Every time we get worried about the '08 Democrats beating each other up- we read something like For GOP, A Void on the Right, and realize: we'd rather have our problems, thank you very much.
Grumpy Republican meaneocon Robert Novak bemoans the dearth of candidates satisfactory to conservatives. Most notable, he reports is how deep the rancor is for John McCain by the party's paleocons as well as the moraliticons. He's truly distrusted and despised.
He stuck his foot in it again last night when he told David Letterman, "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."
Obama caused a shitstorm from the shocked, shocked and patriotically correct Republicans when he recently said American lives were "wasted" in the Iraq war. He apologized. Now McCain has said the same thing and is feeling the heat, not only from the DNC, but more devastatingly from party wing nuts who are on him like sugar bees on a rump roast.
(What would you call lives taken in a war that was dishonestly conceived, perniciously sold, and incompetently prosecuted?)
The responses to the inscrutable yet breezy puff piece on McCain this morning by Don "Front Page" Ward on the Seattle Republican sounding board (sounding bored?) Sound Politics gives us a local view of the Republican conundrum. Self-described as a reporter, he says he was on his way out the door "to do some interviews I don't have time to give my complete list of thoughts. (sic)"
His incomplete thoughts, and nearly comprehensible typing included such glowing (yet controversial) affirmations as "John McCain is a man of his word" which were enough to cause a little shitblitz among the cranky conservative choir over there.
With the vitriol usually saved for single moms and the homeless, a few said they'd actually sit out the presidential if it were between McCain and the hated Hillary (or Hitlery, as a commenter called her). One poster refers to McCain as "that bloated toad (TBT).
We'd say the state Republicans have a problem (brilliant analysis,
no?). Mainstream Republicans supported McCain in the past- Ralph Munro
headed up his 2000 campaign- and Mainstreamer Attorney General Rob
McKenna, one of the few Republicans elected statewide, has come out
already with an endorsement of the Arizona Senator. Ex-Senator Slade Gorton Republican eminence grease supports him as well.
The other end of the party- slyly and well articulated by those who call themselves the Reagan Wing link the morally retarded Dick Morris to pronounce the McCain candidacy dead.
There was a time when we thought McCain was a threat to Democrats in 2008. We were afraid people wouldn't realize how conservative he really is beneath all that self-deprecating reasonable schtick.
That was before he attached himself to the Bush war doctrine, and felated Jerry Falwell.
All McCain's posturing was for nothing; his rightward acrobatics served merely to piss off the moderates who have long been snookered by him.
Novak and many other right-wingers are saying Newt Gingrich is the guy to watch. But the former speaker has been tainted for the moraliticons after it was revealed he'd been schtupping his 30-something aide Callista Bisek (said to creepily resemble Hillary Clinton) for years- even while pecksniffing Bill Clinton's peccadilloes. Gingrich dumped his wife of 18 years, Marianne over the phone while she was celebrating her mother's 84th birthday.
This doesn't fly well in the Carolinas or Kansas or Eastern Washington; and to the rest of us: Gingrich is still the same longwinded asshole he ever was.
So who to do? That's the question for the GOP in a presidential year many are saying that any Democrat can win over any Republican.
It's way too early to buy that- Democrats have always had an amazing talent for wresting defeat from the jaws of victory; but meanwhile, they have the most attractive, qualified, and well-positioned candidates in memory.
Having too many good candidates has its problems, but having few-to-none is a helluva lot worse.
McCain apologizes! No, wait! He doesn't!
An apology:
"Last evening, I referred to American casualties in Iraq as wasted. I should have used the word, sacrificed, as I have in the past. No one appreciates and honors more than I do the selfless patriotism of American servicemen and women in the Iraq War. We owe them a debt we can never fully repay. And America’s leaders owe them, as well as the American people, our best judgment and honest appraisal of the progress of the war, in which they continue to sacrifice."
No, wait!
ABC News:
McCain's Senate office released a statement from the senator that did not contain an apology, but suggested that he "should have used the word, sacrificed, as I have in the past."
