Posted on 02/12/2006 11:22:18 AM PST by mdittmar
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a man in perpetual motion, flew to South Carolina on Jan. 16. His stops included a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. and speeches to local Republican groups. But one of his most important events was not on the public schedule -- a 5 p.m. meeting at a Spartanburg hotel with loyalists to President Bush.
A dozen or so people were in attendance. At least two were among Bush's major national fundraisers. Virtually all had been on Bush's side in the bitter 2000 South Carolina primary that badly damaged McCain's chances of winning the presidential nomination and scarred the relationship between the two men and their rival political camps. McCain was there to woo them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Wow, I couldn't see the forest thru the trees. You are right :)
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Yuk and double Yuk on Lieberman. Can't forget him and Gore. Lieberman has NO back bone.
The big tent has included so many compromisers that he really has hope. I'll go in the other direction as fast as possible.
Republican conservatives would fight Hilary more than that liberal. She's get less liberalism in than Bush has.
Mind if I use that for a new tag?
I feel in the mood to let the GOP know with every post my feelings on that man, and tick off a few GOP syncophants who think screaming Hillary on a crowded forum will cause a stampede of conservatives to pull the McCain lever.
No way in Hell will I sell my soul to vote for that man.
I wasn't on this board during the Clinton years.
I've made no vows about Peter King.
The Peter King I KNOW has been telling the MSM to go to hell and showing a damn spine unlike most other Republicans. Qualities I respect. I've heard it stated he didn't vote for impeachment and that ticked people off? I don't know specifics. Since I wasn't sure I wanted Clinton impeached, given that would make Gore President for two years, I am hard pressed to hold it against him.
I trashed Leiberman to and fro after his sell out in the Court battle. I still intensely dislike his inability to admit he lost the 2000 election. But I'm ALSO capable of being more "nuanced" and recognizing that despite his attempt to win the nomination of his party, and despite having his election in jeopardy and at risk of a primary challenger, the man has NOT sold out (the way he did in 2000) on the issue of the WOT. I wouldn't say he's a man of overall good character, but I would say he's earned some respect for his handling of the WOT despite the immense pressure of the Liberal activists and his own leadership. Given I find the WOT to outrank anything else, with judges slightly behind it, you are damn right people like myself are praising him to the skies and saying on that ONE issue alone he should be re-elected. he's the ONLY Liberal Democrat I'm backing, and really, what's the alternative? Chafee? Snowe? Collins? They've been soooo invaluable on the WOT haven't they? [sarcasm] Without Lieberman we'd get worse from the NorthEast.
I've also notably backed Blair, a socialist. I've backed Howard, a conservative. I've backed Bush. On this issue I am non-political. I will flog Hagel, and I will praise Leiberman, if they are wrong or if they are right.
I didn't change, I haven't changed. Leiberman has been the one to show change by not flinching when the Hard Left has come after him, when the MSM has courted him, when his Party has turned their back, when the temptation of a nomination from his own party was in the offing. So if Freepers have changed their stance on him, it's because the man himself showed the ability to be principled on THE single most important issue of the day.
The day McCain is anything other than an unstable opportunistic Judas is the day I change my mind about him. Since that day will come just short of never, don't expect enthusiastic cheers of the man arising from this corner in '08.
The Trojan Horse comes to mind.
I'd advise remembrance of it before castigating conservatives recognizing the enemy in their camp as the ones who are guilty of being suicidal. The opposite holds to be the truth.
I just love this photo..Do you mind if I use it sometime?
That info was new to me.Thanks for the additional talking point.HE never met a plane he coud not crash.Remember his boo-boo on the aircraft landing deck?Wonder how much the tab was for that alone!
So this is yet another "How stupid are we, really?" moment.
Dan
Help yourself!
Unless someone else catches fire, and soon, we'll come down to a McCain-Clinton race. The nominations will be pretty much settled in exactly two years, if no one else can make any significant headway.
Please explain exactly what the President is supposed to do about the illegal problem in Arizona.
"Bush loyalists" know a RINO when they see one. This is the wrong group to try to win over. Not going to work.
Looks like Lindsey Graham is licking John McCain's boots again. I wonder what his ambitions are? VP????
As I've said before, I've blasted McCain as much as anyone and I disagree with several of his positions. But he is dead steady in his support for the war we are fighting and I believe he will be nearly undefeatable if he runs (in contrast to George Allen, for example).
I'm not sure who I'll support in the primaries yet, but I know that if McCain wins the nomination I'll work hard to help him get elected.
Conservatives have been taking your advice, that's why they are primping Allen.
I find Allen to be spineless and semi-unprincipled, though not in the exact manner McCain is unprincipled.
Your attitude is that a) if we don't settle on a candidate McCain will be the nominee and b) we need to settle on a nominee.
Addressing the first, conservatives don't have to settle on a nominee until the debates. The people that vote in Republican primaries are NOT the average run of the mill American that gets their news through mainstream sources. Republican primary voters get theirs through the 'net, talk radio, blogs, etc... We can settle on a candidate and get the word out within a couple of weeks to a month if we want to by the time '08 comes around as the explosion of this medium will be fairly close to completed at that time. The only hindrance to waiting is that financial backers and political shakers commit early. But if their candidate loses, only some will remain bitterly opposed. the rest will try to grab hold onto the winning candidate for influence. mcCain is not guarenteed just because we hold out before giving an endorsement until closer to the primaries.
The second? Count me as someone that won't find it to be the end of the world if we don't win in '08. It won't be pleasant, but I like our choices for '12 a hell of a lot better than I like the candidates (so far) for '08. Blackwell, Steele, Swann, Barbour, even Jeb would all be preferable to the name being bantered about right now. There is nothing to state we have to concede two terms to anyone. So long as we didn't give a nom away, as with Dole, we have some excellent choices in '12. Now do I want to wait to '12? Nope. But I do want the GOp to get the message loud and clear that while I am not an absolutist in the sense the person must be Ronald Reagan or Rush Limbaugh incarnate, I do expect some traits of principled conservatism and a man of steel and character. Haven't found him/her yet.
As for Hill, I'm not convinced she'll be their candidate.
Im expecting a fight between "red state Dems" (warner), triangulation (Hill) and Hard Left (Gore). Not necessarily these names, but these factions of their party. And triangulation is the minority of the three right now.
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.