As Democrats Fight, McCain Seeks the Middle

The Caucus ^ | April 24th, 2008 | Matt Bai

[The_Republican]

Having regained some force in Pennsylvania, the tornado of insult and innuendo that is the Democratic Party’s nomination fight will now touch down in four more states. But while Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama regroup this week, John McCain is off doing something that, while lacking the same kind of drama, has a significance of its own. Mr. McCain and his advisers decided this week to embark on a tour of some of the places that symbolize the fragility of America’s promise, even if they aren’t the kind of places that Republicans often go: Selma, Ala.; Youngstown, Ohio; New Orleans; Inez, Ky., the Appalachian town where Lyndon Johnson once touted his War on Poverty.

There’s plenty of political artifice here, of course, and Democrats have been quick to deride the tour as a cynical publicity stunt. In a blast e-mail, the Democratic National Committee pointed out, for instance, that Youngstown is far better off today for having received the kind of congressional earmarks that Mr. McCain has vowed to veto if he becomes president. (Now there’s an interesting strategy for the fall: “Vote Democrat, the Party of Pork.”) But Mr. McCain’s hard-luck tour should not be so blithely dismissed, if for no other reason that it may reveal something about his theory of the electorate that presages a break with his party’s recent past.

Although it seems like it was about 100 years ago, you’ll recall that George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” in 2000, hoping to blunt the Democratic advantage among some suburban voters. But then came the stark blue and red electoral map that seemed to illustrate American’s hardened cultural divisions, followed closely by the standoff in Florida, and by the time they finally captured Washington.......

[RJL]

Oh believe me....you had to do the same before....

Then why was McCain/Feingold necessary, and why are the press exempt from McCain/Feingold?

[alicewonders]

What does your tagline mean?

[The_Republican]

Just make them own their hate attack - I am whoever and I approve this message. Would it be better if individuals are paying millions to individual candidates? There were limits before, only now they are tighter. It is a slippery slope and I understand that, but if it is truly unconstitutional, people need to challenge it and take it to SC.

[The_Republican]

Hillary’s gender is exciting ladies.

[okie01]

Sshhh........527s. Don’t let anyone know I told you about it.

OK. Then, if McCain really wasn't compromising our free speech rights, then he must've been lying about getting the money out of politics.

Which one is it?

And what was his motivation behind McCain-Kennedy? To get us all stirred up about illegal aliens so that we could stop Congress when he couldn't?

Face it. John McCain is not a conservative. He might've been once, but he is no longer.

Instead, he is a creature of Washington. If he wins, Washington wins. Just like if Obama or Clinton wins, Washington wins.

Whichever of three is elected, government is going to expand...and undertake even more stupid programs and leach away more of our freedoms.

And we lose.

McCain may be the worst GOP candidate since Benjamin Harrison. Still, though, he'll probably win...

[The_Republican]

What are you talking about? Getting money out of politics? Thats like getting white out of milk.

Reducing influence and it has.

For example, he himself has to go to public financing because unlike in the past, he can’t go and ask deep-pockets, 50K each or something like that.

Hildabeast is all tapped out by her 4,600 per pop donors. Now they are claiming she got 50K new donors in 24 HRs. I don’t buy it. They probably found a way to launder money through internet. Couple of years from now President Hillary would be answering questions and blaming Right Wing for laundering money today. I digress.

Small donations or public financing looks like the wave of the future.

If John McCain wins Al Qaida loses. You won’t see them dancing in streets of Baghdad. Lobbyist would lose too. Pigs eating at Public trough would choke to death as well.

NONE OF WHICH WOULD HAPPEN IF OBAMA OR HILLARY WIN.

Face it, you have to deny reality to EQUATE all three of them. You have let your anger get better off you. You want him to lose so bad that you have to find some justification, any justification, whether its reality based or not.

[Norman Bates]

Local and state governments are hardly equipped to handle multi-state national disasters.

[benjamin032]

Why not? The recovery in Mississippi was right on track while all the attention is given to NOLA. Besides, what is the President going to do, hold up a big wind screen?

[dalereed]

There is only 2 things in the middle (of the road), yellow stripes and dead skunks!

Burn down the RNC’s big tent!

[Norman Bates]

Louisiana in particular suffered devastating damage beyond the capacity of a state and/or local government to provide all the necessary action. The fact is MS is still rebuilding to this day.

[benjamin032]

I don’t doubt that they are, or that the states were woefully unprepared. I do doubt that the Fed, under any administration, would be better able to help.

[dalereed]

“There were limits before, only now they are tighter”

There were no limits when I started participating in politics, you must be wet behind the ears.

[RJL]

It is a slippery slope and I understand that, but if it is truly unconstitutional, people need to challenge it and take it to SC.

As I understand it, large parts of McCain/Feingold have been thrown out by the Supreme Court.

It's to their shame that the whole thing wasn't tossed out.

[okie01]

What are you talking about? Getting money out of politics? Thats like getting white out of milk.

Nonetheless, that was the stated justification for the bill. And I fully agree that it is ridiculous to expect such a thing to happen. Want to reduce the role of money in politics? Reduce the role of government.

Reducing influence and it has.

Whose influence?

For example, he himself has to go to public financing because unlike in the past, he can’t go and ask deep-pockets, 50K each or something like that.

You should know that campaign contributions have been limited since 1975. "$50K each or something like that" has been out of bounds for over thirty years.

Instead, McCain is going the public financing route because he's confident he can't count on the Republican donor base that has existed in the past.

Look, I'm going to vote for the bum. But don't tell me he's something he's not.

A politician who would infringe on free political speech, sell American citizenship at a discount, vote against tax cuts or buy into the global warming scam is never going to be a politician I would enthusiastically support.

[Osage Orange]

McCain is the luckiest politician in modern history.....

imo...

[ImpBill]

We must be close to the same age. The first election I was eligible to vote in was 1968. I have voted for the Republicans ever since. For many years I worked on campaigns at the local level, as a volunteer getting the voters out on election day. My father, God rest his soul, was GOP State Party Chairman and worked on a number of election campaigns at the state and national level.

We lived and breathed Republican politics.

Left the party 10 years ago, but continued to contribute to candidates and vote GOP.

All history now, my FRiend. I have spent some time looking over the Constitution Party platform and instead of playing golf on November 4th I believe I might just show up and pull the lever for their candidates.

The GOP is so totally ............ bereft of principle these days.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm one year behind you. I couldn't vote in ‘68, but was able to starting in ‘69, well actually ‘70. I first voted for local matters, and then for Nixon and was off to the races.

I too got very disenchanted with the RP back in 1996. That attack on Buchanan as if he were Hitler, did it for me. I had seen that tactic used by the Democrats for decades, and was shocked to see our side do it. That was the end for me. I still voted Dole, but in 2000 I wouldn't have any part of Bush. Then I voted for him in 2004. It was a big mistake.

1996 and 2004 are the only two elections I have regretted. I will never make that mistake again. Voting to support the party is DOA these days.

I have given the Constitution party some thought. I don't know if it's worth the bother though.

As for the GOP, it's currently dead to me. I agree with your assessment completely.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

In 69 I was not yet able to vote, but Richard Nixon was my Commander in Chief from ‘68 to ‘71.

It was natural to be a Conservative at the time, even though I didn’t even know what that meant. I hated the Hippies, who refused to take baths, smoked dope and called me a baby killer when they had no clue who I really was or what I did in the service of my country.

I killed NO babies, and fired most of my rounds into a dark faceless jungle perimeter lit chaotically by enemy muzzle flashes. There were times I cannot elaborate on and try desperately to forget, but cannot.

I voted for Nixon in his second term, which didn’t last long. I have been a Republican ever since but honestly say, this will be the first election where I will not vote for the GOP candidate. It pains me to do so, but the country needs to learn a lesson it will not forget. And I do not fear the outcome. That will take care of itself.

[DoughtyOne]

It will be the first election where I haven’t voted for a Republican or a former Republican. I appreciate your comments and the thoughts said and unsaid behind them. I appreciate your service very much.

One look at those hippies and the media behind them, and I couldn’t have taken one step in the direction of the Democrat party.

Anyone that could, you know exactly what they were and likely still are.

Thanks for the comments.

[mrsmel]

Louisiana got flooded, but for the most part the infrastructure was left standing. The Mississippi Coast for miles and mile looked like ground zero, washed clean except for debris. No comparison.

Haley Barbour has done an excellent job with recovery in Mississippi, without the grandstanding and finger-pointing and snarls of red tape and bureaucracy that have occurred in Louisiana, and having to deal with a much worse situation in material damage. He did of course have an advantage people-wise.