They will leave the party or simply check out of the process because the GOP stabbed them in the back for the last time.
Posted on 05/05/2008 10:17:37 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Neither did Glenn, neither did I. (I didn’t vote.) Granted, she’s a buffoon and a completely unreliable witness, but … do we maybe want to force ourselves to believe this one?
"At a dinner party in Los Angeles not long after the 2000 election, I was talking to a man and his wife, both prominent Republicans. The conversation soon turned to the new president. “I didn’t vote for George Bush” the man confessed. “I didn’t either,” his wife added. Their names: John and Cindy McCain (Cindy told me she had cast a write-in vote for her husband).
"The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency."
That our nominee is, shall we say, less than a fully devout Republican is something already well known to the base. A new tale of party betrayal will hurt him — but a tale of Bush betrayal, specifically? Dubya’s approval rating is 28%; according to the new Gallup, he’s a bigger liability for McCain than Wright is for Obama (although, surprisingly, only slightly). Conservatives who don’t want to believe the story can simply discard it based on the source and independents who do want to believe it can accept it as proof that McCain’s not the Bush clone the left wants him to be. Thanks, Arianna! Exit question: What did she hope to accomplish by mentioning this? Anything coherent? Bear in mind, this is a woman who convinced herself last summer that the conservative outcry against McCain had to do with his support for the war, not that little immigration matter you might have heard about. It fell to Glenn Greenwald, of all people, to set her straight
Update (Ed): I’m as mystified as Allahpundit about this story. McCain and Bush had hard feelings following the primary in 2000, so McCain’s reluctance to vote for Bush doesn’t surprise me at all. Arizona wasn’t exactly a battleground state in 2000, so McCain’s abstention hardly put the election at risk. The only takeaway from this anecdote is that McCain and Bush have two different approaches to politics, which undermines the McSame argument the DNC wants to sell this year.
And the “how much he has fallen” spin doesn’t work, either. McCain and Bush worked together on some issues and in opposition on others. McCain isn’t exactly running around the country on the Bush bandwagon. And doesn’t their rapprochement also negate the “McCain holds grudges forever” meme that Democrats pushed along as part of their focus on anger management?
Allow me to thank Arianna, too.
So it took Huffington 7 1/2 years to finally share this story, when she certainly could have gotten political mileage out of it in 2003 or 2004 or 2007? Color me skeptical.
Immediately after that, McCain had to have surgery for skin cancer and dropped out of the campaign.
Rewriting history doesn't work for some of us with clear heads and long memories.
Perchant makes an excellent case against the story, in Post #74. Very much worth taking a gander at. ;)
See my post 102. McCain campaigned for Bush. I can attest to that, I was present at an event.
They will leave the party or simply check out of the process because the GOP stabbed them in the back for the last time.
I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 either.
Worth scolding, certainly, if you're running for the Presidency as a Republican this year; not so much, otherwise. ;)
That's a lot of verbosity to miss the simple plain fact that it depends who the voter is. It's a pretty safe assumption that a Freeper vote is a potential Republican vote. If someone who otherwise would have voted Republican stays home sulking or writes in Mickey Mouse, that is a GOP vote that's been lost. That is how a vote not cast for McCain BY A GOPer is helpful to the DEM party. Every two sulkers equals one vote for Hillary/Obama.
I could make the case that in NJ, my vote was pointless anyway. Jersey was gonna go big for Gore in 2000 and did just that. I could also make the case that I was as justified then as any McCain un-supporter is now of protesting who the GOP had nominated. 9-11 and the Iraq war changed my voting priorities in 04.
As for McCain, I don't even believe this story.
Gotta disagree with ya on this one. It was the WVGOP that got him the slot. On Super Tuesday in the first ever WV Republican Presidential Convention, the WVGOP went for Huckabee in a successful effort to destroy Romney. In the first vote of the Convention, Romney led with Huck, McCain and Paul trailing well behind. However, Romney had not acquired the requisite number of votes to win the winner-take-all prize. On the second vote (about 1PM EST) the McCain delegates switched to Huckabee thereby defeating Romney. All that afternoon the press was headlining that Romney had 'lost' in WV. IMO this had an effect on the primaries and caucuses in all the other states voting that day and spelled the end for Romney.
For most people here, they can ignore McCain with no consequence. There’s only about 10 states where their vote would matter.
Two unforced errors, one right after the other. ;) Overlooking, for the nonce, the incorrect usage of "verbosity": this is NOT, as JimRob has repeatedly (and painstakingly) pointed out over the years, ad infinitum, a Republican site. It is, rather, a conservative one.
Conservatives, as you surely must know, come in a great many more flavors than mere, vanilla "Republican" (libertarians, both big "L" and small "l"; members of the Constitution party, etc.), and in an ever wider variety of types (socons, econocons, etc.). (This site's owner, in fact, has already publicly stated that he will not, under any circumstances, be voting for John McCain in '08, for heaven's sake!)
Too, your contention that "It's a pretty safe assumption that a Freeper vote is a potential Republican vote"...? Note your own usage of the word potential, right there; NOT "given," or "rightful," or "assured." Even while attempting rebuttal, some part of you -- way, deep down, inside -- evidently already realized the truth of the matter. ;)
If someone who otherwise would have voted Republican stays home sulking or writes in Mickey Mouse
Asked and answered already, in #97: "As I continually tell anyone who asks: I'll be voting for actual, genuine, principled conservatives down ticket (wherever available), and leaving the top space blank. That's all the "loyalty" I owe a party which, plainly, regards conservatives such as myself as being expendable (at best), IMHO." Plainly, that is neither "staying home" or 'writing in Mickey Mouse."
That is how a vote not cast for McCain BY A GOPer
Then, by your own logic: those ballots not cast on McCain's behalf by those of us NOT "GOPers" -- but, rather, conservatives -- are NOT votes which have been "lost." Glad you've come around to my way of thinking, after all. Thanks, FRiend! ;)
As one likewise residing in a place of utter and unrelieved evil, politically speaking: brother, do I ever feel your pain -- ! ;)
I’m sorely miffed that Mz Green Acres Redux disses us and dittoheads.
Well... she does have to live with the knowledge that she drove her own (ex-)husband into open homosexuality, after all. You have to expect some cranial leakage. ;)
Do your own dirty work!!! :) (I really don’t know!).
Not to worry, because whichever Dem doesn't get the nomination, their supporters will put McCain over the top.
“I’ll believe him when he admits that McCain-Kennedy was Amnesty. “
Good point! Not going to happen though.
April, 2006 SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: “ My friends, I’ll offer anybody here $50 an hour if you’ll go pick lettuce in Yuma this season and pick for whole season. So — OK? Sign up. OK. When you sign up — you sign up, and you’ll be there for the whole season. The whole season, OK? Not just one day. Because you can’t do it, my friend. Sign up.”
(END VIDEO CLIP) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2006856/posts?page=176#176
McCain Supporters Farthest Off the Mark
WASHINGTON (March 31, 2007) – A new poll using neutral language finds that primary and caucus voters have little knowledge of candidates’ immigration positions. The results also show that voters often do not share their candidate’s position.
For results and tables, go to http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/voter_release_08.html
Another McCAin amnesty lie....as we found out, none of this was going to happen in his bill.
“Anything short of rounding up 12 million people and deporting them is called amnesty by the opponents of this legislation,” he said. “I’ll point out that (illegal immigrants) will have to pay back taxes, they’ll have to pay a fine, they’ll have to go back to their country of origin, and it’s at least 15 years before they are in anyway eligible for citizenship.”
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/05/30/news/top_stories/1_01_505_29_07.txt
Hot Air is not making any claims. The source is pro-Obama nut Arianna Huffington. Hot Air posted a link. Get it right.
Arianna Huffington is Hot Air's source for said story.
The terminology used is correct. You are not.
"Reading Is FUNdamental!"
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.