And what does BigPants have to say about this??
Posted by: sparky | March 01, 2007 at 02:56 PM
John McCain's image with neocons is equal to George W at this time 8 years ago. The right was nervous about his so called compassionate Conservatism.
Never count out the Senator from Arizona.
Posted by: Mike Barer | March 01, 2007 at 03:35 PM
Sorry Mike, but the GOP of 2000 is not the GOP of 2007. The Falwell/Dobson rubber-stamp was always important, but now they're king-makers.
The only problem for McCain is that the harder he schills and panders for them, the more they see him has a schill and a panderer.
Guilianni did the best thing by saying fuck em. He wont get nominated, but he'll set himself up for a brilliant reverse-Lieberman move (and Cthulu-bless him if he does)
Posted by: mercifurious | March 01, 2007 at 04:13 PM
All of the candidates on both sides of the aisle seem to forget there is this cool thing called videotape..it is amazing they dont anticipate their words from the past being played side by side with what they are saying now...same with Cheney and Bush. They deny, deny, deny--roll the video tape please! Of course Cheney's motto is " who ya gonna believe, the tape or what I say I said??"
Posted by: sparky | March 01, 2007 at 04:42 PM
Rudy Soprano will need Cthulu's blessing, N8...but, if Bush could win the hearts, minds, and votes of post 9-11 survivors, never say "never" to Rudy...
McCain is being demonized as "the oldest incoming president", (72) and has health problems including "looking tired" and "skin cancer"; but it's melanoma, not the basal cell carcinoma that is one of the few "problems" that targets white, American males.
Posted by: FREMONT | March 01, 2007 at 04:58 PM
One of the great rules of politics is the Toe Sucker Rule. Simply stated, it says that no one has ever gone broke doing the exact opposite of what Dick Morris says.
The other end of the party- slyly and well articulated by those who call themselves the Reagan Wing link the morally retarded Dick Morris to pronounce the McCain candidacy dead.
So, if Morris says it is over, then McCain has a strong chance.
What is amazing to me is that anyone thinks any thing in the polls matter at this point. Hell, if they did, Howard Dean would be president right now.
Nothing will really matter until October. Yes, it will be necessary to put together a lot of money and a staff fairly quickly, but there are those that can do that fairly easily (and already have other resources that can be converted over very quickly).
So look for McCain to beat up Giuliani when he can, and Clinton to do the same to Obama. Then after labor day, Gingrich for sure, and possibly Gore will jump in. Both have the ability to put together campaigns and raise money quickly, and both would have the benefit of not being under the microscope for six months.
Gingrich is in the best shape since the wing nuts will take a guy that dumped his wife and diddled his secretary any day over someone that likes gay people. For some reason, despite his nearly perfect conservative record, wingnuts keep thinking that McCain is really John Kerry with less hair..., go fig, and will be glad to jump on a true conservative. Heck, don't forget, Nancy was preggers out of wedlock, so in many ways, Gingrich is the true "Reagan" conservative.
Gore will have some problems if Obama comes through the summer unscathed. The Boomers have messed this country up enough over the last few years that the "time for a change, time to do things right" message will go far. That being said, the fanaticism and hatred you see on the right from the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh shows how much they fear Gore. They know that now that he is out of the shadow of Clinton (which will be made abundantly clear if his major challenger is Hillary), that Gore actually hits the right balance to sweep the country. A Gore/Obama ticket would be hard to beat, and would almost guarantee 12 years of Democratic rule.
Sure, the Republicans might try to put up the one person that stands a chance to actually win, but Giuliani has plenty of baggage. Let's not forget that he was political dead meat until 9/11. Even after that, don't forget that he was the one that recommended to Bush Bernard Kerik to head Homeland Security. I would be amazed if Giuliani can get through the debates without letting his anger out or pissing off the far right.
But the main thing to remember is that outside of Fox News and talk radio, no one gives a damn yet, and there is plenty of time for the race to change. It will be fun to watch what actually happens over the next year, and how wrong (as per usual), the toe sucker is.
