Powered by TypePad

« Mitt? On To Confusion. | Main | It's "Go, McCain" Day At The NY Times »

January 16, 2008

Comments

kim

Does anyone doubt he'd help Michigan as President? Or Veep, AKA COO?
===========================

kim

Ron Fournier is absolutely positively authentic sour grapes. Ahhh! Spits skin.
========================

Paul Zrimsek

The Arizona senator had the temerity to tell voters that a candidate who says traditional auto manufacturing jobs "are coming back is either naive or is not talking straight with the people of Michigan and America."

Good on ya, John. But now he goes and spoils everything:

Instead of pandering, McCain said political leaders must "embrace green technologies," adding: "That's the future. That's what we want."

This takes me right back to the days when, instead of pandering, Michael Dukakis was telling farmers to grow Belgian endive. I'm not optimistic enough to say for certain that it's the future, but what we want is for political leaders not to tell us what we want. If this is still America, all the telling ought to be the other way around.

kim

OK, forget that. What I mean is Ron is bitter enough to be poisonous.
=====================

Other Tom

Romney is as phony as a three-dollar bill, and has zero chance of winning a national election. Cut that statment and paste it somewhere to save it. If I'm wrong, ten months from now you can throw it back in my face and gloat. (You can tell how worried I am.)

kim

Romney is as phony as Thompson is not. How do you think you get to govern the bluest state? Well, he didn't. How do you think you sell Pacers? Well he didn't. How do you think he can run the world? Well, si, si puede, with Fred the Fullback blocking.
=============================

Patrick R. Sullivan

Messenger...bad news...killed.

Or, nobody ever lost an election by underestimating the American public.

anduril

This thing is still far too early to be putting all our eggs in one basket, or deciding that we have to choose between only two baskets. I'll grant that Romney is a phony cultist. That's bad. But we also know what McCain brings to the table (hat tip Paul), and that's damn bad, too.

Totally OT:

Perhaps the most devastating critique I've read of Bush recently is Steve Forbes' Bush's Big Boo Boo. As a bonus, there are several more items of interest below the lede.

anduril

Pure McCain, from Newsmax:

Friday, April 2, 2004

McCain Praises 'Fine' Democrats, Blasts 'Astray' GOP and Bush

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is launching perhaps his harshest attack yet on his own party and his gushiest praise of Democrats.

"I believe my party has gone astray," McCain said yesterday, singling out GOP stands on environmental issues and racial set-asides.

"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy," he said. "But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before."

And he took another shot at President Bush. "You can't fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can't do that."

Where did McCain make his remarks? As the Boston Herald reported today, at a "legislative seminar" hosted by U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who just happens to be one of the biggest Bush bashers in Congress.

"Many people in this room question, legitimately, whether we should have gone in or not," McCain said, adding that Iraq "will be part of this presidential campaign."

For the record, he insisted once again that he had no interest in being the running mate of another Bush-hating Massachusetts Democrat chum, John Kerry.

anduril

I suppose "Highly Regarded" Ron Fournier, former chief political writer for the AP, would have admired McCain's "straight talk" (as in, straight from the ego), as reported by Newsmax. For my part, to know that a GOP politician spoke at a Marty Meehan (gack!) hosted forum tells me everything I need to know.

JM Hanes

I thought Fournier's article should have been prominently labelled as an opinion piece, because it was as partisan as they come. I'm a Giuliani fan myself, so I'm not just defending my guy when I say I seriously believe the press hates Romney and I'm really not sure why. I think it's mostly because he's running a tough campaign against their own favorite son, and I also suspect he doesn't give them much. Press reaction to the petty sniping McCain did in Charlie Gibson's forum reminded me of pre-teens cheering on one of their own throwing spitballs in the cafeteria. It was, like, AWESOME! The general public apparently disagreed.

McCain can't evn get honest about his own immigration bill, and is treated to a total press pass on everything from his newfound embrace of border enforcement to global warming orthodoxy. Mr. Authenticity? Gimme a break!

Fournier says: "Instead of pandering, McCain said political leaders must 'embrace green technologies.'" I'm sorry, but this is a pander of the first order. In the gospel according to Fournier, however, Romney's pledge to fund "research on energy, fuels, automotive technology and material sciences" is the "empty rhetoric" here! He admits that McCain "shamelessly courted social conservatives last year and has vastly overstated progress in Iraq." Never fear, Fournier's got the fix for such inconveniences: as long as Romney outpanders McCain, we can still call it the Authenticity Election.

Romney hasn't grabbed the phony mantle, the press has bestowed it on McCain's only real competition to date. The fact that you bestow your regard on Fournier is a much bigger mystery to me.

syn

I'm so sorry McCain but your Centrism is not what can be considered Conservatism. Plus, they only reason you're 'leading' is because the media wants you to.

That said,
Go Fred!08

embee

After all of McCain's personal attacks against Romney he expected Romney to be Mr. Nice Guy and follow McCain's orders on how to proceed with their speeches. When Romney's team went ahead as probably planned, McCain cried foul, like a baby. Romney has the guts to play hardball and put down bullies like McCain. He would do well against the likes of Chavez. When I hear the term phony I think empty suit and Romney is no empty suit. McCain and Thompson both need notes, not a good sign. Thompson's prepared attack on Huckabee in their last debate required repeated glances at his notes.
I want more from a candidate than that he finally came alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbWZwQ06ZwY

Syl

This morning Scarborough said something that I think rings true. The Republican party is sick and tired of the press and editorial writers trying to shove McCain done our throats.

boris

Romney might be too polished and seem ... well ... slick ... but not IMO phoney or an empty suit.

