Mitt Romney | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Archive for the 'Mitt Romney' Category

(Chronologically Listed)

Paultards trying to subvert the National Convention for their guy

I saw this at Digg (where else?) last week, but ignored it after burying it. It seems, though, that Paultards are quite serious about hijacking the Republican Convention. If you don’t want to see the “plan” at the Paultards’ blogs, read it here. Snip:

*The Strategy:*

The strategy therefore must be to get as many Ron Paul delegates selected to represent their states at the National Convention.

That means our delegates need to stay low-key.

Resolutions are a dead giveaway, especially when they are fought over things like opposition to the war, or abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS, all signature issues of Ron Paul.

So, the best plan is to shut up, move along, do what you have to do to get selected, sign the pledge to “support” McCain (it doesn’t say you promise not to abstain!) and just get in short of outright lying, of course.

If there are any ethical concerns about this supposed “stealth tactic,” think about what ethical concerns you may have if you allow McCain to become president by your inaction. [Continue reading...]

Ethics? We don’t need no stinkin’ ethics! It’s REVOLUTION! Forget about the sheeple’s votes, this is a coup!
/vomiting

At least one person is fighting back. Heather Johnson of Moms4Mitt.com:

I am a Mitt fan and have a blog for his support. But I have also pledged on my blog my support for McCain as a our GOP nominee. I am trying to do my part in stopping these Ron Paul fans from overtaking the convention with their agenda nonsense and just get McCain officially nominated.

Heather is trying to just GET to the convention, but she needs help (financially) getting there. If you can drop a few shekels her way, you’ll be doing your part to shut up these asshat Paultards. Make no mistake, they are extremely well-organized (online activity and caucus results should tell you that much) and you can be sure they’ll make their presence known at the National Convention. Unless you want to see the GOP have an even more f’d up convention than it looks like the Dems will have, the Paultard kiddies must be stopped.

Ron Paul has even given tacit support to this idea (or that’s how it’ll be read by his fanatic supporters), while leaving his options open for a third party run:

“I’ll be very cautious about what I do,” he said, noting his effort to encourage his supporters to get involved with their local Republican committee.

And you know Ron Paul–he’s a stickler for the last letter of the Constitution. If it can be interpreted to allow this “loophole” that can get him nominated–or at the very least, create chaos–it’s A-OK. He’ll say this is exactly what the Constitution was designed for. (Nevermind the votes for the candidates–the votes for delegates matter more? LOL.)

Please help Heather out - I absolutely vouch for her honesty and ethics 100%. She needs help getting to the Convention, and we need to put the final nail in the Paultard coffin of crazy once and for all.

Ron Paul Revolution = OVER

Top Ten Reasons Mitt Romney Dropped Out of the Race

Mitt Romney was funny!

I wish I had video from Cheney at the Radio & Television Correspondents’ Dinner too, ’cause he cracked me up. Maybe tomorrow.

Geraldine Ferraro steps in it

Once again, Democrats are hoisted on their own identity politics petard. Taking the opposite approach to race from Orlando Patterson with regard to Barack Obama, we have Geraldine Ferraro:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

He’s only getting votes because he’s black! Just like Jesse Jackson!

And hang on there a minute, Gerry…If he were a woman he wouldn’t be in that position?

Hillary’s not winning because she’s a woman? Yeah! Anyone who doesn’t support Hillary is a misogynist pig! Hey Gerry, did you support Elizabeth Dole when she ran for President in 2000? No? What are you, some self-loathing tool of the patriarchy?

Thankfully, I’m a Republican so I’m used to hearing nonsense such as this as explanation for my political views. Haha. This must be utterly gut-wrenching for the tolerant, color-blind, feminist Left. Hey chumps, don’t feel bad–you’ll get used to it. See, that’s how it works with the Left; if you aren’t supporting the right person, you’re evil–whether it’s due to racism, sexism, or both. That’s just how it goes. You can’t win in that twisted game, so forget it.

But if you aren’t a racist or a sexist, you can still sleep well at night like I do, even though I’m voting for John McCain (despite his being gender- and melanin-challenged). See, for some of us, issues really do matter.

Meanwhile, the big dogs watch the yippy little dogs fight.

Listening to Obama and Clinton discuss their national security credentials, Romney said, is akin to “listening to two chihuahuas argue about which is the biggest dog.”

“When it comes to national security, John McCain is the big dog, and they are the chihuahuas,” he said.

There must be a way to turn that into a racist or sexist statement. Come on, liberals, help me out here.

Uploaded on October 11, 2005 by Jenjiferz

This is getting to be fun.

“Broad Appeal” vs. Idol Worship

Interesting thesis from James Taranto today, about McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Obama, and Hillary, and their depth of support. He argues that Obama, Romney, and Huckabee have done better in caucus states, which basically means they got votes from the most dedicated supporters.

Blogger Kevin Drum offers some explanations for Obama’s caucus advantage:

Caucuses require organization and Obama was better organized. They require enthusiasm and he has more enthusiastic supporters. They require time, and his demographic has more free time. They’re mostly in small states, and Obama targeted small states. They’re dominated by activists, and activists tend to support Obama.

To put it another way, caucuses require that a candidate’s support be deep, while primaries require that it be broad.
[...]
Winning a general election is largely a matter of getting more votes than the other guy. Having an enthusiastic base helps, but as President Goldwater and President McGovern can attest, it’s not enough. If Obama faces McCain in November, the big question will be whether he can extend his appeal beyond the Democratic base. His reasonably strong showing in primaries suggests he may be able to do so.

That makes perfect sense to me. I think anyone who’s following the election at all, especially online, can see the difference in levels of enthusiasm between the candidates’ supporters. I’d add that R*n P*ul’s numbers illustrate the idea even further–he does much better in caucus states than he’s done in regular primary elections. We all know how obsessive those people are, right?

Huckabee’s got some “enthusiastic” supporters, too, although they aren’t flat-out absurd like RP’s–but then RP’s supporters are generally younger than Huckabee’s. Romney had his core voters, too–only after Fred Thompson dropped out did he pick up the less passionate supporters (except for kooks like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin, that is).

As for Hillary Clinton, she of course has her nutty die-hards, but most aren’t flat-out wacko (except for their wacko lefty political views) like the Obamessiah cultists. Again, it’s probably the effect of young Obama voters (as with RP) bringing in that wide-eyed idol worship, and damn, it’s almost creepy. Ever wonder what Obama’s real, concrete plans are? Doesn’t everyone? It’s almost impossible to get an Obama supporter to explain why they love him based on the actual issues. It’s either fear and loathing of Hillary–and that’s coming from the left (read the comments)–or it’s just how he makes them feeeeeel. It’s sickening.

Get a load of this:

On the verge of a hectic few weeks leading to Super Tuesday, the crucial Feb. 5 multistate primary including California’s, Mack wanted to drill home one of the campaign’s key strategies: telling potential voters personal stories of political conversion.

She urged volunteers to hone their own stories of how they came to Obama – something they could compress into 30 seconds on the phone.

“Work on that, refine that, say it in the mirror,” she said. “Get it down.”

She told the volunteers that potential voters would no doubt confront them with policy questions. Mack’s direction: Don’t go there. Refer them to Obama’s Web site, which includes enough material to sate any wonk.

HA!

Meanwhile, John McCain’s support goes from lifelong conservatives like me all the way to centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman. It’s not rabid, crazed obsession, though–a lot of his support comes from people who initially supported another candidate. We’re just not loud and silly about it. Hillary Clinton seems to have sort of the same dynamic, with hardcore left-wingers to centrists supporting her (plus nutcases like Ann Coultard). Barack Obama gets all kinds of people’s attention with his pretty platitudes and “yes we can!” (And by “pretty” I mean “soporific nonsense.”) But will that attention last once he’s forced to get down to specifics, assuming he wins the nomination? Nobody’s even talking about his very left-wing views; they talk about how he’ll “unite” America and “inspiration” and how it’ll be all rainbows and unicorns! Yes we can! Gag. Hillary can’t say much about his issue positions, because hers are about as bad as his are.

