Posted on 03/31/2008 11:21:45 AM PDT by kingattax
Here's a prediction: Republican John McCain will be the next U.S. president.
Of course, a lot can happen between now and then that could make the above statement ridiculous, but assuming there's no momentous disaster in Iraq, it's hard to see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama beating McCain.
Put another way, I can't see McCain losing.
So uniting the party, once seen as almost impossible for McCain, is now duck soup. Fractious conservatives are already on side.
The main problem for Democrats is their candidates, Hillary and Obama, both with flaws and potential weaknesses.
First, Hillary. As of this writing, she seems hell-bent on taking her campaign to the floor of the convention in August, risking a fatal split in the party if she can't get her way. As it stands now, whichever side loses a convention fight, a lot of the loser's supporters will likely opt for McCain.
This time last year Hillary and America were persuaded that her nomination would be a coronation. Today that certainty has not only vanished, but shifted to where Obama is now almost a sure thing, even if he doesn't quite have the delegates to give him the majority that even the Clintons would have to accept.
I'd argue that what's likely to sink Hillary is her lying about herself and her record.
Dick Morris, the political guru who helped the Clintons win the U.S. presidency and before that the Arkansas governorship, has compiled a scorecard showing that "Hillary simply cannot tell the truth."
When it comes to the actual presidential campaign, her record of lying would damage her even more than it is hurting her now.
The lie (and no euphemism can disguise it as anything else) that will damage her more than any other is her claim on at least two occasions in 1996 when as First Lady she visited Bosnia, she "landed under sniper fire" and had to "run with our heads down to waiting cars."
Video shows an 8-year-old greeting her and daughter Chelsea with flowers, and no sign of danger. She also claimed Bosnia was too dangerous for the president, so he sent wife and daughter instead. You figure out that whopper.
When caught out, Hillary said she had "misspoke" the truth (whatever that means), forgetting that never in her life has she faced gunfire and that people rarely forget being under sniper fire.
Other "lies" on her resume include claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquest of Everest in 1953, apparently forgetting she was born, and named, in 1947.
Her lexicon of lies, compiled by Morris, include such as claiming daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Centre and heard the planes coming in on 9/11 -- a claim refuted by Chelsea, who said she saw it on TV.
In Bill's first run for the White House, Hillary explained she made a killing in the futures market ($100,000 from a $1,000 investment) by reading the Wall Street Journal, which didn't cover the market back then!
She now claims she always opposed NAFTA, when the record shows she enthusiastically supported it. She has said she urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda, which she didn't, and has even claimed to be a life-long Yankees fan.
So it goes. Big, small or in between, Hillary adjusts truth to the needs of the moment. As a consequence, polls show her trustworthiness at about half of McCain's or Obama's.
As for Obama vs. McCain, apart from his dubious handling of the "Pastor Disaster" -- Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-Americanism and blatant racism -- there are unknown aspects of Obama still to be revealed. He has answered the racist issue in Pastor Wright's rantings, but has yet to deal with the "patriotism" factor.
When Obama declared he can no more abandon Pastor Wright than he can repudiate his white grandmother, he is not being fair. Or honest. Obama had no choice in his grandmother; Pastor Wright was his personal choice.
McCain has been around so long that he is who he is, and there are few surprises left. He admits to being an "imperfect" human being, who all his life has sought to serve his country -- a claim that few deny.
Even Obama calls him "a hero." And he is prepared to co-operate with Democrats, if he feels it'll benefit his country. (Pity we in Canada have few politicians like that).
Most significant, perhaps, is that McCain is personally liked by many Democrats, many independents, blacks and Latinos. Polls show that 22% of Hillary's or Obama's declared supporters intend to vote for McCain if their candidate isn't the Democratic nominee.
As yet, the public knows little about what Obama believes, or what he would do. While, as he says, "Words are important," so are policies - which he hasn't yet outlined, and which will be analyzed when he does.
