PDA

View Full Version : Too Late Juan McCain.


24champ
02-06-2008, 12:55 PM
I knew he was going to do this because he isn't going to be do it without Conservatives. It's too bad he didn't do this when he was in office, you make the bed you sleep in McCain.




By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Boosted by his big night, John McCain asked his loudest conservative critics Wednesday to "calm down" and support his Republican presidential candidacy, as Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton girded for more rounds of their protracted struggle for the Democratic nomination. Obama dared claim a "big victory" because he came from so far behind, but the spoils were closely divided and the bragging rights, shared.
ADVERTISEMENT

McCain was referring primarily to radio talk show hosts and other pundits of the right when he appealed for unity now that he has a leg up in the nomination race.

"I think they've made their case against me pretty eloquently," he said, adding wryly, "if that's the right word." He asserted that the pundits' conservative hero Ronald Reagan — and his — reached across the aisle to Democrats just like he wants to do as president.

"I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there are areas that we can agree on for the good of the party and for the good of the country," he said. The critics argue he's too liberal for the party.

Both Obama and Clinton were looking ahead to the fall, campaigning as the Democrat tough enough to withstand Republicans attacks, and the Illinois senator pointedly argued Wednesday that he's been tested by the hard-driving Clinton campaign.

"The Clinton research operation is about as good as anybody's out there," Obama told a news conference. "I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them for the last year, that they've pulled out all the stops. ... We can take a punch. We're still standing."

Obama cited his growth in opinion polls that once found him far behind Clinton nationally and in some Super Tuesday states. "We won big states and small states," he said. "We won red states and we won blue states and we won swing states."

Clinton, too, won big, small, red, blue and bellwether: her column includes California, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Arizona and Tennessee.

Altogether, Obama won 13 Super Tuesday states; Clinton, eight plus American Samoa. Clinton scored the advantage in delegates, bringing her total to 845 to Obama's 765, by the latest accounting. The road ahead was long for the Democrats: It takes 2,025 delegates to claim their nomination.

The New Mexico Democratic caucuses Tuesday remained too close to call.

The question of who won Super Tuesday was more easily answered on the GOP side, where McCain piled up more delegates than his two rivals combined and pushed past the halfway mark toward what's needed to clinch the nomination. His victories stretched from New York to California, the biggest prize. Still, Mitt Romney in the West and Mike Huckabee in the South proved to be go-to candidates for conservatives, and they vowed to stay in the thick of the race.

On Saturday, Louisiana and Washington state hold two-party contests while Nebraska Democrats and Kansas Republicans make their picks. Then comes a larger series of two-party primaries in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia on Tuesday.

More than 168 Democratic delegates are at stake Tuesday, a sizable prize in two states and a district that are normally afterthoughts in nomination contests. Clinton, who plans to campaign in Virginia on Thursday, has been endorsed in Maryland by Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Barbara Mikulski; Obama is backed by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, and is expected to do well in largely black D.C. Republicans will award 116 delegates in the trio of races dubbed the Potomac Primary.

Romney enjoyed his first night at home in a month and then drove himself, his wife, Ann, and his son Craig to his office overlooking Boston Harbor for a strategy session with aides. "Got some good sleep," he said.

Exit polling indicated Obama and Clinton were each getting support from almost half of white men, marking a big improvement for the Illinois senator. Former Sen. John Edwards' departure from the Democratic race last week may have helped Obama with white males, who made up more than a quarter of Tuesday's Democratic voters from coast to coast.

More than four in 10 women and about the same number of whites also were supporting Obama. That represented a gain for him from most previous Democratic nominating contests this year, although he still trailed Clinton by more than 10 percentage points in both categories, a significant gap in a two-person race.

Democrats celebrated heavy turnout in several of their races and hoped they could bottle that electricity until the presidential campaign in the fall. As one measure, Clinton managed to get more votes in Minnesota than all that were cast in the 2004 Democratic caucuses in that state, despite her running a distant second to Obama.

Clinton won the biggest state, California, capitalizing on backing from Hispanic voters. Obama scored victories in Alabama and Georgia on the strength of black support, and won a nail-biter in bellwether Missouri.

McCain's own victory in California dealt a crushing blow to his closest pursuer, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor.

In the competition that counted the most, the Arizona senator had 613 delegates, to 269 for Romney and 190 for Huckabee in incomplete counting. It takes 1,191 to win the GOP nomination.

Polling place interviews with voters suggested subtle shifts in the political landscape.

For the first time this year, McCain ran first in a few states among self-identified Republicans. As usual, he was running strongly among independents. Romney was getting the votes of about four in 10 people who described themselves as conservative. McCain was winning about one-third of that group, and Huckabee about one in five.

Overall, Clinton was winning only a slight edge among women and white voters, groups that she had won handily in earlier contests, according to preliminary results from interviews with voters in 16 states leaving polling places.

Obama was collecting the overwhelming majority of votes cast by blacks — a factor in victories in Alabama and Georgia.

Clinton's continued strong appeal among Hispanics — she was winning nearly six in 10 of their votes — was a big factor in her California triumph, and in her victory in Arizona, too.

McCain won in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri, Delaware and his home state of Arizona — each of them winner-take-all primaries. He also pocketed victories in Oklahoma and Illinois.

Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, won a series of Bible Belt victories, in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee as well as his own home state. He also triumphed at the Republican West Virginia convention.

Romney won a home state victory in Massachusetts. He also took Utah, where fellow Mormons supported his candidacy. His superior organization produced caucus victories in North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Alaska and Colorado.

Democrats played out a historic struggle between two senators: Clinton, seeking to become the first female president, and Obama, hoping to become the first black to win the White House.

Clinton won at home in New York as well as in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arizona and Arkansas, where she was first lady for more than a decade. She also won the caucuses in American Samoa.

Obama won Connecticut, Georgia, Alabama, Delaware, Utah and his home state of Illinois. He prevailed in caucuses in North Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, Idaho, Alaska and Colorado. His Missouri victory was so close in the vote total that there was no telling whether he or Clinton would end up with a majority of the state's 72 delegates.

The allocation of delegates lagged the vote count by hours. That was particularly true for the Democrats, who divided theirs roughly in proportion to the popular vote. Nine of the Republican contests were winner take all, and that was where McCain piled up his lead.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080206/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-07-2008, 02:16 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/far-right-pill208.gif

SoCalBronco
02-07-2008, 02:47 AM
I knew he was going to do this because he isn't going to be do it without Conservatives. It's too bad he didn't do this when he was in office, you make the bed you sleep in McCain.




Do what? The polling data suggests that he's extremely competitive against either Democrat without this fervent intensity of support from the very conservative wing of the party. What does that tell you? If he's in a dead heat or slightly better (consistently, not just in one snapshot in time) with the Dems without you guys supporting him, it means he doesn't need you. It would be icing on the cake, but he's already very competitive without it. I love how the far right wing expects him to come groveling (I hope he doesn't), its not an absolute requirement that we get that support to win. And BTW, if he only gets lukewarm support (i.e. sitting out) from them in the end (as he is getting right now in the polling) and he pulls it out anyway, don't assume that there won't be consequences for that wing. There are long memories and I hope he is very vindictive about it.

Kaylore
02-07-2008, 02:57 AM
SoCal, the Dems and liberal independents are not going to vote for McCain in the general. I mean seriously do you honestly think the press is going to keep propping him up once they remember that he's the Republican in the race? Right now they just like him because conservatives don't, but once the real deal is going liberals and left-leaning independents will go with the Dem candidate like they always do. Where's the base that he's estranged going to be then?

SoCalBronco
02-07-2008, 03:07 AM
SoCal, the Dems and liberal independents are not going to vote for McCain in the general. I mean seriously do you honestly think the press is going to keep propping him up once they remember that he's the Republican in the race? Right now they just like him because conservatives don't, but once the real deal is going liberals and left-leaning independents will go with the Dem candidate like they always do. Where's the base that he's estranged going to be then?

How is it then that he is in a dead heat or better without them? If the matchup is vs. Clinton, he can win even with just lukewarm support from the far right. He's doing it already in head to head (again, not just in a snapshot but consistently). He'll be able to win a good share of independents and moderates against her and maybe a tiny small bit of Dems, too. His favorable/unfavorables in the general populace are alot better than hers...her unfavorables/negatives have been consistently at a near lethal rate (that makes it more difficult for her regardless of her opponent, but even more difficult vs. a Republican that can appeal to a larger swath of the voters). You mentioned press coverage too...I think if it was vs. Clinton, they wouldn't necessarily jump all over him, either. There is a fairly large dislike for her in the press.

24champ
02-07-2008, 03:36 AM
Do what? The polling data suggests that he's extremely competitive against either Democrat without this fervent intensity of support from the very conservative wing of the party. What does that tell you? If he's in a dead heat or slightly better (consistently, not just in one snapshot in time) with the Dems without you guys supporting him, it means he doesn't need you. It would be icing on the cake, but he's already very competitive without it. I love how the far right wing expects him to come groveling (I hope he doesn't), its not an absolute requirement that we get that support to win. And BTW, if he only gets lukewarm support (i.e. sitting out) from them in the end (as he is getting right now in the polling) and he pulls it out anyway, don't assume that there won't be consequences for that wing. There are long memories and I hope he is very vindictive about it.

We've been over this a million times offline.

My point was that it is too late for McCain to try and get our support and what do you know, he is going to CPAC tommorow or today depending on where you are standard time. He has already been vindictive about the 2000 election, and you say he will be vindictive about it this time around if he doesn't get our support. What do you mean? Should we expect more liberal reaching garbage like McCain-Feingold, McCain-Leiberman, McCain-Kennedy?

Should we expect more name-calling of Conservatives?


He isn't getting my vote, his supporters telling me there will be dire consequences as a result won't change that. So what is funny about that is you guys act like you don't need our vote yet in the next breath there will be dire consequences regardless if McCain blows it in the General or not. It's pretty telling but regardless of the empty threats, the Conservatives will be waiting in the tall grass until the Country Club repubs choke on it and we will take back the party.

TexanBob
02-07-2008, 04:29 AM
I've voted for every Republican presidential candidate since Gerald Ford but I will NOT be voting for John McCain. I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton either.

I plan on crossing over and voting for Obama in the primaries in hopes he can knock off the Evil Empire. If he can do that, maybe I'll just vote for him again in the general out of gratitude.

spdirty
02-07-2008, 10:03 AM
Do what? The polling data suggests that he's extremely competitive against either Democrat without this fervent intensity of support from the very conservative wing of the party. What does that tell you? If he's in a dead heat or slightly better (consistently, not just in one snapshot in time) with the Dems without you guys supporting him, it means he doesn't need you. It would be icing on the cake, but he's already very competitive without it. I love how the far right wing expects him to come groveling (I hope he doesn't), its not an absolute requirement that we get that support to win. And BTW, if he only gets lukewarm support (i.e. sitting out) from them in the end (as he is getting right now in the polling) and he pulls it out anyway, don't assume that there won't be consequences for that wing. There are long memories and I hope he is very vindictive about it.

which is exactly why many of us are considering taking the pull plunge, and becoming "suicide voters," and going with the dem candidate if its close.

Not a fan of her anymore, but Ann Coulter said it best when she said this...

If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

There's your choice, America.

I hope its reverse Mondale-Reagan and McCain gets humiliated in the general.

Rohirrim
02-07-2008, 10:23 AM
I just hope we can have a general election that actually addresses issues of major importance to us like the economy, climate change, the war, the debt, the trade deficit and terrorism instead of allowing the hard Right to once again yank us out into their idiot-fest of gay marriage, flag burning and abortion.

spdirty
02-07-2008, 10:28 AM
I just hope we can have a general election that actually addresses issues of major importance to us like the economy, climate change, the war, the debt, the trade deficit and terrorism instead of allowing the hard Right to once again yank us out into their idiot-fest of gay marriage, flag burning and abortion.

Settle down brother. Your one of us now.;D

Bronco Bob
02-07-2008, 11:09 AM
Settle down brother. Your one of us now.;D

But apparently McCain's big selling point at CPAC is he is going to appoint
judges like Alito and Roberts. Why would CPAC care about getting right
wing judges on the court except for having ones who would overturn
Roe v Wade and make rulings against gay marriage and flag burning.

Rohirrim
02-07-2008, 11:15 AM
Settle down brother. Your one of us now.;D

But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice! ;D

Kaylore
02-07-2008, 07:39 PM
Do what? The polling data suggests that he's extremely competitive against either Democrat without this fervent intensity of support from the very conservative wing of the party. What does that tell you? If he's in a dead heat or slightly better (consistently, not just in one snapshot in time) with the Dems without you guys supporting him, it means he doesn't need you. It would be icing on the cake, but he's already very competitive without it. I love how the far right wing expects him to come groveling (I hope he doesn't), its not an absolute requirement that we get that support to win. And BTW, if he only gets lukewarm support (i.e. sitting out) from them in the end (as he is getting right now in the polling) and he pulls it out anyway, don't assume that there won't be consequences for that wing. There are long memories and I hope he is very vindictive about it.

The polling data is bogus and if there's anything this election should have shown you, it's that the polls are worthless even the day before the election. Just watch what the press does. I'm more excited to see how McCain reacts when his press buddies suddenly turn on him and he's left all alone in the middle with no friends to vote for him.

spdirty
02-08-2008, 12:38 AM
The polling data is bogus and if there's anything this election should have shown you, it's that the polls are worthless even the day before the election. Just watch what the press does. I'm more excited to see how McCain reacts when his press buddies suddenly turn on him and he's left all alone in the middle with no friends to vote for him.

He'll get the "oh, I voted for him cuz he's electable" sellouts and some from the other side who are pissed off cuz their candidate didn't win, but thats it.

I just want to see him get humiliated by at least 10 points so we never have to hear from him again.

24champ
02-08-2008, 12:44 AM
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/27000/John-McCain-for-President--27353.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-10-2008, 10:31 PM
Senator McCain: Have You and Reagan Surrendered?

It is interesting, Senator McCain, how you, in an effort to get more Republicans aboard your presidential ship, how you push two buttons you hope will achieve immediate success: 1) accusing the Democrats of “surrender”; 2) invoking the name of Ronald Reagan as you proclaim yourself to have been an early foot soldier in the “Reagan Revolution.”

Since you brought up the subject of surrender, let us explore it with you and Reagan. Beginning with yourself, what about that disgraceful 2000 Republican primary campaign in South Carolina when the forces of George W. Bush, led by Karl Rove, attacked your wife as a harlot, attacked your mental stability, and used stereotypical racism by alleging that you had a “black” daughter, meaning the little girl you adopted from Bangladesh?

Many of us attacked this shameful scorched earth style of savage and thoroughly repugnant campaigning. At one debate with Larry King moderating you demanded that Bush not even touch you.

So what happened at the end? You were seen embracing and being embraced by George W. Bush. I have seen that scene repeated many times with the same visceral feeling of disgust being shown by you as your body tightens up and recoils. You know what Bush was responsible for and you detest him for it, but rather than embrace principle and tell him as well as his ruthless organization what you think of them you swallowed your distrust and detestation in the interest of political expediency.

Could we not say that this embodies surrender on your part?

Now you take credit for tackling corruption in government. You went after lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Here is the question many of us have asked: Why did you not extend your committee’s investigation beyond lobbyists to fellow Senate members? As one political analyst bluntly put it the other day, “It’s one thing to jail the johns but what about going after the whores?”

Once more it appears that expediency won the day, Senator McCain. You capture headlines by going after Abramoff but know just where and when to pull your investigative wagon to a halt.

Could we not say that this embodies surrender on your part?

After you used your wife’s fortune to secure election to the Senate as a Reagan corporate Republican you became one of the “Keating Five,” a distinction you would prefer the body politic to forget.

In 1987 it was revealed that you were one of five Senators who took huge campaign contributions from so-called savings and loan entrepreneur Charles Keating, a huckster who bilked a fortune out of seniors seeking assistance on the best means of investing and gaining interest on their retirement money.

In return for Keating’s generous campaign assistance, you and your four colleagues pressured government regulators to spend their time and attention elsewhere rather than to probe Keating’s dirty dealings, which ultimately saw him convicted and sent to federal prison.

Johann Hari of London’s Independent quoted your response to the Keating tragedy: “I did it for no other reason than I valued (Keating’s) support.”

Senator McCain, did your activity on Keating’s behalf embody surrender?

Now you seek to link yourself to Reagan to gain the worthwhile support of such noble Republicans as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. You even finally came around and embraced Bush’s tax cuts, modeled on the old Reagan formula.

Those tax cuts produced results for both Reagan and Bush respectively, not to mention America. When Reagan left office his tax cuts heavily skewed toward the rich had tripled the national debt to $3 trillion.

After four more years under Reagan’s Republican successor George Bush the Elder the figure rose another trillion, meaning a quadrupling of the national debt to $4 trillion.

Reagan and the elder Bush were pikers compared to the younger Bush and his tax cut efforts. The younger Bush began with a surplus and soon extended that into what resulted in a mad rush toward economic oblivion.

The cuts you earlier opposed as wasteful and now support brought America from a surplus to the early prospect of a $10 trillion debt, the highest in the history of the planet and larger than all of America’s previous debt combined.

Congratulations, Senator McCain, for surrendering to the wild-eyed Bush neocons in the realm of fiscal sanity.

Your hero Ronald Reagan surrendered when he on the one hand put Iran at the top of the world embargo list and denounced it as a pariah, but secretly cut an arms for hostages deal with his own self-declared devil.

Senator McCain, was that not surrender on Reagan’s part?

How about those Kurds in Iraq’s northern provinces that were subjected to genocide by ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein? Did Reagan stand up to Saddam then, Senator? No, he was too busy cutting oil deals with him in exchange for weapons, including information in the development of chemical weapons.

Senator, Saddam gassed those people and murdered them ala Hitler and the Jews in World War Two, while Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand and smiled while a new oil for weapons deal was announced.

Was that surrender, Senator McCain?

How about that moment during Reagan’s second debate with Mondale in the 1984 presidential race, Senator? While most of the mainstream media was looking the other way your hero Reagan said that the Director of the CIA was ultimately responsible for intelligence activities.

Mondale disagreed, saying that the ultimate responsibility rested under the Constitution with the President of the United States.

Innocent people, including women and children, were being gunned down on Central American streets, places like Gautemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. Meanwhile CIA operatives had helped along this cause by preparing an assassination manual.

Was this abdication to decency and surrendering to mob rule by thugs a surrender, Senator McCain?

You get the idea. You and your hero Ronald Reagan bear the same badly tarnished feet of clay.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12747