The Hill reports on the latest and most detailed iteration of the details around John McCain’s expressed interest in leaving the Republican Party in 2001.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.
In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.
Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.
At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.
Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.
“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”
“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.”
He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: “We certainly didn’t discuss in any detail about the senator’s political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats'] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.”
Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.
“Within seconds” of arriving home from his lunch with Weaver, Downey said he was on the phone to the most powerful Democrats in town. One of the first calls he made was to then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle.
“I did take the call from Tom [Downey],” Daschle said in an interview. “It was Weaver’s comment” to Downey that started the McCain talks, he added.
Daschle noted that McCain at that time was frustrated with the Bush administration as a result of his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary.
This account calls into question not only John McCain’s fidelity to the GOP but also the Senator’s temperament. It seems that a chief motivation for the serious inquiries about switching parties was the result of bitterness over losing the 2000 Republican nomination.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:22 am
I love this. The hard right is trying frantically to shut down McCain and give us a Romney enema. It’s not going to work. It’s over.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:24 am
Dem debate:
McCain mentioned: 8x
Romney mentioned: 1x
Don’t try to tell me they don’t fear McCain.
Here’s the one time Romney was mentioned:
February 1st, 2008 at 7:31 am
Adam, The Hill = hard right?
Care to address the substance of the story?
February 1st, 2008 at 7:42 am
Doesn’t matter anyway the Dems will win. The Dems have more money bigger crowds and less party fracture.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:50 am
The substance of the story? The word of some Democrat operatives that can see the McCain-Hillary matchup numbers?
Who cares? Did McCain ACTUALLY leave the GOP? Didn’t McCain campaign tirelessly for George Bush in 2004? AFTER Bush played his despicable games in 2000? I don’t fault McCain one bit for being angry.
And I’m sick of all the oh-so-pure Romney supporters on this site that are going to criticize McCain over this story that he might have potentially jumped ship (even though he didn’t) when they now say angrily “I’ve voting for Obama”.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am
And another thing. Romney supporters have no business even commenting on this. Right? All that matters are current positions, we’re told. Was Romney as pure as the wind driven snow or as he claims he is now in 2001?
That fat blowhard Rush Limbaugh will no doubt trumpet this today but again, will he utter a word about Romney’s lack of purity before his Road To Des Moines conversions? Of course. That’s why I cancelled my subscription of the Limbaugh Letter and I think I am going to mail all the old back issues to him with a note suggesting where he can put them.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:59 am
context: In the 90s, Romney bragged about being an independent and in 2002 he slammed Utah for being strongly Republican.
McCain turned down the role of VP because he refused to change parties. Although if he HAD, I would imagine one would find it much easier to forgive McCain after watching him rip Cheney to shreds in a hypothetical 2004 debate. Dead enders and/or last throes, anyone?
February 1st, 2008 at 8:02 am
Adam thanks for sharing.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:03 am
Why is McCain not ranked first on R408 anyway? Who abolished the power ranking system here?
February 1st, 2008 at 8:25 am
#9, E Dogg,
Your comment is akin to McCain’s knowledge of economics, and why he is totally unsuitable to be elected. He, and you, are totally clueless.
Power rankings have been gone for about two months. They were changed to an alpha listing.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:27 am
Set the record straight Irish Right, where did I go so terribly wrong?
February 1st, 2008 at 8:43 am
In E Dogg’s defense, Rudy bailed and needs to get yanked from the list
February 1st, 2008 at 8:49 am
How much more evidence do we need that Jmac is a closet liberal?
He’s done it in action, word, and thought. I am astounded we are close to moninating this man as leader of our party when he CLEARLY, has no loyalties!
February 1st, 2008 at 8:49 am
Gary, what’s the big deal? Rudy came to the GOP from the Dems, so also a party-swapper. Mitt has talked glowingly of voting for Paul Tsongas, that is to say, against Bush 41. Ron Paul has run as the Libertarian presidential candidate.
To my knowledge, both JMac and Huck have remained loyal members of their party.
Obviously, it would have a major PR coup for the Dems to woo JMac away from the GOP in either 2000 or 2004. So what is all this churlish teeth-gnashing over allegations that JMac would have switched parties — but significantly did not!
February 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am
“JMac.. have remained loyal members of their party.”
Can you actually say that with a straight face? LOL!
February 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am
Jmac supportres CANNOT brush this off so lightly. The man actually considered leaving the party! These were not fleeting thoughts but Mac’s people actually reached out to the dems!
It truly shows where his heart is. I think this proves who the true political opportunist is.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am
Romney hasn’t always been a loyal conservative or a loyal Republican. He reached political puberty at age 60.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/01/huckabee_romney_reaches_politi.html
February 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am
Yes, he didn’t switch; but just more evidence on the pile of Feingold, Kennedy, Lieberman, Edwards liberal tendencies of his – not in step with the base of the Republican party.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:58 am
Adam, the word for a person that reaches out to the enemy in order to stab his own guys in the back is . . . traitor. McCain almost did this, except poor old Jim Jeffords beat him to the punch. It blows my mind that we would even consider the Republican version of Benedict Arnold as our presidential candidate.
What McCain did was akin to finding a prostitute, arguing over price, having her leave with another man willing to pay more, when at about this time the wife shows up and the man left hanging denies it all and expresses his undying support to the wife. Rings a little hollow to me. I want a divorce.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:59 am
By the same token, Mitt’s vote for Tsongas in ’92 speaks even louder about where his political heart actually throbs.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:59 am
Why does this sound like “McCain dated the Dems, but didn’t cheat on his wife. Leave him alone because he didn’t do the deed”
February 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am
JerryO, Maybe talk radio hasn’t told you this, but in Washington you need bipartisan support to push ANYTHING through the Senate. Kennedy was a sponsor of No Child Left Behind. I’ve only heard two candidates speek out against that act: Ron Paul and Tancredo.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am
I did not believe these rumors until now. I am pretty stunned. There is a WSJ piece talking about how McCain claimed Alito was too conservative. Where there is smoke there is fire; there is more of this to come and the purpose is to suppress the already depressed conservative electorate.
This election gets more not less confusing with time.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:02 am
dblagent – I hsould have read your post first before posting mine – your example strikes more to the point. McCain is out for himself and getting some cheap thrills (media attention and political clout) by dangling a party switch points to this challenge for McCain. Maybe if he wasn’t such a hot head and could approach decisions reasonably, he wouldn’t have still been so ticked off at losing in 2000.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
“By the same token, Mitt’s vote for Tsongas in ‘92 speaks even louder about where his political heart actually throbs.”
Yeah, you just keep telling yourself this. A vote for a Tsongas in a primary is the equivalent of seriously considering selling out control of the Senate. That Kool-Aid must be good.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:04 am
Ronald Reagan must not have been a “Reagan Conservative” then because the average justice that was nominated in his administration was FAR more liberal than Alito.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:05 am
#19, 21,
It’s the 2008 version of “I didn’t inhale.”
February 1st, 2008 at 9:07 am
Why this post? Everybody knows that McCain is really a Democraat.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:08 am
#20
“When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for Republicans.”
It’s called strategic voting “my friend.”
February 1st, 2008 at 9:08 am
#27 LOL
February 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
Political discourse just hasn’t been the same since the psych ward obtained wireless internet access…
February 1st, 2008 at 9:09 am
E Dogg … bipartisan support from the Republican side to limit free speech, give a pass to illegal immigrants, impose burdensome regulation and cost on US business and taxpayers only … etc.; yes, that’s exactly the type of nonsense we need from DC with the assistance from the guys on the Republican team. The founders established the Senate so idiocy such as this would be difficult or impossible to pass – unless you get a wolf in sheeps clothing like McCain to help it along.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
I see. So the Romborg are actually working here to ensure the Tsongas wing of the DNC finds representation in the GOP.
Thanks for outing your efforts on behalf of the DNC.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:18 am
McCain made this bed for himself – what’s so wrong with him sleeping in it too?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:19 am
Folks,
the dems have volumes of stuff like this waiting to come out. Why? Because they know that a disgruntled GOP will not come out in droves to vote for McCain. They’re just waiting a bit longer till he seizes the nomination and we are left with no other option.
They’ve played us for fools while the myopic McCainiacs insist that we come around, despite the near daily revelations of his liberalness and his refusal to actually open up to conservatives.
McCainiacs, you’re tying to defend the indefensible.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:23 am
35: yes indeed ‘my friend’, the Straight Talk Hindenburg!
February 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
#33
Any attempt at comparing a strategic vote to put up the weakest dem candidate against Bush, to McCain’s obvious willigness to get courted by the dems is inept.
The only positive spin on the McCains story is that he probably would have sold out for 30 pieces of silver but the dems only offered 29, so at least he as that going for him.
In the words of Sir Thomas Moore “but for Whales?”
