Mac Under Attack
John McCain never forgave the Republican Party voters for choosing George W. Bush over him in the 2000 Primary and spent the 8 years after that paying the party back by shoving his finger in the eye of Conservatives and the Party. Whether it was flirting with leaving the Party or becoming John Kerry’s VP in 2004, or McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, John McCain enjoyed sticking his knife in the back of the GOP.
Ironically, his final revenge came last year when he did win the nomination and was such a poor candidate, someone as Liberal as Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.
Well, voters have a looooong memory, Conservatives with Attitudians! On October 13th I posted about the possibility of John McCain receiving a Primary challenge from former Arizona Congressman JD Hayworth, and Rasmussen Reports has confirmed that if the Conservative JD Hayworth were to challenge John McCain, McCain would be in serious trouble of holding on to his seat:
A new Rasmussen Reports poll of likely 2010 GOP primary voters in Arizona finds the longtime incumbent in a virtual tie with potential challenger, J.D. Hayworth. McCain earns 45% of the vote, while Hayworth picks up 43%. Another candidate, anti-illegal immigration activist Chris Simcox, is picking up 4%. Hayworth, 51, a conservative former U.S. congressman who now is a popular radio talk show host in Phoenix, is reportedly interested in the race but has not formally declared for it.
There isn’t someone more deserving of this payback then John McCain.
Run JD!, Run!
the big question then is: who would Ms. Bicycle Shorts be stumping for?
November 21st, 2009 at 6:09 pmMichael, perhaps you should read some books on how McCain actually lost the election to Obama.
It is sad that so called political “experts” like yourselves can’t see the actual truth in last year’s election. None of the Republican candidates would have even been half as competitive as Senator McCain. Obama was being seen as early as Iowa 2007 by 10s of thousands of people – no Republican could match his crowd size, money, and support during the Primaries. Obama also out raised all Republicans in the field during the Primary Season. Or did you forget that too. Oh right – let’s blame McCain-Feingold.
You don’t think McCain is conservative enough for you. Fine. I get that. I get how folks like yourself think that McCain-Feingold has limited your “free speech”, even though you get to pontificate on and on under this such “anti-free” speech legislation.
However, trying to rewrite history when the votes, money, and crowd sizes prove that NO Republican in the field, let alone McCain, could have beaten Obama is shear lunacy.
You want to support someone else for Senate, go right ahead. Spreading false statements does the Republican movement no good. It shows that we can’t learn from history to try and beat someone that no matter how bad he does in office, will still have huge crowds and money.
Eric Frenchman
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 am“None of the Republican candidates would have even been half as competitive as Senator McCain.”
Gibberish. McCain was the LEAST competitive of all the 2008 Republican candidates. Every other GOP candidate was more competitive than McCain. McKennedy never stood a chance to beat Obama; other candidates were at least somewhat likely to teach that IL novice a lesson. McCain was THE least electable candidate. He was THE worst possible choice for the nomination. And he won the nomination ONLY because Dems were allowed to choose the GOP nominee.
“However, trying to rewrite history when the votes, money, and crowd sizes prove that NO Republican in the field, let alone McCain, could have beaten Obama is shear lunacy. ”
Gibberish (and it’s spelled sheer, not shear). McLame failed to draw any large crowds. He was THE least likely candidate to beat Obama. Other candidates would’ve faced an uphill struggle – but they were at least somewhat likely to beat the Illinoisian novice. Your false hero is a petty vindictive little man who is still trying to punish the GOP for choosing Bush over him.
As for JD Hayworth, I like him and I hope he’ll beat McKennedy, but he’s not a self-declared candidate. He cannot beat McKennedy unless he actually runs.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 amOh, and one more thing:
“You don’t think McCain is conservative enough for you.”
Phew! McCain is not conservative at all. His policies on almost all issues, from defense to foreign policy to abortion to gay marriage to the crap-and-trade system (he advocated it during the 2008 campaign, now he opposes it), CAFE regs, the 1st Amendment, etc. are liberal.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 amI thank John McCain for his service he is a true hero,but it is time for you to leave the stage.Do yourself a service and do it with class.My feeling is that if he loses the primary he will go third party like his little buddy Joey.Oh keep bashing Palin 300,000 books for an opening this women connects with people.
