"Traitor" to whom or what, muffin?
Be specific, now.
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.
I know I considered that Amnesty, but he was claiming a fine and other stuff was a way to not call it Amnesty.
I agree that was Amnesty.
I agree that A-Hu is hardly a reliable source, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if this is true about McCain.
I have (previously) carefully considered the issues you mention, but there are so many reasons why I simply cannot vote for him.
McCain almost became a Democrat in 2001, according to Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey. It’s been widely reported that this is true by many people of both parties.
As such, I don’t trust McCain on Supreme Court issues or the war in Iraq. If he thought about becoming a Democrat, he must have thought it was okay, policy-wise.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=19666
So I don’t see him as a conservative, as he’s seriously considered changing parties. His Supreme Court choices, especially for someone who will almost certainly not run for a second term, are not “in the bag” - there is no personal downside regardless of who he picks.
And I don’t see him as great on the war, given that he has made some major gaffes, showing a huge lack of understanding of the dynamics of the entire region.
For example, McCain has repeated that Iran is training Al Qaeda, which is simply not true. Knowing *why* that is not true is important, but McCain had to rely on Senator Lieberman to correct him (during a speech!) when he repeated it for the second time.
See: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/mccain-misspeaks-on-iran-al-qaeda/
The whole thing is really depressing.
He didn’t “desperately want to be John Kerry’s VP”, you twit.
Kerry offered to make McCain both the VP and the Secretary of Defense at the same time - a role which would have made him, at the very least, a co-Preisdent and, given the dynamics of such an Administration, effectively more powerful than the President in many ways.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact_bruck
"Traitor" to whom or what, muffin?
Be specific, now.
Strike two. ;)
"Attn McCain Apologists: Talk all you want!
I'll actually be impressed enough to (maybe) almost take you and your whinnyings seriously, should you actually demonstrate possession of enough in the way of sack to openly refer to him as a "traitor," as well.
Otherwise...? Yap away, little dachshund. Yap away.
Bingo, we have a winner.
McLame is a pathetic old bitter man.
Oh, and thanks for your service in the military.
NOw about that little Keating 5 deal?
Who cares?
"... he said, caring enough to post in the first place."
Whoa. Dichotomy. What a concept. ;)
Yeah, she's reliable.
What... as opposed to Juan McCain, you mean?
I think the proper term for that sort of thing is "photo finish." ;)
That being said, there is some evidence that might lead one to believe that Huffington is lying. Read this:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0031,dubya1,16883,6.html
It was thought that McCain stabbed Huffington in the back at the Soros funded “shadow convention” right before the 2000 election.
If McCain would go so far as to actually endorse Bush at this shadow convention in front of all these booing and hissing liberals, when the whole thing was devised for the purpose of McCain to trash Bush on a soap box before the election, then it's odd that McCain would tell Huffington he didn't vote for Bush a few months later. Then again, McCain might have realized that he had to pretend to support Bush at the shadow convention so that he could still have a political future in the Republican Party.
First logical, coherent and legitimately convincing counterargument to date versus Hot Air's reporting of said story. My hat, FRiend. ;)
>>>a man who deserately wanted to be John F. Kerry’s VP running mate in ‘04
From back when nobody had axes to grind, when the NY Times and Arianna weren’t in panic mode trying to derail McCain to save the floundering Obama, and when lameass DU trolls who enrolled in January weren’t spending every post to undercut McCain with FR. The day Kerry Offered McCain Co-Presidency. Kerry begged, and McCain laughed at him.
Newsweek via Outside the Beltway November 5, 2004
James Joyner
Kerry’s courtship of Senator John McCain to be his running mate was longer-standing and more intense than previously reported. As far back as August 2003, Kerry had taken McCain to breakfast to sound him out to run on a unity ticket. McCain batted away the idea as not serious, but Kerry, after he wrapped up the nomination in March, went back after McCain a half-dozen more times.
“To show just how sincere he was, he made an outlandish offer,” Newsweek’s Thomas reports. “If McCain said yes he would expand the role of vice president to include secretary of Defense and the overall control of foreign policy. McCain exclaimed, ‘You’re out of your mind. I don’t even know if it’s constitutional, and it certainly wouldn’t sell.’”
Kerry was thwarted and furious. “Why the f— didn’t he take it? After what the Bush people did to him…’”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2004/11/newsweek_election_issue_how_he_did_it/
See #65.
Actual video of McCain, openly admitting his desire to be Kerry's VP.
This, I daresay, trumps written secondhand account. ;)
See #76.
Offered repeatedly and refused repeatedly to J F Kerry’s utter frustration in a race that was close enough where Mccain’s participation would probably have given the dems a winning margin.
But reality shouldn’t interfere with trolling of course. Carry on. Don’t forget the oh so clever fake winks, for whatever you imagine they add.
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.