Why Republicans Eventually Will Reject McCain

John McCann seems to be gaining ground in the Republican primary race, but eventually, I believe, his comments about Iraq will torpedo his candidacy. Eventually, I believe, Republican primary voters will reject McCain.

McCain says that even at the time — March, 2003 — if he had known that Iraq had no biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, he still would have advocated and supported a U.S. invasion of Iraq in order to topple Saddam Hussain. This is a pretty amazing position which reveals that McCain, rather than seeing the use of military force as the last possible alternative, sees the use of military force as a reasonable means to advance U.S. policy.

I think the key focus for many voters — including many Republican voters — in their evaluation of a presidential candidate, is the candidate’s attitude about war, and the candidate’s judgment about what constitutes proper uses of U.S. military force.

I just can’t bring myself to think that Republican primary voters will choose a presidential candidate with the views and attitudes about war and military force that McCain has clearly and uncompromisingly advanced.

This entry was posted in M Bock. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Why Republicans Eventually Will Reject McCain

  1. bmiller says:

    That doesn’t even make sense. The GOP is the war party, and the surge is the reason McCain made such a comeback. The only antiwar and only truly conservative candidate, Ron Paul, on the other hand, has been consistently shunned by the party. So why would the current GOP warmongers not stick with McCain?

  2. Stan Hirtle says:

    Play the tape. McCain has the obvious Republican strategy, particularly for the primaries, which is to hold firm to the spirit of Bush (America can and should wage aggressive war when it perceives its interests are threatened) while separating himself from the execution of Bush. If McCain been in charge, we’d have done it right and Iraq would be South Korea or Japan, benign occupation presides over a makeover into a democratic capitalist Western Country, without any American deaths. (Does Iran play the part of North Korea/China poised to invade and justifying decades of occupation? Or will the jihadists who will certainly continue to resist the occupation be sufficient?)
    The job of President has both a spiritual component and an execution component. Bush from a conservative point of view is an excellent spiritual president, although his performance as execution president has been pretty dismal.
    The latest City Paper has an article by their conservative writer David Landen who volunteered for McCain in New Hampshire. He describes a giant and enthusiastic movement of “McCainiac” volunteers, and a polite dedicated group of voters taking the demands of democracy seriously and responding kindly after multiple phone calls even if they supported Romney instead. A Jeffersonian paradise, in which “a true American patriot” facing low poll numbers and without handlers, connects with the people and ruises to the top, bringing a lump to the author’s throat. Even if there is some hyperbole in this article, there was little doubt that whoever emerged from the Republican side would be a white male who would be good at the bonding that dominates presidential elections, would inspire a personal following, and would figure out the way to make lemonade out of the war that most Americans want to be successful.
    Assuming the rest of the primary voters accept him, McCain will need to separate himself from the Bush record of non-achievement and continue to sell the dream in the general election. He will have the advantage of having a vulnerable opponent. Hillary Clinton is both a woman and Hillary Clinton, with videos of baggage from Bill’s administration that sank Gore and ready for rerunning in Republican ads as if it all happened yesterday. O’Bama is both of African descent and new to the national scene, vulnerable to the kind of mistrust that “Swift Boat” tatics can generate just at his name alone. It doesn’t help that his father’s nation of Kenya is in the midst of a violent upheaval that evokes many stereotypes about African nations. Mexican columnist Agustin Basave wrote that Obama is not a heretic (most of his policies and contributors are indistinguishable from Clinton’s) but he looks like one. Can someone who looks like a heretic get enough electoral votes? Obama has inspired many people, particularly young people, with a vision of ending the divisions that started when the first slave ship landed at Jamestown. But will enough older voters buy into this vision too? Democrats must also worry whether enough women would support Obama as the candidate or African Americans would support Clinton. For that matter it is not clear that women would strongly support Clinton or African Americans Obama, or that their doing so would not make the rest of the voters feel under threat and vote more cohesively for McCain.
    McCain will have his own problems keeping the Republican coalition together, particularly on immigration. Don’t be surprised if Huckabee is the VP candidate to draw religious conservatives. However both party leaders and conservative opinion leaders may be less than enthusiastic about McCain. His mother was quoted as saying that they will hold their nose and vote for him. Probably. Republicans generally hold solidarity to hold power, and they might particularly do so if Hillary Clinton were their opponent.
    In any case, it is unlikely that his pro-war stance will hurt McCain in the Republican primaries. The questions for him are why would we expect a benign occupation in Iraq in view of the fact that the US invaded Iraq in order to depose its government and in the view of most Iraqis, control its oil much as the European colonialists did. Even if McCain were to end abu Ghirab type abuses, it is not clear that US occupation would ever be acceptable to proud Iraqis. While local militias may be glad to use the US against al Qaeda, these alliances can’t help but shift. US soldiers will always be targets, and whatever government we are protecting will always have violent opposition from within. We have created or aggravated scores that various factions feel obliged to settle against us or each other. An unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict aggravates matters. Moreover the US can not afford the cost of the war which soaks up money and lives and leaves the military stretched too thin to respond to anything else that might happen. So questions for McCain go to the whole theory of the war. Hasn’t the US made itself the problem rather than the solution? How are we different from the colonialists who could not hold these countries? How can casualties be avoided as long as we are there occupying the country? Are we to officiate power sharing between Sunnis and Shiites? How? How can this war succeed?

