently make the case against the Democratic party on whatever issue, seemingly of their own free will. I'll leave the conspiracies to you.


As far as Cheney goes, I would have to assume by your poor performance thus far that you missed the Cheney/Edwards debate as well. He took the rising star apart. If you don't like him and prefer more 'personality' like, say, the electric John Kerry or the one man frat party, Bill Clinton, duly noted.

So, seeings how the Hulkster is not, at present, running, can I put you down for McCain...or did I miss something?

 

[Larry Gude]

Bruz...

...I hear another dollar calling. Double or nothing? (yes, I am starting to count that Hillary buck.)

If the schedule isn't changed, McCain, assuming he runs, will win Iowa and New Hampshire, big. Do we agree?

If so, it's on to South Carolina before any religious or hard right effect is felt.
If McCain DID perform well in Iowa/NH, the spin will be that he doesn't lose too big in SC and that, however bad he loses, it's better than expected and thus a win.

W was THE chosen one in 2000 and it took until SC for that to begin to tell. McCain will likely start '08 as the favorite.

Also, while SC is going on, so is Virginia and Arizona and Missouri with Michigan a week later. It could be over by then in favor of John. If not, Super Tuesday is no haven for the religious right.

Right now, the only one who is going to beat him is Cheney. If Cheney runs, he's my guy. Rice his Veep.