Arianna: McCain told me he didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 (Maverick double-standard...?)

Hot Air ^ | 05/05/2008 | Allahpundit

[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.

[Huck]

Conservatives, as you surely must know, come in a great many more flavors

Why waste so many words to make one wrong point? Conservatives don't come in many flavors when it comes to political parties. There is no such thing as a conservative Democrat. That obliterates your earlier argument. End of story.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Why waste so many words to make one wrong point? Conservatives don't come in many flavors when it comes to political parties. There is no such thing as a conservative Democrat.

I "wasted" no words whatsoever. You're (evidently) either incapable of reading for straightforward, grade school level comprehension; are simply being disingenuous; or (quite possibly) both.

There is no such thing as a conservative Democrat.

Perfect case in point: find where I (purportedly) stated this, please. (HINT: you cannot.) OnetwothreeGO.

Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful.

[Huck]

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

That's right. It's not assured. Some freepers will stay home and wet their beds on election night. It happens. But the simple fact is that freepers have one major party to choose from, and that's the GOP. If a freeper stays home, it's a GOP vote lost. It is a plus for Democrats.

[Huck]

You’re a poor judge of your own writing, that’s for sure. Somewhere in all that muck is a point. What was it?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

That's right. It's not assured. Some freepers will stay home and wet their beds on election night.

Oh, dear.

Oh, dear.

[::slowly, distinctly::] "I'm dreadfully sorry, little boy. For moment there, you almost sounded like a real grownup. May I speak with either your mommy or your daddy now, please...?"

Dismissed, kiddo.

[Antoninus]

Zsa Zsa Huffington is not a reliable source. That said, after the 2006 amnesty fiasco, I'd be hard pressed to vote for Bush if he could have run again, myself.

As for McCain, the man obviously has a personal animus toward Bush. However, he managed to put that aside to endorse the president in 2004. He even spoke at the convention, right? That's a lot more important than his individual vote, in my opinion.

[Huck]

Ad hominem followed by retreat. LOL. Who’s the child? lol! Thanks for the belly laugh. Enjoy your parentheses!

[MadelineZapeezda]

I won’t vote for McCain unless MItt Romney is the VP pick but I very seriously doubt McCain will pick Romney for VP because standing next to Romney, McCain would look old, ugly and stupid.

DITTO!!!!

[NormsRevenge]

No problem, but what got the skids greased happened early on, jmo.

What happened in WV was just hardball politics.

[AmericanArchConservative]

Interesting from a few points of view - and raises more than a few questions!

For my part, I do not place much trust in a lot of the essential details of this story.

This is primarily because of the source of this account. I expect repeated attempts like this between now and November to try and separate conservative and mainstream Republicans {further} from McCain.

Even if no self-respecting Republican would be persuaded to cross the aisle and vote for Hitlery, or buh-Rockstar Obamessiah, through discontent, some might be deluded into thinking that withholding their vote will somehow “send a “serves them right” message to McCain and the GOP.

It will not.

These are far too dangerous times that we live in. The resultant (s)election of either one of the two blatant Socialists on the donkey side of the aisle could prove absolutely crippling to the US.

As a bastion of freedom in the western world {while} we remain at this critical crossroads of a historical religious/ideological conflict, we cannot afford to sacrifice the security of our nation and our very existence to a nakedly political squabble over affairs that are primarily domestic in nature.

I am as conservative as they come. Barry Goldwater was to my left! I fully appreciate the objections to McCain, which he has brought onto himself by his repeated and unnecessary crossings of the aisle.

But McCain is in the right place when it comes to understanding the serious and violent nature of the islamofascist threat against all western civilization - but particularly against the United States. He already knows the danger Iran’s leaders, secret police, and their mullahs pose, and I believe he is fully prepared NOT to tolerate it one minute longer than necessary.

Hitlery CLAIMS that she would respond in a prompt and forceful manner - but we have had precious few reasons over the years to place much trust in what P.I.A.P.S. says she would do - or her reasons for it.

Buh-Rockstar Obamessiah, on the other hand, is all for sitting down face to face with Ahma-damnutjob of Iran, and listening to him - apparently without any conditions.

Neither of them can be trusted with preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.

That is the most important bottom line - at least until the mohammadan threat has been interdicted severely and significantly!

A.A.C.

you gotta hand it to McCain - because you don’t dare hand it to Hitlery or Obamessiah!

A.A.C.

[Accygirl]

Both McCain and Bush felt that it would benefit their political careers if they formed an alliance. Bush needed McCain because of his indy cred and McCain needed Bush because he wanted to be a big time player in the Republican party. (McCain may have flirted with the Dems, but he's a savvy political operator and knew that he would be ostracized ala Lieberman).

However, I've always felt that they've personally disliked each other since the fun in SC in 2000!, and while I'm sure that it's scabbed over, it's probably never truly healed. McCain and Bush spent nine months in 2001 sniping @ each other like they were petulant two-year-olds, and if I remember correctly, Bush signed McCain-Feingold without a Rose Garden ceremony just to spite McCain. The nice people from Al Qaeda were the only thing that led to a detente... Even then, McCain has continued to be a thorn in the Bushies side.

The fact that McCain didn't vote for Bush strikes me as pretty plausible, but I highly doubt that he'd blab about it in front of media whore Arianna. But it really does show the ridiculousness of the left... Reminding people that Bush and McCain have lots of reasons to hate each other actually HELPS McCain considering how unpopular Bush is with the unwashed masses.