John McCain

In a comment in response to Ruffini's post on Democratic polling, Tom Readmond says:

I don't have a client right now , but if I did, I'd be looking very hard at what I might do to attract angry women to the party, much as Nixon did with angry southerners in 1968.

Well, actually, I refer you to Janet Elder piece in the NYT from last year:

Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster whose firm, Public Opinion Strategies, is working for Senator John McCain, said, ''Right now all groups are a significant challenge for Republicans.'' ... Most of the names on Mr. Newhouse's list have little to do with gender, with the exception of ''Wal-Mart women.'' Those are voters who ''generally have lower incomes, are less educated, tend to be conservative and have been impacted by economic difficulties,'' he said.

Perhaps the McCain campaign is planning to reach out to these women? Polling indicates fertile ground. Read on.

Michael Goldfarb, blogger in chief to the Weekly Standard, is joining the McCain campaign as a deputy communications director.

Martin:

Michael Goldfarb, online guru at the Weekly Standard, has taken a leave of absence from his post at the magazine to become deputy communications director for McCain.

Standard chief Bill Kristol announced the move on their blog.

In his new role, Goldfarb will use his grasp of the rightosphere to help drive the McCain message online and will also lend a hand in writing campaign materials. He'll focus especially on the rapid response element of a campaign that is already being fought hour by hour.

This is what I like to see. Folks with solid online experience being mainstreamed into line positions in all the key divisions, not exclusively ghettoized into the e-shop.

This weekend, there were Republican conventions in 8 states. According to Jonathan Martin, Ron Paul supporters are "blitz"ing these conventions:

There are quite a few state GOP conventions this weekend, and reading through the coverage online one finds a recurring theme: the Paul presence.

The libertarian Republican's hardy band of supporters are showing up at conventions in an effort to win a delegate slot in the Twin Cities in September.  

Paul backers have achieved some small success in becoming delegates, but their larger impact has been to offer an element of news at what are largely newsless and ceremonial state party confabs.

My sources indicate that of the 430 delegate or alternate spots available this weekend, Paul supporters won 11. (Read the Washington State account here) Martin, like many other analysts, suggests that this whole phenomenon is bad news for John McCain. I disagree. Read on.

I posted yesterday that the DNC, for its own sake, needed to accomplish two objectives at its rules meeting yesterday: 1) satisfy the two states, and 2) satisfy the two candidates' camps of voters. Well, by halving the vote-counts of both delegations and by essentially reassigning some of Hillary's pledged Michigan delegates to Obama, it appears the committee failed to do the latter. In fact, many Hillary supporters seem more incensed than ever.

Take Ms. Harriet Christian, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

yikes!

In her last 15 seconds she makes a decent point, though. With the Hillary camp as disaffected as it still is, if McCain can just hold off a third-party spoiler, he can capitalize on this discord and win the election.

<Note to TNR powers that be -- can we embed youtube videos? pretty pretty please?>

It's like shooting fish in a barrel! The Pink Flamingo has a tribute to the wild and wacky world of Barack Obama and his wit and wisdom. Grab some popcorn and a beer. Be prepared to spew a couple of times as we compare Barack Obama to Rufus T. Firefly!

Today the DNC rules and bylaws committee (streaming live at CNN and the Washington Post) meets to determine how and even if to seat delegations from Florida and Michigan. What's the significance for GOP supporters?

Well, there's no possible seating of the delegation that could result in a lead in the state delegates for Hillary. But she is petitioning today to have the tally from the two states included in the national popular vote tally. If she is successful in doing so - with Barack receiving zero votes in Michigan - then she will indeed overtake the popular vote lead nationally. This will give her a stronger argument that she should be the party's nominee, and there's an outside chance that she could eventually sway enough superdelegates to win the nomination.

Obviously, if Clinton is the nominee instead of Obama, the face of the entire general election is changed.  While the Clinton name inspires almost irrational levels of antipathy in certain states,  she is a more competitive opponent than Obama in Florida, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

But assuming that the committee meeting today does not result in Hillary overtaking the nomination, its ruling still impacts the general election. The complications of the primaries have hurt the Democratic Party's standing in both states. The DNC has the difficult task of coming up with a solution that satisfies voters in the two states involved without further widening the growing gulf between Hillary and Obama supporters. If the DNC fails to do the former, they effectively forfeit the two states' combined 44 electoral votes to McCain. If the DNC fails to do the latter - i.e., if the DNC approves a plan in which either Obama or Clinton appears robbed of their rightful votes, it will only further the animosity between the Obama and Clinton camps. The end result will be that many Democratic voters will be even more adamant in their refusal to vote for any other than their own preferred candidate in November. A reduced Democratic turnout in November would help Republican candidates across the board.

And finally, even if, somehow, the DNC finds a solution today which satisfies the states of Florida and Michigan and the campaigns and supporters of both Clinton and Obama, the DNC still faces the difficult prospect of reconciling the members of the two candidates' camps - so deeply divided in what has been a long, difficult, and emotional battle over the voting rights of the two states.

So while the GOP and its candidate is not ostensibly affected by the outcome of today's hearings, there are both short-term and long-term ramifications for this election, and many Republican voters, myself included, will be curious to see the committee's rulings today.

Being tired of the rhetoric that is spewed from those who think U.S.A Today is a good source for information about what really matters has spurred me to try to tell the truth as I see it. I regret the year 1982 for little, except for the birth of that publication and its "factoids". They seem to me to have fed the soundbite, cliche, easy answer world we live in now.

www.gitell.com - today he wrote about BHO and his Ahminijad previous statements, and recent "clarifications". I commented on his (Seth’s) musings with a pithy remark concerning open toed sandals a.k.a. "flip-flops".

So that is the backstory - obviously nothing about Bush/McCain there... here is where me blog really starts... a subsequent comment refers to Bush/McCain and goes on to admit "that Obama obviously has his faults but c,mon do we really want more of our kids dying (sic)".

That statement was obviously written by someone who if they were allowed to vote in 2000 paid little attention to how the primaries played out especially in South Carolina. In 2000, I lived in San Francisco CA and wanted to vote for Senator McCain but never had the chance. For those of us who do remember the vile smears that ended McCains run in SC; the thought that he does anymore than USE the W for what he is worth, and judiciously at that is absurd. The concept that we will see "Four more years of the same failed policy" because John McCain is a carbon copy of GWB is only believable to those with either a short enough attention span or no need to believe anything other than what you want to. I have said it before and will repeat it now, if Senator McCain was our president we would not have invade Iraq under the pretext that we did and therefore would not have more that 4,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi’s plus the others who went to 'rid Iraq of the infidels' (who very probably the world is better off without).

A man who has lived through a real war as opposed to one whom has avoided it though sporadic National Guard - Reserve attendance/avoidance can have no taste for it. He would (in this former Marines opinion) only commit to the loss of life and limb of persons other than him/herself; when there was much, much more than a desire to make daddy's errors right. That is not to say I believe war is unnecessary in our enlightened age; but placating a tyrant does not work either. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

It also needs to be said that GWB has done amazing things, and SAVED millions of lives through his establishment of PEPFAR (the Presidents Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief; As well as PMI (the Presidents Malaria initiative). And the establishment of the MCC (the Millenium Challenge Corporation) and its MCA (the Millenium Challenge Account. Like others I have only WIDELY read of the war in Iraq and the lives lost there, but am proud of the MILLIONS of lives saved because of our sitting presidents (and the congess' that have authorized the funding) actions.

It is much too easy to find the worst parts of a person and then ascribe all their actions to fall under the same umbrella. It is also to easy for me to remember the silly things I said when I was younger. I still say silly things but have also come to appreciate the fact that I have learned from my errors, and hope I am making fewer serious one as time has gone by.

In some ways I am sure McCain will follow GWB’s lead, but to say that they are one and the same is ignorant and only shows how little the person making that claim cares for facts. I know if elected that Senator McCain will continue and expand the life saving plans that GWB has started.

I will rant about the "no blood for oil B.S." soon. (Would you prefer that China had unfettered access to the oil in the Mideast?) (I mean they have done such great things in Somalia and elsewhere with their oil contracts and development plans…) To that same 'poster' et al: I am sure your town would function fine without any electricity and your life would not change a bit if we did not protect the source of our power (energy) as if it was our own. LOL.

This I think summarizes how many establishment conservatives feel, whether they admit to it or not. 

1) Most conservatives have long favored the Bush way to the McCain way, but won't be caught dead defending anything with 28% approval. 2) McCain is transparently not Bush. 3) What the heck -- we might as well try the McCain way.

I don't mean to make this sound trivial. In fact, I'd say there is great interest, even among conservatives, in McCain providing a compelling post-Bush vision for the party. And not just stylistically, but substantively too.

Is McCain providing it? Read on.

I found two sites. One that asked for John McCain's stances in 2004 and the 2008 Campaign website.

2004:

 

In 2004 The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asked candidates which items they would support if elected. Items included economic and policy issues, both domestic and foreign. Here are the highlights of John McCain's responses to the questions. John McCain on Abortion * Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape, when the life of the woman is endangered. * The "partial-birth" abortion should not be permitted. * Organizations that advocate or perform abortions should not be publicly funded

 2008:

 

Overturning Roe v. Wade John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat. However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."

So we see McCain is now (as opposed to 2000) committed to ending Roe V Wade but in reality we don't see John McCain as a Strong Candidate on the Pro-Life issue because he isn't.

On Gay Marriage we see a similar thing

2008:

 

Protecting Marriage As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question. The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation. As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America's families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress.

And now 2004:

John McCain on Same Sex Marriages

• Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions. Marriage should be restricted to a union only between a man and a woman.

While he focuses on the core issues of politically popular irritation in the Judges we don't see at the core what John McCain thinks. We see a whole lot of platitudes. Now me personally I consider a lot of issues more important then Abortion, and I view Gay Marriage as an assault against traditional marriage and one where the end of that pardigm shift and how it would change our society is unknown. But I look at this and I don't see John McCain as a conservative like me, nor do I see him as a person who is even like me. Whereas he is running against a canidate who makes people feel rightly or wrongly like he is one of us (the Us depending on who he reaches out to). John McCain can't win if he doesn't open up and show us who he really is