February 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
Polling fun:
My take: It’ll be a Clinton-Romney match-up with Clinton slaying Romney like a sacrificial robotic lamb.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:26 am
jcali – true true
McCain’s strategy is now exposed as a sham. The narrative is that its time for the GOP to unite around McCain. McCain is calling in all his favors with the Washington elite to prop him up and circle the wagons.
There will be time for the nominee to make his case and reach out to the slighted factions of the GOP, but honestly, does anyone not in McCain’s corner really believe that time is NOW? Why concede a few weeks of continued debate in exchange for the least conservative remaining candidate?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:27 am
“My take: It’ll be a Clinton-Romney match-up with Clinton slaying Romney like a sacrificial robotic lamb.”
The Rombots are finally coming to grips with the fact that such a mathup is never even going to happen. That’s why they are so shrill.
I can’t wait until Super Tuesday. It’s going to be a massacre.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:27 am
Here are the real reasons the republicans will lose in 2008
1. Iraq is a very unpopular war even though there are plenty of reasons to stay and win the war.
2. Republicans, including Bush were financially irresponsible.
3. Exposure of numerous corrupt politicians, many republican.
4. John McCain and his departure from republican principles (gang of 14 etc.)
5. Illegal immigration, no fence, no attempt to fix the problem except to make them permanent. (Juan McCain)
6. Not only will John McCain continue to favor liberal ideas, increase taxes, limit freedoms he will expect the republican support in the house and senate and scream F U if they don’t agree.
7. I am a republican in every way but just to elected is not a reason to do further damage to the republican party,
February 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
The Dems are going to make McCain their candidate alright. Their Manchurian Candidate! McCain’s wasn’t brainwashed during his five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton, he was Brainwashed and Indoctrinated during his 24 years in Washington. The Dems will say the secret Trigger word and McCain will become a full blown liberal in office.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Adam
Your hypocracy has no bounds. Face it McCain is not a conservative Republican. If you liberals that claim to be Republicans switched to the Dem’s or green party everyone would be better off. Adam, my good friend, you are a political hack.
by the way it is offencive that Mac uses Ron Reagans line “my Friends”, Reagan meant it McCain is a liar
February 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Recommendation for the new Romney anthem: “Can’t Buy Me Love” (Lennon/McCartney):
Via Halperin, UWisc study finds Romney spend more than all other GOPers on television advertising trying to make himself appealing to someone.
Ouch.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am
Mark Levin lays the wood on McCain here. Must read article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEzMDYzZjBkMDNhYjk0ZjdhZmJlZWNkMWQ1NjI4MGI=
February 1st, 2008 at 9:35 am
#44 Interesting since the Dems did not run ads or compete in MI or FL, and still spent the same amount of money. Also if any of the other rep candidates had the money they would have spent it as well.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:36 am
Adam
Your dreaming about Super Tuesday, a “massacre”? I doubt it. You my ggod friend have been listening to the MSM a litle to long.
I can’t wait till tuesday, will you post about all your perdictions and how they turned out? and remember my perdiction that if McCain wins the nomination, Nov will be a Dem landslide victory on the scale of Reagan/Carter.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:38 am
It depends what the word “is” is. We are toast in the republican party. Clinton has boxes of this stuff just waiting to come out. Just keep saying McCain is honest 3 times and click your heels.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am
MarkG
Your only talking about TV ads.
Mcliar out spent everyone 100-1 on robocalls that spread bullsh#$.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:42 am
Did the staff at the psych ward have a sick-out today or something?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:44 am
MarkG, you can’t back up your boy with facts so now everyone that is against him is part of the psych ward, eh. Feels like second grade again.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am
The real problem is not the money that Romney spent or that it was some of his own. It was not the flip/flops because every politican does that. It was religion. You know it, I know it, Dick Morris knows it and Romney knows it. So why is he still in this race? Maybe money, intelligence, a fresh face, a 38 year marriage, hard work,determination and hope for a better future. If all he does is hold McCain’s feet to the fire and force him back to republican principles that is worth it for me.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:50 am
Markg is just a hack, if you look back on his posts he only calls names, he has never made(or tryed) a convincing argument to support any of his rants. He is upset because 1/3 of the Republican party will NOT vote for his boy Mcliar.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
Did anyone see Hannity last night? I hope about 80 billion people were watching. Newt did not endorse, but it was obvious he had big problems with McCain and said so many times. He was closer to endorsing Mitt than I had ever seen from him.
Some of you have seen me suggest that Mitt put THOMPSON on as VP, announce it today, and take some or most of those southern states.
There is another way!!! Wow, I’m a genius!!! Mitt puts NEWT GINGRICH on as VP. He announces it today and he wins the southern states on Tuesday. He will later win Texas, Virginia, and many others. You talk about momentum… this may even give him more than it would with THOMPSON because OF Fred’s perception of being kinda lazy.
In my mind either one enables Mitt to pull this thing out!! Those of you with enough input to the campaign, please upload this idea today. PLEASE!!!! If they don’t like it, fine, but at least try it.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
ADAM’s personality = McCain’s personality
Get the picture? Time to McCream McCorn
February 1st, 2008 at 9:52 am
Truth,
Such vitriol and hate because your Robotic Romneybotic friend is going down. It IS going to be a massacre. And when it happens a few short days from now I am going to laugh in your face.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:52 am
Shawnie,
You’re cute when you’re angry.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:54 am
This is extremely telling.
Even after McCain seemingly has the nomination wrapped up, he and his supporters are still swinging hard and taking pot shots at anyone who challenges his record.
Again and again their philosophy is that by brow-beating us, we’ll eventually cave in and support McCain because, heaven forbid, we could never imagine Billary in the white house.
McCain can only have a shot if he gets core conservatives to support him because of who he is, NOT because of who he is running against.
Instead of gleefully shoving polls in our face, the McCainiacs need a slice of humble pie and actually convince us that he should be our guy.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:56 am
#56, just proved my point.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:56 am
Grandma T
“holding McCain’s feet to the fire and force him back to republican principles”
Mcliar will say the right things to sound like he has come back “to republican principles” but if he was elected (which I doubt) he will not govern that way. He will be a one termer and he would know it going in, so he would do anything he wants because he wont be running for a second term. also it looks like he would have a majority in both houses of his good friends (the liberal Democrates)
A McLiar presidency would set the party back 20 years.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:57 am
“Instead of gleefully shoving polls in our face, the McCainiacs need a slice of humble pie and actually convince us that he should be our guy.”
No way. You guys have irrational hatred of McCain. And you’re not going to be convinced. And when McCain wins it is going to be great to see the likes of Ingraham and Limbaugh and the lockstep true believers marginalized.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:58 am
#60 I am not for McCain but I am for Romney staying in the race.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am
Uh oh. WSJ isn’t buying Romney’s act.
All the more so because we haven’t been able to discern from his campaign, or his record in Massachusetts, what his core political principles are. Mr. Romney spent his life as a moderate Republican, and he governed the Bay State that way after his election in 2002. While running this year, however, he has reinvented himself as a conservative from radio talk show-casting, especially on immigration.
The problem is not that Mr. Romney is willing to reconsider his former thinking. Nor is it so much that his apparent convictions always seem in sync with the audience to which he is speaking at the moment. (Think $20 billion in corporate welfare for Michigan auto makers.) Plenty of politicians attune their positions to new constituencies. The larger danger is that Mr. Romney’s conversions are not motivated by expediency or mere pandering but may represent his real governing philosophy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182471883733637.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
February 1st, 2008 at 10:01 am
Adam
I’ll see you on Tuesday if you dare. It will be interesting to see if the MSM and Adam can make the McLiar fairytale come true.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Truth,
I’ll be here with the popcorn. It’s going to be a great show!
February 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Adam
“You guys have irrational hatred of McCain”
I liked McCain until you started some of your irrational rants, you my good friend have probably cost McCain 25% of the vote and the election. Just because your an idiot.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am
56 / Adam; accepting your premise just for the moment ‘my friend’, then using your logic it will be equally allowable for us to laugh in your face in Nov. at the Straight Talk Hindenburg … thanks.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am
#61
Adam just admitted that they will not, nor can they defend McCain’s record. I am reasonable enought that no one will have a “perfect” record, but I at least expect people to recognize their mistakes.
McCain is simply too proud to acknowledge his, and as you have just proven, will refuse to extend the olive branch.
McCain had a chance at the debate to appear a gracious winner and to admit that he had made mistakes but would not commit them in the future. That’s all I want to hear.
I fault him more for whitewashing his record, then for his record per se. I might come around, but the attacks don’t help. My skin is thicker than McCains, but its still skin.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
Truth,
Hahahahahaha. Are you spitting as you type this? That’s just too funny. Wait – wait. You’re saying with a straight face that you ACTAULLY LIKED McCain? Now we know that’s not true. Your puppet master Rush Limbaugh would never allow you to do that.
And if you think that I personally will cost McCain 25 percent of the vote then I must be way more powerful than I ever thought. Tell you what. You were right all along. Romney is one short short step below God. I’ll bow down to him and vote for him.
Since I’m so popular, why don’t you just send me some money and I’ll take my massive influence to help the so-called “real” conservative Romney?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
COME ON ROMNEY SUPPORTERS! Talk to me about putting Newt on the ticket! Putting either Fred or Newt on the ticket would win the south for Mitt. Can you imagine the democrats trying to debate against Mitt and Newt. It would be like the grown ups against the kindergarteners.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am
Adam: Romney isn’t the only one going down. McCain isn’t going to get to the White House. Your post #56 is case in point. Our party is completely fractured. No one will make it. Obama can raise $32 Million in one month. McCain, who is now supposedly on top couldn’t even reach $7 million in a quarter. None of us can get along. The social conservatives destroyed this party by shoving their juvenile Yucky Huck that no one could stomach down our throats. Their fuel was bigotry and all of us will get what we deserve, sand in our face. McCain does not represent anything I believe in. He is war hungry, trigger happy. I have sons to think about. He does NOT come across as stable. Sorry. I would have voted for Giuliani, Thompson even Ron Paul before Hillary – but McClinton – no dice. And the MSM knew that, just wait until they switch from the prop McCain up phase to the let the truth out phase. The MSM, Liberals and Dems won this one, played us successfully. Have you noticed they have written almost nothing about the war? No tally of casualties? Just wait. McCain won’t make it Adam.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am
If you think for one second that the Dems haven’t been planning for this election since 2000, you are crazy. The have puffed up McCain for a reason. Wait and watch.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
I’m so frustrated. I put forth ideas of how to save this thing for Mitt, and all I hear is a bunch of bickering back and forth about trivial matters. There is no time to waste people. If putting Fred or Newt on the ticket today is something that would work, we need to upload it to the campaign immediately. I worked in business long enough to know that many times the best ideas come from the ‘grunts’ like us, and not from the top. Let’s discuss Fred and Newt, and get the word to the top.
I want to hear from the Mitt people, not you other McLiars.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
Illinoisguy – newt will not be on the ticket – its not going to happen. It would undercut Mitt’s Washington is broken theme. Also, it would galvanize the left to rise up against newt – newt is a great champion for conservativism, highly articulate, but he is too politically toxic to be on a ticket for POTUS
February 1st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Shawnie,
McCain might not make it in November. But I can say with aboslute certainly that Romney would have ZERO CHANCE. He lost Miami-Dade county 51-15 and came in THIRD because of his idiocy and thump-chesting on the tone of the immigration debate.
I bet Romney is kicking himself for playing to the nativists now.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
Grandma T #52:
I was an early proponent of the religion theory. After interacting with many LDSers here — often arguing gruffly and offensively with them (belated apologies) — I no longer believe that. I’ve admitted it before: LDS members, and above all the true believers, are model citizens with largely ideal families, which is certainly something of an achievement in itself in these times.
No, Romney’s problem is the flip-flopping. It’s the short-term, just-in-time list of conversions to the right side of the cause. It’s the needlessly deceptive, if not harmfully deceptive, repeat mention of “seeing” his father march with MLK, now thoroughly debunked by MLK biographers.
It’s the religious speech which pandered to the Christian right while offending those of us who are not religious by pushing the idea that religious faith is a requirement for political office.
It’s the fact that Mitt has only won a single election throughout his political career in a year that GOP candidates won in landslides — and a victory that Mitt only won with a plurality, not a majority.
It’s Mitt’s uninspiring speech-making that relies on language that is clearly open to future interpretation.
The list just goes on and on. But his own religious faith and his devotion to it are not a significant negative part of what makes him offensive.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:17 am
Romney/Huckabee ticket could take it from McCain IMO. But I’m concerned there is too much personal animosity from Mike to Mitt for Mike to consider such an arrangement.
I imagine by now the reality has set in at Team Huck that McCain used him as a useful idiot and that McCain will never put Huckabe on the ticket. Then again, Huckabee is out for himself almost as much as McCain is out for himself, and Huck just might go for it. A combined Mitt/Huck ticket would sweep the south, the west, and body slam McCain on Tuesday.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
Adam
You caught me, I’ve never liked McLiar. But I don’t listen to Rush (he’s not on XM)
But the fact of the matter is that you don’t care about issues, you don’t like the way Romney looks, his religion , his money and a number of other things that don’t make a damn bit of difference how good a President he would make.
You must adMIT there is NO excitement about McCains candadicy, he is an angry old man that thinks he deserves the office.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
[...] More on this subject from Race 4 2008. [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
Laure Ingraham is blowing a gasket on her show now because of this story. She sounds more shrill and unattractive than I’ve ever heard her. You can hear the desperation in her voice. I am so loving this.
She is going to have Rick Santorum on her show (that would be Mr. 20-point LOSER) next to make some big announcement.
This is great. I am so done with talk radio. Anyone that doesn’t genuflect to those people on every single issue gets the book thrown at them. No Independent thought is allowed for the likes of Limbaugh and the Talk Radio Blowhards. The jig is up and they’re finally starting to come to grips with it.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am
#73 – Illinois Guy – Newt is NOT well liked in general. His popularity rankings were through the floor. He has too many skeletons in his closet. Fred is also a broken Washington icon. You may be on to something, announcing a really choice running mate, but those two choices will not fly and it is very unlikely that a running mate will be a former rival, that is not how it works. Every time some one suggests pairing up current rivals, I laugh. How many times have you seen that one, really?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:21 am
#73 I like the idea of Fred, especially since McCain and Rudy are now pals. I am positive if you are thinking about options so are the senior advisors in Romney’s campaign. The anything but McCain people have to get behind one candidate, if they don’t we lose plain and simple.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:23 am
Truth,
“you don’t like the way Romney looks, his religion , his money and a number of other things that don’t make a damn bit of difference how good a President he would make.”
No no no man. You’ve got me all wrong. I actually probably agree with Romney more on many issues than I agree with McCain. I just don’t trust Romney and find his campaign tactics reprehensible.
And if we were to allow someone to gain the nomination that will do or say anything and shift in any way necessary to win then what does that say for our party?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:23 am
Adam, insisting McCain does not occupy the White House and destroying economic conservatism from within the GOP is in NO way purely a pro-Romney argument. I should be a very clear example of this.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Adam
It is clear that you are a liberal Dem operative trying to help McLiar get the nomination so the libs can have a cke wlk in Nov. The only other explanation is that you are a complete moron.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
I woke up happy but now I am depressed. We got a little econ news this morning – a loss of 17k jobs – showing that the economy is slowing quite a bit. The morning political news is that the dems loved their two candidates last night and that Obama raised $1 million a day in January, while McCain is in debt and partying in LA with fellow RINOs. Where is the good news for the GOP? I think even Romney-haters would have to agree that he at least exudes confidence, he projects competence, and looks like a president. Yes, those are superficial characteristics, but in this media age isn’t that what sells?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
I said I wanted to hear from Romney supporters, not McLiars.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Metro,
I know. I agree. McCain is NOT the ideal choice. You know I would have gladly supporter Rudy. I argued for him for months – just like you, though probably not as eloquently. But these hard-core Rombots have a cult of support for this guy that has little to do with issues. And I have a pretty good idea what the cult of support is based on.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am
“I just don’t trust Romney and find his campaign tactics reprehensible”
If an objective third party actually found Romney’s campaign tactics “reprehensible,” then they would most definitely find McCain’s tactics as “beyond reprehensible.”
Just because your guy doesn’t like a little sunlight, or as he says “sunshine” on his record, doesn’t mean we’re playing hardball.
If mitt had brought up the “Keating five” scandal, I might agree, but he didn’t. He simply brought up the past, which is par for the course.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am
#83 Adam
“And if we were to allow someone to gain the nomination that will do or say anything and shift in any way necessary to win then what does that say for our party?” And that definition excludes McClinton how? They all flip-flop, they all do it ADAM, come on, you know that. You can come up with a long list on any of them. Heck, you can come up with a long list on any of us. Flip-flopper is an MSM label. You fell for it.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Adam
Your post #88 answered the question I ask earlier. You are a MORON.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am
# the MLK statement was silly. The fact that George Romney marched with MLK supporters or MLK is irrelevant. He gave speeches for the rally, marched in at least one parade and was very active in the cause He was also invited and attended the funeral. That is what really matters.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am
Shawnie, I like nearly everything you have written, but I strongly disagree on this one. To do nothing is to let McCain win this thing! PERIOD! Mitt’s chances are near zero if he doesn’t do something unconventional like annnouncing a VP to help him take the south. Sitting on our hands = losing.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:33 am
#92 to Mark G
February 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
“But these hard-core Rombots have a cult of support for this guy that has little to do with issues. And I have a pretty good idea what the cult of support is based on.”