McCain is neither polished nor phoney but I don't trust him. That said it's true he's a 3rd party all to himself running as Republican. McCain/Lieberman would be an interesting ticket for the public to punish partisan zealots with but let's hope the GW nonsense gets laid to rest before they could inflict too much damage on economic progress. (Pushing techno progress is okay, choking economic progress is bad.)

Ann

Well, Fred08 supporters need to start calling RUSH and campaign for Fred. He had three ladies call in to gush about Mitt.
The ladies were so excited about Mitt that RUSH came up with a term for them: " MITTENS :) :) :) LADIES FOR MITT"

MayBee

The Republican party is sick and tired of the press and editorial writers trying to shove McCain done our throats.

I think the Republican party is made up of millions of individuals, many of whom share very different feelings about the candidates.

Some in the Republican party are sick of McCain. Some support him strongly, and a good number of them have voted for him in these primaries.

The RNC will embrace whichever candidate ends up with the nomination.

Bill in AZ

"McCain Praises 'Fine' Democrats, Blasts 'Astray' GOP and Bush..."

and...

"McCain/Lieberman would be an interesting ticket..."

heh heh - I can see where this is going... let's go all the way with it...

The election choices are easy to “boil down”: Just use the frog in the pot of water analogy. Put a frog in a pot of hot water, he jumps out. Put a frog in a pot of cool water and turn the heat up slowly, he’s in there doing backstrokes, backflips, partying, until the water boils.

Now, just imagine you’re the frog, and each candidate controls the burner. With Obama, the candidate for hope, the candidate for making everyone feel good (with other peoples money), he’ll be right in there with us frogs, doing backflips, the backstroke, partying away, right up until the water boils, as he implements all of his socialist programs.

Most of the Republican and Democrat candidates – with the lone exception of Fred Thompson - will be more or less the same as Obama, with varying levels of heat applied as they appease or pander and implement socialist programs, and appease our enemies. They just don’t know any better, and think it does no serious harm to the country.

McCain’s burner will resemble a B1B on afterburner as he appeases, grovels, reaches across the aisle, all in order to buy favors from the libs so they will help him pass his conservative packages – uh, like illegal alien amnesty.

Now Hillary – the burner she applies to the pot will resemble the Space Shuttle main rocket engine. Us frogs will probably take notice just before the water instantly boils away and we’re toast, as she implements all of her socialist programs, stacks the judicial, the courts, the military, intelligence, every government agency, with like-minded socialists – kinda like she did the last time she was in the White House running things. If only Bush hadn’t fired those 8 attorneys, she’d be that much further ahead. He hasn’t bothered to clean out anything else she did during those 8 years.

I think most folks, in the general election, would feel the heat from that burner and not let her actually get elected. Now, if Hillary were smart, and truly wanted to make America the socialist utopia it could be, she would drop out of the race and get behind McCain during the primaries, then become his running mate in the general. With President McCain appeasing and groveling and pandering, Vice President Hillary could be doing all of her socialist maneuvering behind the scenes even better than she could before. Here is what we can look forward to in their first year: Along with unprecedented tax increases, a genuine trashed economy (not a New York Times faux trashed economy), your 2009 1040 package will include the new government pamphlet “Sharia for Dummies”, along with instructions and forms for the new and retro-active McCain-Kennedy Jizya tax.

JM Hanes

OT:

I certainly hate to contribute to your current depression, but the electability polls you put so much stock in now are going to change dramatically the minute McCain becomes the nominee -- assuming he can actually get manage to get elected to that spot by his own party. Mr. Authenticity will suddenly become Mr. Keating Five and the press pool will be taking odds on who can win the first finger jabbing "my friend" at every press conference and betting on what makes him lose his temper fastest.

In a townhall clip last night, a cute kid got up to pose a question, and McCain asked if he was old enough to vote (or some such). Nice moment, which McCain completely fowled up by saying, "Then sit down." Funny as a lead balloon. His delivery was so bad, it sounded like he meant it. He sure meant it when he blasted his Republican colleagues for trying to thwart him on immigration. By the time McCain is through, he'll make the tin earred John Kerry look like he's got perfect pitch.

McCain will talk to anybody; his problem is listening. I don't think he does it, and I think he nurses grudges which damage his effectiveness. When it comes to making things personal and taking everything personally, he's deep into Clinton territory. From the minute he steps on stage with the democratic contender, it will be a downhill (land)slide. You can cut and paste that one for me. If McCain and Hillary are the nominees though, you'll have to wake me when it's over to throw it back in my face.

SmokeVanThorn

In Fournier's world, "straight talk" is saying what liberals want to hear, and anything else is pandering. No sale.

JM Hanes

Maybee:

I'm sure it's no fun to make the case for McCain when so many folks are so ready to jump all over you for it. I'm afraid I see that as part of his problem though. A lot of the people who dislike him most are Republicans serving in the Congress he is going to have to work with if elected. It's not like Joe Lieberman is going to be bringing much of the opposition party to that table either. I think McCain could easily wind up being the most ineffective President we've seen in office in my lifetime.

MayBee

JMH-
Thanks. :-)
I don't have a problem with people disliking him, and he isn't my first choice. There is much about him that annoys me.
I just find it a bit absurd that the man that won 1 Republican primary, came in 2nd in another, and is a serious contender for the nomination is described as being disliked by "Republicans".
I think it is fantastic when people state their opinions, but they can't pull all the millions of Republican voters -and indeed the Republican Party- in for backup.

Other Tom

JMH, neither you nor any other living human can affect my depression one way or another by giving me predictions on what polls of the future are going to show about electability.

My depression is caused by the fact that there is not a single Republican candidate whose views, taken as a whole, are acceptable to me and who also has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

Other Tom

As for polling in the here and now, this is just up at RCP:

"For the upcoming South Carolina GOP primary, a new Clemson University Palmetto Poll (Jan. 9-15, 450 GOP LV, MoE +/- 4.6%) has McCain leading Huckabee by 7 points, with Romney and Thompson well behind.

McCain 29
Huckabee 22
Romney 13
Thompson 10
Paul 6
Giuliani 3"

It appears that ol' Fred has not quite caught fire yet.

Nominations24

Jack had this figured and then there were more torture tapes and all anyone wants to know is were there more Doctors from John Hopkins supervising torture, I mean helping the victim, terrorist(just making sure the guy is healthy so they can torture, well not torture after they are healthy because they were and won't be now that the Doctor made them healthy again so they won't be tortured because, if it's a psychiatrist supervising, not supervising, but making sure the victim, terrorist, is okay so that physical torture stops and psychiatric torture can start, I mean stop, now that the tortured, not tortured because they are mentally and physically healthy so they don't need, have to be, tortured anymore because they already understand they should talk, but they are healthy now, mentally and physically so that shouldn't, I mean won't happen, again, because they already broke, I mean agreed to cooperate, because they know everything is okay and they are healthy physically and mentally, so they won't do the torture again, unless they agree there really wasn't any and everyone is okay, really, and the Doctors and psychiatrists were all nice, really, and the victim, I mean terrorist, is doing great and should continue to do great or he might break again, I mean not cooperate, and need more psychiatry and Doctors to torture again, I mean help, in recovery again, so that it won't happen again and everyone is just doing great, really......)get better.

So, the State Department has decided it's Jack, again, but he tortures people, but he was, later tortured by the Chinese because he tortured, not that it had anything to do with terror, that happens anyway, just less than expected, but that seems to be Jack's pattern, not that he isn't trying, it just sorta happens when he tries to stop them.

So, the State Department, it was Jack, but there are new tapes and it's not like a guy was set up like the Director, but that may have been because of the tapes. So, there really were no set ups because the State Department has decided no one was...........

Anyway, I'd ask McCain, but he probably understands, but that's never wanted because everything is okay and stays that way or someone may need more help with what happened, not that it's happening again because it never happened.....

State Department asks for Jack:
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/24_or_the_real_world/

clarice


WASHINGTON (AP) - A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.
The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying—money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.


Sue

Maybee,

Just a thought, but how many people liked John Kerry and how many voted for him because they thought he was electable in the general? I'll support McCain if he winds up being the nominee, but I won't help him get the nomination. I truly don't like him. But I dislike Huck more, so as I've said, my anger at Huck is two-fold...I don't like his policies (Huck's) and he has caused me to reconsider voting for McCain. ::sigh::

Sue

Clarice,

There is Africa again. Now, where is Wilson?

MayBee

Just a thought, but how many people liked John Kerry and how many voted for him because they thought he was electable in the general?

Way too many people, it seems, thought Kerry would be electable in the general. There were many who disliked him. Others, however, supported him fervently.
If you are saying that may be why people are voting for McCain, it may well be so.
I've not yet seen evidence that the people voting for him in the primaries don't like him, but that may come out.

Ann

Mark Levin at NRO is linking to this story about Huckabee push polling in SC.

Will SC AG Prosecute Huckabee Push-Poll Robo Calls?

The other interesting thing is the website Is called" Reason Hit and Run

RichatUF

Did it fix it?

SteveMG

"should we squander the nation's blood and treasure in Iraq for no reason"

Because to Mr. Yglesias, preventing al-Qaeda from capturing large swathes of Iraq from which they could spread their terror is no justification whatsoever for fighting them there.

I had assumed - incorrectly I guess - that we had agreed after 9/11 to take on al-Qaeda wherever and whenever they appeared.

Even if, in the twisted thinking of progressives, Bush is to blame for their appearance in Mesopotamia.

The Sunnis have recognized the danger of an al-Qaeda victory in Iraq; it's be nice if our progressives discovered that too.

Rick Ballard

Rich,

Any theory on why Romney ran so well with observant Catholics? He actually performed very well in every religious splt except Church Attendance - Never, where McCain thumped him soundly.

Topsecretk9

Sue

For the third time in five years, the national hunt for terrorists is focused on an unlikely site: a nondescript office in Columbia, Mo., downstairs from a bridal shop and next door to a Walgreens.

The Islamic American Relief Agency has been situated near the University of Missouri flagship campus for 19 years, ostensibly to raise money for children in poor and war-torn countries. It did so for 14 years without appearing to raise an eyebrow.

That changed when the U.S. State Department in 1999 revoked contracts worth $4.2 million to the group, saying they were contrary to U.S. defense and foreign-policy interests...

...St. Louis activist Eric Vickers incorporated the Columbia group in 1985, he said, on behalf of Sudanese college students who wanted to form a chapter of the worldwide group Islamic African Relief Agency, which is based in Khartoum, Sudan.

Columbia's chapter was initially formed as Islamic African Relief Agency United States Affiliate. It changed its name to Islamic American Relief Agency in 2000, its public filings show.

Vickers was listed as recently as August as the group's registered agent. He said Friday that he has not been involved since the mid-1990s and said he only learned about the raids in the newspaper.

The goal of the founding members, whom Vickers said have long since returned to Sudan, was to send money to hospitals and needy people in Africa.