  3. Mike Bock says:

    Stan, you write, that McCain is advancing the spirit of Bush that says: America can and should wage aggressive war when it perceives its interests are threatened.

    I can’t see Republicans actually agreeing that having gone through the Bush experience that they would want another president with such a war centered view. There are all types of possible ways our national interests can be considered threatened. The question is, How much of a threat is sufficient in order to justify attacking another country?

    Bush himself put WMD’s at the center of his war rationale as a means to make the case that American interests were genuinely threatened. Without dramatically emphasizing Iraq’s supposed WMD’s — nuclear weapons, mushroom clouds — it does not seem that Bush would have attempted to make his case for war.

    McCain says that he would have attacked Iraq in 2002 even if he was certain at that time that Iraq had no WMD’s. He is saying that his threshold reasons for advancing war — attacking a country that had not attacked us — would be much lower and more easily met than Bush’s threshold reasons for advancing war.

    What McCain is saying is genuinely disturbing. My Dad was a life-long Republican who voted for only one Democratic president that I know of — Lyndon Johnson. Pop felt that Barry Goldwater had the wrong attitude about war, a wrong attitude about how and why to wage war. He was afraid what Goldwater might do if he was given the power of the presidency. You remember the famous ad of the child picking daisies that ends with a count-down and a nuclear explosion. That ad was aimed at Goldwater and was communicating the notion that it is suicidal to elect a president whose views on war are too aggressive.

    And Goldwater himself, if he were alive today, would never agree with the crazy way that McCain is talking. I believe he would publicly rebuke McCain. I’ve got to believe that there are plenty of Republicans who, when they realize what McCain is saying, will rebuke him as well. McCain is talking dangerous nonsense about war and I just don’t want to believe that Republican voters will agree to entrust the power of the presidency to a person with such war views. The majority of Republican voters, I believe, are not as war crazy as their Republican leaders evidently think that they are.

  4. Brian says:

    McCain is leading in the election and 90% of his campaign has been about national security, the surge and provoking war. He actually sand “bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann in front of an audience. How you get that Republicans won’t stand for that message is beyond me, I think it’s pretty obvious.

  5. Gary Staiger says:

    “McCain is talking dangerous nonsense about war and I just don’t want to believe that Republican voters will agree to entrust the power of the presidency to a person with such war views. The majority of Republican voters, I believe, are not as war crazy as their Republican leaders evidently think that they are.”

    Mike, have you been sipping Kool Aid? Better stop.
    Hate to put it this way but your answer is wishful and nonsensical. What evidence can you provide that shows that the core repub’s are NOT war Crazy?
    Today’s NY Times has an article about how the Right Wing of the GOP [minus the lunatic fringe led by Rush Limbbaugh] and including Grover Norquist, are critically reevaluating McCains politics.

    “He has moved in the right direction strongly and forcefully on taxes,” said Grover Norquist,

    Tony Perkins, a prominent Christian conservative who has often denounced Mr. McCain, is warming up to him, too.

    “I have no residual issue with John McCain,” Mr. Perkins said, adding that the senator needed “to better communicate” his convictions on social issues.

    Richard Land, an official of the Southern Baptist Convention and a longtime critic of Mr. McCain, agreed, saying, “He is strongly pro-life.”

    Huckabee is a spoiler-vote splitter for Romney’s evangelical push and Ron Paul is basically amusing, but irrelevant.. Who is left [right] standing? McCain.

    I predict he will come out ahead in next Tuesdays primaries because Repubs are looking for a father figure to lead them back out of the wilderness. And that will be great for Democrats, who can then align themselves with the 70% of the people in the USA who are now in opposition to the War in Iraq/Afghanistan and send MCain back to the deserts of Arizona
    NY Times story link
    Relevant analysis of McCain;s politics…

  6. Gary Staiger says:

    Breaking from Newsmax.com

    Gallup Shows Obama, McCain Gaining

    Initial indications show support for John McCain is increasing following his win in the Florida presidential primary and the subsequent withdrawal of Rudy Giuliani, who endorsed McCain. Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from Jan. 28-30 shows McCain with a 15-percentage point lead over Mitt Romney.

    McCain is the top choice of 37% of Republican voters nationwide, compared with 22% for second-place Mitt Romney. In Wednesday’s release, the gap between McCain and Romney was 11 points (32% and 21%, respectively).

    Story continues below . . .

  7. Mike Bock says:

    Gary, it could be that I am guilty of wishful thinking. You write, What evidence can you provide that shows that the core repub’s are NOT war Crazy? My evidence I offered is anecdotal — that my Dad, who always voted Republican, decided he could not support Goldwater because of Goldwater’s views about war and the use of U.S. military. My point is that the Republican Party, if it approves McCain as its candidate, regardless of his war rhetoric, will be moving way beyond what many even in the Republican Party will be comfortable with. Goldwater had his go go enthusiastic supporters but he was mashed in the general election. Isn’t it possible that enough Republicans will wake up and, before it is too late, realize that to support McCain makes no sense? It makes no sense for the practical reason that we shouldn’t give power to a person who has such war views, and from a political view it makes no sense to nominate a person who, because of his war views, would have zero chance of being elected. Can Republicans really believe that they can elect a candidate that says he would have invaded Iraq in 2002 — regardless if he had known at the time that it had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons?

    Maybe it is wishful thinking, but it is my bet, maybe hope is a better word, that Republicans will eventually reject McCain — particularly if his war views get the attention they deserve, maybe if Romney uses some of his money to advertise how ridiculous and dangerous McCain’s war views actually are.

  8. Gary Staiger says:

    Mike, I’ll take your bet, for a buck. McCain comes out of Tuesday with more delegates than Mitt.

    As the Gallup Poll info I posted above shows, Repubs are moving TOWARD mCcain, Not away.

    Further, Mitt Romney is no peacenick whose going to attack McCain as being too far out on the war. Remember, this is the guy who wants to double the size of Guantanamo and is in favor of permanent bases in Iraq. Plus he has canted to the right of McCain at every opportunity in the debates.

  9. Greg Hunter says:

    From a purely American play: Insertion of our forces in the most oil rich region of the world was beautiful. We have control of the oil, troops on the ground and many weapons at our bidding. We control the growth of the Chinese economy. Bonus – We did it before the Arabs got a bomb; which was another great coup. I admit it the Razor’s Edge, but we control the outcome. You will know the strategy of keeping the troops in Iraq is here to stay is when we get a choice between McCain and Hilliary. No difference in ultimate policy outcomes in the ME.

    Obama vs. Paul – The Hope Candidates

  10. T. Ruddick says:

    Greg, you think what we have in Iraq is “control”? Much of that nation’s oil gets spilled or burned up as undermaintained infrasystem buckles and as insurgents sabotage. The “surge” is working, in part, because we’re paying tribute to a bunch of tribal warlords not to attack anyone. We’re now clearly looking at the onset of the “Iraq recession” as America loses jobs, the dollar crashes, and the federal government scrambles to run up the national debt another trillion or so.

    The lack of precision in the rhetoric is troublesome. We won the war in Iraq, in a walk, in under 3 weeks. By any objective standard, when one nation’s military routs the military of another nation, takes its capitol, and ousts its government, that’s a war won. We have, however, sadly botched the occupation which followed the war–probably in large part because the commander-in-chief was too stupid to realize that occupation is not war and thus needs to be pursued differently.