Yes, that robotic herd in lock-step with no intelligence or concern for what the issues are….actually, you are describing Huck’s crowd. Henry Reid is LDS and I share no political ideologies with him (well, a couple) and would never campaign or donate or say boo for him. Romney is my favorite based on his platform, period. I am a Wall St. Republican, ask me how my stock portfolio is doing? Ask me how my business is doing compared to last year? I’m at full alert right now, and McCain doesn’t have a thing to offer.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:36 am
88 / Adam; time to put up or shut up – do tell what ‘the cult of support is based on’; this ought to be good – because then I’ll be able to see how close you have me pegged!
February 1st, 2008 at 10:36 am
Shawnie,
That’s not fair to the Huck supporters. Evangelicals never voted for Huckabee by a margin of 94 percent.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:38 am
I just called the Romney campaign on the NEWT or FRED idea. They promised to pass it to the top of the campaign.
If others would do the same thing, and need a number, please email me for the number. Thank you very much.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:39 am
My email is robertwthomas8@hotmail.com
February 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Adam
You are a waste of time, it’s like talking to a child. Why dont you stop McLying, it’s a religious and jealosy thing with you.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
#97 Adam – it is fair. What did Huck stand for on issues other than the social conservative ones? They were not paying attention. It’s absolutely fair.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am
Adam are you aware that the LDS in NV voted for Bush by 95%. How are you going to spin that one.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am
Shawnie,
Ok. You’re right. It’s fair to say that Evangelicals vote solely on their religion when they support Huck by 60 percent but Romney supporters support their guy by coming out in droves and at a rate of 94 percent it has nothing to do with religion. Ok. Just chacking.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am
grandma T,
Show me where they did. And on top of that show me where they came out to vote in percentages that TRIPLE their percent of the population.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Adam,
Does it all boyle down to the fact that Romney is mormon? Is that where the disdain comes from?
If so, at least be honest and up front about it.
In other words, I’d like to hear some “straight talk.”
February 1st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Adam, that is actually true. Utah is consistently the most Republican state in the nation and vote for the Republican nominee in the highest percentages every general election. All Grandma T is trying to say is the 94% vote is in keeping with a consistent pattern and Romney isn’t getting anything new. In other words, the religion conspiracy theory doesn’t hold water when you take a second look, but it sounds good at first pass.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:52 am
Adam it was all over the paper in the Review Journal. I am not that talented at the computer to link you to the stats but it is true.
NV had a first time caucus, there was a very low turn out due to a one shot of casting a vote. It was on a long weekend with many people out of town. Mormons vote!!! They always vote and feel that it is their civic duty. Even if all the mormons wouldn’t have voted at all Romney won 2-1. I live here and I do know the facts.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Adam
Calm down your getting your blood pressure up again. Supporting McLiar isn’t worth having health problems now is it..
Mormons have always supported the republicans in large numbers without asking what religion the candidate is.
What a bigot.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am
jcali,
I don’t care if Romney is a Mormon and I wouldn’t vote or not vote for him on that basis. But I think that a good chuck of his Mormon supporters are eager to overlook that fact that he wasn’t nearly as conservative on many things that they feel important just because he shares their religion and they want to promote it into the mainstream.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am
Adam #63: That’s an excellent WSJ op/ed! It sums up why I prefer JMac over Mitt by leaps and bounds.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:56 am
Any chance that Adam and Sampo are the same person?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Adam, re #88, agreed. But if McCain cannot be stopped, wouldn’t you want him to have to fight hard in the delegate race, rather than be coronated, which is going to make him twice as bad?
February 1st, 2008 at 11:01 am
#109 Adam
I can’t speak for everybody but I’m not completely conservative and have voted Democrat before when it felt like the right thing to do. I have a 77% match with Romney on the issues, and that is the highest match I have with anyone. And Adam, YOU can’t speak for every Romney supporter either, yours is a prejudice that has too much evidence to the contrary. And if Romney was a trigger happy, 100-year war fool, I’d still be thinking about my three sons, taxes and economics first.
Adam, McCain is horrifying, I can’t get around it. The MSM and their political crowd won. We’re idiots.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
#111 – No Adam talks like a grown-up and sampo is definitely under age and probably female.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
jcali on the conservative issues, who on the ticket is more conservative overall? I considered Fred, he showed once to NV and I was out of town and couldn’t attend his appearance. No ads no interest in NV. Rudy no ads no interest he sat in FL. McCain no ads no interest. etc. Maybe that is the real reason mormons voted for Romney at least 8 visits in the north and the south. He raised more money than any other candidate in NV. Lots of GOTV calls. Huckabee and Paul both had negative robo calls. Duncan Hunter ran ads but I am not aware of any appearances.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am
#112 – Metro
What does that mean “wouldn’t you want him to have to fight hard in the delegate race, rather than be coronated, which is going to make him twice as bad?” Please explain that one, it went over my head.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Metro we all know that you want a brokered convention to put in your guy.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:10 am
Shawnie: McCain is already smug, and rather than making overtures to economic conservatives, he is poking our eyes. Imagine how much worse that will be if he swamps Romney in delegates, thinking the GOP is caving in to his brand of Republicanism. We need to make this race close.
grandma T: Long shot, but another advantage of Mitt doing well!
Adam: Think about these 2 things.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am
probably irrelevant….but according to politico, Rick Santorum endorsed Romney.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Metro,
If you have a second, explain what happens if a brokered convention occurs? I have never heard how that process works.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Metro,
“But if McCain cannot be stopped, wouldn’t you want him to have to fight hard in the delegate race, rather than be coronated, which is going to make him twice as bad?”
I’m not sure. I get where you’re coming from. If you make him fight for it he’ll remember who brought him to the party. But the longer this goes on the better it is for the Democrats in the fall. So it’s kind of an open question.
And I don’t trust that Romney would be any better than McCain on any issue when it comes time to fight Democrats in congress.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
#109 Adam
“Mormon supporters are eager to overlook that fact that he wasn’t nearly as conservative on many things that they feel important just because he shares their religion and they want to promote it into the mainstream.”
That very well may be true. But I one could say the following:
“[Evangelical opponents] are eager to overlook that fact that [Mitt is extremely competent with grounded values] which are things that they feel are important just because he [is mormon] and they [do not] want to promote it into the mainstream.”
February 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am
Tier: A series of votes are taken among the delegates. Delegates are free to switch their allegiance. Depending on their own states’ rules they must vote for their original candidate on somewhere between 0-5 ballots. Speeches are made and meetings are held to sway delegates. Backroom negotiations and deals between major players who have influence over a lot of delegates. High drama!
Adam: You don’t understand. It is BETTER that Hillary win in the fall than McCain. I don’t think you understand. Republicans would STAND UP to Hillary in Congress. But McCain would get the same anti-capitalist shit through and Republicans would be cowed. THERE WOULD EXIST NO ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT AT ALL, except on the fringes. He would reshape the party and candidates would not campaign on those issues or be recruited on those issues. Do you see the implications of that?
February 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
Adam, it’s as if Rudy had run, telling the SoCons they were backwards bigots who needed to be replaced by secular pocketbook independents, campaigning for gay marriage and for expanded abortion rights. And offering them a teensy bone on school vouchers.
That is the equivalent of what McCain is doing to EconCons. You can’t see that? Imagine how SoCons would react. EconCons should do the same, for the same reasons — or our cause will die.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:39 am
I found this quote interesting. I too have contemplated my membership in the GOP, but I keep coming back. I think that says more about the GOP than it does about me (or about McCain):
Daschle said he doesn’t believe the new revelations will hurt McCain. “Everyone has known John McCain to be independent, to take his own course. That was a time in his life when he at least weighed the possibility of becoming an independent, but he rejected it, so I can’t imagine that can ever be used as a political liability.â€
February 1st, 2008 at 11:51 am
Metro,
I get all of that. I just can’t help but thinking of his 83 ACU rating. McCain was much more of a GOP Party man before Bush and Co. royally screwed him over. I also think that Joe Six-Pack doesn’t bother to learn about the intricasies of economic issues. McCain would at least be better than Hillary on those issues overall.
But the big picture is that Republicans need to get their numbers out of the gutter by meeting the center somewhere (social issues are a good start) before a good number of voters even bother to listen to us. We can thank Bush for that. But Romney sure isn’t going to help in that regard because he won’t ever win a national election and even if he somehow did the impossible, he wouldn’t command respect from congress. Also, if we let Hillary win, I don’t see how something like 40 or 42 GOP senators are going to have the power to face down a Democrat president. And the Democrats aren’t going to help the cause of economic conservatives one bit. In fact, there will be plenty they can do that we aren’t even thinking of right now. Let’s just think back to how tumultuous the past eight years have been.
I think McCain is the least bad of no good options on economic matters and I actually think he’s the best we can hope for out of the remaining candidates on national defense.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
[...] AK, AZ, CA, CT, DE, GA, IL, MN, MT, ND, NJ, NY, OK, TN, and probably MO), we where treated to the latest hit job by R4′08’s own Gary Matthew Miller this morning based upon years-old rumors from the [...]