What happens in Iraq could derail the McCain campaign, which right now looks solid. McCain even looks more presidential and certainly fits the commander-in-chief role better than any rival.
If Obama were president, it's likely that certain nasty regimes would "test" American and Obama's resolve - as the Soviet Union tested Jimmy Carter in Africa, Latin America and South America. (Carter failed the test).
Before that, Khrushchev tested the young Jack Kennedy in Vienna and Cuba. (Khrushchev failed.)
No one risked testing Ronald Reagan. But Clinton was tested -- and failed to recognize Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, or the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing as a terrorist act. Ditto the embassy bombings in Africa, and the attack of the USS Cole.
If McCain becomes president, no stable country is likely to "test" him. North Korea, maybe, but that country is run by a fruitcake.
If for no other, this seems sufficient reason to hope McCain is the next U.S. president, which, barring the unforeseen, I can't see him missing.
NO.
If he's elected, MacFart will be a one termer. So, he'll want to establish his legacy right away, which means he'll bypass the republicans and have any potential judicial appointments first vetted by Teddy Kennedy. Afterward, the MSM will purr admiringly about how refreshing it is to finally have a mature, insightful man in The Oval Office willing to work in a bi-partisan fashion to take care of the country's business.
And I am being serious. Look at his history of governance and show me there's evidence that he'd do otherwise.
i really do not see what is "likely" about this... more like wishful thinking... i guess i must say it again--libs do not vote on principle... they support their own, no matter what... in other words, even though McCain is not very conservative, he would need a D next to his name...
And you have way too much faith in the electorate or are thinking of a John MacCain other than the very senior senator from Arizona. It's only a small percentage of us who get our information from more sources than just the MSM.
I’m voting for only senator and congressman, as I can’t condone McCain’s further globalization of America (i.e. amnesty and last week’s speech on American timidity) and his global warming bunk.
Hahahahaha... Sorry but statistics don’t back you up.
Folks know who HillBilly is, and Fauxbama’s pastor has made darn sure middle america knows who he is... these two are toast.. no amount of propoganda will change it.
You can keep thinking that CBS news and the NYT rules the world... but in case you haven’t noticed, they don’t.
Fractious conservatives? I must not be one of those.
Indistinguishable, especially on judges.
I thought Mark Twain came up with that one.
Not now, but anyone who's followed politics any length of time, knows how quickly things change.
Thanks for setting me straight on that.
McCain=Scary
The Witch=Scarier
Uncle Jeremiah's Nephew Barry=Scariest
It makes me sad. If we win, we lose.
This is merely the quiet before the storm and McCain is stupidly doing nothing to win or encourage the conservative base.
Once the Democrat candidate is decided the biased MSM will viciously attack McCain to make up for lost time.
Conservatives are so dumb they don't even know how the RINOs do it.
If McCain wins with conservative support, that will be proof positive that being a Rino is a winning option and it will be repeated ad nauseam nationwide.
No Thanks!
That is simply not true. When I called to my GOP HQ in 2002 to volunteer, I was given doorhangers, but told to only focus on campainging for the most left-leaning statewide candidate and to ignore the gubernatorial and controller candidates. (who happened to be the most conservative). The local assemby candidate in '04 refused to come to any GOP event and refused to say whether he would vote for Bush. There are several other incidents I have experienced.
How about this: Lincoln Chafee publicy announced he would not vote for Bush in 2004. In 2006, Bush devoted more time and money to Chafee than any other candidate. I think it's almost the opposite of what you say.
Wish all of this were true, but it seem lying by Hillary, which is when she opens her mouth, and unpatriotism by Obama seems to be acceptable to the public according to the national polls.
The Cubans, backed by the Soviets, did just that in Grenada.
Reagan passed the test.
From what I read, it is attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, Mark Twain and many others.
Time for the Dems to go away, and a right-flank maneuver on the GOP by a third party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.