"I'm proud of my work with them," he said. He said the group was not involved with terrorism.

Vickers, a former lawyer, is well known in St. Louis for organizing street protests, such as one last year to win more contracts for minority companies by shutting down MetroLink.

For a time, he headed the American Muslim Council in Washington. He resigned in March 2003 after the council complained that Vickers had written an e-mail to
an online discussion group suggesting that the Columbia shuttle crash, with the first Israeli astronaut aboard, might have been a message from God.

Vickers said his e-mail was misinterpreted. His real meaning, he said, was that "this is a sign to America that in going to war - as great as our technology is - it can still fail."

Vickers said there was no relationship - aside from him - between the Islamic American Relief Agency in Columbia and the American Muslim Council.

But the American Muslim Council, too, has come under scrutiny.

In Alexandria, Va., on Friday, its founder was sentenced to 23 years in prison for illegal financial dealings with Libya and for his role in a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's de facto leader. Abdurahman Alamoudi, 52, had pleaded guilty in July to accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from high-ranking Libyan officials while serving as a go-between for them and Saudi
dissidents.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/303

JM Hanes

MayBee:

Time will tell, of course, but while I wouldn't want to vouch for their accuracy (!), the Michigan exit polls, seem revealing. Republicans really turned out, and McCain lost 2/3rds of them to Romney or Huckabee.

Moving right along, however, I thought the abortion question produced a really interesting set of stats.

OT:

I'm just not sure why you seem to put such stock in an electability poll so far out from the election -- just like I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that Giuliani should be hanging on to the lead he held before the primary season kicked in when he clearly wouldn't be making any news till Florida, at the earliest. In any case, I'd be curious to know which candidate's views are acceptable to you as a whole, if you're saying.

PaulL

If the Democrats or McCain (sorry, to be redundant) win the Presidency, we'll finally be able to drive a car powered by a little windmill on the top. Detroit could do it now but it gets a kickback from BIG OIL. That's why BIG OIL must be taxed out of existence with the revenue going to more research on wind.

windansea

Romney hasn't grabbed the phony mantle, the press has bestowed it on McCain's only real competition to date. The fact that you bestow your regard on Fournier is a much bigger mystery to me.

ditto

Any theory on why Romney ran so well with observant Catholics? He actually performed very well in every religious splt except Church Attendance - Never, where McCain thumped him soundly.

pretty easy, he's got a beautiful family, squeaky clean image, and is a true believer in Christ. Maybe true Christians and Catholics are getting over the "Mormon" deal.

Red America might just see him as a cut above McCain, who dumped his 1st wife who waited for 6 years while he was in prison, and Giulani, who dumped his wife in a publicly humiliating fashion. Fred? I got no problem with him having a beautiful young wife, middle america might think diferent.

Cory

A defeat for Huckabee and McCain is a victory for conservatism and America! The only candidate who consistantly gets large numbers of conservatives to support him is Mitt Romney. This should be a clear message to all conservatives about who they need to rally around. Mitt currently has 52 delegates (and will soon have Nevada with 34 more going into Super Tuesday)and the next highest is 22 (Huckabee). Go Mitt!

MayBee

Republicans really turned out, and McCain lost 2/3rds of them to Romney or Huckabee.

By the same metric, we could say Romney couldn't even get half of the Republicans to vote for him. My poor Rudy got only 4% and Fred got 5% of the Republicans to vote for them. Is that some indication Republicans hate Rudy and Fred? I hope not!

Independents were 1/4 of the voters in the Michigan Republican primary, and they voted for McCain more than anyone else. In the Democratic primary, Independents voted uncommitted over Hillary. Independents are tremendously important to winning a general election.
FWIW, in Michigan, because it is an open primary, there is no reason to register stating an affiliation with a party. About 45% of Michigan's registered voters are Independent.
Many of the Dems in the Detroit area are the old Regan Republicans.

So if you are trying to convince me that because McCain didn't win this primary (and only came in second with registered Republicans), it is an indication that he is hated....I'll need more convincing.

If you are trying to convince me that it was bad for him to court Independents and Dems in an open primary, in a state that has Democrats that view him favorably, I'll need more convincing.

Rick Ballard

"Maybe true Christians and Catholics are getting over the "Mormon" deal."

Maybe. I'm trying to tie the religious breakdown with the 'Liberal, Moderate, Conservative' breakdown. Romney won the Liberals (11%) 33/30 by and the Conservatives (56%) 41/23 but lost the Moderates (34%) 34/40.

The Independent muddle in the general is going to be dominated by moderates but I've got to check out how Indies rate in church attendance. I think Pew has numbers on the subject.

PeterUK

"That's why BIG OIL must be taxed out of existence with the revenue going to more research on wind."

A bonus for John Kerry,via Heinz?

MayBee

Wait. I might be wrong about the % of unaffiliated voters in MI.

Patrick R. Sullivan
A defeat for Huckabee and McCain is a victory for conservatism and America! The only candidate who consistantly gets large numbers of conservatives to support him is Mitt Romney.

The problem with the above is that McCain has an ACU rating of 84%, and Romney's victory speech last night could have been given by Hillary Clinton.

Also, McCain is supported by Tom Coburn and Phil Gramm.

Rick Ballard

MayBee,

Independents were 25% of the Republican side and 18% of the Democrat side in the MI primary. Rasmussen has current national Other at 29.5% and it dropped to 24.% for the 2004 election.

Other Tom

JMH, the answer to your question is Thompson.

centralcal

I see that Huckabee is whining about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (well, he doesn't "want" to call it a conspiracy, but...) against him.

Huckabee was pretty much an unknown quantity when he hit Iowa. Now that there is much more information about him, and the voting public has been able to see more of him in action, his numbers have dropped, even among evangelicals. He can whine all he wants, but the sad fact is people are recognizing him for the snake oil salesman that he really is.

Maybee: Particularly during the primaries, McCain will never get the majority of the conservative vote. He needs every state to have a lot of disenfranchised liberals and Independents in order to have a chance of winning.

MayBee

Thanks, Rick. Of course you would know where to find stuff. I saw the number that participated in this race, I was wondering what the total % unaffiliated voters would be for Michigan (not just related to this race).

The number of I's that showed up to vote for the non-binding Democratic primary would be somewhat depressed, I'd guess. Bless the ones that showed up and voted uncommitted. I love that.
However, 25% Rep-leaning Independents seems a good enough number.

MayBee

centralcal- In the Michigan primary at least, Romney got more of the voters that self-identified as Liberal. It's true that Romney won the conservatives, and McCain won the moderates.

There are many Republicans that consider themselves moderate or even liberal (depending upon the issue). It may be true that McCain won't ever win the conservative republican voters, but they aren't necessarily the majority of Republicans in every state.

I wish Rudy or Fred could manage to get the majority of any of these groups.

GMax

Can we invite Toady to post here on JOM? Seriously, a lefty who thinks and allows that a different point of view might have some merit? I think they busted the mold after they minted him.

I dont mind disagreeing with fellow posters. Its all the harsh rhetoric imputing malevolent motives on anything and everything, that really wears me out. I would certainly welcome a guy who realizes a square table has four sides, and his view might be influenced by which of the sides he is seated at.

Other Tom

There's no accounting for what Rudy has done thus far. He has become something of a joke at this point.

Krauthammer had a nice analysis on Hume today. He said there are three Repub. constituencies--security, social conservative and evangelical--and that while Ronaldus Maximus had all three fervently with him and was thus unbeatable, not each has its own candidate. Not good news.

Other Tom

"now" each has it's own candidate...

GMax

Any theory on why Romney ran so well with observant Catholics?

I have one. I attend Mass weekly with my wife. I was born and raised a Methodist, and have not converted but I at least see 1000s of catholics every day.

Catholics more than any other religious group, have dealt with the "you will do whatever the Pope tells you" canard. Thus they know deep down that the slam on Romney, that the LDS church will direct him, is flat out wrong and pushes a hidden button. It aint true for them, and therefore they know a crock when it thrown at a candidate.

Other Tom

I didn't watch the Dem debate, but saw it characterized as largely a dispute about which candidate would get us out of Iraq the fastest.

It's going to be interesting to me to see how this issue shapes up as we move along. Surely all three know--or at least Clinton knows--that withdrawing US troops is not synonymous with "ending the war." Quite the contrary, in fact. Would any of them order a precipitate pullout if there were a signigicant risk of the civil war they've all been crying wolf about?

In Hillary's case, I have no doubt that she is deceitful and unprincipled enough to campaign on a promise of withdrawal, only to take office and say, "well, things are worse than the Bush admin. led me to believe so we'll have to stick around indefinitely." I'm not so sure about the other two, although in the case of the loser Edwards it doesn't matter.

In any event, will anyone, someone, anywhere ever frame the issue this way in one of the "debates?" I am moved to doubt...

centralcal

Gmax: I was raised as a Protestant, converted to Catholicism when I married (but also because it was a good fit for me) and you are dead on about Catholics.

This whole question was very strong during the JFK candidacy -- which he overcame and proved very wrong. I have no problem with a Morman in the White House (Hugh, will love me).

It is not the religion -- it is the man. I have very serious problems with Huckabee, because of him, not his religious faith.

Ann

Oh My, did I cause the bold feature here on this thread? I swear I turned it off... I blame Hit and Run. Yeah, that is my story. :)

Honestly, someone give me advice on using the bold function; my bad.

RichatUF

Rick-

Any theory on why Romney ran so well with observant Catholics? He actually performed very well in every religious splt except Church Attendance - Never, where McCain thumped him soundly.

I'm looking over the CNN exit polling data and I'm a bit stumped. Like you said Romney did well except in the none. Another thing that jumped out at me is the "when did you decide" question. McCain's voters decided early and Romney won all of the other timeframes.

My guess is that an observant Catholic and someone partisan enough to participate in the primary had Huckabee who would be offensive religious sensibilities and McCain who would be offensive to political sensibilities. And with only 32% cross-over McCain did well, but not enough to take on the party establishment. I'd throw in Romney's family history in MI, his ability to win in Catholic MA probably helped a great deal [so he probably knows how to not offend Catholics], and it was only a competitive 3 person field. FWIW

Ann

To add to the Huckabee S.C. push polling here is a video: ( Hat TIp Jonah at NRO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8QvpnY8eqY ">Huckabee is a Huckster

Rick Ballard

Gmax,

I think that's sure a large part of it. Another element may be that Catholics recognize (because of the flashing neon sign) that the Huckster is a lot more Baptist than evangelical. The SBC broke off relations with the Catholic church a few years ago and I'm not sure that Baptist theology treats Catholics any differently than it does Mormons. McCain has no identifiable religious pull which put Romney in first place by default.

Rich,

I saw those decision time numbers. More head scratching - no McCain bounce from NH? SC should be very interesting wrt Huckabee. I don't think he makes the top three. I'm betting Thompson, McCain and Romney, although not necessarily in that order. I wish the 4th quarter FEC reports were due before the 31st because the resource issue is critical to Thompson, Huckabee and McCain.

RichatUF

Or I could have read Jay Cost first, sorry if the link has already been posted.

GMax

The SBC broke off relations with the Catholic church a few years ago and I'm not sure that Baptist theology treats Catholics any differently than it does Mormons.

I chuckled when I read this. Baptists dont treat Baptists all that well, at least if my dear departed Grandma is any count. I went to Baptist prayer meetings with Granny on wednesday and Sunday school and church on Sunday. She was always talking about who was not speaking to whom and how a large section of the church had got mad at the preacher and left and started their own church. It was amazing to me, cuz in my experience Methodists did not act like that in my church, Lutherans did act like that in my Aunt and Uncle church and none of my Catholic friends ever had any stories like that when I went to Mass with them. No, only the Baptists went to church to brawl. Sorry if I offended anyone denomination, its not something that is other than my first hand observation. I am sure there are Baptists that dont act like this, course recently in my hometown here the First Baptist Church hired guards to keep out several of the flock, who were questioning the preacher on a land transaction. He ultimately resigned, and the folks excluded by force were allowed to return.

sbw

Ann, the key to the bold feature on this blog is that whenever you use HTML codes, use preview to check it first. Preview is your friend.

sbw

With HTML on this blog I make both Open and Closing tags first and right next to each other so they match and have a slash in the closing tag. Only then do I fill the inside between the tags.

(Yeah, right. Now watch me blow this baby into italic on my next comment!) Italiacto!

Rick Ballard

Gmax,

My experience is that most Baptists don't act like that. Huck isn't exactly surrounded by the leaders of the denomination. Not even in SC. He's got a rather peculiar mix of social gospel and straight gate going that isn't popular much of anywhere - once people figure it out.

Ann

Thanks, SBW

I think I did use preview. I always preview when I am linking to an article, to make sure I made a good link. Do you know if there is a HTML site, where I could learn how to prevent this from happening. Better yet, how to turn it off?

sbw

The only way to turn it off is the get on your knees and pray that Tom starts a new thread. It's kind of like the old football injury, with you for life -- at least until reincarnation.

SunnyDay

Wow! Jonah Goldberg can debate!

Rick Ballard

Ann,

The only reason it got by you is that your closing tag was at the very end of the comment. When you miss a closing tag just repeat it in a follow up post (I do it three times in a row in the follow up) and it will turn off whatever has been left open.

Here is a HTML primer that's useful. Kinda.

Ann

Oh Great, well I promise not to be bold again!! ::wink::

sbw

Back to the campaign. I read this on the Adam Smith Institute blog:

The perils of State funding of political parties, of State control of political parties. Once the money comes from the State then said State gets to decide who is allowed to be a political party (and possibly, thus, who may stand for election).
And it makes you appreciate -- How. Dead. Wrong. McCain. Can. Be. He suffers from Dimocrats Disease, which when you feel bad about something, you do something to try to feel better, even though history shows that thing won't work.

Ann

OK

Rick Ballard

SBW,

Thanks for the link. The windmill link is alos interesting. Especially considering the anti-nuke babble at the clown show in Vegas last night.

Ann

Is that like clicking your heels twice and wishing their is no place but home

Over the rainbow, I am!!!!!

Ann

I swear on everything I love that preview cured the bold and still posted in bold!! SBW, you are right again. New thread. Tom.

Sorry, to all, I promise never to leave home again. :)

Rick Ballard

RichatUF

Rick-

Further reading on the ever tilting at windmills, non-nuclear power schemes. Link rich.

Ann

And, HIT AND RUN, it is all your fault!!!!

anduril

GMax, I think you hit on it. While I'm as dubious as any Evangelical about Mormonism, I certainly don't think Romney would be beholden to any religious leader. I'm old enough to remember 1960 and the Catholic resentment over Kennedy having to kow tow in Houston to a bunch of yahoos. I really think you've hit on it.

Rick Ballard

Rich,

It ties well to the other SBW link. It also raises my interest in that 2nd Amendment case before the Supreme Court. Especially after listening to the clown show last night.

I need to get some more gun control indoctrination completed with the grandkids. "Center of mass, breathe, squeeze" is easy to remember but actual practice is necessary to properly reinforce the lesson.

RichatUF

Rick-

The court cases begin. The Red Witch preventing blacks from voting for their candidate in MI and hispanics from voting for their's in NV. Interesting potion she is giving the Democrat Party.

Surprised that the R's have put such little effort into NV, there are 34 delegates at stake and it would be revolting if Paul walked away with them. SC is more pressing I suppose, but I would think a little bit of effort from the Romney campaign would put him well out in front.

RichatUF

Rick-

It also raises my interest in that 2nd Amendment case before the Supreme Court. Especially after listening to the clown show last night.

Interesting point. Something just popped into my head-states with conceal carry laws have had newspapers and tv stations publish the names and addresses of conceal carry license holders. Doesn't address the DC gun ban case, but something to think about with a government database that is open to the public.

Topsecretk9

NYT's

The former congressman, Mark D. Siljander, who was defeated for re-election in 1986 after three terms in the House, was accused by a federal grand jury in Kansas City of accepting $50,000 in stolen government aid money as his lobbying fee from the now-defunct charity group, the Islamic American Relief Agency.

The charity — which was based in Columbia, Mo., and closed in 2004 — and several of its former leaders were already under indictment on charges of illegally transferring money to Iraq and stealing government money.

Wiki says

On March 8, 2007 the organization and five of its leaders were charged in the 33-count indictment, handed down by a grand jury in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri for sending $1.4 million to Iraq during the sanctions that took place from 1990 - 2003. [2]

Can some tell me why an Islamic charity directly started and connected to Al Queda would be sending Secular Saddam 1.4 million pre war (and that is...long before the war)? I mean it's just soooo odd, isn't it?


clarice

Where do you get the AQ connection, ts? You are always light years ahead of me.

RichatUF

clarice-

Islamic American Relief Agency

Treasury write up. See if it gets through this time.

Soylent Red

Clarice:

Auntie Beeb has a story up on it posted about 6 hours ago.

The AQ linkage is apparently not to the org itself, but to officers of the organization. At least that's how I read it.

That would explain the Iraqi connection since IARA was nominally helping out starving Iraqis being held down by our hateful sanctions.

This is not an uncommon scenario. Throughout the late 80s and 90s I likely and unwittingly funded the IRA, by throwing in a tip for "the band".

Moral to the story is: Never trust international bleeding heart organizations, or musicians.

Topsecretk9

Islamic American Relief Agency

n 1989 The Islamic American Relief Agency was directly linked to Al Qaeda terrorist Zayid Khalil who was a fundraiser for the IARA while a student and director of the Muslim Student Association at Columbia University in Missouri.Khalil was accused of purchasing the cell phones which were used by Osama Bin Laden issue the directive to perpetrate the 1998 simultaneous bombings of the US embassy in Kenya and Nairobi . http://www.geocities.com/islamic_monitor/islamic_agenda.html

The IARA is partnered with the Islamic African Relief Agency and bore the same name until 2000 when it opened an American branch in Missouri. The IARA in Khartoun was closed in October of 2004 and it's directors arrested for "providing direct financial support to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist groups." (see article below).

also Clairice, don't know if you saw this

St. Louis activist Eric Vickers incorporated the Columbia group in 1985, he said, on behalf of Sudanese college students who wanted to form a chapter of the worldwide group Islamic African Relief Agency, which is based in Khartoum, Sudan.

..Vickers was listed as recently as August as the group's registered agent.

For a time, he headed the American Muslim Council in Washington.

..But the American Muslim Council, too, has come under scrutiny.

In Alexandria, Va., on Friday, its founder was sentenced to 23 years in prison for illegal financial dealings with Libya and for his role in a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's de facto leader. Abdurahman Alamoudi, 52, had pleaded guilty in July to accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from high-ranking Libyan officials while serving as a go-between for them and Saudi
dissidents.

Jim Rockford

Romney is not Kerry.

Kerry was an untested (Kennedy Machine Pol who never had a tough election against Reps) pol who had done nothing but be a pol forever. And wasn't very smart, didn't have an executive record (in private or public life). He was a blowhard Senator ala Teddy his master.

Romney WON in MI because unlike McCain he did not tell Auto Workers "your jobs are gone and not coming back." That was never going to be popular. Romney, a hard-core auto guy (his dad ran Rambler) instead proposed a lot of Government spending to help GM, Ford, and Chrysler "leapfrog" Toyota etc in flex fuels or bio diesel or advanced battery technology. Whoever gets there first is likely to win in the marketplace -- because their cars will be cheaper by orders of magnitude to run.

McCain LOST because he "bragged" that is was better to kill Detroit's jobs for Global Warming (and his pals in the Press) than keep high-paying jobs for blue collar guys around.

That's arrogance. McCain's weakpoint. And likely why the Press loves him. They hate Romney. That's usually a plus nowdays.

Romney likes lots of data, has run large organizations through challenging times, has run against Dems in tough races. He's also strongest on the Economy being a business exec who understands it.

JM Hanes

Ann:

Don't know if you'll see this, but if you're using Safari on a Mac, once a tag has been left open, the ball game is over -- whether its your own or someone else's. The thread will still appear all bold to Safari users after you reclose the tag, even though it will go back to normal for everybody else. That's why it's hard to know whether you've actually fixed a mistake successfully or not. Subsequent posts will look OK in the preview window, but not when you get back to the thread.

Whenever that happens, I switch over to Camino. I'd actually use it all the time if the clipping application I rely on played nice outside Safari. Camino is a pretty nifty little browser designed for Macs.

R. Flanagan

"Kennedy Machine Pol who never had a tough election against Reps"

Seems to me that he had a tough election against Weld.

"The former congressman, Mark D. Siljander, who was defeated for re-election in 1986 after three terms in the House, was accused by a federal grand jury in Kansas City of accepting $50,000"

For the sake of completeness insert
"Republican" between "former" and " congressman".

And I'll repeat here my comment elsewhere.
I'm a democrat and I admit that were Siljander also one I'd probably be saying something now to the effect of "he's innocent until proven guilty" . Maybe with a side gustatory reference to ham sandwiches and grand juries.

Since he's one of your I'm free to say what I really think which is...."he's innocent until proven guilty,any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a........"

JM Hanes

R. Flanagan:

For the sake of completeness insert "Republican" between "former" and "congressman".

Wow. There's one for the record book. That may be the first time evah they left out the Republican part when it comes to wrongdoing. Maybe they're just not so sure he's guilty yet either.

But please, don't let me distract you from enjoying the view in your mirror.

JM Hanes

MayBee:

I'm not trying to convince you that McCain is hated or that it was bad for him to court Democrats & Independents. I think independents may actually keep a party from running itself off a cliff in the primaries now and again.

What I am saying is that McCain does have a really serious problem with Republicans. Saying that Republicans don't like him may be imprecise, but it's not entirely unwarranted, and saying that "a lot of" Republicans don't like him instead strikes me as mostly splitting hairs. Contra the other major players (in which I don't include Huckabee), the dislike that does exist is not confined to any single segement of the Republican coalition, which makes McCain's position vis a vis the party almost uniquely dire, IMO.

The intensity of the existing dislike is notable, and important, as well. Maybe it's because his signature pieces could almost have been calculated to alienate Republicans on key issues. His position on the Bush tax cuts didn't win him any Republican friends, but the immigration bill hit a real national security nerve, not just a cultural one; his end run around open debate and the rhetoric directed at opponents left a permanenly bad taste in a lot of Republican mouths. So too, folks who object to McCain/Feingold don't think it was just ill advised, they consider it a Constitutional travesty of significant proportions -- on top of which it also does more to protect incumbents than stem the power of money in elections. While people may not like what some of the other candidates stand for, most of the folks who dislike McCain hate what he has actually done.

As for the Michigan primary in particular, Rudy and Fred basically weren't running there, so their vote totals don't mean much. Yes, you could say that Romney lost more than half the Republicans, but when you break out the three way stats, McCain looks worse GOP-wise, not better.

Romney beat McCain among Repubublicans by 14%. McCain only bested Huckabee by 10%, which is pretty amazing. Apparently religious voters generally don't hold Romney's Mormon background against him, so in a two man race, I suspect he would have collected the lion's share of the Huckabee votes. He'd only need part of that vote to turn his plurality into a majority. McCain, however, couldn't have pulled a majority even if he picked up all of the Huckabee vote, which seems dubious since he only beats Romney among non-religious voters.

McCain didn't exactly trounce Romney among Independents either, where he pulled 35% to Romneys 29%. Indeed, Romney's percentage of the Independent vote was bigger than McCain's percentage of Republicans. Ironically, where Romney got 41% of the Republicans, McCain did get 41% of the Democrats. Alas, they're the least like to vote for a Republican in the general election. Irony #2, however, is that Romney also got a bigger share of the Democrats (33%) than McCain got from Republicans (27%).

In terms of relative strengths, I think Michigan may be a more revealing test than most. The other major contenders weren't competing there, and neither candidate had a distinct advantage. Romney was a native son, but McCain had won it from Bush before, he was in a good position to pull in Dems & Independents who weren't looking at a competitive race, and he went in with a bounce from New Hampshire. If Romney had given SC a higher priority, it would be easier to tell how much of the Michigan breakdown represents a real trend, but considering the wind in McCain's Michigan sails, the fact that he did so badly doesn't bode well, IMO. If he can't maximize Republican turnout, there's no way independents and potential crossovers can ever put him over the top. If that's not having a problem with Republicans, I don't what is.

Jane

Seems to me that he had a tough election against Weld.

Only because of his own incompetence. Weld was a far superior candidate but MA is 85% democrat and except occasionally for governor, always votes that way.

PeterUK

Something to while away the dark winter nights - Air Hillary

MayBee

JMH-
Hmmm. I of course am not making the argument that McCain is Mr. Popularity. Of course it is entirely possible he'll not win this thing. It is entirely possible he'll never be able to rally the base, and I'm certain I am not "the base". I'm also certain I have seen much, much hyperbole about him. That's really what I'm arguing against.
I believe the man is strong on pork and will never, ever, ever allow our military to be humiliated or let terrorism build around the world for the sake of making the US popular. So despite all of his flaws, I could stand him as President. As, apparently, could many others. If they aren't the "right" people, we'll have to see how that affects him.

MayBee

R. Flanagan- If you think anyone here is wanting to defend Siljander, you are completely wrong. The allegations are quite serious, and if true, completely reprehensible.

Sue

There are many Republicans that consider themselves moderate or even liberal (depending upon the issue). It may be true that McCain won't ever win the conservative republican voters, but they aren't necessarily the majority of Republicans in every state.

We'll see in SC how conservative republicans feel about McCain. He has never done well when crossover voting is not allowed. Maybe that will change this year. I discount MI as a test example simply because it is Mitt's home. I like that a candidate can win in his own state, unlike Gore.

Sue

Maybee,

Almost everywhere on the conservative to moderate blogs, they are calling for him to be drawn and quartered, if guilty.

Pofarmer

Fred? I got no problem with him having a beautiful young wife, middle america might think diferent.

In general, middle america could care less about that.

Pofarmer

will never, ever, ever allow our military to be humiliated or let terrorism build around the world for the sake of making the US popular.

Doubtful.

His focus is all wrong. He said the other day that he would "follow Osama Bin Laden into the bowels of hell to bring him to justice."

So what?

Does that mean the GWOT is over?

He's using the Lib model and just sexing it up.

In short, I don't trust McCain on anything, not even a little bit.

R. Flanagan

" R.Flanagan- If you think anyone here is wanting to defend Siljander,...."

I DON'T

..."The allegations are quite serious"

YES

" and if true.........

WHICH WILL BE TESTED IN COURT. LET'S SEE , CAN WE REMEMBER CASES IN WHICH ALLEGATIONS WEREN'T SUBSTANTIATED ?

MEANWHILE SILJANDER ISN'T JUST A FORMER CONGRESSMAN. THE MISSING WORD AFTER "FORMER"
IS "REPUBLICAN".

HEY THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT THAT W'S JUSTICE DEPT IS PROSECUTING A REPUBLICAN. GO FOR IT- ASSUMING THAT IT LOOKS LIKE A VALID CASE.IF NOT, DEFEND THE GUY.

MayBee

Does that mean the GWOT is over?

Interesting, 'cause I read him as saying the opposite. What's your thinking here, Po?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame