McCain rolls the dice?
The AP's Will Lester, via Guardian Unlimited, says that McCain has reactivated his Straight Talk America PAC, a sure sign that despite McCain's denials over the last couple years or so he is seriously considering another run for the Presidency.
Whether McCain can make a successful bid depends on a number of factors.
His age is one. He'll be 72 in 2008.
Another factor is the NeoCon/TheoCon political machine. McCain was smeared badly in the 2000 GOP Primary and there is scant evidence that the NeoCon/TheoCon alliance is any fonder of him now than they were then.
Of course McCain scored political points with the NeoCon/TheoCon crowd by sucking up to Bush this past election. But, by doing so he may have bought the opportunity to get thru the '08 primary only to have to face the judgement of the moderates and Independents who had supported him in 2000 and who had strongly disliked Bush.
But do moderates and Independents trust McCain any longer? There are some reasons for them to be skeptical (scroll down to the open letter to McCain).
As a former conservative Republican and long-time Independent, I once counted myself among McCain's most ardent supporters. In fact it was my desire to support McCain in the 2000 primary which was the sole impetus for starting The Independent Voter. Now... I see him as just another compromised politician willing to do and say whatever he thinks folks want to hear.
Do enough Americans still believe that McCain will give them honest, "straight talk"?
14 Comments:
This coming from a die hard repub: I nor any and i mean ANY of my contemporaries trust McCain as far as we could throw him.
He is damaged goods. Good riddance to yesterdays trash.
That doesn't surprise me, Raugh. But, the reality is that neither diehard repubs nor diehard dems elect anyone. It's the vastly larger middle that elect Presidents.
I don't think the middle will react to McCain the way we did in 2000.
I do not trust McCain anymore. Which shouldn't come as too much of a surprise since I am the person who wrote that letter to him.
I don't think I ever told you that Kev. I am quite proud of that letter. He really disappointed me.
I wonder if McCain ever even read it...
You wrote that? That must have been before you started your blog. You had a different nickname then. I don't remember what it was, though.
It was spot on. I wanted to put it up on the website because I totally identified with it.
Nice work, TDV
Thank you. Yea, I wrote that before I started my blog. I use to go by a different handle. I used "FtheNaysayers" for your independent forum. Decided to change it when I started up my own blog.
Anyways, thanks again.
Thats hilarious ..the "middle is who elects our Presidents".
I mean that is down right hilarious. It is the Left and Right that decide who will be our nominees. It is the fruity left and the religious right in the primaries that narrow it down to TWO.
The middle might help decide in the end, but who chooses the candidates? the polar extremes.
Raugh... all you did was restate my assertion. I never said that the Middle chooses the candidates. Only that we elect the winners.
Sorry amigo, you (the muddied middle) might help in electing them. But the polar extremes are the driving force that calls the shots. Not the muddied waters of the middle.
The wishy washy undecided middle is more like the kid who cant decide chocolate or vanilla and then ends up getting what ever his parent(the press) tells him to get.
The middle and left banks on kids to get it's candidates elected. Like F*cktheNaySayers did (disinfranchisedvoter), and what happens? they lose. The RIGHT is strong and vibrant and THEY get thier candidates elected. THEY have been winning and winning and winning...see what happened in OHIO just the other day? The lefty lost, the righty won. Get this a woman Republican whipped a Democrat Marine! LOLOLOL.
Y'all must be getting kind of used to that happening, but i bet you dont like it.
Raugh, you really should expand your reading list beyond the GOP talking points.
The recent election in Ohio is a classic example. Over the last 15 years no Democrat has won more than 30% of the vote in Ohio's 2nd District. Paul Hackett won 48% and only narrowly lost the election. This in an overwhelmingly Republican district.
Carla totally destroyed the GOP talking points for the Ohio election over at Preemptive Karma. Go have a look if you dare. :-)
As for you comments about the Middle. The choices from our point of view is more one between Mao on the left and Hitler and right. To you that smacks of lack of principle. But, to me that says more about your principles than it does about mine. No offense meant. I'm just speaking plainly here.
Oh... and Bush totally trashed Kerry by a very wide margin in Ohio's 2nd Congressional District just a few months ago. Just to put Hackett's 4% loss into perspective...
I totaly knew about the past history of the district. Why you cant type a reply with out personally insulting you peer across the table is one thing that i have never understood about you kevin. Now on to the election: The one that won, the Republican was a woman, a relatively unknown non-incumbant and defeated a "military man" in a time of war who had drawn strong national attention for his anti war/bush comments. You play down her accomplishment, i tend to look at the postives. The dems went all out for this seat, and got smoked. By a relative unknown woman. Yes the district had been won handily by a repub in the recent past, but it was for the most part by the SAME REPUB. He moved on, thanks to a promotion by the president. (MY president, though perhaps not yours)
The indy middle is muddy water, that flows where ever the media and the winds of change drive it. I have heard nothing new or clever from it in forever. Comparing the right to Hitler scores you no points. And now if they start championing that loser McCain again, i will know for true that they are well and truly lost.
Repubs still occupy the high ground. We own all three houses and it does not look like they are losing power anytime soon.
p.s., now if they would just do something serious about immigration. Then, then they would be really kicking hiney.
Actually, John McCain had the backing of leading neocons like Bill Kristol in 2000. Bush, remember, said at the time that we should have a "humble" foreign policy, whereas neo-conservatism has in its core philosophy the belief in an aggressive militarism, something McCain has always believed in.
Hi James! It's good to see your name here.
It seems to me that Bush's about-face after 9/11 puts the lie to his assertions during the campaign. Indeed, the circumstantial evidence seems to indicate that Bush was interested in invading Iraq before 9/11. Which again would put the lie to his earlier assertions.
"The choices from our point of view is more one between Mao on the left and Hitler and right."
Hahaha, very well said. Sad that it is true though.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home