McCain Limps In
OK, so John McCain has made it official, using the David Letterman show to announce his formal run for the presidency.
Cute.
McCain is clearly trying to recapture some of that free-wheelin', I'm-a-fun-guy sort of aura that used to surround him before he became the grim grump of the lastyear or so.
His announcement comes at an odd time, just as the latest Gallup Poll shows him slipping dangerously behind Rudy Giuliani (21% to 44% among Republicans). Looks like McCain has a long, hard slog in front of him -- straight uphill.
No question that he's played his hand very poorly. After alienating the Republican Right on a series of issues --from the war to immigration-- his pro-Bush pivot, his pandering to the Fallwellites, his declaration against Roe V. Wade have come to naught. Giuliani has defied the conventional wisdom and in spite of his pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun positions, he is actually leading McCain among White Evangelicals.
No head scratching necessary. Some Republicans have a long memory and they were not and are not about to forgive McCain his public transgressions against the party line. And Rudy, even though a social moderate, has never once broken the so-called 11th commandment by publicly criticizing another Republican. So the tin-hatters and the bible-thumpers are lining up with Rudy under the banners of loyalty and "electability," much the same way liberal Democrats did with Kerry in 2004.
With Rudy surging early, the only hope McCain has is to establish himself even farther to the right and covertly (or overtly) encourage so-called independent expenditure campaigns to Swift-boat Rudy as some sort of unreliable liberal. While the only available strategy, it's also one fraught with peril. It's a great way to permanently estrange the centrists, independents and moderate Republicans that were once McCain's strongest and most enthusiastic base. And the more vile the GOP primaries are, the more intense the attacks are on Giuliani's social positions, the more likely it is that centrist voters will be pushed toward the Democrats in the general election.
McCain's greatest appeal, five years ago when he was much more appealing, wasn't so much that he was a maverick or a moderate, but that he came off as being unusually frank and straightforward as pols go. He has recklessly squandered that capital by his sudden embrace of Bush and Bushismo, for which he's now paying a rising price.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I’ve never been able to figure out why social conservatives have so many problems with McCain. He’s pretty much in their corner on their big issues. I find it hard to believe that the Religious Right would be more pissed off about tepid campaign finance reform than abortion and gays. Maybe it’s because he didn’t bend low enough in past years. Of course he’s making up for that. Weird, this. If social conservatives line up behind Giuliani before McCain, it will mean their leaders are complete frauds (ya think?) and it’s all about some covert agenda that even I am not conspiratorial enough or contemptuous enough of their motives to comprehend.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
So-called campaign finance reform was was an assault on the First Amendment. Don’t attack an incumbent 60 days before an election.
Disqualifying, as far as I’m concerned.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
From RealClearPolitics.com: As he was contemplating a run for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani told Wolf Blitzer that he was a “very, very strong supporter of Campaign Finance Reform,” adding that he’d been “a very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now.”
(Is there anything that any GOP candidate believed in a few years ago that they still believe in ? Other than their own ego. McCain is actually more consistent – flip-floppy as he is – than any of the rest of the serious contenders. Given the GOP ideology, they’re nuts if they abandon McCain for a pro-choice, pro-gay serial adulterer with no national security credentials. )
March 1st, 2007 at 12:26 am
The Department of Defense has identified 3,150 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday:
AGUIRRE, Anthony, 20, Lance Cpl., Marines; Channelview, Tex.; Third Marine Division.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:05 am
Re our discussions of the candidates’ positions on Iraq, an interesting historical reminder in the Times today from Lincoln Chafee about the options that Hillary Clinton et al. had before them at the time.
March 1, 2007 New York Times
Op-Ed Contributor
The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice
By LINCOLN D. CHAFEE
Providence, R.I.
AS the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues, as it did during the midterm elections. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.
As someone who was in the Senate at the time, I have been struck by the contours of the debate. The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.
On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.†And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.
A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.
Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted†or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.
An opponent of the Levin amendment said that the debate was not over objectives, but tactics. And he was right. To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the “go it alone†approach of the Bush doctrine.
Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.
We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.â€
Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.
It was incomprehensible to me at the time that the Levin amendment received only 24 votes. However, there were some heroes, like Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, who even in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign voted to slow the march to war. And then there was the moving statement by Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in support of the Levin amendment and against the administration-backed resolution: “This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president’s authority under the Constitution of the United States — not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.â€
Americans are gravely concerned about Iraq, and yearn for leadership to stabilize the situation there and gradually end United States involvement. Calling on presidential hopefuls to justify or recant their vote authorizing the president to take us to war almost misses the point.
The Senate had the opportunity to support a more deliberate, multilateral approach, one that still would have empowered the United States to respond to any imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We must not sidestep the fact that a sensible alternative did exist, but it was rejected. Candidates — Democrat and Republican — should be called to account for their vote on the Levin amendment.
Lincoln D. Chafee, a Republican senator from Rhode Island from 1999 to 2006, is a visiting fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
March 1st, 2007 at 5:58 am
If you’re going to vote as a social conservative, you’ll probably eventually take Romney over McCain.
Some very weird numbers here, on the general standings. Not least among the weirdness: in a FOX News poll, McCain trails Obama in the “definitely wil vote for” category.
(Clinton is #1 there, Giuliani #2.) Weirder still, Obama has the highest numbers for “might vote for”, and the lowest for “will never vote for”. The Zogby poll’ “General Election Trial Heats” has Obama beating either Giuliani or McCain, with Hillary losing against them. I don’t know how that polling technique works, though. The numbes in the “unsure” column are high.
If somebody forced me to put money down today, I’d bet that Hillary and Giuliani get nominated, and that Hillary then loses to Giuliani. But there are trends working against the GOP — both Giuliani’s and McCains numbers are dropping slowly against almost any Dem candidate. And there is a trend working against Hillary: Obama continues to surge. Oops, I mean, his popularity keeps growing. Heh. Sorry. Didn’t mean to offend anybody here with the S-word.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:31 am
That’s right, MT, we prefer to say that Obama’s popularity is escalating.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:47 am
“I find it hard to believe that the Religious Right would be more pissed off about tepid campaign finance reform than abortion and gays”
Frankly, I don’t. The National Right to Life Organization, when it has come down to choosing in primaries between an anti-abortion, pro-campaign finance reform candidate and pro-abortion, anti-campaign reform candidate; they have consistently chosen the former across the board. Robert Novak, of all people, wrote a compelling piece about this a few years ago.
To be honest, although I myself am against abortion (though I consider myself a progressive), I believe that the “religious right” are not so much for banning abortion as they are against making it impossible for poor women to get them.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:48 am
that should be, they are FOR making it impossible for poor women to obtain them.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:54 am
“Given the GOP ideology, they’re nuts if they abandon McCain for a pro-choice, pro-gay serial adulterer with no national security credentials. )”
I would disagree with the last part. Say what you want, he broke the back of organized crime in New York (and really, in the mafia’s network cities across the nation). He worked with the FBI, and Rudy has extensive experience devising surveillance techniques and other crime fighting strategies. He is someone who might fight a “smart” war on terror compared to the present commander in chief, although I would never vote for the man since he had no qualms about throwing homeless people into the street or into drug infested hotel rooms as mayor of New York.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:06 am
You mean he would use the John Kerry approach to the “War On Terror”, rather than BushCo’s “invade & convert” strategy ? Shocking…
Let’s face it – Giuliani’s reputation in the area of “national security” is about as credible as suggesting that a pedistrian who got run over by a truck is an expert on driver safety.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:10 am
Also, if the point of the GOP is simply to elect an unadulterated bully, they should nominate Cheney. He could continue this great legacy the GOPers have built…
March 1st, 2007 at 7:41 am
Incidentally, while I’d be very cautious in suggesting anything constructive could come out of this current administration of rogues and fools, it deserves note that Condaleeza Rice has started doing the nasty in public. That is, engaging in talks with Syria and Iran over the Iraq crisis. Is this the sign of a Limp Dick and Creeping Bakerism ? Has the Mysterious Plan B (which they would think up, you know, after the Surge failed) already started kicking in ? I doubt it, but hope springs eternal. Even with cynical fucks such as myself.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:01 am
I might know more about how conservatives feel than people here who don’t understand them. I don’t like McCain or Giuliani and would have no interest in voting for either in the general election–even if it means that a low-life, lying, blood-suckin’, high taxin’, cut-and-runnin’, left-wing Democrat gets elected. I don’t want the Republican Party doing little for conservatives and taking them for granted like the Democrats do the black vote.
My problem is finding someone to like who is also electable. If I could appoint a President, it would be my old congressman Newt Gingrich.
Asked whether Americans are ready to elect Rudy Giuliani – a leader, the questioner noted, whom Ed Koch had called a “nasty man” – Gingrich shot back, “As opposed to a nasty woman?”
“Nobody will out-mud the Clintons,” said Gingrich, who added that he’ll decide in the coming months whether to run for the White House.
During the Post session, Gingrich also:
* Warned that the GOP is in the “early stages of an enormous transition” and suggested electability is an issue for Republicans.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:11 am
You’re in Newt’s district Woody ? So you’re one of the greedy suburban welfare bums who were at the top of the list in snagging federal tax dollars per capita under Newt ? No wonder you want him to be President. He made you folks the Queens of the dole.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:21 am
Incidentally, to put Woody’s World in context – before Newt Gingrich his district had elected the President of the John Birch Society to Congress.
(Rep. Larry McDonald: ‘75 – ‘83. Tragically – and ironically – he was killed in the Korean airliner shot down by Soviet jets when it wandered off-course…or was targeted for McDonald’s anti-Soviet activities, depending on your world-view.)
March 1st, 2007 at 8:23 am
Why is Chelsa Clinton so ugly?
Janet Reno is her real Mom!
So, this is what a stright talking, AUTHENTIC, meida darling Republican can get away with saying about the Dems in power. Any surprise what can happen in an emotionaly charged, post 9-11 moment?
John McCain is an unreconstucted jar head dope in a country that has made itself a slave to brainless sentimentality about all things Military, from the halls of Fox News to the shores of Marc Cooper’s blog. This is how McCain could have his basicly loathsome voting record and still pull endless mash notes from center left pundits. I guess the fact that he was still calling the Vietnamese “gooks” circa 2000, just wasn’t that much of a tip off to those who are surprised by his embrace of the surge.
Rudy may be basicly benifiting by being the only game in town. Dems will appear as spoil sports if they try to debunk his hero of 9-11 story, and don’t expect the liberal media to lean much in that direction either. Don’t expect to hear that “The first thing I thought when I saw the Towers fall was “thank God George Bush is President” line too much though.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:23 am
I’m not kidding on that last bit.
“There is a real question in my mind that the Soviets may have actually murdered 269 passengers and crew on the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in order to kill Larry McDonald.” – Jerry Falwell, September 2, 1983, Washington Post
March 1st, 2007 at 9:15 am
Gingrich “suggested electability is an issue”
And what planet had this political genius been living on prior to this revelation. Also, Newt wrote the book on nastiness.
From a 1995 article on Gingrich by Gail Sheehy:
As he had done during his lonely childhood, Newt used words as weapons, perfecting a politics of personal destruction. At one lunch, writes Barry, Newt grabbed a napkin and drew a diagram illustrating how he intended to define the opposition “out of existence.” On other occasions Newt said that Democratic leaders were “corrupt,” that they associated with “thugs,” and that they followed Neville Chamberlain’s philosophy of “withdrawal from the planet.” Their policies, he warned, would bring to American shores “the joys of Soviet-style brutality and the murder of women and children.”
The more outrageous his rhetoric became the more “hits” he got on television and in magazines. “We are engaged in reshaping a whole nation through the news media,” Newt himself acknowledged to The Washington Post. “Newt’s used the media from the beginning,” boasts Tony Blankley, who goes on to emphasize that Newt’s style and approach actually pre-date the rise of Rush Limbaugh. Newt’s press secretary even draws a comparison to the Ayatolah Khomeini…”
March 1st, 2007 at 9:47 am
Better the John Birch Society than the ACLU, and thanks for your 12 year old “update” on Newt, reg.
Newt Gingrich is a very smart person. I enjoy listening to his talks on history and politics. He opens up new ideas to make people think about new approaches to problems. If there is a problem with him, in my mind, is that he works more on theoretical possibilities than on realistic applications, but we need people like that in some planning role.
BTW, Georgia’s sixth congressional district was gerrymandered around by the Democrats, so don’t assume that Larry McDonald, the congressman murdered by the Commies, represented me.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:55 am
Woody may be perturbed to konw that the Birchers have been foursquare opposed to Bush’s imperialism.
http://www.jbs.org/node/2492
March 1st, 2007 at 9:56 am
He has been regular foil for target practice here, but I came across Mark York’s must read novel Warm Front. (first chapter) I hope it gets the attention it deserves. It answers the critics and answers them well. It should win over at First Chapters. If it does not, something is wrong. Rarely does a book rate such attention but this book does!
It has a good stlye and I think most readers will greet it well.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:05 am
AMERICAN SOLUTIONS –
WHY WE ARE DOING IT & WHAT WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH
FROM: NEWT GINGRICH, CHAIRMAN
(Selections)
We recently launched American Solutions for Winning the Future, a unique non-partisan organization designed to rise above traditional gridlocked partisanship, to provide real, significant solutions to the most important issues facing our country.
This process of invention, development, education, collaboration and implementation requires a far longer time horizon, a far larger outreach, and a far deeper commitment to learning and implementing than can be found in a narrow political campaign.
You can participate in a Presidential campaign and have a role in collaborating, learning, inventing and implementing through American Solutions. We will share our ideas and polling with all the candidates in both parties.
If you want to focus on much more fundamental change than a Presidential campaign by itself could possibly achieve, then American Solutions is a useful place to invest in a better future for your children, your grandchildren, and your country.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:16 am
Last one…I promise. It’s worth a look.
Cooper Union in New York City is sponsoring the “Lincoln at Cooper Union” dialogue series. The purpose of the series is to encourage serious discourse and debate from various sides of the political spectrum. The first of these dialogues will be held February 28th with Mario Cuomo and Newt Gingrich in attendance to talk about current issues. Video
March 1st, 2007 at 10:31 am
Woody’s general idiocy aside, Newt strikes me as a formidable candidate. I also think that while Rudy could beat Hilary, and tangle with Edwards, he’d get obliterated by Obama. That is my official half-assed non-prediction predicition of the day.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:36 am
I don’t think Gingrich has a chance. Most people can’t stand the sanctimonious, over-stuffed asshole.
Chris Wallace on FOX News (to Newt Gingrich): We asked people who under no circumstances would they vote for, and you came in second on that dubious list at 64 percent, behind Ralph Nader, but far ahead of everyone else. And I should add 44 percent of Republicans said they would not vote for you.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:43 am
York, you are a weird dude. Do you think we’re so stupid as to not know that it is you posting? You and Steve should form a club.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:43 am
I agree that McCain faces a tough uphill battle to gain the Republican nomination. In fact, I don’t think he stands a chance against Giuliani. Part of the reason McCain turns conservative voters off is his personal history of actually fighting honorably for his country in a war. The last two Republican “Tough Guy” presidents (Bush II and Reagan) politely excused themsleves from the battlefields of World War II and Vietnam, respectively, as young men, yet portrayed themselves as real bad-asses once in office. This type of hypocrisy is what the feeble conservative mind respects. An honest-to-goodness War Hero just doesn’t cut it. Such a man will be far less profligate in promoting military adventurism. And that simply won’t do for any self-respecting “30 percenter”.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am
Interesting, Reg. I had no idea he was so unpopular with Republicants (this is my new name for Republicans who call Democratic politicians “Democrat politicans”. The best part is that if somebody calls you on it, you just insist you said Republican and that they must be hearing you wrong.) He always strikes me as pretty smart and articulate if nefarious and, of course, smug.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Since my comments that have URLs in them aren’t getting through, here’s an excerpt from the Prince of Darkness writing on the GOP candidates in today’s WaPo.
For GOP, A Void on The Right – By Robert D. Novak
New York-based political consultant Kieran Mahoney’s survey of probable Republican participants in the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses showed this support for the “big three” candidates: John McCain, 20.5 percent; Rudy Giuliani, 16.3 percent; Mitt Romney, 3.5 percent. Astonishingly, they all trailed James Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia, who had 31 percent.
How could that be? Because it was not a legitimate survey but a “push poll,” normally a clandestine effort to rig the results by telling respondents negative things about some of the candidates. But Mahoney makes no secret that the voters he sampled were told of liberal deviations by McCain, Giuliani and Romney, as well as true-blue conservatism by Gilmore, who is Mahoney’s client.
Mahoney is trying to prove a point widely accepted in Republican ranks. None of the three front-line candidates is a natural fit for the nation’s right-of-center party. Without question, there is a void. (end clip)
March 1st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Forget McCain. He won’t be the Republican nominee. Hey, Mavis. Which Democrat politician do you think will win their nomination?
In the video that I referenced above in which Cuomo and Gingrich spoke and Tim Russert moderated: Mario Cuomo said that he thinks that Newt Gingrich would be the best Republican candidate (stated twice and elaborated upon near the end of the video, to much applause.) Cuomo said that Newt is better equipped than other Republican candidates. Newt’s credentials, include being a conservative, his position on religion, God, and creator, ability to debate, speaks and thinks clearly….
Cuomo then said that the Democrats are afraid to debate and want fewer debates because they don’t want to be in a position to answer and be accountable for hard questions.
Gingrich said that Sen. Chuck Schumer’s book is a must read because it is a sharp, tough, painful book for Republicans to read, but it is also critical of the Democrats–very insightful. He thinks that Schumer would be a tough candidate to beat. However, Gingrich said that he thinks that two New Yorkers will be the nominees for President and that one of them will sound like a New Yorker–which includes Giuliani but does’t include Schumer, so it must be some other Democrat from New York.
I don’t care about polls, but here’s another one, anyway.
(Selections)
According to the new TIME poll, Giuliani now leads his closest rival for the Republican nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona, by 14 points (38% to 24%) among registered Republicans…. In January, a TIME poll showed McCain ahead by 4 points…. Third among the Republicans in TIME’s poll, with 12%, was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was at 7%.
In a general election, the poll showed that a Clinton versus McCain contest would be a virtual dead heat, while she would lose to Giuliani by 3%. Obama, according to the poll, would beat McCain by 4 points; but would trail Giuliani by 5.
***************
If you are curious and want a sample of Mark York’s literary accomplishments, as offered above, this is part of the first chapter in his latest fiction offering, according to his web site:
… there was no need to report anything conclusive yet as his bosses at the Department of Interior were under command to downplay any evidence of the “climate change” phenomenon. They’d been instructed to use the softer language by the Baumgartner administration, who held a dim view of conservation, they dubbed as “environmentalism,” which now had a pejorative connotation. Government agencies, being what they are as tools of the people, must follow along at least on the surface, but behind the scene, they followed the facts and reported the results regardless of who the political figurehead was at the time.
I think the book was written to help you go to sleep.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Thanks for the preview of York’s book, Woody. As a writer myself, I have to say that his literary style is… breathtaking.
March 1st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Again, I can’t get URL links through, but go to Youtube and enter “Giuliani in Drag” into the search and you’ll see the best 2008 candidate’s video that we’re likely to ever get…
Bonus appearance by Donald Trump.
March 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Couldn’t let Balter’s plug for Bob Herbert’s silly column pass without mentioning it’s proper drubbing over at The Daily Howler. To put it as the Howler might: do Adults REALLY accept this brain dead tripe as analyses?
March 1st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Jesus, what wanking
March 1st, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Expand your vocabulary.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“An honest-to-goodness War Hero just doesn’t cut it. ”
Avi Brand – While I don’t usually go out of my way to defend Republicants, let me remind you that Bush 1 and Dole both served honorably.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
As did Eisenhower…
But are guys like that ever gonna get nominated by GOPers again ? Seems less and less likely.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
In that FOX News poll to which reg alludes, Gingrich and Nader were the only two names with negatives (”would never vote for”) in the majority. If Cuomo thinks Gingrich would be a good candidate, it’s probably in part because his nomination would ensure victory for any Democrat candidate.
Gingrich is an intellectual provocateur, and there’s nothing wrong with that in itself. But it’s not the stuff of credible candidacy. Throw in certain repugnant behavior of his in the past, and how far his ideology is from the mainstream, and I really have to wonder why anyone takes him seriously as a candidate at all.
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:58 am
Michael Turner, Gingrich would be a very interesting candidate, he is trying to find common ground between ideologies in this country, and he doesn’t have any more repugnant behavior than does Hillary Rodham. In earlier polls, something like 48% of the people said that they would never vote for H. R. Clinton, so you see attitudes can change. However, even I admitted that Newt’s forward thinking is something better for an “ideas guy” than a president.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
It would seem to be something of a mystery that Rudy Guiliani – with more baggage than American Airlines – could be leading among Republicans with some polls showing even a slight plurality of social conservatives supporting him. I think two factors are at work here:
1) many social conservatives are truly unaware of his three marriages, including one to his cousin, abortion-rights support and pro-gay policies. Many who are hate him as much as they do McCain.
2) There is a school of thought that the Right-Wing Base of the GOP is composed of people with an “Authoritarian” Pesronality. And what they see in Rudy is a guy who cracked down on Crime, Was nasty to Yasser, put the homeless in their place and humbled a (Jewish) Wall Street. In short, they like him as an American IL DUCE.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
McCain just cut his throat with the conservatives.
Conservative Political Action Conference
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
>three marriages, including one to his cousin
Isn’t cousin marriage the norm among the chinless, possum hunting, snake-handling yahoos who vote in GOP primaries?
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Newt Gingrich the presidential candidate would last about as long as Newt Gingrich the fictional writer (when I worked at Borders, that softcore novel that he penned – laughed out of the pages of the NY Times Book Review – found its way into the 75% off bin within a record amount of time). I can’t imagine his campaign lasting beyond even the planning stages.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
RLC = I agree on the authoritarian personality but how is Wall Street Jewish? There are a lot of Jews who are wealthy, to be sure, but the people at the top are creamy WASP.
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Strangely enough, th marriage to his cousin seems to be the most troubling for social conservatives. I think Woody is right that McCain probably hurt himsellf by not going to CPAC convention and all I can think is anhother repositioning by Honest John since the wingers won’t forgive him for all the nasty things he said about them.
BTW since the polls show a reluctance on the part of voters to elect a Mormon what kind of sense did it make that Romney’s youth groups at CPAC all looked like Missioanries – that’s what was reported by a radio host from AIR AMERICA who was there – didn’t see any bicycles though.
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
jcummings it is a truth universally acknowleged among the more ripe of the right wing that the Jews run wall street, Hollywood, and the media. See Wiliam Donahue if you don’t believe me. And anti-semitism has been a key ingredient in the Authorian Personality for some time. See Hanna Arendt. And see Michael Lind’s articles on the antisemitism of Pat Robertson that appeared in the NYRB in early ‘95. (Sorry, I’m too lazy to GOOGLE the exact dates and issues for you)
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Of course the authoritarian personality (a concept originated by Arrendt pal Theodor Adorno as OSS interviewer of Germans after WW2) involves AntiSemitism – I’d like to find that Lind article, he’s a good writer (though his ideas sometimes leave a little to be desired…)
,
But you seem to imply that Guiliani kept (I nowrealize you were joking about “Jewish”) Wall Street in line, “humbled” it, but the Jews in their place, from a right wing perspective. AS far as I know, Rudy did capital’s bidding…when did he ever crack down on corporate crime?
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Its funny (and true) that RLC’s phantasmic right wing base hates both Arafat and the Jews. Its very true. Underneath the militarist philo-semitism among non-fundamentalist “Authoritarian Personality” rightists, is a strong Anti-Semitism. G. Gordon Liddy, who admires Himmler and Sharon, and compared the two as a compliment, comes to mind.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I believe if you look at the Jan 1995 issues of NLRB you’ll find Lind’s articles. They were in parts – can’t remember whether there were two or three. BTW I believe Marc had him on his readio program on KPFK at the time. Remember Marc? Thanks for the Adorno mention. Should have gone to him first.
Ah the Frankfort School! Anyone else here still trying to figure out what Juergen Habermas was trying to say?
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Here’s one speaker today at the august “Conservative Political Action Conference” which Rudy and Mitt are addressing. In fact just before Ann Coulter uttered the words quoted below, she was preceded by Mitt Romney who told the gathered faithful how great it was that she would be speaking next.
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
This crowd, who greeted Coulter’s remarks with cheering, represent “the base” of conservatism. And they don’t call them “base” for naught. Wingnuts, wackjobs and bigots. The good old GOP. And the “liberal media” will probably give them a pass. Can you imagine what would be on every channel from CBS to FOX right now if Hillary or Obama appeared at a liberal gathering where some such crap was unloaded and they had just praised the creep who said it ? Luckily for these slimeballs and the Hungry Egos that pander to them, a double standard will no doubt be observed and this won’t make it out of the blogs.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Just saw at HuffPo that Coulter had endorsed Romney. McCain will probably have turned out to be smart to avoid this freak-show. And if his people have any sense at all they’re working right now to blow this up and tag Romney with Coulter. It’s a bit of a ballet so as not to turn the whole gang hard against him, but it probably makes sense. Rudy could, of course, end up being the beneficiary as he stands to the side.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
reg, Coulter is a journalist and an entertainer–not a politician. She’s not running for office and is not held to the same standards as a politician from either party. The audience appreciates her humor, even if some of it is offensive–or, make that, especially if it’s offensive to Democrats. However, her endorsement means about as much as mine.
On media fairness, Democrats can say that black Republican politicians are “Sambos” without the media going berzerk. And, isn’t MoveOn.org is the base of the Democrats?
Even though I’m a conservative, I don’t know what all goes on in CPAC, but I do know that McCain appears to be snubbing conservatives by rejecting them, and that doesn’t help him with people like me.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Why do you fumble to excuse this rampant shit. Screw you…Coulter was cheered on by that crowd of scumbags. As you yourself admit, these are the “people like you”, Woody. Deal with it. It’s why I consider you so lame and such a loser. And find me a quote where some speaker at a mainstream liberal gathering – whose appearance there Hillary or John or Barack has just noted as “great” – calls anybody “Sambo”.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
‘She’s not held to the same standards as a politician running for office” .
Of course not. But is she held to any standards of decency at all or is she just a loudmouth bigoted jerkoff doing lame comedy like Andrew Dice Clay ? If so, what the hell is she doing as a featured speaker at CPAC ? More to the point, why do mainstream media feature her as a “pundit” ? She’s to punditry what Anna Nicole Smith was to acting. A whorish exhibitionist !
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Democrats say, “Doo Dah, Doo Dah”.
reg, I’m a conservative but I’m also an individual who has his own ideas, which means that I can agree on many things with other conservatives but not necessarily everything. I do agree that Coulter is funny in that she drives the Left crazy, as you exhibit.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Habermas is post-Frankfurt, and truly impenetrable, and his politics are decidedly divorced from the original neo-Marxist thought of Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer. Many people believe he is simply “self appointed” because he is vaguely in the same tradition. He’s boring, and obtuse, and underneath it all, a pretty standard German liberal.
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
This isn’t about you, Woody. It’s about the character of a movement that embraces Coulter and her bigotry.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Ann Coulter a bigot? Is something like this what you mean?
Ann Coulter Is Officially A Bigot
reg, do you know the moral of this? It means that liberals take everything too seriously and have little sense of humor.
I guess most conservatives would laugh at that joke, but that doesn’t condemn the conservative movement. At least we don’t go around hoping terrorists would kill Democratic leaders, like the Democratic movement did with the Republicans when a bomb exploded near VP Cheney this week. Is that the character of your movement?
As this relates to McCain, this group only appears nuts to you but would have helped McCain to get votes for the nomination had he accepted the speaking invitation. He doesn’t have to laugh at Ann Coulter to make an appearance.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
It’s real clear what I mean. And it’s real clear what Ann Coulter and CPAC are. If they think that shit’s funny, fine. Those antics will help us crush their nuts into peanut butter. Keep the faith.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Woody…would you still be talking about “sense of humor” if Ms. Coulter used the phrase nigger, or kike or some such? Faggot is equally offensive. Yo are a fool if you think otherwise. This is not a left/right issue.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
jcummings, I didn’t laugh at the joke that Coulter made to the group, and I wasn’t there to know how much laughter she actually received versus what was reported. Honestly, I don’t even know what she was talking about in referencing Edwards to that. However, Coulter does have a sharp sense of humor and knows how to needle liberals.
I actually diepise bigoted humor…unless it involves blacks, Mexicans, or Arabs, and maybe women, and homosexuals, Yankees, French, or dolphins. Well, maybe not dolphins. In reality, I don’t like humor like that except for the Jewish jokes that my Jewish friends send me, which they are allowed to do. Redneck jokes are okay, too.
Ann Coulter is more of an entertainer than a political analyst. Consider this:
Stephen Colbert or Ann Coulter?
Here’s one: “Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.â€
I guess that you would have to know liberals to understand that one.
Are we still talking about McCain?
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Typing error…s/b “despise” Sorry, but I have to watch out for the spelling police.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 am
Needling liberals is good….I LIKE needling liberals from the Left. I’ve even found some of Coulter’s columns funny and castigated libs for taking her too seriously. But by using the phrase “faggot” to a room full of young people, and more disturbingly, having them cheer – well thats no different from using nigger or kike.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:13 am
Jewish jokes are fine – and Jews know the best of them. That kind of humor is far different from using a derogatory phrase as a punchline.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Audacity!!!
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_blames_Bush_Administration_for_strengthening_0302.html
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Woody in 2004 MoveOn held an open contest to come up with anj ad to run on cable advocating the election of a Democrat for President. One of the entrees portrayed Bush and Cheney as Nazis with Hitler’s speeches as a soundtrack. This wasn’t MoveOn mind you but a entrent. They didn’t pick it of course but the Right Wing Noise Machine got its knickers in a twist and demanded that MoveOn “Apologize” for an ad they didn’t run. But when Coulter calls a Presidential candidate a “faggot” that’s OK? What? She’s going to call Obama an “Uppity Nigger” next?
Just what does it take Woody for one of these nutjobs to say something that goes too far?
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
rlc, is O’bama black?! He seems so clean and articulate.
I’ve been told that I have a bad “gay-dar,” so I just don’t get the referencing of faggot to Edwards. But, give me credit, I could see that with Al Gore.
Sure, both sides play that game, but I guarantee that the Democrats play it a lot more because they can get away with statements similar to ones over which the the press hounds the Republicans.
I’m not trying to drive people over to G.M.’s Corner, but today I did a quick post for the site on demands for apologies–of course, from my perspective. I get a little tired of apology demands and tired of speech codes.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
I can’t even link properly to GM’s site. Let me try again…. GM’s Corner
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 am
Woody, I can’t comment over there, but that post was completely clueless and stupid. You don’t even get the basics of this issue. The point wasn’t that Coulter should apologize to Edwards. Why the hell would Edwards even care ? The point is that the GOP right-wing base is scum. Funny you should miss that…
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
As for “Is Obama Black?” , I’ve got a post on that over at Randy’s.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
reg, you didn’t understand what I said. It had nothing to do with Coulter apologizing to that gay lawyer candidate, as you stated. Technically, Howard Dean, in this case, wasn’t asking explicitly for an apology as much as a condemnation from the Republican candidates, which is a forced “I’m sorry” by the Republicans for associating with Coulter. Anyway, my post wasn’t so much about that situation as it was apology demands in general.
I looked at your post on O’bama and noted that you didn’t take a position on his racial pedigree. To me, it doesn’t matter, but to Democrats it does, and they don’t think that anyone is black unless he “thinks black.” If someone is black and a conservative, then Democrats simply reclassify him to Uncle Tom status.
Somehow, we can’t get back to discussing McCain.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
So suggesting that people who ask the idiotic question “Is Obama black?” are moonbats isn’t a “position” ?
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Woody wants to talk about John McCain so here goes. Today his spokeman denounced the Coulter “faggot” remark. First he doesn’t go to the CPAC Meeting and now he actually calls the lovely Lady Ann on her bigotry (and by implication the crowd that roared its approval). I’m going to give John the benefit of the doubt here and say he did it because he was genuinely revolted by it. But he also must know that it won’t help him with these nuts. So maybe he’s getting wise. They will never vote for him and all he has done is tarnish his image by pandering to them.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
John McCain really scares me. Look at this image of him and tell me that you’re not frightened…
http://www.theweeklydonut.org/index.php/2007/03/01/john-mccain-hes-just-plain-scary/
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
reg, try to read more carefully. I stated, “…you didn’t take a position on his racial pedigree.” I didn’t say what you did. I said what you didn’t do.
—–
rlc, I saw a clip of Coulter at CPAC, and the crowd didn’t “roar approvingly,” as I saw it. I think that the reactions were quite mixed, as many were startled, some gave polite response to an invited speaker, and some thought it was funny. You can view it on YouTube and reach your own conclusion.
Given your take on McCain and CPAC, it sounds somewhat like why Bush avoided speaking to the radicals left-wingers at the NAACP.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
” I think that the reactions were quite mixed”
bullshit…I heard it and the response was laughter and applause.
Also, all your boys have disavowed her, as well they should.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:03 am
The reaction were mixed. There were those you didn’t hear because they stayed quiet, and those who were not quiet were divided between those who gave a polite or embarrased titter and the rest who actually laughed at perceived humor in the remark. It’s not what you hear. It’s what you don’t hear. I’m one of those who agree that homophobia is so gay.
March 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
You’re right. I didn’t hear the sounds of silence above the laughter. Next time I’ll listen harder for the non-applause of those who were only clapping with one hand. (I guess I’m just not “drunken master” enough to catch the nuances. Although I do agree that an awful lot of homophobia, a la Ted Haggard, is coming from guys who are struggling with their inner “gay”.)
March 4th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
We have the results of the CPAC straw poll: Romney wins followed by Giuliani. McCain finished fifth. Interestingly Ann Coulter is backing the Mormon from Michigan(or is that Massachussitts?) And Romney only gave a lukewarm startment of disagrement with her “faggot” remark.
I don’t usually cite Andrew Sullivan but he’s got these people right when he said that they, unfortunately, were the new face of American Conservatism. I’m just not so sure of how “New” they are, though.