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 amMichael Illions Hypocrisy #124. Illions spouts off against McCain, while embracing the 2-year-old platform that McCainites drafted and lost horribly under.
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:46 am“A.J. Sparxx for Chairman! Because Clowns Deserve a Chance to Lead Too!”
“A.J. Sparxx for Chairman! Because Clowns Deserve a Chance to Lead Too!”
Sooo, I can count on your vote then?
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:00 amHey if morons like you can vote, then certainly clowns can lead!
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:00 amMuch more liberal than even John McCain is Kate Whitman, an architect of anti-conservatism and pro-abort. And yet Michael Illions ardently endorsed that daughter of Christie Todd Whitman in a GOP primary against great conservative Martin Marks. It’s always funny to see Whitman Republican Michael Illions weigh in on primary races.
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:25 amZbigniew Mazurak
Funny how all of your points are just your opinion. I worked on his campaign. I saw every fund raising number and watched the crowds. Not a single Republican Primary candidate drew any crowds to the level that Obama did. Not a single one.
Go back and look at the polling numbers during the primary especially prior to Feb 5. McCain was ahead of every Republican candidate in head to head match ups with the Democrats – every single one. Use facts not your useless opinion.
Punish the GOP for Bush beating him? Again just your useless opinion. President Bush and Senator McCain patched things up a long time ago – or did you forget the birthday cake picture during Katrina which came back to haunt all Republicans associated with that.
Again feel free to not like McCain. That’s your right. Try looking at facts before you comment back.
McCain was polling the best of all Republicans versus Democrats. No Republican was getting crowds anywhere near as large as Obama during the Primary Season. No Republican was getting the donations to the level of Obama during the primary season. All of those things would haunt anyone that won the nomination.
Finally, I checked your name for Federal Campaign contributions and couldn’t find anything Either that’s not your real name or you have never contributed more than $200.
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 amAnonymous:
Not only that, the following year, he also supported Steve Lonegan, who was supposedly sooooo anti-illegal immigration that he tried to make English the official language of Bogota, yet hired illegal aliens to put campaign signs together for him.
Say what you want about John McCain, but he’s hands down one of the most noble, honest, straight forward people on Capitol Hill and is an excellent Senator. If he loses to Hayworth in a primary, which I seriously doubt will happen, he should do like Joe Lieberman and run again in November as an independent. He WILL be successful.
As far as CWA-NJ’s irrelevant Polish Delegation is concerned, he’s an irrational bigot who is on record here calling John McCain a traitor while being tortured in Vietnam among other extremely inflamatory garbage. He’s an ignorant, repulsive individual.
Have I ever mentioned here that he has never stepped foot on American soil?
McCain 2010
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 amThis is another way to give up a sure senate seat.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 am“Say what you want about John McCain, but he’s hands down one of the most noble, honest, straight forward people on Capitol Hill and is an excellent Senator.”
With due respect, McCain’srecent career is built on several huge and related whoppers. His position has been that the way to end corruption in Washington is by (1) muzzling the public’s right to contribute money to the candidate of their choice, and (2) cutting spending by reducing so-called “earmarks.” These two positions are blatant lies, distortions and evasions. Neither of these proposals is a serious way to reduce corrution, and any serious person knows it.
Limiting campaign contributions has been about as effective at lowering the cost of campaigns as government controls of medicine have been. They have also done nothing to curb the influence of pull peddlers, who will continue to wield influence as long as government is big enough to be in everyone’s pocket. After 30 years of post-Watergate controls, an honest person with his eyes open would be able to see these obvious facts and stop advocating even more controls.
Similarly, earmarks constitute a sliver of the federal budget – something like 1% of total federal spending. No honest person could focus his entire campaign platform aimed at reducing government spending and debt on earmarks.
For all his flaws, Senator McCain is stil a true American hero. But his time has long since passed. It is time for him to go gracefully into retirement. If he won’t go voluntarily, he needs to be primaried.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 am“Funny how all of your points are just your opinion.”
Nope. All of my points are FACTS. Your claims are your worthless opinions.
“Go back and look at the polling numbers during the primary especially prior to Feb 5. McCain was ahead of every Republican candidate in head to head match ups with the Democrats – every single one. Use facts not your useless opinion.”
Polls are not facts. Polls are inaccurate opinions of pollsters. My opinion is not useless. As for McCain, he NEVER stood any chance of beating ANY Democrat. The media and Democrats like you lied that he was the most likely Republican to win – then you turned against him and made mincemeat of him. On the other hand, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson and Giuliani all stood a realistic chance of beating Obama and Clinton.
“Punish the GOP for Bush beating him? Again just your useless opinion.” Gibberish. McCain is STILL trying to punish the GOP and the fact that he might’ve repaired relations with Bush himself doesn’t change that fact.
“No Republican was getting the donations to the level of Obama during the primary season.”
Irrelevant. Giuliani raised more money that McLame and Romney is richer than all other 2008 GOPer contestants COMBINED.
“Say what you want about John McCain, but he’s hands down one of the most noble, honest, straight forward people on Capitol Hill and is an excellent Senator.”
Gibberish. He’s not noble, honest nor straightforward at all. Like you,, Joseph, he’s an ignoble, dishonest liar who lies for political benefits, even when evidence disproving him is presented in his face. He lies even when disproven and humiliated. He doesn’t even know when to stop lying. He’s a dishonest lying lobbyist who has instituted so many damaging bills and so many damaging policies that even Carter, LBJ and Clinton didn’t manage to do as much damage to the Republic as he has managed to. He’s the single most evil Senator currently on Capitol Hill. Even Harry Reid is not such a vile person.
“He WILL be successful.”
Most Arizonians don’t want him.
“As far as CWA-NJ’s irrelevant Polish Delegation is concerned, he’s an irrational bigot who is on record here calling John McCain a traitor while being tortured in Vietnam among other extremely inflamatory garbage.”
I am not irrational nor a bigot, but I am PROUD that I called McLame whom he is: a vile traitor who sold America out by giving secret information to the Viets. (BTW, he wasn’t tortured.) McLame is also guilty of advocating unilateral disarmament policies, which would terribly weaken the US military and ultimately disarm it completely. He IS a traitor, plain and simple. He’s a despicable person. Just like you and Eric.
“He’s an ignorant, repulsive individual.”
Phew! Ignorant? I know much more about your own country (and the world as a whole) than you ever will. I know much more about any issue than your false hero McLame ever will. I know much more about anything that either you or your pathetic pseudohero will ever know. Your insults – which are your only “arguments” – are pathetic.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 amEric Frenchman:
Many of the points you raised in #10 are accurate, particularly about Obama’s popularity. But one crucial fact you omit is McCain’s decision to not make Obama’s associartions with people openly hostile to America a center piece of the campaign. I don;t think any other candidate would have made that decision. Other Republcians might not have raised more than Obama – but by raising the issue of Obama’s past associations any other candidate would have almost certainly (1) closed the fundraising gap and (2) done better in the general election.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 am“For all his flaws, Senator McCain is stil a true American hero.”
Gibberish. He’s a false hero. He sold America out in Vietnam and is now selling America out on an everyday basis with his unilateral disarmament policies while America’s enemies (most worringly, China) are building up their arsenals and pursuing anti-American foreign policies.
If it hadn’t been for the corrupt NRSC and the corrupt AZGOP, McKennedy would’ve likely never been elected Senator. He’s the worst Senator AZ has ever had.
For McKennedy, lying is not just a way to get elected and get damaging legislation approved by the Congress – it’s a hobby.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:03 am“Many of the points you raised in #10 are accurate, particularly about Obama’s popularity.”
And again, incorrect. Not one of his points was accurate. Not even one.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:03 amZbigniew,
I think it is factually correct that McCain was polling better against Democrats than any of the other (loser) Republicans that competed for the party’s nomination. I also think it is true that Obama was drawing large crowds and raising lots more money than any Republican. Those were the two main points I took from comment #10 – do you have evidence that refutes those points? I admit that I am going by memory, but what he advocated jives with my memory.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 am“I think it is factually correct that McCain was polling better against Democrats than any of the other Republicans”
He was, but polling is NOT evidence and it’s NOT factually correct. The opinion polls that appeared before 4 March 2009 were fabricated by the Dems so that Republicans would nominate McCain – the candidate who was the EASIEST Republican to beat. And that’s exactly what happened. Gullible Republicans listened to the Dems, and nominated McLame – a candidate who NEVER stood the SLIGHTEST chance of winning the 2008 election. Then, the Dems turned AGAINST McLame and made mincemeat of him.
” I also think it is true that Obama was drawing large crowds and raising lots more money than any Republican.”
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 amTrue, but irrelevant, because as I said above, Mitt Romney is so rich that he didn’t need to raise money to compete against Obama. On the other hand, McLame needed all of his lobbyist pals and all the special interest groups he has ever worked for, to give him money. And he was defeated anyway.
Ed,
You are correct in #15. McCain did not run an aggressive campaign. After the convention, he was surging in the polls. It all came to an abrupt stop when he voted for the bailout. He never recovered.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 amIt is axiomatic that whomever the GOP would’ve nominated in 2008 would’ve faced a very difficult task. But that was the case with EVERY Presidential candidate the GOP has ever nominated. The 2008 election was not harder than the 1864 election (when George McGovern ran on a pacifist platform against Lincoln), the 1932 election (when Hoover humiliated himself by triggering a global trade war) or any other election.
McLame was nominated because gullible Republicans believed in FAKE polls fabricated by Democratic polling institutes, and then, once he captured the nomination, the Dems made mincemeat of him, and on Nov. 4, 2008, McLame was beaten by a green, inexperienced, young, amateurish novice (Obama). Not that the other 2008 nominees would be flawless, but none of them would’ve screwed up as badly as McLame did.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 amZbigniew:
You said that McCain was:
“a candidate who NEVER stood the SLIGHTEST chance of winning the 2008 election.”
This is completely wrong. He had the lead in early September after he nominated Palin, and if he had gone with the kind of conservative message she wanted to deliver things might have been different. Also, if he had been willing to submit Obama’s past “palling around with terrorists” to the electorate for scrutiny, he also might have won.
Instead, he did everything he could to muzzle Palin and was as embarrassed by her as the Democrats are, showing the pick to be more about cynicism than shared beliefs. He blamed Wall Street greed for the economic crisis instead of the Democrats who were directly responsible for defending the policies that caused the crisis – and then he ran back to Washington to join those same Democrats in bashing the “free market” (as if the highly regulated market that collapsed was anything approaching a free market) and ramming through a government of the banking industry, all over the objection of the relatively free market Republicans in the House. And he suspended his campaign to boot, showing that he is so erratic that he is unable to multi-task.
As bad a candidate as McCain was, changing just the tactics described above would have almost certainly changed the outcome of the election in his favor.
Given that he is the man who made those decisions though, I’m not sure we would have been better off.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 am“This is completely wrong. He had the lead in early September after he nominated Palin”
Gibberish. You’re again citing POLLS, which are irrelevant. There’s no way McCain would’ve EVER won – even with Palin as his veep. There’s no way that Americans would’ve ever elected a dishonorable, dishonest, pseudoconservative liberal like him. There’s no way conservatives would’ve ever voted for him. Your opinion polls are as irrelevant as your opinions. And even his “poll bounce” was brief and related exclusively to the convention (candidates usually experience poll bounces during and/or shortly after party conventions).
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 amhe should do like Joe Lieberman and run again in November as an independent. He WILL be successful.
You continue to show what a complete nitwit you are J.J. If a Conservative did this, you and your RINO diaper wearing buddies over at Save Jersey would be foaming at the mouth and breathing into a bag to stop the hyperventilating.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 amNot only that, the following year, he also supported Steve Lonegan, who was supposedly sooooo anti-illegal immigration that he tried to make English the official language of Bogota, yet hired illegal aliens to put campaign signs together for him.
Wow what a class act you are JJ. You must have a really short memory as you were originally BACKING Steve Lonegan until Bret Schundler came out for Christie.
And having the loyalty of a snake in the grass, you took your thumb out of your mouth, stuck it in the air and checked which way the winds were blowing before you changed candidates. You’re a classless clown who believes and stands for NOTHING.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 amHey Ed and Eric, a tricky question for you:
Most opinion polls (e.g. PPP polls, but not RR polls) have shown that Mike Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who now trails Obama (in terms of hypothetical matchup results) within the statistical margin of error. That means that opinion polls say that Huckabee is the ONLY candidate who can beat Obama in 2012. Does that mean that the GOP should nominate Huckabee?
The answer: of course not – because opinion polls are just as irrelevant as Rivera’s drivel, that is, completely irrelevant.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:53 amZbigniew:
I would say an opinion poll 3 years before the election a involving hypothetical matchup, as the one about Huckabee to which you allude, is very different than the poll involving actual candidates less than 2 months out from the 2008 election, which is what I referenced in my comment.
There is a lot of science involved in public polling. One dismisses that science as irrelevant does so at his own peril.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm“There is a lot of science involved in public polling.”
Gibberish. Polls are irrelevant fabrications of political institutes that have their own agendas. I don’t believe in opinion polls. The Sun is the center around which planets revolve – that is a scientific fact. The Evolution Theory is a scientific fact. Opinion polls are irrelevant propaganda files.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 pmEd,
While I don’t disagree with you that another Republican would have highlighted Obama’s links with Rev W., Ayers, and other Chicago types, I personally believe they would not have been effective. Clinton first brought up the Rev W issue and it didn’t help her at all in Iowa. Granted I’m focusing my discussion on Iowa because of their demographic profile, but I still believe highlighting these associations more would not have changed the outcome of the election.
The reasons McCain lost were: 1) Wrong Track/Right Track 2) Association with President Bush 3) The Economy and 4) Fund Raising. I don’t personally believe focusing on these associations would have impacted these.
Zbigniew – trying to have an argument with you is like trying to argue with a liberal. You refuse to look at the facts – fund raising, polling data, crowd sizes, heck – you could even go through email list size, the dispatching of Clinton, and Facebook counts to prove how dominating Obama’s campaign was.
As I pointed out earlier, you’ve made no federal campaign donations. Not even sure you are an American. Not even sure you are using your real name. You have no personal “skin” in this game.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm“Zbigniew – trying to have an argument with you is like trying to argue with a liberal. You refuse to look at the facts – fund raising, polling data, crowd sizes, heck – you could even go through email list size, the dispatching of Clinton, and Facebook counts to prove how dominating Obama’s campaign was.”
Giberish. You are the one who refused to look at the facts. Fund raising? Sure, Obama outraised everyone (and so did Clinton), but that proves NOTHING, because Romney is so rich that he didn’t need to raise money (nevertheless, both he and Giuliani CONSISTENTLY raised MORE money during the primaries than McLame, as the CNN reported during the 2008 primaries).
Polls? They’re irrelevant propaganda drivels of opinionated partisan institutes such as Gallup and PPP. They prove NOTHING.
Crowd sizes? Yeah, sure, Obama drew far larger crowds than ANY Republican – incl. John McLame. What you need to compare is the crowds drawn by the various Republican contenders, not them and Obama.
Social website lists (such as those at FB)? Again, Obama beat all Republicans on that score – including your beloved liberal senator.
Email list sizes? Again, Obama fans dominated these.
Your stupid liberal senator was the LEAST likely GOP candidate to win the 2008 election. He was EASILY defeated by an inexperienced political novice who is a KNOWN antisemitic socialist groomed by Marxists (Ann Dunham, Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright). McLame couldn’t even defeat THAT novice. No other Republican would’ve screwed up the job THAT BADLY.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:42 pmZbigniew – you have no idea how the political system works in this country. None. Go read a book or take a few classes. You have nothing but hate and ignorance in your comments.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pmAddendum: NONE of these “arguments” (social websites like FB, fundraising, crowd sizes, email list sizes) prove that McCain was the most likely to beat Obama (because he wasn’t, he was the least likely to win).
These arguments only “prove” that ANY Republican would’ve faced an uphill struggle against Obama (or Hillary, had she been nominated for the Presidency). I did NOT dispute that. But this reality applies to EVERY Republican equally. Plus, any Republican Pres. nominee during every electoral season faces an uphill struggle.
Arguably, though not certainly, these arguments could also back a thesis that NO Republican could’ve won the 2008 election. I don’t agree with such a proposition, but that thesis applies to every Republican equally.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm“Zbigniew – you have no idea how the political system works in this country. None. Go read a book or take a few classes. You have nothing but hate and ignorance in your comments.”
Ha! Yet another lie! Now that you’ve been disproven, your only recourse is to deny my credentials.
I know more about the US political system that you will ever know, boy. That is a fact. And your childish claims don’t refute it. I’ve read dozens of books on the subject and learned from many other sources.
Your claims prove nothing.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:09 pmNo Zbig, he’s right, you’re just a stupid, irrelevant foreigner with no substantive knowledge of our political process.You need to shut up and keep your hatred and ignorance in Poland.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm“No Zbig, he’s right, you’re just a stupid, irrelevant foreigner with no substantive knowledge of our political process.”
Quite the contrary, Dinosaur, he’s wrong. I know much more about the US political system than you and him do. As for “irrelevant”, I’d caution you to notice that you’re even more irrelevant than I am. Your widely-despised blog has failed to influence ANYTHING.
Your only arguments are ad hominem insults against me – “stupid”, “irrelevant” and “ignorant”. They don’t make me hate you. They make me despise you and laugh at you, because you’re so pathetic that insults are the only “arguments” you can offer.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm“If he loses to Hayworth in a primary, which I seriously doubt will happen, he should do like Joe Lieberman and run again in November as an independent. He WILL be successful. ”
I predict McCain loses to Hayworth and Crist loses to Rubio in Florida. Of course the bloggers at CWA will claim credit like they did for Christie’s victory, but the fact is politics has less to do with ideology than personality and logistics.
Hayworth is a former congressman, currently a very popular talk show host, with a great personality and ability to attract support regardless of his ideological credentials. McCain is old, tired and his act is wearing thin with his constituents who are tired of being neglected.
Rubio beats Crist because he is a Cuban-American with a large base in South Florida, young, smart, attractive and charismatic. He is also a Speaker of the Florida Legialature so he has the political experience. Also Rubio can attract money from his Cuban and South American supporters not only in Florida but from outside as well, and will also get financial support from conservative groups as well. Crist is an empty suit with no solid base of support. The support he has is miles wide but an inch deep and will quickly fade when Rubios numbers start to go up.
Since conservatives are more likely to vote in primaries than moderates this should also help Hayworth and Rubio. But I wouldn’t take it as some sort of huge ideological shift, as I’m sure some bloggers will, any more than the 1994 elections which were quickly followed by Clinton’s re-election in 1996 and GOP losses in 1998.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:39 pmZbigniew, you keep saying that polls in general are irrelevant, because they are not “facts”. Have to disagree with you there.
A good poll can be relevant and useful, revealing accurate information about how the electorate feels about a given quesion; a bad poll can be worse than useless, misleading everyone and their brother. In order to judge where on that spectrum a particular poll falls, you’ve got to take into account a variety of factors: the questions asked, the *way* those questions are asked, the options respondents can choose from, the sample size, the relevant demographics of that sample, how the respondents are chosen, the actual polling method (phone, in-person, etc.), how long the poll stays in the field…the list goes on.
That being said, I think you are wrong when make the blanket statement that “polls are irrelevant”; they’re the best tool you’ve got when you want to know what people that will be voting actually think, and that should matter to any politician.
Regarding the polls “before 4 March 2009″ that the Democrats “fabricated”, which were they? How was the data manipulated to the point of “fabrication”?
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:31 pmI agree with Costanza. There are good polls and bad polls. During the election whenever I saw the polling from james Carville’s firm I dismissed it right away. His results were always way off from Rasmussen’s and other more reputable firms.
Of course, at the end of the day one need only check the real results against their predictions to see who deserves our trust and who does not.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 pmYou rat bastard, son of a bitch! You’re ignorant and have no idea what you’re talking. You’re also, ugly and you smell funny.
That wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular, I just assumed inane name calling was a prerequisite for a post on this site.
Obama was going to win last year, period. People make up their minds on a candidate usually based on what they see, hear or read about that candidate.
The media never ran a negative story on Obama. The lone exception was the Reverend Wright story which ended when Obama gave “the greatest speech on race relations since Martin Luther King.” The closest thing to negative after that was, “can he overcome the bigotry in America?”
McCain needed to run a perfect campaign just to have a chance to beat Obama. He certainly fell short on that count.
Any Republican would most likely have lost. The media led a charge to make history, so now we all can tell everyone what it was like when America elected its first black President. Remember how happy the commentators on the networks looked on Election night? Romney’s money and Huckabee’s folksiness weren’t going to beat that stacked deck.
And now as we watch yet another President who’s in over his head, we sit here and prove just how much smarter we are than each other by leveling insults at each other and slamming the one guy we know won’t be running in 2012.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 amJoe Hadden,
First off, take a deep breath, in your nose and out your mouth, there you go.
Next, the press picked McCain or Guiliani, they did not care which as long as it was a liberal who would not attack Obama, then they were happy.
The Republican party ran a candidate who was, and still is, virtually IDENTICAL in policy and ideas to the Democrat. The race was between an old white guy who also was a war hero and good looking half white guy who speaks really well but says nothing.
Obama gave the Republicans more things political and otherwise then any candidate in recent memory. Beating him should have been a slam dunk and easy IF we actually had a candidate who was willing to actually run a campaign. Which the Repiblicans of course did not choose to have, although there were candidates running who fit that bill.
The list of negatives on Obama was, and still is, ENDLESS! Too numerous to list and pointless now, but if McCain and his liberal staffers had used maybe 1/3 of them, he would be President right now.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 pmHere is just a small sample of all of the things McCain and his ilk told us would happen if he were the nominee:
His personal story would prevail.
People said we needed someone who supported amnesty, and yet Hispanics voted for Obama by almost 2 to 1.
Many said McCain’s moderate tone would win blue states, and instead it turned multiple red states blue.
Finally, many who said attacking Obama would not help and forbade it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pmGood comment Jason. But it raises a couple of questions.
You are right that the press anointed Guiliani and McCain. But the more fundamental question is, why did the Republican Party generate no alternative candidates who did not espouse some form of (or have to defend some form of) big government policies. For example, why was Mitt Romney, who signed socialized medicine legislation in Massachusetts, the leader of the other candidates spawned by the GOP?
My answer to that question is that the Scozafavva types are not rogues who are foisted upon the Republicans (or the Conservative wing of the Republicans) – but rather they are a sizeable minority if not an outright plurality or even majority of the Republican Party. There are just too many instances of them rising again and again, without any effective opposition, for the explanation to be that they are forcing their way into a hostile party.
Rather, we have been corrupted from within – and it is up to the Conservative wing of the Party to do the work necessary to take back the party. That work consists of more than stomping our feet and demanding that Conservatives be put on the ballot. As we learned in the recent NJ gubernatorial race, merely putting a loud, self-confident, articulate Conservative on the ballot is simply not sufficient to win (yet). That does not mean he/we are wrong, it just means that we have work to do with the electorate in order to obtain victory in the future. This is true for example in the Florida Senate Race (Crist vs. Rubio), the Arizona Senate Race (McCain vs. Hayworth), next year’s NY-23 rematch of Hoffman vs. Owens – or any other of numerous such contests.
The second question raised by your generally correct observations is whether we would be better off with a President McCain than we are with a President Obaminable. I do not think we would be better off. Just as McCain rushed back to Washington and pressured the courageous House Republicans who initially rejected TARP, McCain would have pressured Republicans to enact the worst parts of the Democrats’ agenda, including his version of Cap & Trade, some version of Socialized Medicine, and some enormous stimulus bill.
As horrible as Obama is, at least he generates massive opposition. There would be no Tea Party movement under McCain as there is under Obama. That is a very, very important service Obama is performing for us that 8 years of Bush’s big spending did not generate – and President McCain would never have generated, either.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pmEd,
Well, I did call our so called top tier two RINOS (McCain and Guiliani) a wannabee (Romney pretending to be something he was not and never has been) and mr Hollyweird Johnny come lately (Fred Thompson and his indecision campaign coming from todays Hollyweird and not Reagan’s Hollywood).
The “Party” of course did not produce anyone. However there were multiple conservatives running for President with the Republican label. I for one proudly worked for Tom Tancredo. We also had Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore, and even Mike Huckabee would have been better then the top four I listed above (his social conservatism is beyond reproach, and he turned out to be a VERY good governor in Arkansas leaving the state with more money and less spending then when he took it over).
I almost totally agree that there would be no TEA PARTY movement or huge opposition to McCain as there is to Obama. However this health care thing basically puts an end to all things we know now. It gives the government total control of our lives in every aspect. Essentially telling us that that we either behave or get sick and die, our choice.
I am not clear as to whether or not McCain would allow a liberal congress to have their way or not, this may simply have been automatic at this point. But you are correct that McCain may have actually been worse in some respects.
Plus the key thing is education. And people have been dumbed down from ages 4-25 for so many decades now that they think 2+2=5 and nothing we say or do will convince them otherwise. It is the only way someone like Obama is even considered for the White House, much less gets elected to it.
Sorry to be such a downer right before Thanksgiving.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm