Who would have predicted that the complicated race for the Republican nomination would be complete, with John McCain firmly the winner, but that the Democrats would still be neck and neck going into Texas and Ohio on Tuesday? At least I'd like to meet that person!
Here are the stories I'm watching today, but the truth is, we're just waiting to see who Senator McCain will face in November.
Poll: McCain looking good in Florida, against either Hillary or Barack also Florida Hearts McCain
The Obama campaign has formally responded to the report on Canadian TV saying that a Canadian official claims a senior Obama person privately told him that Obama's anti-NAFTA talk on the stump was just "campaign rhetoric." So, he's for NAFTA or against NAFTA?
Contrary to popular opinion in the news media Republicans have a solid chance in November
Veep Sweepstakes for John McCain, who do you think the "maverick" will choose to face the democrats with him in November? (personally I like the long shot Sarah Palin but J.C. Watts or Kay Baily Hutchinson would be great too)
Barack tries to sound like a world leader, by suggesting that we dropped the ball in Afganistan, I guess now that Iraq is working, he needs to attack something or else he has to admit he was wrong all along.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Obama Watch - Lips Moving ...
In This Campaign, Obama Attacks Sen. Clinton’s Past Support Of NAFTA, Saying He Has “Never” Supported The Free Trade Pact:
Obama: “I Don’t Think NAFTA Has Been Good For America - And I Never Have.” Obama: “Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. … Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have.” (David Espo, “Obama Hits Clinton On NAFTA Support,” The Associated Press, 2/24/08)
But In His Last Campaign, Obama Praised NAFTA:In 2004 Obama Said U.S. Benefits Enormously From Exports Under NAFTA. “Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.” (Ron Ingram, “Obama, Keyes Court Farmers,” [Decatur, IL] Herald & Review, 9/9/04)
Obama Said The U.S Should “Pursue Deals Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement.” “[Obama] said the United State [sic] should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement…” (Christopher Wills, “Senate Candidates Speak On Farm, Trade Issues,” The Associated Press, 9/8/04)
And Even Today, Obama Admits Repeal Of The Trade Pact He Attacks Would Result In A Net Job Loss:Obama: NAFTA Repeal “Would Probably Result In More Job Losses In The United States Than Job Gains.” “Obama, when asked whether he would repeal NAFTA, has said business ties among the countries were now so entrenched that reversing the trade deal ‘would probably result in more job losses in the United States than job gains.’ Instead, he said the treaty should be amended.” (Mike Dorning and Rick Pearson, “Trade Jabs: Clinton, Obama Do,” Chicago Tribune, 2/25/08)
Since 2004, Obama Has Also Shifted On Amending NAFTA:
In 2007, Obama Pledged To “Immediately Call The President Of Mexico, The President Of Canada To Try To Amend NAFTA…” “I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street.” (Sen. Barack Obama, AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum, Chicago, IL, 8/7/07)
But In 2004, Obama “Concede[d] It Likely Will Not Be Possible To Renegotiate Existing [Free Trade] Deals.” “‘Free trade is important to the health of Illinois, but we need to be more effective in negotiations,’ says state Sen. Barack Obama of Chicago, a relative moderate on the issue. He calls for enforceable standards on collective bargaining and environmental protection in future pacts, but concedes it likely will not be possible to renegotiate existing deals.” (Greg Hinz, “Candidates Sing From Same Song Sheet,” Crain’s Chicago Business, 2/16/04)
PDF Format
Tags: Barack Obama, Obama was for NAFTA before he was against it
Obama: “I Don’t Think NAFTA Has Been Good For America - And I Never Have.” Obama: “Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. … Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have.” (David Espo, “Obama Hits Clinton On NAFTA Support,” The Associated Press, 2/24/08)
But In His Last Campaign, Obama Praised NAFTA:In 2004 Obama Said U.S. Benefits Enormously From Exports Under NAFTA. “Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.” (Ron Ingram, “Obama, Keyes Court Farmers,” [Decatur, IL] Herald & Review, 9/9/04)
Obama Said The U.S Should “Pursue Deals Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement.” “[Obama] said the United State [sic] should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement…” (Christopher Wills, “Senate Candidates Speak On Farm, Trade Issues,” The Associated Press, 9/8/04)
And Even Today, Obama Admits Repeal Of The Trade Pact He Attacks Would Result In A Net Job Loss:Obama: NAFTA Repeal “Would Probably Result In More Job Losses In The United States Than Job Gains.” “Obama, when asked whether he would repeal NAFTA, has said business ties among the countries were now so entrenched that reversing the trade deal ‘would probably result in more job losses in the United States than job gains.’ Instead, he said the treaty should be amended.” (Mike Dorning and Rick Pearson, “Trade Jabs: Clinton, Obama Do,” Chicago Tribune, 2/25/08)
Since 2004, Obama Has Also Shifted On Amending NAFTA:
In 2007, Obama Pledged To “Immediately Call The President Of Mexico, The President Of Canada To Try To Amend NAFTA…” “I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street.” (Sen. Barack Obama, AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum, Chicago, IL, 8/7/07)
But In 2004, Obama “Concede[d] It Likely Will Not Be Possible To Renegotiate Existing [Free Trade] Deals.” “‘Free trade is important to the health of Illinois, but we need to be more effective in negotiations,’ says state Sen. Barack Obama of Chicago, a relative moderate on the issue. He calls for enforceable standards on collective bargaining and environmental protection in future pacts, but concedes it likely will not be possible to renegotiate existing deals.” (Greg Hinz, “Candidates Sing From Same Song Sheet,” Crain’s Chicago Business, 2/16/04)
PDF Format
Tags: Barack Obama, Obama was for NAFTA before he was against it
Monday, February 25, 2008
John McCain in Indy
No, I didn't get an invite, I didnt even get an answer to my question "who's running the campaign in Indiana" Oh well, I'll just keep posting.
Here's some media write-ups on the visit on Friday to Indy.
The Star. The AP. The Fort Wayne JG. The Terre Haute Trib-Star. The Evansville Courier & Press.
(h/t to Frugal Hoosiers)
Here's some media write-ups on the visit on Friday to Indy.
The Star. The AP. The Fort Wayne JG. The Terre Haute Trib-Star. The Evansville Courier & Press.
(h/t to Frugal Hoosiers)
Sunday, February 24, 2008
John McCain today
Your McCain Support Online - seems that some people are suggesting that John McCain just can't seem to get the support online that Obama has. Bah! I bet this 70 plus year old will beat Obama hands down when the teenie boppers weary of the game.
How does Ralph Nader affect the race? - I see it this way. If Hillary pulls off Texas and Ohio then she picks up the nomination due to games with superdelegates at the convention. This will alienate a ton of Democrats. Sure at that point Nader, or Gore-Nader, or Bloomberg-Nader, or something like that can pick off some support especially on the coasts as independants.
If Obama holds off Hillary, basically suggesting that super-delegates that vote for her are racist ... and wins the nomination. Then Nader will have little affect at all. Clintons will do exactly what they did to Kerry and pull their support and their team out of the race all together and let Obama flounder.
How does Ralph Nader affect the race? - I see it this way. If Hillary pulls off Texas and Ohio then she picks up the nomination due to games with superdelegates at the convention. This will alienate a ton of Democrats. Sure at that point Nader, or Gore-Nader, or Bloomberg-Nader, or something like that can pick off some support especially on the coasts as independants.
If Obama holds off Hillary, basically suggesting that super-delegates that vote for her are racist ... and wins the nomination. Then Nader will have little affect at all. Clintons will do exactly what they did to Kerry and pull their support and their team out of the race all together and let Obama flounder.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
New York Times is yellow journalism
From Iowa for McCain site and New Hampshire 4 McCain
"Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site). I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot."The NYT has shown repeatedly that it lacks credibility and is more than willing to run unsubstantiated drivel to sell a paper.
"Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site). I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot."The NYT has shown repeatedly that it lacks credibility and is more than willing to run unsubstantiated drivel to sell a paper.
Friday, February 22, 2008
McCain Economic Advisor - Phil Gramm
Chief Economic Advisor to John McCain is Phil Gramm
Another strong testimony to Senator John McCain's committment to the market economy, low taxes, business environment condusive to job creation, and regulatory rollbacks. Phil Gramm is a very wise and talented advisor and a welcome addition to the McCain team.
"If McCain follows Gramm's counsel, and most of his current positions are
vintage Gramm indeed, his policies as president would represent not just a sharp
departure from the Bush years, but an assault on government growth that
Republicans have boasted about, but failed to achieve, for decades."
Another strong testimony to Senator John McCain's committment to the market economy, low taxes, business environment condusive to job creation, and regulatory rollbacks. Phil Gramm is a very wise and talented advisor and a welcome addition to the McCain team.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
New York Times fires first volley
The war on America (2008) has begun ... The New York Times fires the first shot and suggests in a poorly written and unsourced article that John McCain has innapropriate contact with a female Washington insider.
First, I don't know the details and can only then react to the story and Senator McCain's press conference moments ago. I have to say that average Joe will find Senator McCain pretty compelling.
Second, what's with the timing? If the New York Times wanted to hurt his chances of getting nominated, this story would have broken two months ago, right? So, what is the reason for attacking once he's wrapped up the nomination?
Some comments dug up at Pardon My French:
Jim Geraghty: “No identified sources? No on-the-record sources? All we get is ‘according to two former McCain associates,’ presumably that reference to one Senate, one campaign.” http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2RmMGQ2YmJkODAzMTdhODAyNWFiZmEwNDZhNjBjZDk=
Jennifer Rubin: “Remarkably, the Times’ online reader comments suggest a high dose of skepticism about the sourcing and value of the story.” http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions
Marc Ambinder: “ … nothing to suggest that McCain compromised his political principles.” http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccainlobbyist_story_in_the_ne.php
Power Line: “Tomorrow's story is just one more reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news source.” http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019842.php
Rich Lowry: “The Times doesn't have the goods—at least from what's in the story—and shouldn't have run it.” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTNiNGYwOWI0YjY1OGJkMDdjOTgyODA3NjAwYWVkMGQ=
New York
Daily News: “It's all there - except a clear and firm direct allegation, let alone proof.” http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/02/21/2008-02-21_tales_tall_on_innuendo_short_on_proof-1.html?print=1&page=all
Phil Klein: “ … the NYT doesn't seem to have the goods on anything actually done wrong.” http://www.amspec.org/blogger.asp?bwd=8&byear=2008#11642
Rutenberg Declines Interview
Patrick Hynes
At 6:51 AM this morning, I e-mailed Jim Rutenberg– whom I know and have interacted with in the past–to invite him onto my radio program “Meet the New Press” on Saturday morning to discuss the sourcing of his New York Times hit piece on my client John McCain.
At 7:24 AM Rutenberg declined my invitation in an e-mail and indicated—without my even asking—that no one else at the Times was likely to come on, either.
It seems very odd to me that after having “broken” (broken, indeed) a big story about a major national figure, a story that is capable of impacting the 2008 presidential election, no one at the Times has any interest in discussing the story any further, especially considering so many have expressed such deep skepticism about its sourcing and the value of its content.
Let this blog post stand as an open invitation to any and all reporters and editors at the Times: If anyone there has any interest in defending the paper’s integrity and answering the many questions readers have about its sourcing, I have an open microphone for two hours on Saturday morning.
Looks like NYT won't be taking any interviews
First, I don't know the details and can only then react to the story and Senator McCain's press conference moments ago. I have to say that average Joe will find Senator McCain pretty compelling.
Second, what's with the timing? If the New York Times wanted to hurt his chances of getting nominated, this story would have broken two months ago, right? So, what is the reason for attacking once he's wrapped up the nomination?
Some comments dug up at Pardon My French:
Jim Geraghty: “No identified sources? No on-the-record sources? All we get is ‘according to two former McCain associates,’ presumably that reference to one Senate, one campaign.” http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2RmMGQ2YmJkODAzMTdhODAyNWFiZmEwNDZhNjBjZDk=
Jennifer Rubin: “Remarkably, the Times’ online reader comments suggest a high dose of skepticism about the sourcing and value of the story.” http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions
Marc Ambinder: “ … nothing to suggest that McCain compromised his political principles.” http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccainlobbyist_story_in_the_ne.php
Power Line: “Tomorrow's story is just one more reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news source.” http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019842.php
Rich Lowry: “The Times doesn't have the goods—at least from what's in the story—and shouldn't have run it.” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTNiNGYwOWI0YjY1OGJkMDdjOTgyODA3NjAwYWVkMGQ=
New York
Daily News: “It's all there - except a clear and firm direct allegation, let alone proof.” http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/02/21/2008-02-21_tales_tall_on_innuendo_short_on_proof-1.html?print=1&page=all
Phil Klein: “ … the NYT doesn't seem to have the goods on anything actually done wrong.” http://www.amspec.org/blogger.asp?bwd=8&byear=2008#11642
Rutenberg Declines Interview
Patrick Hynes
At 6:51 AM this morning, I e-mailed Jim Rutenberg– whom I know and have interacted with in the past–to invite him onto my radio program “Meet the New Press” on Saturday morning to discuss the sourcing of his New York Times hit piece on my client John McCain.
At 7:24 AM Rutenberg declined my invitation in an e-mail and indicated—without my even asking—that no one else at the Times was likely to come on, either.
It seems very odd to me that after having “broken” (broken, indeed) a big story about a major national figure, a story that is capable of impacting the 2008 presidential election, no one at the Times has any interest in discussing the story any further, especially considering so many have expressed such deep skepticism about its sourcing and the value of its content.
Let this blog post stand as an open invitation to any and all reporters and editors at the Times: If anyone there has any interest in defending the paper’s integrity and answering the many questions readers have about its sourcing, I have an open microphone for two hours on Saturday morning.
Looks like NYT won't be taking any interviews
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Hoosiers for McCain - On Facebook
For those of you who frequent Facebook, or even use it once in a while, here is a group set up for Hoosiers who support John McCain. Watch for posts, articles, invites to events and news.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
McCain to speak in Indy on Friday
Alas, after all the excitement of Senator John McCain visiting Indianapolis on Friday for a fundraiser, I was a bit frustrated to find no invitation in my mailbox!
There are times I wonder ...
Anyone going?
There are times I wonder ...
Anyone going?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Democrats (Obama and Clinton) Scared to take a stand
From Publius Pundit a terrific post worth your time to read and digest: Two Democrats Betray Democracy. I have sided with John McCain against torture, but it would appear that once again the maverick has found a way to lead from the center, drawing on the strengths of strong wills on both sides.
Yesterday, one of the most important votes in recent memory occurred in the Senate, over whether the U.S. should engage in coercive interrogation such as the infamous "waterboarding" technique. President Bush has said such techniques are necessary in the war on terror and vowed to veto the measure if it passes Congress.
Guess which way "Democrats" Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted
.... (they didn't show up)
John McCain, however, did vote. And so-called Mr. non-Conservative voted
with President Bush, as did 45 other members of the Senate, sufficient to
sustain a presidential veto ... In other words, McCain a great and courageous
leader. And, by contrast, Clinton and Obama are cowering in the shadows like the
craven cowards they are. Leadership? They don't know the meaning of the word.
Ask yourself this: If he becomes president, how is Barack Obama going to protect
us from terrorism? By saying to Osama bin Laden: "See, I'm black, so you don't
need to hate America any more, I feel your pain"?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
John McCain fundraiser Feb 22
I picked up word of a fundraiser in Indianapolis on the 22nd, I don't have details but I am looking for them to post here.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
McCain runs the table on Potomac Primaires
Winning all three: Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC John McCain basically wrapped up the Republican nomination for President. Now the test continues on the Democrat side, with every indication that it will go all the way to the convention floor.
I was watching CNN do a very nice breakdown, showing that even if Obama were to win every remaining state 60-40 he still wouldn't have the necessary delegates. This is going to come down to a lawsuit over Florida and Michigan and a campaign to acquire super delegate votes.
I was watching CNN do a very nice breakdown, showing that even if Obama were to win every remaining state 60-40 he still wouldn't have the necessary delegates. This is going to come down to a lawsuit over Florida and Michigan and a campaign to acquire super delegate votes.
John McCain wins Virginia
... and takes all 60 delegates. I would expect Mike Huckabee to suspend his campaign tomorrow, since it is no longer even a distant possibility to win.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Alaska Governor for Vice President?
Like many Republicans I've been scouring the conservative landscape for a candidate for vice president to run with John Mccain and also beat Hillary, with my guess being that Hillary will choose Bill Richardson as her running mate.
First, we know that Senators have long had a difficult time, due to voting procedures getting elected President or Vice. I would have to agree with many that a Governor would be nice to add to the administration.
Second, when running against a female and hispanic on the Democrat ticket, I am loath to think that we'd propose two more white guys for office. Sorry, but I had to say it blunt so the naive would pick it up.
I ran across the following story today, America's Most Popular Governor, spotlighting the success of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Strong willed, ethical, straight talking, pro-life, and willing to fight the Republican establisment. Now we're talking. I like this idea.
Update: Sarah Palin, a former mayor of Wasilla, won the 2006 Republican primary race for governor of Alaska, defeating incumbent Frank Murkowski. She won the governorship, defeating the Democratic candidate Tony Knowles, and independent candidate Andrew Halcro. She became the first female governor and youngest governor in the history of the state.
I've done some digging among my peers on Active Rain and am awaiting some of their thoughts on their governor's credentials for Vice President. Will post those when I receive.
First, we know that Senators have long had a difficult time, due to voting procedures getting elected President or Vice. I would have to agree with many that a Governor would be nice to add to the administration.
Second, when running against a female and hispanic on the Democrat ticket, I am loath to think that we'd propose two more white guys for office. Sorry, but I had to say it blunt so the naive would pick it up.
I ran across the following story today, America's Most Popular Governor, spotlighting the success of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Strong willed, ethical, straight talking, pro-life, and willing to fight the Republican establisment. Now we're talking. I like this idea.
Update: Sarah Palin, a former mayor of Wasilla, won the 2006 Republican primary race for governor of Alaska, defeating incumbent Frank Murkowski. She won the governorship, defeating the Democratic candidate Tony Knowles, and independent candidate Andrew Halcro. She became the first female governor and youngest governor in the history of the state.
I've done some digging among my peers on Active Rain and am awaiting some of their thoughts on their governor's credentials for Vice President. Will post those when I receive.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Republican "Songs of the Season"
Donald Douglas from American Power does a very nice job reminding us of John McCain's very strong position, and his opponents .... not so much.
Only one small exerpt here since I want you to read the whole thing:
Only one small exerpt here since I want you to read the whole thing:
My family gave me books and music for Christmas. One of the CDs I received
was the "Eagles - Their Greatest Hits
1971-1975."
I've been playing it during my morning drive just about every day, and some
of the songs have reminded me of the current happenings in the GOP race.Read the whole article, with video and song lyrics: McCain is Alreay Gone!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
John McCain wins Big on Super Tuesday
This is no spin, no loss dressed up like a win ... .John McCain ends Super Tuesday somewhere around 500 delegates and almost halfway to the necessary number to get the nomination.
Mike Huckabee did surprisingly well in the southern states, thus Mitt Romney frankly did quite poorly. I want to restate my request that those that may be losing heart in these candidates, or Fred Heads, come on over to the Straight Talk Express. John McCain took time tonite to thank Governor Huckabee, as friends, and is even now raising the bar of American politics.
I will post statistics and delegate counts tomorrow for a multitude of sites, but for now, John McCain is the National frontrunner.
Mike Huckabee did surprisingly well in the southern states, thus Mitt Romney frankly did quite poorly. I want to restate my request that those that may be losing heart in these candidates, or Fred Heads, come on over to the Straight Talk Express. John McCain took time tonite to thank Governor Huckabee, as friends, and is even now raising the bar of American politics.
I will post statistics and delegate counts tomorrow for a multitude of sites, but for now, John McCain is the National frontrunner.
Super Tuesday
First off, I'm no "live" blogger and I know that!
For quick updates watch www.twitter.com/JohnMcCain2008
So far at 7:21 looks like we've picked up New Jersey, New York, and Illinois.
Governor Huckabee is projected in Alabama and the win earlier today in West Virginia
Governor Romney showing a possible win in Massachusets.
This looks like a very strong Mccain and Huckabee nite.
For quick updates watch www.twitter.com/JohnMcCain2008
So far at 7:21 looks like we've picked up New Jersey, New York, and Illinois.
Governor Huckabee is projected in Alabama and the win earlier today in West Virginia
Governor Romney showing a possible win in Massachusets.
This looks like a very strong Mccain and Huckabee nite.
Romney Temper Tantrum
From Hoosier Access:
It’s looking like the Super Tuesday madness could live up to the hype.
From The Hill:
Romney camp accuses McCain, Huckabee of shady W. Va. dealBy Sam YoungmanPosted: 02/05/08 03:35 PM [ET]
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign accused Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of “a backroom deal” that gave the early Super Tuesday win in West Virginia to Huckabee. Romney, who addressed the state GOP convention in person Tuesday, comfortably led the first ballot at the convention, leading to a three-way second ballot contest between the three contenders.
Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic reported Tuesday that, after the first ballot, McCain’s campaign called his supporters there and urged them to vote in favor of Huckabee.
“Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain’s inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney’s campaign of conservative change,” Beth Myers, Romney’s campaign manager, said in a statement.
Huckabee won the contest on the second ballot with 567 votes, or 51 percent, to Romney’s 521 votes, which put him at 47 percent. McCain finished the second ballot with 12 votes.
On the first ballot, McCain had 176 votes to Huckabee’s 375 and Romney’s 464 votes.
Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) received 118 votes on the first ballot, but because he failed to finish in the top three, he was not included on the second ballot.
By winning Tuesday’s state convention, Huckabee was awarded 18 of the state’s 30 delegates.The McCain campaign did not immediately respond to comment for this story.
I’m guessing Mitt doesn’t get that this is how Presidential nominations are won. He better start acting like a grown up now and get his act together if he’s going to have one last shot at this thing.
It’s looking like the Super Tuesday madness could live up to the hype.
From The Hill:
Romney camp accuses McCain, Huckabee of shady W. Va. dealBy Sam YoungmanPosted: 02/05/08 03:35 PM [ET]
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign accused Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of “a backroom deal” that gave the early Super Tuesday win in West Virginia to Huckabee. Romney, who addressed the state GOP convention in person Tuesday, comfortably led the first ballot at the convention, leading to a three-way second ballot contest between the three contenders.
Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic reported Tuesday that, after the first ballot, McCain’s campaign called his supporters there and urged them to vote in favor of Huckabee.
“Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain’s inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney’s campaign of conservative change,” Beth Myers, Romney’s campaign manager, said in a statement.
Huckabee won the contest on the second ballot with 567 votes, or 51 percent, to Romney’s 521 votes, which put him at 47 percent. McCain finished the second ballot with 12 votes.
On the first ballot, McCain had 176 votes to Huckabee’s 375 and Romney’s 464 votes.
Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) received 118 votes on the first ballot, but because he failed to finish in the top three, he was not included on the second ballot.
By winning Tuesday’s state convention, Huckabee was awarded 18 of the state’s 30 delegates.The McCain campaign did not immediately respond to comment for this story.
I’m guessing Mitt doesn’t get that this is how Presidential nominations are won. He better start acting like a grown up now and get his act together if he’s going to have one last shot at this thing.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Why the silence from Fred Thompson?
After he dropped out of the race the rumors abounded, and we posited here that he had perhaps a day or two if he wanted to really make a difference.
Now, Tennessee votes tomorrow and the former Senator has nothing to offer? That's too bad. Even if he can't endorse his good friend John McCain, and feels torn to endorse a right-winger like Huckabee ... at least he could keep in the game.
Where is Fred Thompson? McCain bloggers have reached out to Thompson's supporters, and continue to welcome their involvement and help.
Now, Tennessee votes tomorrow and the former Senator has nothing to offer? That's too bad. Even if he can't endorse his good friend John McCain, and feels torn to endorse a right-winger like Huckabee ... at least he could keep in the game.
Where is Fred Thompson? McCain bloggers have reached out to Thompson's supporters, and continue to welcome their involvement and help.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Important News on John McCain
With winning the all-Republican primary in Florida and non-stop endorsements, there are many important articles to read this week:
CNN’s Political Ticker Blog: Ted Olson To Back McCain
New York Post: Rudy Hails His 'Hero' McCain
Associated Press: McCain Steamrolling To GOP Nomination
San Francisco Chronicle: McCain Hits Paydirt In Golden State
Boston Herald: It’s Straight Talk That Wins Voters
New York Times' City Room Blog: New York Republicans Rally Around McCain
Wall Street Journal: Security Is Job One
Trenton Times (NJ): GOP Primary: McCain
San Francisco Chronicle: McCain The Maverick
Wall Street Journal: McCain Wins Florida, Becomes Front-Runner
CNN’s Political Ticker Blog: Ted Olson To Back McCain
New York Post: Rudy Hails His 'Hero' McCain
Associated Press: McCain Steamrolling To GOP Nomination
San Francisco Chronicle: McCain Hits Paydirt In Golden State
Boston Herald: It’s Straight Talk That Wins Voters
New York Times' City Room Blog: New York Republicans Rally Around McCain
Wall Street Journal: Security Is Job One
Trenton Times (NJ): GOP Primary: McCain
San Francisco Chronicle: McCain The Maverick
Wall Street Journal: McCain Wins Florida, Becomes Front-Runner
California the Clean up Hit?
California voters Tuesday are going to do something they haven't done in more than a generation: have a say in a closely contested presidential primary. In the wake of the wildest week yet in the 2008 race, voters are expected to come out in record numbers, and what they decide will help shape the final stretch of one of the most intriguing primary seasons in decades. As Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez put it, California's finally "got skin in the game." How long has it been since Californians have had a chance to truly influence a primary race?
On the Democratic side, it was California that gave George McGovern the push he needed to secure the nomination. That was 1972. For Republicans, Californians kept Ronald Reagan's first presidential bid alive in 1976, almost to the convention, where incumbent Gerald Ford prevailed. California has always been a player in primaries when it comes to fundraising, it's just that the election almost always happened too late in the season, leaving voters to rubber-stamp an all-but-certain nominee or give a nod to a California politician's futile bid.
Some argue you really have to go all the way back to the 1964 contest between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller, when California Republicans sided with Goldwater, an Arizona senator, who became the GOP nominee. With California's decision to move up its primary last year, the delegate-rich state is sharing Feb. 5 with more than 20 other states. So it's unlikely the state alone will be able to claim its voters crowned the nominees or stalled rivals' campaigns. And few are certain when Tuesday's tallies from around the country are added up there even will be a clear leader, particularly in the hugely competitive Democratic contest. Largest prize California, with the most delegates at stake, is Tuesday's largest prize, and even victory by a small margin will carry a lot of influence in the nation's mind.
"We finally have a vote that matters, even if it's not going to be the decisive blow," said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California-Berkeley. And it's about time, said Pat Backer, a San Jose State University engineering professor who lives in Fremont. "I came here in 1990 and my vote has never counted," the loyal Democratic primary voter said. "We're going to get to make a difference." And whatever happens Tuesday, California's results will be widely watched. In primary politics, the state has gone from political wallflower to bellwether. Talkingpointsmemo.com , a popular political Web site, handicaps the California contest between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama like this: "Make no mistake. This will be the race to watch on Tuesday night." That's exactly the role state leaders hoped for in May when they moved up the primary to Feb. 5, the earliest primary in state history. Well-financed Democratic candidates, in particular, have paid plenty of attention to California. They've had campaign staffs here for months and, in recent weeks, have mounted aggressive on-the-ground and media campaigns. With the two final debates for each party held in Southern California last week, candidates of both parties have made campaign stops from San Diego to San Francisco within days of the election. Clinton was in San Jose as late as Friday, and Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, plans a town hall meeting tonight in San Jose. It's a novelty, even for veterans. "I turned on television and saw ads for primary candidates," said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic political strategist in Los Angeles. "I can't remember the last time that happened, if ever." Not all traditions have been thrown overboard, however. Early states like Iowa and New Hampshire had their usual outsize say. The contests helped winnow the field to two viable candidates for each party before California's turn. And Florida, which held its primary last week, could turn out to be the kingmaker state for Republican John McCain, if he romps Tuesday. But Mitt Romney is not giving up, making a last-ditch effort in California and a few other key states. This time, the possible roles California will have in the ultimate outcome are numerous. Kingmaker state? Tuesday's vote could produce a clear leader in both parties, providing the victor with a Western tail wind that would be hard to counter. Or, because of the complex delegate counting system, it could produce enough delegates for even the loser of the popular vote to stay in the race. That's more likely to happen on the Democratic side. California polls suggest Clinton and Obama are in an exceedingly tight contest, after a significant surge of support for the Illinois senator in the past two weeks. And it could send McCain, who has a comfortable lead over Romney, to the nomination. In 2000, California's March 7 primary came after nine other states held their primaries or caucuses, and was held on the same day as 13 other contests. California victories for Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore helped them nail down the nominations, but both had fairly good leads before coming into the election. Regardless, the winners of California "can claim bragging rights to the biggest state," said Tony Quinn, a Republican political analyst in Sacramento. Until 1996, California held its primary in June. That year, the state, seeking more influence, moved it to March. But it didn't work. A lot of other states leapfrogged California. By the time the 2004 primary was held March 2, Democrat John Kerry had picked up victories in 18 of 20 states. (President Bush had no serious competition.) Fewer than 40 percent voted, a modern-era record low. This time, competitive races have prompted predictions of the highest turnout for a presidential primary since 1980. The state association of registrars says to expect 56 percent of eligible voters to cast ballots; others estimate it could be as high as 60 percent. Just once in the past six presidential primaries have more than 50 percent of registered voters bothered to cast ballots. Voters are jazzed. Registration figures released Friday showed a record 15.7 million Californians - 68.5 percent of eligible adults - have registered to vote in Tuesday's primary, 700,000 more than in advance of the 2004 primary. A record 5.5 million have requested absentee ballots. Turnout is key And voter turnout will be crucial, especially in the tight Democratic race. Clinton is counting on Latinos, Obama on young voters and those registered as decline-to-state. The latter can only participate in the Democratic primary, and they have an extra hurdle: When they go to the polls, they must request a Democratic ballot. "What makes this much more interesting is that both sides are relying on a block of voters that don't always turn out," said Leon Panetta, a Clinton supporter and founder of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University-Monterey Bay. Cain said California's proportional system used by Democrats could favor Obama. That's because congressional districts where he might do well, including several in Northern California where he runs strongest, carry slightly more weight than others. Bottom line: If it's a close Democratic contest in California, the delegate-count margin between winner and loser may be tight. The Republican contest is clearer. If Florida cemented McCain's front-runner status, California, where the senator from Arizona is well-known, could put him over the top. Key endorsements last week, including by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has helped him solidify his lead in the state. Even so, Romney is trying to pick off delegates in the state's more conservative congressional districts. In each of the state's 53 districts, the GOP winner gets three delegates. "John has the advantage," said Ken Khachigian, a veteran Republican campaign manager, who ran Bob Dole's 1996 effort. But he added, "There are a lot of people who still don't have a champion." On the Democratic side, Panetta likened the excitement, especially among young voters, to what he felt leading up to the epic and tragic 1968 Democratic primary race in which Californians went to polls in droves and voted for Robert F. Kennedy over Eugene McCarthy. Just hours after winning the primary, Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles. Again, young voters "could be the edge," Panetta said. "This one really counts. We haven't for a long time."
On the Democratic side, it was California that gave George McGovern the push he needed to secure the nomination. That was 1972. For Republicans, Californians kept Ronald Reagan's first presidential bid alive in 1976, almost to the convention, where incumbent Gerald Ford prevailed. California has always been a player in primaries when it comes to fundraising, it's just that the election almost always happened too late in the season, leaving voters to rubber-stamp an all-but-certain nominee or give a nod to a California politician's futile bid.
Some argue you really have to go all the way back to the 1964 contest between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller, when California Republicans sided with Goldwater, an Arizona senator, who became the GOP nominee. With California's decision to move up its primary last year, the delegate-rich state is sharing Feb. 5 with more than 20 other states. So it's unlikely the state alone will be able to claim its voters crowned the nominees or stalled rivals' campaigns. And few are certain when Tuesday's tallies from around the country are added up there even will be a clear leader, particularly in the hugely competitive Democratic contest. Largest prize California, with the most delegates at stake, is Tuesday's largest prize, and even victory by a small margin will carry a lot of influence in the nation's mind.
"We finally have a vote that matters, even if it's not going to be the decisive blow," said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California-Berkeley. And it's about time, said Pat Backer, a San Jose State University engineering professor who lives in Fremont. "I came here in 1990 and my vote has never counted," the loyal Democratic primary voter said. "We're going to get to make a difference." And whatever happens Tuesday, California's results will be widely watched. In primary politics, the state has gone from political wallflower to bellwether. Talkingpointsmemo.com , a popular political Web site, handicaps the California contest between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama like this: "Make no mistake. This will be the race to watch on Tuesday night." That's exactly the role state leaders hoped for in May when they moved up the primary to Feb. 5, the earliest primary in state history. Well-financed Democratic candidates, in particular, have paid plenty of attention to California. They've had campaign staffs here for months and, in recent weeks, have mounted aggressive on-the-ground and media campaigns. With the two final debates for each party held in Southern California last week, candidates of both parties have made campaign stops from San Diego to San Francisco within days of the election. Clinton was in San Jose as late as Friday, and Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, plans a town hall meeting tonight in San Jose. It's a novelty, even for veterans. "I turned on television and saw ads for primary candidates," said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic political strategist in Los Angeles. "I can't remember the last time that happened, if ever." Not all traditions have been thrown overboard, however. Early states like Iowa and New Hampshire had their usual outsize say. The contests helped winnow the field to two viable candidates for each party before California's turn. And Florida, which held its primary last week, could turn out to be the kingmaker state for Republican John McCain, if he romps Tuesday. But Mitt Romney is not giving up, making a last-ditch effort in California and a few other key states. This time, the possible roles California will have in the ultimate outcome are numerous. Kingmaker state? Tuesday's vote could produce a clear leader in both parties, providing the victor with a Western tail wind that would be hard to counter. Or, because of the complex delegate counting system, it could produce enough delegates for even the loser of the popular vote to stay in the race. That's more likely to happen on the Democratic side. California polls suggest Clinton and Obama are in an exceedingly tight contest, after a significant surge of support for the Illinois senator in the past two weeks. And it could send McCain, who has a comfortable lead over Romney, to the nomination. In 2000, California's March 7 primary came after nine other states held their primaries or caucuses, and was held on the same day as 13 other contests. California victories for Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore helped them nail down the nominations, but both had fairly good leads before coming into the election. Regardless, the winners of California "can claim bragging rights to the biggest state," said Tony Quinn, a Republican political analyst in Sacramento. Until 1996, California held its primary in June. That year, the state, seeking more influence, moved it to March. But it didn't work. A lot of other states leapfrogged California. By the time the 2004 primary was held March 2, Democrat John Kerry had picked up victories in 18 of 20 states. (President Bush had no serious competition.) Fewer than 40 percent voted, a modern-era record low. This time, competitive races have prompted predictions of the highest turnout for a presidential primary since 1980. The state association of registrars says to expect 56 percent of eligible voters to cast ballots; others estimate it could be as high as 60 percent. Just once in the past six presidential primaries have more than 50 percent of registered voters bothered to cast ballots. Voters are jazzed. Registration figures released Friday showed a record 15.7 million Californians - 68.5 percent of eligible adults - have registered to vote in Tuesday's primary, 700,000 more than in advance of the 2004 primary. A record 5.5 million have requested absentee ballots. Turnout is key And voter turnout will be crucial, especially in the tight Democratic race. Clinton is counting on Latinos, Obama on young voters and those registered as decline-to-state. The latter can only participate in the Democratic primary, and they have an extra hurdle: When they go to the polls, they must request a Democratic ballot. "What makes this much more interesting is that both sides are relying on a block of voters that don't always turn out," said Leon Panetta, a Clinton supporter and founder of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University-Monterey Bay. Cain said California's proportional system used by Democrats could favor Obama. That's because congressional districts where he might do well, including several in Northern California where he runs strongest, carry slightly more weight than others. Bottom line: If it's a close Democratic contest in California, the delegate-count margin between winner and loser may be tight. The Republican contest is clearer. If Florida cemented McCain's front-runner status, California, where the senator from Arizona is well-known, could put him over the top. Key endorsements last week, including by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has helped him solidify his lead in the state. Even so, Romney is trying to pick off delegates in the state's more conservative congressional districts. In each of the state's 53 districts, the GOP winner gets three delegates. "John has the advantage," said Ken Khachigian, a veteran Republican campaign manager, who ran Bob Dole's 1996 effort. But he added, "There are a lot of people who still don't have a champion." On the Democratic side, Panetta likened the excitement, especially among young voters, to what he felt leading up to the epic and tragic 1968 Democratic primary race in which Californians went to polls in droves and voted for Robert F. Kennedy over Eugene McCarthy. Just hours after winning the primary, Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles. Again, young voters "could be the edge," Panetta said. "This one really counts. We haven't for a long time."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