    And which candidate is continuing to mis-name what we’re doing (poorly) in Iraq, while supporting it?

    Here’s a more nuanced prediction: if violence and instability in Iraq worsen to any degree, and/or if the voting public starts to notice how it’s bankrupting us, McCain’s stance on Iraq will sink his candidacy. If conditions there seem to improve, McCain’s stance will become a non-issue and other concerns (the economy, stupid) will dominate. This distinction will hold true for all but the most immutable Dems and Reps.

  11. T. Ruddick says:

    One other thing, Greg. No Arab nation is suspected of attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. So “we did it before the Arabs got a bomb” is a pretty confused statement; for the next half-century, it’s likely that the only Semitic nation that will have nuclear capabilities is Israel. We could have waited for Saddam’s sons to die of old age and there still would have been no Arab nations with nukes.

  12. T. Ruddick says:

    Synchronicity while crawling through my news webs:

    Anne Coulter announces she prefers Hillary Clinton to John McCain:


    There’s evidence for the original article’s premises?

  13. Greg Hunter says:

    Semitic nation that will have nuclear capabilities is Israel.

    = “many weapons at our bidding”. Check.

    We’re now clearly looking at the onset of the “Iraq recession” as America loses jobs, the dollar crashes, and the federal government scrambles to run up the national debt another trillion or so

    Well that is a matter of opinion, but when stupid fed policy of lending to drive sprawl, met rising fuel costs, that is when the trouble started. Besides, a recession helps drive up Army recruiting and we will never pay back the Chinese!

    The question I will ask is whether the US will recognize that the recession, if we have one, will be a wake up call to try to consume less OIL, so we get out of the ME within 10 years.

    While it is true that the oil is not being used to further society, the benefit for the Saudis and other producing nations is undeniable and hey they are recycling petrodollars to buy worthless banks ala the Japanese with Real Estate in the 80’s.

    Nuclear – The Iranians and soon the Saudis will be making a smart play (I hope)by developing nuclear power, so they can continue to export our heroin err oil.

    We will not leave the ME unless Paul or Obama

  14. Mike Bock says:

    Gary, it now appears that a $1 bet should have some odds, say 50:1. My premise is that since McCain has revealed his unequivocal enthusiasm for war — eager to attack Iraq in 2002 regardless if he was certain that there were no WMD’s — Republicans will reject him. I think that premise is still true, but, what I am noticing, by watching TV news programs, is that on this issue of war enthusiasm McCain largely is being given a free media pass.

    The whole issue of McCain’s war views — the issue that I naively believed would be at the center of attention — has, in my observation, been largely side stepped. There is some discussion as to why Republicans primary voters (Ann Coulter, et. al.) may reject McCain, but it has nothing to do with his enthusiasm for war — it has to do, amazingly, with whether McCain is conservative enough. It is hard for me to understand why Romney doesn’t spend some of his money and produce commercials that make it incandescently clear that McCain’s views on war are dangerous and irrational.

    I still believe that a lot of Republicans will reject McCain, once McCain’s war views are really understood. Republicans are media sheep like everyone else and right now the media seems to be ignoring the implications of McCain’s war views. But eventually, if McCain keeps moving toward the presidency, McCain’s war views will become the focus of a lot of attention, and, I believe because of his war views, if he is a presidential candidate, in the general election a lot of Republicans will eventually reject him.

    But, I’m still thinking that this is a powerful enough issue that regardless of media neglect of the issue, Republican primary voters may still wake up and reject McCain. I’ll take that $1 bet.

  15. Gary Staiger says:

    The whole “controversy over whether McCain is conservative, mostly fueled by ol’ Mitt, is bunk. A cheap shot from Governor flip flop in a blatant grab for the right wing of the party, the neo con loving fiscal & war hawks.
    And it ain’t working.

    After the NH polling miscall one can surely question the accuracy of polling, but , MSNBC last night showed a composite of the the polls on the republicans race which gave McCain a double digit lead.

    And this from Newsay, posed earlier this AM under the headline: John McCain pumped by Super Tuesday poll numbers.

    The polls cited by Newsday>>>

    “:McCain certainly could take comfort from two new polls.

    The Washington Post-ABC News poll said McCain had 48 percent of GOP support, twice Romney’s 24 percent. Huckabee had 16 percent and Paul 7 percent.

    The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press said McCain led Romney 42 percent to 22 percent. Romney was statistically tied with Huckabee, with 20 percent, and Paul had 5 percent.

    Both polls had a 5 point margin of error for GOP results.

    McCain also could take some encouragement from the delegate count: McCain leads with 93, Romney has 77, Huckabee 40 and Paul 4.

    McCain, polls show, is poised to win at least 201 delegates in what once were Rudy Giuliani strongholds: the winner-take-all states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware.

    Even if Romney wins all six contests that are not primary votes but conventions or caucuses – contests he has targeted – and splits the 500-plus up for grabs, McCain would still emerge with more delegates.”

    Note that both polls give McCain a TWENTY % lead over Romney. Even with a 5% margin of error that still leaves McCain up 15%.

    If the demented republicans do nominate him, it will give the dems a candidate whose views on the war are diametrically opposed to those of the overwhelming majority of US Citizens. Talk about having high negative baggage…

    Still want to raise the odds?

  16. Gary Staiger says:

    Oh, and Greg, re: your comment about getting out of the ME is dependent on either Paul or Obama winning…check out RON PAUL IS A RIGHT WING MOLE…


  17. bmiller says:

    That Ron Paul article is idiotic.

    “No “libertarian”, once having taken office, does anything but vote along republican lines when it comes to foreign policy. ”

    What proof do you have of this? Ron Paul voted against the invasion of Iraq and has voted against all things unconstitutional. Maybe the author should do some research instead of mischaracterizing because he prefers socialism. If the system “has always been a social system that uses the state to subsidize private interest” why would you want to put into power a party that wants to make it bigger?

    “Paul himself has never rejected Reagan’s legacy.” ??? He never rejected Marx’s legacy either but it doesn’t make him a communist. Ron Paul has said he would not raise taxes to fix social security, which Reagan did, and he would curb spending which Regan didn’t do. Look at Ron Paul’s record before you believe this slanderous puff you read.

    Libertarians don’t believe in any kind of utopia. The author apparently has very little education.

  18. Gary Staiger says:

    Ron Paul supporters are fervent, but , still mistaken.

    Ron Paulwants to abolish the IRS, Medicaid, Social Security, the Dept of Education,the Food and Drug Administration and most, if not all other “entitlement” programs.

    He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade, end the right of citizenship extended to persons born on US soil, wants NO Amnesty for immigrants.

    He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
    He actually co-sponsored AN AMENDMENT
    TO THE CONSTITUTION called ?The Prayer in Schools Amendment?.

    He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
    Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans

    Crush Net Neutrality. Ron Paul voted against the Net Neutrality
    bill, which is consistent with his belief that huge corporations
    should operate with no restrictions whatsoever.

    He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
    Ron Paul for President?? Right wing mole is too kind.

    I can only hope that he will stay on the ballot [a la Ross Perot] and siphon off votes from the other Right Winger [ McCain] sure to be on the ballot this fall.

    Need more information??”


  19. bmiller says:

    You got anything useful in your own head or just some copy and pasted links? I know what his platforms are, so not sure what your point actually is if you have one.

    Yes, Ron Paul thinks people should not be dependent on gov’t, especially a gov’t that is basically corrupt and not useful. There should not be amnesty for illegal immigrants and Roe V. Wade should be overturned and abortion legalization left to the states.

    How do you get “He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State?” He thinks people should worship as they choose. If you’re talking about the prayer in school amendment, it’s actually already in the constitution – it’s called freedom of speech.

    Net Neutrality is a joke. The internet is great because it isn’t regulated. Microsoft, Google, Amazon.com all backed the bill, so it sounds like not all “huge corporations” got their way.

    He is running as a Republican and won’t win the nomination so the whole Ross Perot thing is way off base. Again.

  20. Gary Staiger says:

    “You got anything useful in your own head or just some copy and pasted links? I know what his platforms are, so not sure what your point actually is if you have one.”

    Most certainly do have “something in my head”: opposition to politicians whose “libertarian” meanderings are deceitfully clothed in the rhetoric of “freedom”, which after all, as Janis so aptly put it, just means “..nothing left to lose”.

    I note that you do not refute the positions taken by Paul vis a vis entitlements, church and state separation, his support for overturning Roe vs Wade etc etc etc. which are all RIGHT WING or NEO CON positions. Beliefs held by Republicans, not Democrats.

    Ok, so he would like to get out of Iraq. Good for him. But then again, even an unplugged clock is right TWICE a day.

    A point?? Yes indeed. It is principled opposition to false demagogy: : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. e.g, Ron Paul

    Any other questions?

  21. bmiller says:

    opposition to politicians whose “libertarian” meanderings are deceitfully clothed in the rhetoric of “freedom”, which after all, as Janis so aptly put it, just means “..nothing left to lose”.

    Are you serious?

    Did you read what I put above? I do not believe in entitlements. That would be the part about “Ron Paul thinks people should not be dependent on gov’t, especially a gov’t that is basically corrupt and not useful.” Get it? Good. You obviously only dislike him because he runs as a Republican and you’re probably not sure why he does that.

    Then I asked “How do you get “He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State?” which you didn’t respond to either because you cannot read or you have no idea. Read AGAIN what I said above and maybe after the 4th or 5th time you’ll get it. I know Democrats are a slow bunch but it really isn’t that hard. I put it all in layman’s terms.

    RP is against the Bush administration and has been for years, but you don’t pay attention long enough to realize it. If you think Ron Paul is a neoconservative you truly are a moron.

    Yeah, I have a question. What the hell is “false demagogy?”

    I refuse to have a battle of the wits with the unarmed.

  22. Gary Staiger says:

    Bmiller. So now it’s time to stoop to insults is it?

    unarmed? I think not. The fact is, I, and probably most everyone else who regularly posts at Dayton OS, simply disagree with the right wing dribble you argue in favor of.

    Are you a registered republican or simply delusional?

    Heartless and cold, that’s how I view most of the “positions” your nefarious candidate puts forth. Cloaking them in the semi-respectability of libertarianism [whatever that means] does not disguise the bottom line of a backward looking and hateful philosophy where everyone fends for themselves and “heaven” can help those who can’t.. There is no egalitarianism in that. Not the kind of caring world I want to live in

    I really do hope that Paul breaks with the republican party and runs as an independent/libertarian. All the more to suck votes away from McCain.


  23. Gary Staiger says:

    bMILLER> You are correct, I do not have all the answers to the Ron Paul issue, but there are plenty of other people who do. The following link to a DailyKos diary gives a most comprehensive detailing of the Congressman’s history and politics.
    Wake up Progressives…this is NOT our kind of politician!!


    1. Ron Paul, In His Own Words
    2. Ron Paul: The Radical Right’s Man in Washington
    3. Ron Paul: Dude is Wack
    4. Ron Paul Hates You

  24. T. Ruddick says:

    Miller, the prayer in schools amendment would not simply maintain the current (and in my view, reasonable) standard that free expression is not automatic nor universal, that schools may restrict expression as necessary to promote education, and that prayer may be engaged in only in those circumstances when free expression is permitted.

    For example, my students (public college) currently have the right to pray if they think it’s appropriate when making a presentation in class. They may even invite other students to join them. Of course, I will grade the presentation on the same criteria as any other, and if the prayer is a mistake in the context of the assignment then the student’s grade will suffer.

    The “Prayer in School” amendment is not already in the constitution; it’s an attempt to return to the days when students could be forced to engage in religion. It would permit schools to require teachers to lead classes in prayers (despite the teachers’ own religious views, not to mention students’).

    This is a real anti-freedom position. When I was in grade school, I was forced–FORCED!–to go to a local church once weekly to engage in Christian instruction of a variety that I didn’t embrace and at a level that was way beneath me (unlike other nominal Christians, I actually had studied the Bible). Ron Paul, despite his Libertarian pronouncements, would return us to those days of time-wasting religiosity.

    So either he’s not really as libertarian as you hoped, or he’s too stupid to know the consequences of his amendment.

    And I spit on his campaign.

  25. Jeffrey says:

    Based on the way the elections are going and the polls it doesn’t look like the Republicans are rejecting McCain. Even the Huckabee supporters, if give a choice between Romney and McCain, are choosing McCain.

  26. Rick says:

    Well, it looks like he will be the nominee. If Obama is the nominee for the Democrats, it is very unlikely McCain can win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *