Republicans forced to turn to their nemesis: John McCain

[RunInRed 16,492]

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON

Republicans forced to turn to their nemesis: John McCain

By Albert R. Hunt

Bloomberg News

Published: May 11, 2008

The Republican political establishment is looking to the devil to deliver them, the man many have depicted as the incarnation of evil: John McCain.

Republicans in the U.S. Congress are petrified about a November debacle, a fear stoked on May 3, when they lost their second straight special election in a district held by Republicans.

The party's fundamental situation is terrible: Republicans are saddled with an enormously unpopular president, a war, a troubled economy and a Democratic opposition that's being energized by important constituent groups.

"The generics are as bad as anytime since I have been here," said Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican and one of the most politically astute members of Congress in either party. Davis, a 14-year veteran, is retiring this year, frustrated with his party's long-term prospects.

In a delicious irony, the one bright spot is McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. A few months ago, McCain spoke to the party's caucus in the House of Representatives and said that he would campaign in any district where he was wanted and stay out of any where he would be a liability.

"I don't know of anyone that doesn't want him in," said Representative Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican who is also retiring.

This is turning history on its head. Not long ago, the independent-minded McCain was vilified by his party's leaders.

Tom DeLay - the former Republican majority leader who was once the most powerful official the House had had in years - complained that McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of." Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert once suggested that McCain, a decorated prisoner of war in Vietnam, didn't understand sacrifice.

This year, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi said the thought of a McCain presidency "sends a cold chill down my spine." His former Mississippi colleague, Trent Lott, has endorsed McCain; eight years earlier, Lott's comments about the Arizona lawmaker were unprintable.

The czar of conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, said earlier this year that a McCain nomination would "destroy" Republicans: "He has stabbed his own party in the back I can't tell you how many times."

There is a situational element to these attitudes; McCain is fine when he's useful to them.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, facing an uphill re-election struggle in 2006, brought his old enemy into the state and tried to bask in his popularity. After Santorum was defeated, he reverted to form and trashed McCain.

Similarly, the epiphany that many Republican officeholders have recently had about McCain is about their own fate: They're scared. Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg are the twin towers of Washington election-watchers; much of the conventional wisdom in this town originates with them.

As of today, they both see the Democrats adding 5 to 10 seats to their House majority and gaining 3 to 6 Senate seats this November; that may be conservative.

With few other reeds, embattled Republicans see McCain as a lifeboat. They know voters don't like President George W. Bush or being in bed with sleazy special interests. That's the identity of the national party.

Few Republican lawmakers are viewed as more independent from Bush than is McCain - the two men really don't like each other - nor has there been any greater champion of ethics in politics than the 71-year-old senator.

McCain also provides cover on issues that plague the Republican image: the party's immigration bashing and its insensitivity to environmental concerns, especially climate change.

The odds, however, are that Republicans are deluding themselves - or at least exaggerating McCain's coattails.

In addition to the unfavorable political environment, Democrats have won the important initial rounds in House and Senate races. In the House, they have recruited several dozen potentially solid challengers; the Republicans' candidate-recruitment efforts, by their admission, have been disappointing.

In rating the current competitive House seats - about 1 in 10 - both Cook and Rothenberg see 50 percent more Republican-held seats at risk.

There's a similar pattern in the Senate. More than a half-dozen strong Democratic candidates are competing for Republican-held seats in states from Maine to New Mexico. As of today, there's possibly one vulnerable Democratic incumbent, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and that may be a stretch.

Moreover, the Democratic campaign chairmen, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Senator Charles Schumer of New York, have run circles around the opposition.

At the end of the first quarter, the two Democratic campaign committees had $82.1 million in the bank - over three times more than the $24.5 million held by Republicans. In two-thirds of the most competitive House contests, the Democrats have more money.

"The money advantage is so overwhelming the Democrats are getting parity in what should be Republican districts," Davis said.

In an effort to placate the party base, McCain has trimmed his sails and, perversely if unintentionally, looked more like a Bush Republican.

"McCain comes across to some as a different kind of Republican," Van Hollen said. "Yet he has fallen in line with the Bush agenda on the fundamental issues: the war and the economy."

The economy is the party's real potential vulnerable spot, since it's an issue of pervasive concern to voters, even more than Iraq. McCain has little interest in the subject, and a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows that Americans give both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic candidates, higher marks than McCain on the economy.

Still, embattled Republican candidates won't have to drain time and energy explaining away their presidential candidate. From Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut to Robin Hayes of North Carolina, they can run with the head of the ticket.

Their only task will be to explain all those awful anti-McCain diatribes from Republicans.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/11/ame...tter.php?page=2

[CCTAU 3,350]

And yet he still polls well? Just think how bad the dims are if they can't even run away with it from bad ole McCain.

You guys thought you had dumb ole Bush beat too. Keep digging for those negative articles. One might stick.

[RunInRed 16,492]

What's negative/non-factual about the article? Stick to what?

If you think McCain "polls so well" then why don't you take me up on my 1K general election bet?

[CCTAU 3,350]

What's negative/non-factual about the article? Stick to what?

If you think McCain "polls so well" then why don't you take me up on my 1K general election bet?

Because I'll never perform felatio on a man. And never to the point of betting 1K on him.......

[Tiger Al 0]

And yet he still polls well?

Actually, the most recent USAToday/Gallup poll now has McSame losing to both Clinton and Obama.

[CCTAU 3,350]

And yet he still polls well?

Actually, the most recent USAToday/Gallup poll now has McSame losing to both Clinton and Obama.

As bad as McCain is (according to the left), he still stays in there. EASILY.

And yet he spends hardly any money and is not really campaigning at all? Hmm. As soon as the dims figure out who their victim will be, the polls will be even more tilted in McCain's favor. Funny how it took this long for the two dims to get close. So for the slim margin as of now, enjoy. As soon as the real game starts, the polls will once again tilt toward McCain.

Like I told slurpboy, keep digging up the dirt, I doubt it will stick.

[Justin5 20]

The point of this article, and what CCTAU is missing, is not that McCain is unable to win the election - its that for Republicans to have any shot of getting any good news this year they must stand behind a man that the base of the party has hated for years.

How well McCain is polling is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (and he isn't polling THAT well considering this is the weakest point for either of the Democratic candidates).

[Tigermike 3,055]

The point of this article, and what CCTAU is missing, is not that McCain is unable to win the election - its that for Republicans to have any shot of getting any good news this year they must stand behind a man that the base of the party has hated for years.

Which is why this is such a great quote.

“One of my next objectives is to try and convince Republicans to cross over and vote for McCain down the road,” Rush Limbaugh

[Justin5 20]

The point of this article, and what CCTAU is missing, is not that McCain is unable to win the election - its that for Republicans to have any shot of getting any good news this year they must stand behind a man that the base of the party has hated for years.

Which is why this is such a great quote.

“One of my next objectives is to try and convince Republicans to cross over and vote for McCain down the road,” Rush Limbaugh

That quote isn't really that great. Moreover, If I was a Republican, I would be concerned to hear that my base was going to need to be convinced to vote for their nominee.

That is the root of the Republican's concern, and the point of this article.

[Tiger Al 0]

The point of this article, and what CCTAU is missing, is not that McCain is unable to win the election - its that for Republicans to have any shot of getting any good news this year they must stand behind a man that the base of the party has hated for years.

Which is why this is such a great quote.

“One of my next objectives is to try and convince Republicans to cross over and vote for McCain down the road,” Rush Limbaugh

But, wasn't this same guy trying to convince republicans how terrible McSame is just recently?

[tiger88 934]

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

[Auburn85 432]

i just get so easily confused here.

to some on the left he's considered "McSame", a 3rd term for Bush, yet the Republicans, who voted for 2 terms of Bush will have a hard time voting for a 3rd Bush term? Yet, anyone who votes for McSame IS voting for a 3rd Bush term?

for the love of big government, which is it?! who do I vote for!? Am I voting for Bush's 3rd term or am I voting for McCain?!

[Justin5 20]

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

I'm just thankful you support the party that is now in the minority in the House and Senate.

[autigeremt 6,716]

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

Well said! As a Right leaning Independent, I'm happy to vote for McCain v/s the other side. I voted for Bill Clinton in 92, and it was a bad choice at the time. However, I will vote the other side of the isle if their candidate is where I would like to see this country go.

[tiger88 934]

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

I'm just thankful you support the party that is now in the minority in the House and Senate.

Actually, I am more of a politically conservative free lancer who doesn't claim a party because they both suck. For now your suckish party has the advantage.

[Justin5 20]

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

I'm just thankful you support the party that is now in the minority in the House and Senate.

Actually, I am more of a politically conservative free lancer who doesn't claim a party because they both suck. For now your suckish party has the advantage.

Suckidy, suck, suckorama suckville.

I've said it on here before, and I will say it again - if you call Obama, Osama, you lose all credibility.

Do you also not trust to anyone named Charles, Joseph, Kim, Robert, or Adolph?

Because Taylor, Stalin, Jong Il, Mugabe, and Hitler all were horrible rulers who killed countless innocent people.

Names do not make a man.

[tiger88 934]

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

I'm just thankful you support the party that is now in the minority in the House and Senate.

Actually, I am more of a politically conservative free lancer who doesn't claim a party because they both suck. For now your suckish party has the advantage.

Suckidy, suck, suckorama suckville.

I've said it on here before, and I will say it again - if you call Obama, Osama, you lose all credibility.

Do you also not trust to anyone named Charles, Joseph, Kim, Robert, or Adolph?

Because Taylor, Stalin, Jong Il, Mugabe, and Hitler all were horrible rulers who killed countless innocent people.

Names do not make a man.

Actually I was just trying to hit a nerve. There are plenty of reasons to discredit Hussein that don't involve his name. I was just having fun. I agree, names don't make a man.

[AUTiger1 0]

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

I'm just thankful you support the party that is now in the minority in the House and Senate.

Actually, I am more of a politically conservative free lancer who doesn't claim a party because they both suck. For now your suckish party has the advantage.

Suckidy, suck, suckorama suckville.

I've said it on here before, and I will say it again - if you call Obama, Osama, you lose all credibility.

Do you also not trust to anyone named Charles, Joseph, Kim, Robert, or Adolph?

Because Taylor, Stalin, Jong Il, Mugabe, and Hitler all were horrible rulers who killed countless innocent people.

Names do not make a man.

Why? B/c he chooses to make fun of a candidate. When you call McCain, McSame do you lose all credibility? How about when you and other liberals call the current President a fascist and compare him to Hitler. You may have not done this personally, but let's take a look at who has shall we? Moveon.org, you libby's just love that site, Keith Ellison, Freshman Senator (D-Minn), Senator Byrd, also made comparisons to Bush and Hitler. Just asking what your Rules are. If I call Hillary, Madam Comrade Hitlery, do I lose all credibility, or when I call McCain, McLiberal? How about Barry Hussein Osama?

I don't do it b/c I don't trust them (Which I don't trust any of the three) I do it to poke fun b/c they all three are horrible choices as candidates for the President of the United States. We have a guy on one side who is a closet liberal. On the other we have Hillary, no need to explain, and then we have a Jr Senator, who to me raises questions about he company he keeps, a voting record more left than Hillary and I am supposed to blindly follow along and not question anything he says or does nor make fun at him?

[Justin5 20]

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

Suckidy, suck, suckorama suckville.

I've said it on here before, and I will say it again - if you call Obama, Osama, you lose all credibility.

Do you also not trust to anyone named Charles, Joseph, Kim, Robert, or Adolph?

Because Taylor, Stalin, Jong Il, Mugabe, and Hitler all were horrible rulers who killed countless innocent people.

Names do not make a man.

Why? B/c he chooses to make fun of a candidate. When you call McCain, McSame do you lose all credibility? How about when you and other liberals call the current President a fascist and compare him to Hitler. You may have not done this personally, but let's take a look at who has shall we? Moveon.org, you libby's just love that site, Keith Ellison, Freshman Senator (D-Minn), Senator Byrd, also made comparisons to Bush and Hitler. Just asking what your Rules are. If I call Hillary, Madam Comrade Hitlery, do I lose all credibility, or when I call McCain, McLiberal? How about Barry Hussein Osama?

I don't do it b/c I don't trust them (Which I don't trust any of the three) I do it to poke fun b/c they all three are horrible choices as candidates for the President of the United States. We have a guy on one side who is a closet liberal. On the other we have Hillary, no need to explain, and then we have a Jr Senator, who to me raises questions about he company he keeps, a voting record more left than Hillary and I am supposed to blindly follow along and not question anything he says or does nor make fun at him?

If you want to look it up, you are welcome to - I've never called McCain, McSame. When the discussion starts going into name calling, I tend to leave the thread. The main problem I have with the Osama comment is simply in bad taste. Osama killed nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans. It is not funny to me. I wouldn't make nearly the fuss if you were to call Obama something else.

You do make a very valid point about my some may not be happy with any of the candidates though.

[RunInRed 16,492]

The point of this article, and what CCTAU is missing, is not that McCain is unable to win the election - its that for Republicans to have any shot of getting any good news this year they must stand behind a man that the base of the party has hated for years.

How well McCain is polling is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (and he isn't polling THAT well considering this is the weakest point for either of the Democratic candidates).

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[autigeremt 6,716]

BTW

I love how the dems are using this "Third Bush Term" against McCain. It proves just how blind they have been the last 8 years.

[Tigermike 3,055]

BTW

I love how the dems are using this "Third Bush Term" against McCain. It proves just how blind they have been the last 8 years.

A third Bush Term sounds a lot better than a second Jimmy Carter term!

I'm just thankful we have Mccain to turn to and don't have to choose betweem hillary and osama.

I'm just thankful you support the party that is now in the minority in the House and Senate.

Actually, I am more of a politically conservative free lancer who doesn't claim a party because they both suck. For now your suckish party has the advantage.

Suckidy, suck, suckorama suckville.

I've said it on here before, and I will say it again - if you call Obama, Osama, you lose all credibility.

Do you also not trust to anyone named Charles, Joseph, Kim, Robert, or Adolph?

Because Taylor, Stalin, Jong Il, Mugabe, and Hitler all were horrible rulers who killed countless innocent people.

Names do not make a man.

Actually I was just trying to hit a nerve.

I think you succeeded.

[Tiger Al 0]

BTW

I love how the dems are using this "Third Bush Term" against McCain. It proves just how blind they have been the last 8 years.

Well, when he advocates the same policies as Bush like tax cuts for the rich after he was against them, torturing prisoners after he was against it, Iraq War for 100 years or more and he aligns himself with the same whackjobs as Bush like John Hagee and Rod Parsley after calling them and their ilk "agents of intolerance," it sure looks like a third Bush term to me. It's the McSame s***/McDifferent day.

[autigeremt 6,716]

I love how people believe only what they want to hear, and hear only what they want to believe.

McCain is for the cuts because we should be able to run effective government at the current 36% tax rate that we have today. A roll back to 39% will only hurt the middle class, and not so much for the wealthy, who make up only 2% of the population, yet pay the highest % in the overall tax base. McCain will cut spending and increase revenues at the same 36% rate that's being paid right now. No need to go back to the old rate. Bush has went out of control on spending. McCain will reign that in!

McCain is not for extreme measures such as waterboarding. I don't think you or I can qualify our positions against McCain based on his 7 years in North Vietnam. I think he's earned his beliefs on torture. McCain adopts the Colin Powell doctrine on how far we should go regarding torture.

And this 100 years in Iraq shows how much you lock step with the Move On crowd. You only want to state partial facts. McCain made that statement in relation to our bases in Europe and Korea. And he stated "As long as Iraq wants us and our soldiers are not being killed"...... READ THE WHOLE RESPONSE PEOPLE!

And if you can compare John Hagee to Mr. Aires and Mr. Wright, then you truley have on rose colored glasses. Mr. Hagee sought McCain to endorse, not the other way around. However, I do not agree with Hagee at all! He should keep his endorsements to himself.

[Justin5 20]

I love how people believe only what they want to hear, and hear only what they want to believe.

McCain is for the cuts because we should be able to run effective government at the current 36% tax rate that we have today. A roll back to 39% will only hurt the middle class, and not so much for the wealthy, who make up only 2% of the population, yet pay the highest % in the overall tax base. McCain will cut spending and increase revenues at the same 36% rate that's being paid right now. No need to go back to the old rate. Bush has went out of control on spending. McCain will reign that in!

McCain is not for extreme measures such as waterboarding. I don't think you or I can qualify our positions against McCain based on his 7 years in North Vietnam. I think he's earned his beliefs on torture. McCain adopts the Colin Powell doctrine on how far we should go regarding torture.

And this 100 years in Iraq shows how much you lock step with the Move On crowd. You only want to state partial facts. McCain made that statement in relation to our bases in Europe and Korea. And he stated "As long as Iraq wants us and our soldiers are not being killed"...... READ THE WHOLE RESPONSE PEOPLE!

And if you can compare John Hagee to Mr. Aires and Mr. Wright, then you truley have on rose colored glasses. Mr. Hagee sought McCain to endorse, not the other way around. However, I do not agree with Hagee at all! He should keep his endorsements to himself.

I know McCain won't be as bad as Bush. That doesn't mean labeling him as a 3rd term isn't smart by the Democratic party. In my opinion the only way McCain will be similar to Bush will be Foreign Policy and Immigration.

I am VERY concerned with direction McCain will take our foreign policy. He WILL invade Iran and who knows what else.

I'm not voting for the guy.