Posted by: JDB | March 01, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Figured the Republicans would start to self-destruct; was only a matter of time.
Rev Jesse Jackson could make a move now and cause considerable attraction I think. Dem money machine will undoubtedly get behind Hillary - unless AG decides to run. This is going to get real interesting. I think the Dems will win big time in '08, I just hope Pres Bush can get the Iraq mess settled so the new Admin doesn't have to start out in a hole! This is getting exciting.
So, what's the concensus here; were the 3K lost lives worth it? [was debated on Ron Reagan's show today - but not really answered?]
Posted by: Duffman | March 01, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Jesse Jackson has no chance.
As for John McCain, "Reason" magazine just came out with a great article explaining why he is NOT the libertarian choice for president in '08.
If a Republican has to win, I hope it's Giuliani.
But I'd prefer a Democrat. Neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards really floats my boat, but what can I do?
Posted by: lukobe | March 01, 2007 at 05:53 PM
JDB . . . I love your analyses. I think Giuliani sounds a lot like Bush did in 2000 but the Dems are smarter now and Giuliani's got a ton of baggage . . .almost equal to the panderning flip-flopper on everything McCain. McCain is out. Anybody that thinks McCain has a chance isn't paying attention.
I think I'd like a Gore/Obama ticket. I hadn't thought twelve years out before, but that sounds real good. And Gore and Obama have a similar ethic . . . they could be a fabulous team.
I still think it will be Romney on the right . . . just like in 1960 when Kennedy's appeal negated his catholic status, Romney will look like the best Republican out there. He's clean, personable, good looking, intelligent, affable, family values . . . he's everything the right (and many on the left) will appreciate by then.
Dick Morris is a scum bag but he's pretty politically astute. . . sometimes.
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2007 at 06:08 PM
Also, forget that other scumbag, Gingrich. Another one with great baggage and hopefully, again, the Dems will use it well.
All the Dems have to do is resurrect that ridiculous Contract on America and ask people if they are going to fall for old line again.
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2007 at 06:14 PM
It's for the Dems to lose. But just ask Al Gore how that can happen. Repubs do have an advantage in that for them 06 was a wakecall so the conservative base may be just scared enough of a 'liberal' that they will loosen up the wingnuts amongst themselves and tepidly support a McCain or Rudy. But the real fun will be on the Dem side. High stakes. Gore vs Clinton vs Obama vs the 800 lb Dem Gorilla: Howard Dean. He was shunted aside and he doesn't seem like the kind to take that for long. He may weigh in and repay Al Gore a favor (recall that Al supported Dean over Kerry in 04 in the primaries). That would be a real force in the Dem Party. Could it translate to the General Election. Maybe with a centrist VP...
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 01, 2007 at 06:16 PM
Joanie Broadstrokes
Out of the Contract With America, which ones are so bad? Here they are. You tell us what's so beyond the pale with following:
1) require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
2) select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
3) cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
4) limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5) ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6) require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7) require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
8) and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget.
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 01, 2007 at 06:21 PM
And they enacted them all?
"and several parts of the Contract were enacted, though most were not. Some elements did not pass the House, others died in the Senate, or Conference Committee, were vetoed by President Bill Clinton, or were substantially altered in negotiations with Clinton."
So, were they all enacted? I didn't know we had a zero base-line budgeting process. Do we?
Do we have term limits for all committee chairs?
Are all committee meetings open to the public?
How much of it did that Republican wave enact and how much of it was BS?
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2007 at 06:35 PM
Excuse me boys and girls but the only promise that came with the Contract With America was that all those issues would be brought up for a vote.
It is the same old story every year. The party out of power complains that they can never get their issues up for a vote.
Posted by: Ryder | March 01, 2007 at 06:53 PM
That's my point, Ryder. It was all a big con job. The right doesn't have much credibility right now and I think it will be a long time before they get any.
And most people bought the contract based on it promise and that promise was more than just a vote to most people who don't read the fine print.
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2007 at 07:03 PM
Spot on Ryder!
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 01, 2007 at 07:24 PM
In other words, puts, there's no "there" there. Just another empty response.
See, you contribute nothing relevant. Your point makes my case. Let 'em try another Contract on America. See if the public buys it this time.
What a fool you are.
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2007 at 07:34 PM
i just asked what was so beyond the pale with the specifi ammendments put to a vote. you kind of read a little bit more into it, tried to create a straw argument, and then triumphently defeated your straw argument. very impressive.
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 01, 2007 at 07:37 PM
May I also speculate : If there is one thing in a presidential candidate that people are looking for it is a new face. Voters are sick of hearing about McCain, Rudy, Hilary, Edwards........ They're all old news. Obama is catching attention because he is not only a new face but is also quite charismatic. If he can keep that freshness another year he might make it to the nomination. (If California & a couple other states move their primary to february, this nomination contest will be over a year from now.) Frankly, I don't think the "machine" will support Obama. Just like in 2004 when the media was setting Dean up as the populace hero, the party regulars showed up to vote and selected Kerry. The regulars will fall in behind Hilary. UNLESS, she and Obama tear each other down so much that Gore can enter the race. Then to avoid putting a woman or black man up as a candidate they will pick Gore.
Another scenereo: Obama becomes so popular among blacks that when they see him being crushed by the Clinton machine (dirty stories about him suddenly appear) they become enraged and demand that, unless Obama wins the nomination, he jump from the party and run as a 3rd party candidate.
This puts the Donkeys in a bad situation. If black america thinks they are being screwed over they will bolt the party by either supporting Obama as a 3rd party candidate or just not showing up to vote. If that happens, the GOP could run any candidate and win.
Either way the next year is going to be fun to watch.
Posted by: Ryder | March 01, 2007 at 07:42 PM
Ryder
I never thought that Obama might jump parties and run on a 3rd ticket. Now that would be delicious. He can really campaign as 'above the fray' and an outsider to DC. He could do some real damage. But a lot of people may give him a serious look as an alternative to the last 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/and maybe another Clinton routine.
It will be fun to watch and blather on about. :)
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 01, 2007 at 07:56 PM
Ryder: Frankly, I don't think the "machine" will support Obama. Just like in 2004 when the media was setting Dean up as the populace hero, the party regulars showed up to vote and selected Kerry.
Exactly what happened to Dean. The party de-selected him. Not enough people realize that. Thanks, Ryder. Good analysis. I doubt Obama will jump ship and there will be enough bloodshed on the right that the left will be okay. The party will create it's own misery if they de-select Obama for Clinton.
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2007 at 08:01 PM
puts, keep sitting at the feet of those of us who know how to think . . .
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2007 at 08:03 PM
"puts, keep sitting at the feet of those of us who know how to think . . ."
how come when i sit at your feet all i get is a bunch of straw...
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 01, 2007 at 08:09 PM
It was really the 'contract on america' They lied about most of it including Term Limits, but it was one of those, Linda Mc Grumpy Smith that was finally kicked to the curb that was worth the wait.
It wil be good to see St. Mc Cain outed again by his own party as a bastard parent or maybe the grand oil party will say he never was a POW and faked it all. They eat their own
Posted by: coiler | March 01, 2007 at 09:01 PM
or as one person put it:
John McCain has a:
* Total lack of integrity
* Utterly bankrupt ethical system
* Complete inability to tell, not only the truth, but half-truths, quasi-half-truths,semi-quasi-quarter-truths or elemental granulated-particle pseudo-sort-ofFalwell-approved(with footnotes)semi-kind-of-focus-group-tested "truth"
* Asshole instincts nonpareil
and that has worked for the GOP for awhile now...
Posted by: sparky | March 01, 2007 at 09:12 PM
I'll ask only one question, whomever answers best gets my vote.
"WHAT ABOUT CHINA?"
Oh I know I'm silly, but look past your partisan views, and tell me what you really see.
Posted by: Recife | March 02, 2007 at 01:03 AM
Right before your eyes see the laughter from the skies
And he laughs until he cries, then he dies, then he dies
Come inside, the show's about to start
Guaranteed to blow your head apart
You've got to see the show, it's a dynamo
You've got to see the show, it's rock and roll, oh
Soon the Gypsy Queen in a glaze of vaseline
Will perform on guillotine, what a scene, what a scene
Next upon the stand will you please extend a hand
To Alexander's Ragtime Band, Dixieland, Dixieland
Roll up, roll up, roll up
See the show
Posted by: recife | March 02, 2007 at 01:07 AM
Oh BTW,
Joanie , Sparky, Bla' Mikey and whomever else spends time yanking tampons from betweeen thier xiphiod process of sternum.
A great hero of the social experiment has just had his birthday. What no celebration? Come on now, redistrubution of wealth and property, should be rejoiced. Who cares about starvation, 80% unemployment, 1600% inflation, from what was the bread basket of Africa. The same place that had a prolific middle class. Cheer Cheer Robert Mugabe, may we all be bless by the socialism you bring
Posted by: recife | March 02, 2007 at 01:25 AM
"Wasted" what an Idiot McCain is.
Posted by: Steve | March 02, 2007 at 05:01 AM
"Jesse Jackson has no chance."
I tend to agree the Rev Jackson has no chance for the presidency; what I was implying is that I beleive his entry on the scene could cause more support for Mrs Clinton. I think he may garner support away from Obama and then (as election time nears) affirm his support for Mrs Clinton and that would do it. I doubt the $machine will ever switch to Obama, but I do think it would support Mr Gore (were he to decide to enter). His popularity is now at a high and may continue; I belevie he is in a very strategic position and has a LOT of bargaining power.
Posted by: Duffman | March 02, 2007 at 08:46 AM
BTW does any one know what Mr Gore's Iraq stance is? (I don't believe I've ever heard)
Posted by: Duffman | March 02, 2007 at 08:56 AM
Re: Al Gore
In the Nashville breach of security incident; shouldn't he have demanded that he (& his friends) be put thru the screening process instead of allowing that employee to let them bypass?
Posted by: Duffman | March 02, 2007 at 09:07 AM
Gore was against the war from the beginning. He said we should have stayed focused in Afghanistan.
The other comments I cant answer because you have left out information so I am not sure what you are talking about, Duffman.
Posted by: sparky | March 02, 2007 at 10:00 AM
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6165069
Sorry, thought most w/be familar with the story.
Posted by: Duffman | March 02, 2007 at 10:11 AM
"Gore was against the war from the beginning. He said we should have stayed focused in Afghanistan."
Thank you,pretty much the way I feel, and you know deep down (if he would only admit it) our 'cowboy' President now probably feels the same way. [I'll bet the First Lady does)
Posted by: Duffman | March 02, 2007 at 10:17 AM
This board is a microcosm of political society and exemplifies what's wrong with it
Posted by: lukobe | March 02, 2007 at 10:22 AM
ok I read the article...oh probably yes he should have...but when it is a representative of the airline that escorts you with their card to open all the doors, I dont expect too many people would question it. I am less concerned about this incident than I am about the airline employees who let themselves be snookered by that 9 year old boy and allowed him on two different airplains with no ticket or evidence of adult supervision.
Posted by: sparky | March 02, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Coiler
"It was really the 'contract on america' They lied about most of it including Term Limits, but it was one of those, Linda Mc Grumpy Smith that was finally kicked to the curb that was worth the wait."
Linda Smith did just 3 terms which was within the term limit promise, voted against Newt Gingrich for the position of Speaker at a time when it wasn't easy. Yes, she then went on against Murray for the Senate -got trounced- but now works in a worthwhile goal of eliminating the practice of human slavery in third world countries. I've heard her speak raising money to help solve the issue of slave trading and her work on this issue is impressive.
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 02, 2007 at 12:22 PM
And Murray beat lying George Nethercutt.
After Nethercutt's narrow victory over Foley in 1994, he was re-elected in 1996 and 1998. In 2000, when his pledge to serve only three terms would have kicked in, Nethercutt changed his mind and announced his intention to run for re-election again, infuriating term-limits supporters. Nethercutt was nevertheless re-elected in 2000 and in 2002.
So he lied.
Posted by: coiler | March 02, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Coiler
"And Murray beat lying George Nethercutt."
Yep, agreed. And he deserved it. He made that pledge of only three terms (a big reason why the sokane voters voted out tom foley was the desire for fresh blood) and then Nethercutt broke that promise to do a 4th. I shed no tears for him. But I was just ref'n Linda Smith. No more than that since you had mentioned her.
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 02, 2007 at 02:13 PM
Actually , many of the voters in 1994 in the 5th when polled, thought the speaker of the house went with the district.
Now look at them
Posted by: coiler | March 02, 2007 at 02:31 PM
wow, that's pretty stupid.
Posted by: lukobe | March 02, 2007 at 03:40 PM
The Boomers have messed this country up enough over the last few years that the
the Boomers????
(a big reason why the sokane voters voted out tom foley was the desire for fresh blood)
As I recall, TF was targeted by out of state groppers. They dumped a ton of money into that race to beat him.
Posted by: Robinz | March 02, 2007 at 04:20 PM
Duffman, why do you think Bush regrets Iraq? I have seen no evidence he regrets it. I think the man is getting what he wants. . . and if, in fact, they are funding Al Queda against Iran, they are still trying to gain power and permanence in Iraq.
Curious why you think he regrets it. What's he said or done to show that?
Posted by: joanie | March 02, 2007 at 05:42 PM
Mike Malloy read a great article from Consortiumnews.com about The Clintons' Real Trouble with Truth
By Robert Parry
February 24, 2007
I've never been a big Clinton fan. I think he wasted a lot of his presidency trying to please everybody. This article sure tells it like it was and points out how corrupt and insufferable all our politicians are.
Obama will be so refreshing if he manages to survive the machinery.
Posted by: joanie | March 02, 2007 at 10:29 PM
joanie
i still recall when mike mccury -later to be clinton's press secretary- was running the bob kerry campaign. he said that clinton 'was an uncommonly good liar.'
between the bush family and the clinton family we will have had 20 years of both. that is a long time for it to be so closely held.
time for some new blood.
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 02, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Well, I have to agree. I would even say that is pretty obvious, wouldn't you?
btw, it was Mike McCurry.
Posted by: joanie | March 02, 2007 at 11:57 PM
"Duffman, why do you think Bush regrets Iraq?"
Actually it's only a feeling that I have. I don't think Pres Bush is a dumb un-feeling person. I think when he visits our injured soldiers and/or meets with loved ones he must be affected by his decision. I may be giving him more compassionate credit than he deserves but even tho I don't particularly care for him I would give him that. He's so up-against-it now (because of himself) that he must plow ahead even though I feel him wrong.
Bottom line...it's a feeling I have...do you not sometimes have 'feelings' that might not be backed up by documented fact?
Posted by: Duffman | March 03, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Yes, I do. Instincts . . . but I don't trust them completely. In Bush's case, he has such a background of uncaring, that I guess I find it easier to believe he is indifferent.
I can't believe someone who cares even slightly could cut benefits the and programs the way he does. Or could lie the way he does. Duff, I think he is a sociopath.
Even his little show with Jim Webb at the ceremony after the election was manipulated by him. He knew Webb wasn't going to greet him. He sought Webb out to make a big deal of it. Why? And his question pointedly asking about Webb's son was designed to make a point. If he had any heart, he'd have let it go.
Sorry, Duff, I think a lot of see through his ego.
Posted by: joanie | March 03, 2007 at 11:30 AM
You may be right; just can't imagine Mrs Laura Bush staying with a person like that...and I do think much of her. Oh well, it's all conjecture, isn't it...we may see the truth in our life time, who knows.
Posted by: Duffman | March 03, 2007 at 04:30 PM