![]()
Is Newsweek's February 18 cover story about conservative hatred for Republican presidential candidate John McCain a preview of how the mainstream media will attack the Arizona senator if he wins the nomination?
Before you answer, consider first the cover pictured to the right, with an obviously concerned McCain looking up at top conservative personalities amid the headline, "There Will Be Blood."
Not too subtle, is it?
Neither was the content of the article (emphasis added throughout):
As McCain draws closer to the GOP nomination, many leaders of the conservative movement have gone into convulsions. The biggest headline-grabber was [Ann] Coulter, who, true to form, seemed to set a new low for immoderation. But that didn't stop a slew of other prominent hard-right pundits, most on talk radio, from trying to outrant her. Rush Limbaugh, the most popular right-wing radio host, had been railing against McCain for years, and now declared that if he were nominated, "it's going to destroy the Republican Party." "He's just a lousy senator and a terrible Republican," said Hugh Hewitt, another syndicated talk-show host. "His votes the past seven to 10 years have been on the wrong side of the issues." The revolt went beyond talk radio's political shock jocks. James Dobson, one of the nation's most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, declared he could not "in good conscience" vote for McCain and endorsed Mike Huckabee-the first time Dobson had ever taken sides in a GOP primary.
Newsweek seemed to revel in the right's restlessness:
Other right-wing pundits counterattacked in what has become a case of a party's base bringing chaos out of order. Bill Bennett, the onetime drug czar and conservative Washington pundit who now has his own show, asked his fellow radio hosts to tone things down. "Who is he to say that?" retorted one of them, Michael Savage, who sometimes rivals Coulter in controversy. "He's got a minuscule audience and no credibility. If he wants to start some internecine war, then here we go: he's a blowhard." The uncivil war also pulled in some stalwarts of the GOP "base," such as Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "Rush is even ranting against me," Land tells NEWSWEEK. "I had the temerity to challenge the Great One in his all-knowing wisdom. Rush is underestimating the ability of Hillary or [Barack] Obama to unite conservatives around McCain. Rush says on air, 'Dr. Land, I'll tell you, I talk to 20 million people a day.' No he doesn't. He talks at 20 million people a day."
Then, Newsweek made it clear how serious an issue this is for McCain:
As the country learned anew in 2000 and 2004, every vote counts-especially every vote in states (like Ohio) where the margin of victory in a general election is likely to be narrow. If even a handful of conservatives were to follow the Limbaugh-Coulter line and stay home, it could make a real difference.
Although this might end up being true, is Newsweek trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Think about it: although mainstream media outlets are much friendlier towards McCain than most Republicans, they certainly won't be trying to assist his efforts if he does indeed win the GOP nomination.
Their pony in this race will certainly be a donkey.
So, maybe the strategy will be to continually point out how conservatives hate McCain, while stoking such sentiments, so as to limit conservative turnout on Election Day:
Now McCain is "unwilling to bow and kiss the ring" of his antagonists, says one adviser, who didn't want to be named fanning any flames. (Regarding Coulter, another top McCain aide snorts-anonymously, for the same reason-"I don't care what she thinks.") Do their diatribes bother McCain? "I don't listen to them ... I've never even met them," McCain says. "I don't even listen to Rush ... I'm not a masochist." Asked if it wouldn't make his life simpler to call Dobson and seek common ground, McCain shrugs. "I know what it takes to unite the party," he says. He needs to put that knowledge into action, and fairly soon. It seems possible that the conservative movement-the dominant force in American politics since the Reagan Revolution-has become so dogmatic that it might choose purity over victory.
Is this Newsweek's modus operandi? Will this be media's strategy if McCain ends up being the GOP nominee?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Probably... but who cares?
February 10, 2008 - 12:19 ET by heldmywIf you hadn't kindly pointed it out, I never would have known about this.
Print is so far off my radar, I don't usually give internet stories about the dead-tree MSM the time of day.
With the death of the NY and LA Times, the rest of the wannabe papers out there are not worth the trees they cut down. Even the few that have internet access are no more credible for it.
As for magazines, they've become such a ridiculous spectacle... The Britney Spears of information dissemination. But without the class.
They just don't understand that their words can be and are being checked by millions. Some for fun, some as a hobby, some to help get the truth out.
Let the print boobs carry on and watch their ratings collapse. I would no more lend credence to their chicanery than I would believe anything that comes from CBS.
Meacham Need Help
February 10, 2008 - 13:43 ET by allanfYour comments mesh nicely with Matthew Sheffields post today on Newsweek editor Jon Meacham. Time and Newsweek are on the fast track to obliteration.
Both publications provide absolutely no insight into the news and seem more like left wing polemics.
This is the modus operandi of the MSM
February 10, 2008 - 12:26 ET by c5thenTry and annoint the "conservative" candidate and then villify the conservatives who refuse to support the pretender. The real story is why do so many conservative pundits and commentors dislike McCain? But ofcourse that would inform and energize the conservative base, and the MSM can't have THAT.
The only way McCain can "unite" the GOP is to unite his supporters with the democratic party moderates and form a new party.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Circulation
February 10, 2008 - 12:28 ET by CaringwhiteguyNoel
What are the current circulation numbers for Newsweek and what have they been the last several years?
CWG
February 10, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Noel SheppardCWG,
I'm heading out to my daughter's soccer game. This is the best I can find so quickly: http://www.stateofth...
ns
Seems the age of the readers
February 10, 2008 - 15:10 ET by NortoSeems the age of the readers goes up as readership declines.
Could it be that more of us older geeks are in doctor's offices more often? The graph did say "readers" and not "subscribers."
Thanks for the link.
The dems seem to be on
February 10, 2008 - 12:28 ET by MidAmericaThe dems seem to be on track to alienate much of their base also so maybe it all evens out.
MSM
February 10, 2008 - 12:40 ET by iveseenitallThis has been the all-too-obvious MSM plan from the beginning. Dump the conservatives by praising the moderate to left Republican. Then, in the general election, use that "split" to elect the liberal. It has worked very well so far. The RINOs fell for it --hook,line, and sinker. But blame the RINOs as much as you blame the media. They closed their eyes and ears, especially on immigratiion and spending. Now the country is about to suffer-big time- with election of Hillary or B.O. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Now McCain is "unwilling to
February 10, 2008 - 12:34 ET by motherbeltNow McCain is "unwilling to bow and kiss the ring" of his antagonists, says one adviser, who didn't want to be named fanning any flames
Well, I agree with Rush....it's McCain who caused the rift in the party; he's the one that has to repair it. But I think McCain is too egotistical; he thinks it is now their duty to shut up and kiss his ring.
It seems possible that the conservative movement-the dominant force
in American politics since the Reagan Revolution-has become so dogmatic
that it might choose purity over victory.
And with the help of the MSM, conservatives, not McCain himself, will be blamed for his defeat.
righteous, dude
February 10, 2008 - 13:44 ET by TruthMongersticking to principle is victory:)
worked for Jesus anyway
go ahead and nail us to the cross, Newsatan
"bring it on:)"
Reality anyone?
February 10, 2008 - 12:35 ET by pocomocoNow that McCain appears to be the Republican nominee, the deconstruction of McCain by the MSM has begun.
Having ignored his record for years, the MSM are now publishing a list of his liberal votes with the intent of informing conservatives that he is not one of them.
The, so-called, love affair the MSM has had with McCain and his ‘straight-talk-express’ has been nothing but a sham all along. While he was having tea and crumpets with the MSM all these years, behind his backs they’ve been honing their long-knives.
One wonders, then, if McCain was naïve in thinking he had friends in the press. If he did, the run-up to the presidency will certainly show how wrong he was.
This bunch is right on cue!
February 10, 2008 - 12:36 ET by Gary P JacksonThis bunch is right on cue! He doesn't even have the nomination officially in his pocket, and the fawning media has started to turn.
McCain says he knows what it takes to unite the party. He needs to get that effort in gear if he wants to accomplish this!
Yup get used to this
February 10, 2008 - 12:40 ET by taterYup get used to this McCain...you are going to have 9 months of knives being stabbed in your back from the MSM.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
McCain/Clinton
February 10, 2008 - 12:46 ET by iveseenitallThe best chance for McCain is to wait for the Dims to nominate B.O.and then get Hillary to go with him as V.P. McCain/Clinton '08!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Nothin personal
February 10, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Shooter1002All I can say then is we should try to get him to pick a conservative VP. He may do so thinking it'll shut us up, get our votes in November and 'heal' the rift in the party. He can then just treat his choice as JFK treated LBJ. Whatever happened to JFK anyway????
Then we can hope.....ASAP
Nothin personal, its just politics.
The state of the
February 10, 2008 - 12:59 ET by MidAmericaThe state of the Republican Party and of conservatives sorry state is not just due to actions by the msm. We have allowed the conservative movement to just atrophy to an armchair discussion society. Where are our leaders? And I mean actual foot soldier leaders not the talkers of the faith. Where's our bellowing Ted Kennedy with a lifetime of service? We have allowed the 'New Tone' to take away our voice. We have allowed 'scandals' real and perceived to remove leaders that dems never have to answer for. Now with retirements and defeats we have become a 'name' and not a force. The public will not support weakness and will not rally behind a cause that will not fight for what it believes. By 'fight' I do not mean merely to 'articulate' a position but to do whatever it takes to win. Politics is war by another means.
Step right up!
February 10, 2008 - 13:09 ET by Dan LaHoodLet's face it with a polarized electorate it's easy to move rabid fans from Positions and Candidates to Hot Dogs and Mattresses. I don't really think you can call yourself a conservative or a conservatives conservative unless you've bought all Lauras "shut up books" or Marks "Saving Fido" Book or Sean's "Books" or Rush's Adjustable Sleep System. That makes me a moderate I guess.
That's right folks... gather 'round =D
February 11, 2008 - 12:25 ET by BritcomFlimFlam Man: "This game is called Three Candidate Monte'... here we go! The way this works is I keep moving the candidates positions from right to left and back again. Your job is to stop me at any point and place your finger on the conservative."
Voter: "Ok.... uhmmm... That one!"
FlimFlam Man: "Are you sure?"
Voter: "Yes. That's the one!"
FlimFlam Man: Ok... (turns the card over)
Crowd: "Awwwww!"
FlimFlam Man: "Sorry, you chose John McCain... Better luck next time."
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
McAmnesty knows exactly
February 10, 2008 - 13:15 ET by ConservativeRexMcAmnesty knows exactly what the print media is doing. Hell, I'll bet he's encouraging it. What better way to create a scapegoat when he loses. "It's Conservatives fault, they didn't unite behind me..blah, blah, blah"
So what! As far as I'm concerned Newsweek, et al, are doing the work Juan can't/won't do. He's using them just as surely as Ed Kennedy does. To all you McCain supporters, it's fairly simple, and boils down to this: if Juan's previous votes in the Senate had been ..more REPUBLICAN, much less Conservative, he would have no trouble with his Conservative base, as it is he shouldn't have any trouble with the RINOS (and you know who you are; Lindsey Graham) and nominal Dems. But it's absolutely laughable to think he carries the mantel for President Reagan. Man up Juan, own up to your votes, admit they were wrong, THEN we can move on.
Isn't it true Noel?
February 10, 2008 - 13:22 ET by shawn228everything they said about McCain and many hard core conservativs are true. If taking some members from this site is a indication of a small poll sample, then he does not have the support of many conservatives.
I see no attacks toward McCain yet.
Nobody messes with Superman
I'm assuming this is one of
February 10, 2008 - 14:31 ET by balboaI'm assuming this is one of those stories placed here because they're not expecting a similar-type story about the division between Obama and HRC supporters.
Otherwise, there's no point, because Newsweek's story sounds like an accurate portrayal of what's going on on the right.
Shawn and Balboa
February 10, 2008 - 14:42 ET by Noel SheppardGents,
Good morning. "There Will Be Blood?"
Think that's true, or that there already HAS been blood?
Granted, the headline is also a very popular movie currently at the theaters. However, this concept is potentially behind the curve. As I type this, I'm watching the panel discussion on today's "This Week," and there are George Will and Byron York both saying -- much as I've been since Romney dropped out -- that conservatives will come home and back McCain.
So, the blood has already been spilled. The story now, in my view, is more about how McCain brings the Party together in the months to come just in time to beat back Billary/Barack.
However, that's NOT how Newsweek and the MSM are going to want to frame this, for they WANT MORE CONSERVATIVE BLOOD! That's my point. Make sense? ns
Sure, that makes sense. But
February 10, 2008 - 15:14 ET by balboaSure, that makes sense. But I haven't seen any evidence of this "coming home" yet, so Newsweek's cover, while over-the-top, is still relevant.
B
February 10, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Noel SheppardB,
You haven't seen any evidence? Byron York of NRO and George Will? Did you see what Tom Davis (R-Va) said on "This Week" this morning? Or what Tom DeLay said on the same show? ns
Well I guess I'm 4 hours
February 10, 2008 - 15:29 ET by balboaWell I guess I'm 4 hours behind the curve. But Newsweek's cover had no way of knowing what would happen this morning.
B
February 10, 2008 - 15:35 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Hmmm. I think I said in my first response to you that this article was behind the curve. :-)
Now, it's not just about what was on the morning shows. After all, Newsweek could have interviewed the same people that were on these programs, correct?
Instead, in my view, they reported OLD NEWS about what happened Tuesday thru Thursday of last week, and ignored what's to come.
Once again, the headline was "There Will Be Blood," not "There WAS Blood!" If they wanted to report what happened last week, they shouldn't have prognosticated as they did. ns
Noel
February 10, 2008 - 19:52 ET by shawn228If Joe Lieberman got the Democratic nomination, I would not be surprised in the least if Newsweek said "there would be blood"
Nobody messes with Superman
I would. They don't
February 10, 2008 - 20:36 ET by motherbeltI would. They don't describe Democrats that way. A couple of weeks ago, CBS news describes the Republican race as a "bitter feud" while calling the Clinton-Obama matchup a "popularity contest."
come on motherbelt
February 10, 2008 - 20:43 ET by shawn228Please don't tell me you don't remember the Press making a huge deal about her husbands race baiting and talking about how nasty it as getting between them before their laste debate.
Everything the press says about many hard core conservatives not liking McCain is true. How many people from this site alone are not going to vote for Presidential nominee or voting third party this year.
If the Dem pick was as controversial as McCain it would be treated with the same amount of press.
Nobody messes with Superman
Shawn - one major flaw in your theory - the Dem pick would
February 11, 2008 - 00:46 ET by Dee Bunknever be as controversial because the candidate wouldn't be propelled to victory by them. Lieberman would never get picked. Zell Miller would never get picked. Are there even any other Dems that don't tow the party line like those two?
Hillary is controversial - People like Michael Moore and others left wing kooks have spoken out against her. If she gets picked (she won't) there won't be a cover. They are in the tank for the non controversial candidate not the controversial one on the Dem side.
Whats good for the Goose Dee
February 11, 2008 - 01:54 ET by shawn228Dee. Many people even said in their wildest dreams they could not have imagined John McCain would be the nominee. I actually agree with them. McCain can lean kind of left and I cannot figure out if he is against abortion or not.
Also I do not find my theory flawed because regardless if it happens or not, Leiberman or Schwarzenegger "yes I know he is not a citizen" getting the nomination is at direct comparision to McCain getting the nomination. This is not media bias, the msm would be just as tough abouth the infighting about how liberal their candidate should be.
Nobody messes with Superman
It's easy to say that Shawn - like I said it will never happen
February 11, 2008 - 08:57 ET by Dee BunkThe only thing we can know for sure is what they have done, not what they might do. There have been numerous favorable covers for democrats and zero favorable ones for Republicans
Maybe I missed the stuff from the left
February 10, 2008 - 17:21 ET by exLibMaybe I missed the Newsweek and Time cover stories about how angry Moveon.org members were pushing Joe Lieberman out of the Democrat Party. Or, after the 2006 mid-terms moveon.orgs leader said "we bought it, we own it". And how Hillary and Obama continue to court their votes and/or anger them when THEY don't toe the line.
Do not support the
February 10, 2008 - 13:42 ET by nythatesusaDo not support the Manhattan Left. If you are a conservative, but continue to purchase or watch the propaganda they put out, you are part of the problem.
American Media: Doesn't this[insert example] make us as bad as the terrorists?
I agree Noel, this is all
February 10, 2008 - 14:00 ET by dscottI agree Noel, this is all apart of the MSM strategy to exploit the fault line between McCain and the conservatives. It's up to McCain to decide if he needs conservatives to win, if McCain decides he needs us, he knows that the ball is in his court to come to us. In the meantime our job is to go after the MSM and continue our successful efforts at unmasking them for their bias. What Newsweek did here is openly admit to their choice of political parties. Their efforts won't go unnoticed or unrewarded. What goes around, comes around in falling ratings for their being a propaganda outlet instead of a news outlet. There is a difference between propaganda and news, one tells only one side of the story to push an agenda, the other tells all sides of the story to inform, the public knows the difference.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
There will be revolution and economic collapse..
February 10, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Gary HallNow, if Newsweek were to be fair, they'd adorn the next cover with that headline over a picture of Obama awash in new spending "$'s" and new "Taxes," with a river of youngsters marching in their red uniforms towards the din of the people's new society of everyone being equally provided for by the government.
Newsweek's goin' down
February 10, 2008 - 14:36 ET by rammingspeedAs they've lost credibility and influence, entities like Newsweek have needed to be more dramatic with their negativity (hatred) against conservatives, and anyone who is generally on the right. This is a super-strong, one-sided story that is meant to demoralize those with whom Newsweek disagrees, not to inform the citizenry at large. Newsweek, Time Magazine, et al, have turned into hack propaganda machines, which means they've hastened their own demise.
IMO
February 10, 2008 - 14:37 ET by DEVILDOCMOMThis should have billary and bo...THAT's where the blood will be and the old media wants to ignore that fact.
No this is not the media strategy nor the DNC
February 10, 2008 - 14:46 ET by Lame CherryI outlined here last night what the media will hit McCain on if he is nominated and it will be he is crazy and angry. If you look at the picture of McCain, Newsweek chose a photo of him looking like Dr. Strangecain plotting his Nixonian vengeance upon the halo of Christian idiots who are a chorus of loons.
That is how the MSM will play it.
The thing that does tick me off though is the shortsightedness of editors at Newsbusters who think just because McCain wins that Conservatives have to come on board like bought slaves.
Kathleen McKinley in her web blog made the very liberal sounding statement that "Conservatives never compromise".
I replied that Conservatives will COMPROMISE by voting for John McCAIN the minute he COMPROMISES and nominates Lynn Cheney as Vice President, promises Fred Thompson as Sec. of State and John Lehman as Sec. of War.
This pro McCain crowd or those who think just because he won he gets to dictate is bogus. America does not coronate kings. America gets foisted upon it globalists who we are supposed to give blank checks to. We gave a check to George Bush and it was a mistake for unity........IF IT WAS NOT FOR CONSERVATIVES BATTLING HARRIET MIERS WOULD BE ON THE COURT with her pro sodomite views and not Sam Alito.
So before the panic sets in that we have to all lock march step with a liberal John McCain, maybe MAYBE it is time to step back and let the big boys and girls as they have always done dictate policy to the GOP nominee so he learns that he is not leading Americans, but going in the direction Americans are going already.
The only thing which saved George Bush was Conservatives and his numbers tanked when he told us to go away last year. The only thing which will save John McCain is Conservatives.
Conservatives right now are telling him to start acting like a President in making wise choices that will defuse the angry and loon stories just poised for McCain.
John McCain tells Conservatives he will nominate Lynn Cheney as VP ends Mike Huckabee over night.
Conservatives are the anchor for McCain and are attempting to teach him how to save him from himself. Pretty simple plan........so if the Amen crowd just keeps their shorts on and let the Pattons direct this battle it will all turn out fine.
Your way and the GOP looses in landslide including Congress come November as if you are running scared now thinking McCain is Lord God handing down mandates from the Mount.........you have set the stage of allowing an angry and reactionary John McCain to be sent out with no cover into the general election where he will meltdown. He did it before and will do it again.
John McCain was told by all Conservatives in elections last night that we do not like you, trust you nor will vote for you. John McCain needs to figure this out. I told him here to nominate Lynn Cheney. It ends his problems, gets Conservatives on board and blows a hole in the DNC chica black thing they got going on.
I don't tell sodomites to go catch aids out of love and I do tell John McCain out of love here how to save himself. I lived in that wilderness of Conservatives being ridiculed all of my early life while most of the people attached to McCain only remember the glory of Ronald Reagan. I will gladly return to the wilderness to get the correct candidate again as John McCain has that patrician globalist Nixon Bush thing going on which only leads to economic ruin and abandonment of American position for "power".
The Conservatives have been in this battle before and we are not in a panic, because our leader is God and our secular commandment is the US Constitution. They always win as they are always right.
Doesn't matter right or left, they need us and when things go horrid from inept policy they always come back to us to dig the nation out.
Conservatives did not create this mess and we are not going to clean it up. I personally have informed McCain how to clean it up and outlined it here. If others have a better candidate than Lynn Cheney.......put them up, but do not tell Conservatives we have to take a liberal McCain or accept W saying McCain is Conservative as W wouldn't know a Conservative if bumped into one as he bumped into Reagan and didn't recognize him either.
John McCain is a Nixon liberal who will lead the nation into war, global alliances and econmic ruin. George Bush is a Cuban Republican who led the nation into war and economic ruin.
America needs a Conservative and the only person with a rolling pin who can handle John McCain is Lynn Cheney...........she did ok with Dick now didn't she.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I don't know much about
February 10, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Conservative VoiceI don't know much about Lynn, but I would get a kick out of Dick running.
They are pointing out the obvious...
February 10, 2008 - 14:47 ET by Britcomthat McCain is a opossum in the middle of the road and will get run over in the general election but they would be happy to see the watchdogs on the right drag him under the porch.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
I saw and heard about this
February 10, 2008 - 15:24 ET by bigtimerI saw and heard about this cover this morning on the sunday talking head shows...I cracked up laughing...so typical of them, nothing new, didn't and don't ever expect any different from them.
Personally, I don't care what type of cram down my throat tripe from any side of the aisle in the msm of any venue attempt to do regarding McCain, I will not pull the lever for him with one exception, he names a real conservative as VP.
The people that McCain is looking upward to on the cover are right as far as I am concerned....could care less how the article puts it, not many people read this BS anyway.
Just my rant.
bt, I'm not trying to gin up
February 10, 2008 - 16:14 ET by motherbeltbt, I'm not trying to gin up an argument; I am really curious: Why would his choice of VP change your mind? I always think of a VP as a vote-getter, not a policy type. Do you think a true conservative VP would change McCain's policies or behavior in any way?
mb... In aswer to your
February 10, 2008 - 16:18 ET by Clear thinkermb...
In aswer to your question.... No!
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
Hi mb... No, McCain will
February 10, 2008 - 16:26 ET by bigtimerHi mb...
No, McCain will do as he pleases once he gets in...period.... in my opinion anyway.
The reason I say that is the next VP may have a lot to do with who we may want to vote for next election cycle, plus have an effect in congress with upcoming votes ect...plus McCain's age to an extent.
If we get someone conservative in the number two spot we have something to look forward to and work with hopefully, plus defeat the dems and be an incentive to get people out to vote, just with that alone.
Hope I am explaining myself here...I'm in the middle of making grilled cheese sandwhiches...lol!
motherbelt
February 10, 2008 - 16:27 ET bynaming a true conservative VP would reveal McCains understanding that he needs conservatives on his side and might (maybe) take that into consideration if he attains office.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
The one I really agree with
February 10, 2008 - 16:39 ET by motherbeltThe one I really agree with is Blonde's age one...at his age, McCain might not want, or be able to do, a second term if elected. I had actually thought of that another time, (Oh, yeah! she said) but it went right out of my head....LOL...that old CRS kicking in.
While I don't really agree with the getting out the vote thing..it wouldn't work for me if I were dead-set against someone, but I don't speak for everyone, and for some it might make a difference, so it would be worth a try.
McCain knows he needs
February 10, 2008 - 19:50 ET by ConservativeRexMcCain knows he needs Conservatives NOW. Hell, he knew it when he was casting votes along the lines of Ed Kennedy too! It doesn't look like he cared much at the time did it?
VP Choice for McCain
February 10, 2008 - 17:24 ET by Conservative VoiceI might soften my anger if he picks a conservative candidate. But I think it needs to not be a current politician, retired maybe. We need as many conservatives currently in office as possible.
I wouldn't want to wish the vp slot on any conservative though, because if McCain loses, their political career could be sucked down with it. If McCain wins, he / she may have their reputation tainted from the McCain administration.
I hope he doesn't pick Fred, because it will look like Fred was aiming for that from the beginning, it will look bad for Fred. Nor do I hope its Romney, because I think it will hurt Romney's chances in 2012.
Unfortunately, because it seems America is more concerned with symbolism over substance, his best chance of winning is picking a non-white female, other than Condi, because she has been tainted by Bush. But maybe we will be lucky and he will pick Arlen Spector, so that he can be removed from the Senate.
CV
February 10, 2008 - 17:34 ET by bigtimerCV...
But maybe we will be lucky and he will pick Arlen Spector, so that he can be removed from the Senate.
ROFL...we couldn't be so lucky!
Bigtimer, now that is
February 10, 2008 - 19:52 ET by ConservativeRexBigtimer, now that is funny!! And it would look good for him to have a woman running as his VP as well!
The MSM likes him now...
February 10, 2008 - 15:50 ET by Iowa Boy...but if Sen McCain thinks he'll be getting any favorable press from the MSM after the convention, he's as deluded as I believe him to be. They will suddenly forget that he's a "maverick" and treak him like they treat any Republican...with contempt and loathing.
Writing in Romney in '08
"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
I love when Zogby says, "More of us are moderate"
February 10, 2008 - 15:51 ET by DelsaI love when Zogby says, "More of us are moderate". Who is "US"?
Zogby is attempting to portray himself as "moderate"? Who is he attempting to fool?
I am glad I do not spend money on Time Ragazine
Eventually, the media will
February 10, 2008 - 15:54 ET by usinkoreaEventually, the media will realize that by praising McCain as a moderate and centrist who is bedeviled by the evil neocon satans, they are making it more likely middle-of-the-road voters will vote for him rather than a Hillary they don't like or an Obama who they don't really know.
The media might be banking on the idea that McCain will fracture the Republican party and cause so many Republicans not to vote and thus help the Democrats win.......but they can't be that delusional, can they?
No. They will eventually realize that the Republicans will vote to keep Hillary or Obama out of the White House, and they will thus have to go after McCain with the kind of blood-lust Newsweek sees among the neocon Hitlers right now....
It's kind of pathetic....
Those people characterized
February 10, 2008 - 17:38 ET by nythatesusaThose people characterized as "neo-cons" are the biggest McCain supporters.
The pro-abortion Left is
February 10, 2008 - 21:16 ET by lotrThe pro-abortion Left is already on it...
NARAL Gives John McCain 96% Pro-Life Voting Record on Abortion Issues
(emphasis mine)
lotr
February 10, 2008 - 21:20 ET by Noel Sheppardlotr,
96% pro-Life voting record. No wonder the conservatives hate him! :-) ns
Noel
February 10, 2008 - 21:43 ET byAs you know there are other reasons that McCain is not embraced.
He has a pro-life record but his stance on embrionic stem cells is questionable.
Are you giving us reasons to vote for John? I for one would be overjoyed to be be persuaded that
SCOTUS,
Borders(McC-Kennedy),
Speech(McC-Feingold),
Security(Gitmo) and
Economy(ANWR)
are safe in McCains leadership
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
While his position on
February 10, 2008 - 22:28 ET by lotrWhile his position on embryonic stem cells may not be perfect (he did, afterall, "only" score 96%, as opposed to 100%...), his overall pro-life record light-years ahead of Hillary and Barack "let-the-abortus-die-on-the-table" Obama. But don't take my word for it -- just consult with those who stake their livelihood on abortion-on-demand (e.g., NARAL).
McCain gets 66%
February 10, 2008 - 22:34 ET byper the National Right to Life Committee
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
b
February 10, 2008 - 23:21 ET by Noel Sheppardb,
OK. But isn't that STILL better than Hillary and Barack's zero? ns
sointantly Noel
February 10, 2008 - 23:39 ET bybut what of the other issues?
Like i've said i am still undecided, is it better for conservatism to be out of the White House for four years as a means of no longer having to put up with RINOs or to put up with McCain?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
b
February 10, 2008 - 23:44 ET by Noel Sheppardb,
Nothing good will come of four to eight years of either one of these socialist appeasers controlling the White House. Losing is NOT an option! ns
And 4 or 8 years of a RINO
February 11, 2008 - 00:01 ET by NL207And 4 or 8 years of a RINO like McCain isn't going to be a disaster?
Pthhhh!
NL
February 11, 2008 - 00:13 ET by Noel SheppardNL,
By contrast? Not even close. ns
The absurdity of your
February 11, 2008 - 03:15 ET by NL207The absurdity of your argument astounds me. You claim that 4 years of some RINO President will be good in comparison with Obama or Hillary, therefore it must be an acceptable alternative to genuine Conservative Government. This is the same as claiming that Adolf Hitler was preferrable to Josef Stalin because he only murdered 6 or 7 millions against Stalin's 20 or 25 million. They were both unacceptably evil. By the same token, there will be little to choose among Obama, Hillary or McCain. They are all leftists and can only be seen as 'better' if they are compared with one another. They are all equally unsuitable.
How about this comparison: George Allen to any of the three twits named above.
Politicians are like diapers. They must be changed frequently and for the same reason.
Yet another knee-jerk
February 11, 2008 - 10:47 ET by lotrYet another knee-jerk reaction with sensational hyperbole. And to think I thought liberals were the ones who were so emotional. Please re-read what he said -- Noel is saying that McCain is preferable to Hillary and/or Obama. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a simple truth. No need to convolute it any more than that. We ain't gonna get a "genuine Conservative Government" (if by that you mean Keyes/Thompson). We are left with a moderate-conservative McCain, or the liberal clones Hillary/Obama.
Politics, unfortunately, must take into account the unfortunate reality of getting voters to vote for you. There are a lot (and I do mean, a lot) of voters out there that are not conservative, and, in fact, an anti-conservative sentiment seems to pervade the mainstream. Then you have those somewhere in the middle, voters who's vote may swing depending on the positions/personality/charisma/sex-appeal/etc. of the candidate. Even in the so-called "landslide" elections of Ronald Reagan, a large percentage of people still voted Democrat, but Reagan, being a master politician, was able to get enough "swing-voters" to pull the lever for him (the so-called, "Reagan Democrats"). You're not ever going to have a candidate who represents all your views -- from my own experience, I have found only one person shares all my views: me. That's a reality check. In light of this, all we can do is weight which issues are most important to us, then select the candidate and/or platform that is most in line with that weighting. If the Hillary/Obama/Democratic Party Platform is more in line with your views than the Republicans, then vote Democrat. Then they can set about establishing the agenda that they ran on during the next four years, and vie as incumbants in their re-election after that. Meanwhile, Republicans will get the message that "the voters have spoken: the Left is winning, which means we will need to move that direction to get elected."
Yet another Jerk who
February 11, 2008 - 12:37 ET by NL207Yet another Jerk who doesn't get it.
Forget about the "mainstream". The mainstream is by definition represented by the MSM. You are responding to THEIR desires. That is what this site is all about! The MSM completely distorts the debate out of proportion. The reason you don't think conservative ideaology is not politically viable are the actions of the MSM propagandists. Case in point: the various Republican sex scandals of the last 5 years: Show me one where illicit sex actually occurred. And no, Jack Ryan's scandal doesn't count. He was married to the woman he was having sex with. Do you think for one moment that McCain would be winning if the WaPo's Macaca smear campaign had not succeeded by the narrowest of margins? Do think that the MSM has actually forgotten about the "Keating 5"? They have a whole barrel of smear waiting for McCain in the fall.
My argument was not Hyperbole. It was a simple reductio ad absurdum. The absurdity of the relative definition of good and bad is obvious when extreme examples are used for the comparison. Noel's political relativity argument is a parallel argument to moral relativity, whioch is also philosophically bankrupt.
It seems we will have the choice of (a) The Manchurian candidate (b) The Al Qaeda candidate or (c) Cruella Deville.
The voters have spoken? Like hell they have. They are confused, misinformed, and largely deceived, especially the old people. to. wit. I just had a private debate with a true liberal idiot. This fool thinks Exxon-Mobil's profit is outrageous, and supports Cruella Deville's plan to "take those profits" and "invest" them in government. We had just walked out of a sandwich shop that I knew was making about 50 cents profit per $6 sandich. I asked him who was making the greatest profit nargin: Exxon-Modil or the sandwich shop. He replied immediately: Exxon-Mobil. Its a simple computation to show that Exxon-Mobil makes about 10 cents per gallon of refined gasoline it sells. Retail is about $3. therfore E-M's profit margin is ~3.5%. The sandwich shop [damn fine sandwiches, BTW] makes ~8 profit. The idiot said we should tax and regulate the sandwich shop, too!!!
You will get no argument
February 11, 2008 - 13:15 ET by lotrYou will get no argument from me about the MSM bias -- that's why I come to this blog -- to keep myself informed. On that point we are in agreement. My statements about "the mainstream" are based upon personal interactions on a daily basis (I live and work in a major metropolitan area -- one of those blue patches on the political landscape with lots of voters) -- for the most part, I must keep my conservative views to myself (unless I am outright confronted), lest I suffer unwanted repercussions. I also don't think we would be in disagreement about the "ideal" candidate. In an ideal world (and I think Noel would agree) Thompson is preferable to McCain, but even better than Thompson would've been Alan Keyes. But alas, Thompson wouldn't have stood a chance, and Alan Keyes even less so (demonstrated by the outright spanking Keyes took by Obama for the IL senate). My postings on this subject are to alert people to the realities of politics in 21st Century America -- that a politican must first be elected to be effective -- that his principles count for nothing if he is handily defeated -- that you are not merely voting for a candidate, but also a political platform. I'm not advocating that Republicans abandon conservative principles, but I am advocating that they present candidates that can beat the increasingly more liberal positions of the Democrats. I simply take issue with anyone saying that McCain (and the Republican platform) is the equivalent of the Democrat platforms of Hillary/Obama -- by objective standards, whether it be the ACU ratings, endorsements by Republicans like Brownback, senate voting records, military service and experience, McCain is objectively a moderate-conservative, and Hillary/Obama are liberal clones. Now, you may argue that moderate-conservative is to the Left of what we would like -- that's perfectly legitimate -- but it is hyperbole to say he is the same as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
LOL, you mean the moron
February 11, 2008 - 13:15 ET by dscottLOL, you mean the moron thinks by taxing the business he/she is going after greedy owners? I guess it didn't occur to the moron that every penny of tax paid is passed through to the customer? I had a similar discussion with some older friends, once I laid out how much profit (9 cents) the oil company got on a gallon of gas and how much profit the Fed (18 cents) and then State (32 cents) government got on the same gallon, they were shocked. Then I boggled their minds when I explained how the oil companies are not vertical monoplies anymore (they were still under that assumption), that a barrel of oil is sold at each step of the process with each company making their profit at each sale, after that they didn't think monoplies were such a bad thing after all.
The liberals and Democrats are still fighting the anti-trust actions of the 1940s to 60s. This is why when Hillary makes her ignorant statements about the oil companies all the Dems say amen, they are clueless. They don't know any better. Nor does it occur to them that everyone who owns a 401k or IRA invested in mutual funds owns ExxonMobil, "We have met the enemy and they are us!"
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Businesses don't pay taxes.
February 11, 2008 - 13:17 ET by motherbeltBusinesses don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. It's that simple.
It's that simple. And
February 11, 2008 - 13:31 ET by dscottIt's that simple. And that's why it goes right over the heads of libs and Dems. They are so easily misdirected by the shell game, all taxes are paid by the end user (people). So when in some locales half the electric bill is actually tax, the morons fall for the line, they are charging too much just like gasoline. You heard me right, half of your electric bill is actually local and state taxes - you know property tax and personal property tax, etc. Every square inch of utility owned property is taxed at 100% of it's value by the local governments, that tax is then passed on to the electric consumer under the kwhr energy charges in addition to the separate line items for fuel charge and sales tax. It's called a stealth tax for that reason and also why many states opposed deregulation of utilities.
So now guess who pays a disproportionate share of their income in taxes???? That would be the poor. Few people realize how much tax is actually passed on to the consumer. Democrats, screwing over the little people and having them as adoring fans all at the same time as they give back some of their money in government hand outs. Never give a sucker an even break.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
MB
February 11, 2008 - 15:06 ET by Noel SheppardMB,
Not true. Businesses pay LOTs of taxes. I own three corporations, and pay taxes on all of them. Furthermore, please don't forget the matching payroll taxes we pay on our employees.
Trust me -- businesses pay taxes! ns
Noel...I think MB is
February 11, 2008 - 23:16 ET by JerNoel...I think MB is falling back on the shibboleth that corporate taxes are just costs of business that are passed on to consumers who ultimately pay the bill.
True to a point, I suppose, but not absolutely.
Jer
Noel & Jer,
February 11, 2008 - 23:42 ET by R D HelmIf we just pass the Fair Tax, none of you would have to be concerned about federal "corporate taxes" ever again. Nor federal personal income taxes, either. Imagine no federal tax forms, paper or electronic.
And Noel, that includes those pesky matching payroll taxes, too. I wonder how much you are forking over each year just to stay in compliance with our current hideous tax code. I'd be willing to bet you have a million other things you would much rather spend that money on.
However, I agree with MB. Corporations, by definition, do not actually pay taxes. The people in that corporation do. If I am making $30/hour and my employer is billing me out at $95/hr, my employer is not pocketing the entire $55 balance. A sizeable percentage of that is going to the government to cover the cost of my employment, which my employer is passing right along to its clients, who, in turn, are passing it along themselves.
The poor schmuck at the end of the chain is the one who gets it in the eye.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Ok you just proved you
February 12, 2008 - 14:44 ET by dscottOk you just proved you don't know much about business economics. Yes, businesses pay taxes however, taxes are like any expense is against the bottomline and all costs are passed onto the customer in order to make a profit. It is not a shibboleth or passe slogan, it is the very essence of Capitalism. If a business can not make a profit it goes out of business, you seem to think that a business can operate like a government entity, it doesn't work that way.
Maybe what you are illuding to is in times of shortage where the price of the product far exceeds the expenses to make it. Of course all libs start whining about high profit margin (oil companies windfall profits tax), i.e. "excess cost", what you don't ever seem to get in the dynamics of Capitalism is that profit is the source of the investment capital to expand supply in order to meet demand. Capital investment doesn't come from thin air, it always comes from making a profit, unless of course you are a government in which case you confiscate money in the form of taxes. Profits made by a company are voluntary as the customer has a choice not buy the product or buy it in any quantity they choose, taxes are compulsary, they wrested from the hands of the taxpayer. This is precisely why Third World countries are poor, they are so busy confiscating money via taxation that they impoverish their citizenry, this is the stupidity of Socialism.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Gosh dscott...it doesn't
February 12, 2008 - 19:41 ET by JerGosh dscott...it doesn't take much to elicit yet another economic treatise from you. I'll submit it to McCain's panel of financial advisors and see what they think. Maybe there's a slot open for you.
The only point of my post was that while I acknowledge that taxes represent a cost of business which are generally passed through to the customer in the form of higher prices, there are circumstances which sometimes prevent it from being a dollar for dollar offset and thus must be defrayed by other means.
Jer
Thin profit margins are only
February 12, 2008 - 21:27 ET by dscottThin profit margins are only temporary, sooner or later business investors either find more profitable ventures by getting out of that particular business which leaves the remaining competitors free to raise prices (less competition and higher prices), or they find a way to lower costs to get back their profits in either case the customer gets the privilege of paying MORE. So much for taxing away those profits from greedy money grubbers. Every time a lib claims they are out for the little guy, they are right, they are out to screw him over. The whole point of taxation by liberals is to fund the next vote buying scheme. Now as to your comment regarding McCain, I doubt very seriously that he would take my advice any more than Rush or Ann's. But he maybe a useful sock puppet.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Did you really mean to call me a Jerk?
February 11, 2008 - 22:55 ET by PTWAre you that angry that when I complement your post you assume I'm an jerk. I make some points about the role of the press, and in case you haven't looked around you lately...we have a nomination process whereby people select their candidate for POTUS. THEY VOTED FOR McCAIN.
I didn't say your original argument was hyperbole...but your last post was. I forgot...you must diss people who reach across the aisle.
PTW, I think I was the one
February 11, 2008 - 23:20 ET by lotrPTW, I think I was the one who was being called a jerk -- it was a play on the first sentence of my posting which prompted it.
Good Points
February 11, 2008 - 21:05 ET by PTWI'm a liberal but was still able to understand your cogent response. I read a post below that suggested McCain should nominate a conservative VP and then hope that the same thing happens to him as what happened to JFK. Why must political discourse be so base. You have your beliefs about Government and I have mine. We don't need to resort to hyperbole of evil and good, and Stalin and Hitler, and surrender. No candidate I've heard said anything about surrendering to Terror. No candidate wants abortion on demand; No candidate wants to dissemble the military. What I struggle with is the fact that conservative want small government and no taxes which is purely reasonable...but National Security requires and funding. Furthermore, IMHO, court appointments whether they be Supreme or other, is critical to whom you give your vote. If you agree with a candidates beliefs vote for him or her. Its seems to me the people have voted... for McCain, Obama, and Clinton. The majority needs to have a voice. Whether they're blinded by MSM, as you all say, then that's the price we pay Constitutionally for a free press. Times are changing but checks, balancing and the fourth estate are here for a reason. I digress but all the key issues of our time from pre-emptive war, personal liberty, America's standing in the world and at home have been brought to light by democratic means. Without access and diligence by members of the media, no one would be debating such things as the Dubai port deal, secret prisons, enhanced interogation techniques, phone records.
My point is that we can be strong, free, and enlighted all at the same time. No need to sacrifice one for the other. That's what makes the US great.
n
February 11, 2008 - 00:12 ET bybut a continued stream of RINOs is okay? They will keep feeding us as long as we eat!
Maybe 4 years of poor (with a hope of good) is better than 20 years of guarrenteed mediocrity
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
b
February 11, 2008 - 00:14 ET by Noel Sheppardb,
Not when we're at war, teetering on recession, and about to start sending SS checks to baby boomers! ns
n
February 11, 2008 - 00:20 ET byif not now---when? there will always be an economy, a conflict, a budget. the islamofascists will remain. Even still, if you can get McCain to let GWB the globalist make his SCOTUS picks i won't vote Constitution Party.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
The GOP
February 11, 2008 - 07:41 ET by BritcomShould have thought of history before putting McCain (a senator) up against a senator (Hillary or Obama). A governor has defeated a senator every time in the last 100 years of presidential elections. McCain is going to go down in flames against the Dems just like Dole did and for the same reasons.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the Democrats. We are rapidly losing our opportunity to select someone who can actually beat the Dems, namely a governor like Huckabee.
Without a governor leading the ticket in this election, the GOP is going out of business for decades. Is that what you want? Look to history!
If you think there is depression and infighting now, just you wait until McCain loses the General Election! The row will tear the party to bits, the south will revolt and the Republic may be threatened with a break up like the old Soviet Union (I'm not kidding about this).
The failures of Washington, especially one run entirely by Democratic Socialists will precipitate a revolt by the States.
Starting a Civil War at home is not the answer to winning the war in Iraq.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
That was fast...
February 10, 2008 - 16:18 ET by Republican_by_DefaultI was wondering if the liberal media would turn on him this weekend, but I thought it wasn't likely. I was wrong.
And they're right, there will be blood. Anyone who opposes the liberal media will be brow-beaten until they bleed.
So how long will it take conservatives to figure out that they've been had by the media? A few weeks? Before the nomination at the convention? There are still a few primaries, will they figure it out before it's absolutely too late?
disintergration of right wing machine
February 10, 2008 - 18:51 ET by randy hayesThis anger from the lunatic right symbolizes the obvious disintergration of the neoconservative party and the Faux NEWs propaganda machine!
Nice to be Back!
Howdy once
February 10, 2008 - 19:00 ET by bigtimerHowdy once again raze...you haven't changed a bit.
bt, I think it is time randy changed his bong water.
February 10, 2008 - 19:04 ET by R D HelmI mean, that stuff has to be getting stale by now. :-)
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Bush Says McCain a True Conservative
February 10, 2008 - 21:06 ET by lotrBush Says McCain a True Conservative
http://voanews.com/english/2008-02-10-voa21.cfm
"I know him well," said President Bush. "I know his convictions. I know the principles that drive him. There is no doubt in my mind that he is a true conservative."
lotr,
February 10, 2008 - 21:27 ET by R D HelmConsider the source. :-)
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
RD, that's pretty much what
February 10, 2008 - 22:36 ET by motherbeltRD, that's pretty much what I said to hubby when we heard that....I said, well, I suppose he is, according to Bush's definition!!
even still
February 10, 2008 - 22:41 ET byif McCain would contract to let globalist Bush choose his SCOTUS appointments i could support him
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
That is at the heart of
February 11, 2008 - 10:58 ET by dscottThat is at the heart of this calculation isn't it? Which group will McCain appease more? By his track record we know McCain at times does not vote on principle but on political advantage hence the moderate ACU scores. So let us look at what we do know, he has liberal tendencies, he is given to rash behavior as evidenced by loosing his temper, he is self serving. Given the choices before us, assuming we know all the choices, is McCain more malleable than Obama or Clinton in regards to our agenda? The answer to that I believe was given in his illegal immigration amnesty response. Now contrast that response with W's response on the issue?
We have been spoiled by W's resolute character even though he did oppose us on the immigration issue. Can we trust McCain like W? NO. Will McCain be as resolute as W? NO. I submit this can work to our advantage, however, before we can make that calculation McCain must "believe" he needs us. No amount of wishful magical thinking on our part will get McCain to follow the conservative agenda without his "belief" in us. Do you get it?
So far McCain has given mental assent and mouthed the words that he "wants" our vote. Those of you who are saying we don't have a choice and we must vote for McCain have essentially given away your vote for nothing, thus your vote is meaningless because it is taken for granted. If you had been paying attention to Ann and Rush you would realize they are forcing McCain to make our vote mean something. The MSM on the otherhand realizes what's happening and thus all the stories about how the pundits are toothless talking heads and that McCain should not pay any attention to them. This all comes down to what McCain "believes." Does he believe he can win the election without our vote? If McCain were observant he would recognize the reason why the GOP took such a drubbing in 2006 was because we (the Right) were turned off by a group of people who didn't deliver as "promised."
So McCain the choice is yours, you can believe the MSM or you can believe your eyes. We are waiting...the ball is in your court.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Well, a vote for Huckabee now, would just do wonders for MaC
February 11, 2008 - 21:15 ET by JayTeeMcCain's attitude is getting a Huckabee adjustment right now....McCain may be the Leader in the Clubhouse, but the Fans are still on the course cheering on a Competitor.
And if Mitt was huck, the same would be happening, but Conservatives would be much happier.....Mitt just isn't sending this particular message to McCain, Huck is....or, the VOTERS are.
McCain can't even make a Victory Speech, while he's losing States he should win.
Fred Thompson Backs McCain
February 11, 2008 - 10:57 ET by lotrFred Thompson Backs McCain
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/08/fred_thompson_backs_mccain.html
Rally Behind McCain! What a Bunch of BS
February 11, 2008 - 00:28 ET by PopularTechI mean lets go rally behind Carbon Taxes, Amnesty, Closing Gitmo and possible Tax Cut Vetoes! Wow I'm excited. I am sure evangelicals want to rally to the guy who called them agents of intolerance, voted against the gay marriage amendment, supports embryonic stem cell research and supports Roe v Wade!
The GOP has no chance in November.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
→ Rally behind McCain
February 11, 2008 - 00:40 ET by Cool ArrowI think I'd rather
PARTNER WITH ISLAM.
♣ a seal
OK..Fight McCain all the way..BUTTTT
February 11, 2008 - 21:29 ET by JayTeeScrew up the Polls and the MSM and vote for him anyway in NOV.
That way you would have done your dead level best......but you send Obama back to his Hussein Roots, or Hillary back into Bill's waiting Arms. . . because if you don't vote for a Republican, you WILL be partnering with Islam.
The Revolution will not be Televised - Gil Scott Heron
Pop, You're right, I have a problem with that.
February 11, 2008 - 07:11 ET by BritcomWelcome back by the way, where did you go?
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08