I’d like to think Taranto is on to something here, because that can only mean good things for us, as long as our own ideologues show up to vote. Eventually the centrists/independents who are hypnotized by Obama will wake up. Maybe my view is colored by my support for John McCain, but I can’t see centrists and independents voting for this guy with his left-wing agenda and so very little experience (alongside a bunch of Che Guevara fans, no less). He can make all kinds of promises, but I think people will realize by November that he can not deliver.

Mark Halperin: Romney to drop out at CPAC–UPDATE: IT’S OVER, HE’S OUT

Romney’s speech to CPAC is on RIGHT NOW.

Halperin:

Plans to say during CPAC speech: “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win….”

On FNC, said it’s “triple-sourced.”

Live CPAC feed HERE.

Byron York, noting a “dramatic dropoff” in the amount of Romney email in the last 24 hours:

A few moments ago, I spoke to someone in the Romney camp. Would I be crazy to read that into the email traffic? “You would not be crazy to read that into it,” he said. “There have been a lot of discussions going on about whether there is a path to victory, and not wanting to look destructive at what might be the end. You are reading the right thing into it.”

Transcript of his speech as he’s giving it is HERE.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

THAT’S IT! He’s just said it.

I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism!

Okay, now: What’s Huckabee going to do? It’d look pretty crass for him to stay in it now, if you ask me.

Laura Ingraham eating crow right now, after her Mac-bashing introduction of Romney. Heh.

Fausta is at CPAC, along with the bloggers she has listed here.

CPAC blog posts are aggregated here.

UPDATE: Romney made the decision last night.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrenstrom says the decision to withdraw was made last night. Earlier in the day, Romney had held meetings with senior staffers, looking at options. At a later meeting with the entire staff, they enthusiastically encouraged him to stay in the race.

So he went home last night to write his CPAC speech, and Eric says it became a “farewell speech”

Romney wanted to do what was right for the party. Though he still saw a pathway to nomination, he was concerned about a protracted struggle within the party at a time when the country is at war.

Romney hopes today’s decision unifies the party, his family supported the decision, and he will endorse McCain if he is the nominee.

UPDATE: VIDEO from Romney and McCain, via Hot Air:

Read the rest of this entry »

Post-Super Tuesday Delegate Count

From the LA Times/AP:

Name	Total	Tuesday	7days	30days
McCain	613	+511	+520	+613
Romney	269	+176	+210	+254
Huckabee	190	+147	+150	+160
Uncommitted	23	0	+23	+23
Paul	14	+10	+10	+14
Giuliani	0	0	-1	0
Hunter	0	0	0	-1
Tancredo	0	0	0	0
Thompson	0	0	0	-3

Name	Total	Tuesday	7days	30days
Clinton	845	+584	+596	+670
Obama	765	+569	+584	+690
Uncommitted	75	0	0	-260
Edwards	26	0	-30	-20
Biden	0	0	0	-8
Dodd	0	0	0	-17
Gravel	0	0	0	0
Kucinich	0	0	0	-1
Richardson	0	0	0	-25

Super Tuesday (Thank God it’s over)

Okay, I’m not gonna gloat about McCain winning big last night. Unlike some people, I’m not into insulting supporters of other candidates (except Paulbots). I’m of course happy, but I’ll keep a lid on it.

I thought it was funny as hell that the media pundits were all acting shocked that the South went to Huckabee. I wasn’t surprised a bit. I wish McCain had been able to pull it off, but Huckabee’s a strong force down here, for several reasons. First of all, he’s “one of us.” He speaks our language, and I don’t mean the religious stuff (although that’s some of it). Did you hear him mention “Roll Tide” and “Rocky Top” and the Bulldogs? That’s in Southern blood. But more importantly, Southerners are independent. Rebels, if you will, and they/we hate the media elites telling us how to vote. I think the media and blog jihad on Huckabee strengthened Southern resolve. Keep bashing Huck, and it repels Southerners. Hell, if it weren’t for some of his ideas and his lack of foreign policy credentials, I might have been tempted to vote for him just to poke the elites in the eye. But the issues do matter to me, and I couldn’t reconcile a lot of his with mine. Besides, McCain needed every vote down here and unfortunately, it wasn’t enough for Alabama. Congratulations to Mike Huckabee and the Huckabee supporters–y’all had a really good show last night, and your networking efforts have been amazing.

Well, Mitt Romney had a bad night, although I have to admit I’m not really surprised things ended up the way they did. Is anyone? (I mean other than Hugh Hewitt.) I thought California would be closer than it was. He of course won some states, more than Huckabee did, but didn’t meet expectations. We’ll see if Mitt and Huck stick around for the long haul. Honestly, I hope they don’t because I’m ready for this part of the election to be over. (Sorry. Just my opinion.)

So from here…there are a lot of Fredheads like me who have picked a candidate, and some who still haven’t. It strikes me as very strange that just a few weeks ago, we Fredheads were all on the same page, but after he dropped out, we went to war. Well, really, a one-sided war. Whatever. I do hope that the Romney supporters who were Fredheads can remember that, instead of saying (as I’ve heard over the last couple of weeks) that ex-Fredhead McCain supporters are somehow looking to destroy the conservative movement or that we’re not “real conservatives.” We all want the same things in the end; it’s just a question of how we get there. I DO think John McCain can bring about a resurgence in the Republican Party and in the conservative movement, as he brings independents on board. They won’t be invading the GOP, they’ll be joining. That’s how Reagan did it, after all. But I’ll write more about that later.

The big picture: Of the total votes cast, a lot more were cast for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. We have to get our people voting, and we need independent voters. I know Super Tuesday just ended and that there are still nine months until the general election, but we’ve got work to do. There are people who say they will not vote in November. My job is to make you want to vote for John McCain in November (with the presumption being that he will be the nominee), and if you give us–meaning those like me–a chance, I know we can.

“Conservative” Jack Wheeler is a lying, dishonorable hack

This has to be the most disgraceful thing I’ve seen yet–worse than Ann Coulter, worse than the con artists at VVAM, worse than I don’t know what.

Witness the ownage on this Jack Wheeler scumbag–from a Romney supporter, no less.

A few days ago, an article came to our attention claiming that there was evidence that John McCain collaborated with the communists during his captivity. The article was detailed and specific…and it appears to have been a complete fabrication and libel.
[...]
In our post on this, we also said that if this article were untrue, its author, Dr. Jack Wheeler, should be shunned from public discourse. Well, it’s untrue.

Unless he has a damn good explanation for why he wrote this…or he is completely and abjectly apologetic, he really should never be taken seriously ever again.

I doubt this Jack Wheeler jerk will retract; if he were the type to do so, he’d have not written that trash in the first place.

I’d love to see Jack Wheeler get sued for libel, but I know it won’t happen. People make all sorts of absurd allegations about politicians, knowing they’ll never have to face consequences.

If you’re a reader of To The Point (this is the first I’d heard of it, or of Jack Wheeler) I would urge you to reconsider doing so, knowing that what this beclowned liar does. He’s nothing but a pathetic liar. Much more about these lies at the Pink Flamingo.

Kudos to the Modern Conservative for doing the right thing–I know there are plenty of McCain’s rivals who would print it without a second thought. In fact, some idiots have posted it. I laugh at their shattered credibility (not that Pamela had much anyway).

I’ll be updating the list of gullible fools who post that trash as I find them, too. Credibility counts.

stein hoist The Anchoress.

UPDATE: HAHAHA, Pamela (”Atlas”) is deleting comments! You can’t handle the truth, Pamela! Pretty funny–I guess she doesn’t want her simpering sycophants in the comments to know the truth because it doesn’t fit in with her narrative of lies. Oh well, I guess when you can’t think of anything good to say about your own candidate (hell, I can think of good things to say about Romney; she’s just stupid!), and you don’t have enough reason to not vote for McCain, you’ve gotta go with libel. Heh. Love the commenter there that says they should blackmail McCain, too. Pammycakes deletes my comment, but lets that one stay. Priceless.

UPDATE 2 (but I’m nowhere near finished with this Wheeler chump or his con artist buddies): Ed Morrissey lets Jack Wheeler have it.

See that, you desperate, gullible sheep bloggers (listed above and at Pink Flamingo, and probably elsewhere)? That’s how it’s done. Captain Ed and Modern Conservative are BOTH Romney supporters, and they have the integrity to reject this despicable smear campaign. Yet some of you pathetic chump bloggers want to believe anything. Losers.

I’ll bet this Wheeler creep is pals with Ted Sampley. I was told in an email by someone who has known Wheeler for 20+ years that “he has a long history as being intimately involved with US freedom fighting efforts. (Charlie Wilson was his best man.)”

I smell Ted Sampley all over this lie–it’s pretty much the same crap he spews. Be sure to click the links, too–the guy is a fraud. A con artist who makes his living preying on the hopes of POW/MIA families, still, after 35 years. His whole schtick is that John McCain and John F’n Kerry (whom I detest, as you probably know, but not because of Ted Sampley’s crap) “covered up” evidence of “live sightings” in Vietnam. I call BULLSHIT. I challenge anyone to dare say I don’t support the military, especially in favor of politicians–and especially in favor of John F’n Kerry. But this guy, making a living off of families, dragging out their last hopes for decades, taking their money…there is nothing lower than that kind of scum. And worse, he’s managed to infect the public with this hoax. It’s not partisan, it’s simply fraud and conspiracy theory. That’s what you get when you start looking around the fringe, though.

This pretty much says it all:

In January 2008 McCain won the Republican primary election in New Hampshire and immediately Sampley’s propaganda machine cranked up. Sampley is the sponsor (with his identity concealed, of course) of a website named “Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.” On this website he repeats his many lies about McCain and he has added a few, accusing McCain of covering up evidence of US POW’s still held in SEAsia long after the end of the Vietnam War.

Because the mainstream press does not check facts as they should, you can expect some of Sampley’s crap to be reported as fact. And, because Sampley is closely tied to several far-right-wing Republicans who do not like McCain, you can expect his nonsense to be spread through such outlets as Newsmax and the Sciafe newspapers.

Yeah, and stupid McCain-deranged bloggers will obviously eat it up, too. I guess so far, Sampley’s only been able to shop this crap out to Jack Wheeler. Losers.

As far as I’m concerned, anyone who spews this trash isn’t fit to beg to shine John McCain’s shoes–or those of his fellow POWs. One is free to disagree with his politics, but this is as abhorrent, dishonorable, and evil as it gets.

Who Let the Dogs Out?

Who let the dogs out? What? “Bling bling?” WTF was he thinking?

LOL. That guy is the whitest pander-bear on earth. He’s the best thing to happen to pandering since sliced Wonderbread. That’s an afternoon I’ll bet he wishes he could take back.

(How did I miss this until now, anyway?)

Ann Coulter is an Idiot, Part Duh

Ann Coulter would “vote for the devil” over John McCain.

Ann Coulter is still supporting Hillary Clinton, but (sort of) says Republicans should vote for Romney.

Ann Coulter, until very recently, had nothing good to say about Mitt Romney. Or any other candidate–including Fred Thompson–besides Duncan Hunter.

You have a choice: the unhinged Ann Coulter/Hillary Clinton wing of the conservative movement, or the John McCain/Steve Forbes/Ted Olson/Tom Coburn/Norman Schwarzkopf/et al. wing.

I cannot believe people still listen to this bint. Is this the poster child for conservatism that you want? When, once and for all, are other conservatives going to reject this embarrassment to our side? Isn’t it time to give our own Ted Ralls and Cindy Sheehans the boot?

Oh wait, this is funny. From Coultard’s archives of “Quotations from Chairman Ann”–

At least Carter was only endorsed by Castro August 21, 2007, 2:53 AM

Shocker: Former Madam Is A ‘Big Fan Of Hillary’

Ahem.

And there’s this gem (also from “Chairman ~~Mao’s~~ Ann’s Quotations archive):

Ridiculous Romney Cites Book By Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard May 2, 2007, 1:07 PM
This is not helping Mormons seem normal . . .

MITT ROMNEY, L. RON HUBBARD FAN

What’s next? Winking at Islamic fundamentalists for being the last Americans to give up polygamy?

Oh, and this, too:

Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage.

Pervez Musharraf is better than Mitt Romney! Ann Coulter said so!

If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

I see…a dictator who is nominally friendly to American interests (”he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator,” as the saying goes). Sounds just like Ann Coulter to me.

Gosh, but she makes conservatism sound so appealing. Not.

Good luck convincing people to vote for Romney with people like Ann Coulter doing the talking for you. I’m a conservative, but that shrew and her shrieking “conservative” media brethren do not speak for me.

I’ll stick to the adults, thanks.

UPDATE: More about the hysteria from Soccer Dad, with a word from Commander Kang.

UPDATE, 2/4/07: Bill Kristol nails it.

American politics tends to be unkind to movements that dwell in anger and relish their unhappiness. In the era from Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, liberals tended to be happy warriors — and that helped their cause. The original civil rights movement succeeded in part because it worked hard to transcend a justifiable bitterness. Liberalism faltered when it became endlessly aggrieved and visibly churlish.
[...]
They [angry conservatives --ed.] can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come.

This is why I’m not voting for Romney

UGH.

I’ll vote for (and campaign for) Romney in the general election should he be the nominee, but RomneyCare is another major reason I can’t vote for him in the primary. If he is elected, I’ll fight this to my dying breath.

There are many other reasons why I’m supporting John McCain, of course. What follows is McCain’s ad about RomneyCare, but it goes much deeper than a 30-second ad, of course.

Spending on the state’s landmark health insurance initiative would rise by more than $400 million next year, representing one of the largest increases in the $28.2 billion state budget the governor proposed yesterday. The biggest driver of the cost increase is projected growth in the number of people signing up for state-subsidized insurance, which now far exceeds earlier estimates. State and federal taxpayers are expected to bear nearly all of the additional cost. Although the price tag for the initiative is ballooning, the governor yesterday reaffirmed the state’s commitment to ensuring that nearly every resident is covered.

Read the rest of this entry »

links for 2008-01-20

Race 4 2008 Early Morning Essential Reads

All the post-SC and post-NV commentary

(tags: politics election 2008 candidates)
Cal Thomas - January 18th 2008 Commentary

Cal Thomas: “If conservatives can’t unite behind a single candidate instead of demanding political purity, we are going to get Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama with all of the problems they will cause.”

(tags: politics election 2008 conservatives GOP)
Bill Kristol: Waiting for Reagan

Zombie Reagan wouldn’t be endlessly carping about the current candidates; why are you? Did you forget that Reagan voted for Republicans who were less than “perfect” himself?

(tags: election 2008 politics candidates GOP conservatives Reagan)
Mona Charen: Can Conservatives Still Win Elections?

“A fascinating new book, Comeback, by former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum, offers what may seem to some a startling answer: Drop Reagan. He is no longer relevant to the challenges we face as a party or a nation. He was perfect for his time. But

(tags: politics conservatives elections Reagan books GOP)
How the White House may be won — in the West

On Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when 22 states will hold primaries or caucuses, a third of them will be in the West, including the big enchilada, California.

(tags: politics election 2008 primary campaigns Democrats Republicans)
Remarks by John McCain on South Carolina Primary Victory

Text of his South Carolina victory speech, with video.

(tags: McCain election 2008 primary politics)
SurveyUSA - Election Polls

Current election polling data, including head-to-head general election POTUS preferences

(tags: politics 2008 polls candidates primary presidential election)
Online newspapers of the USA listed by each state

Pretty self explanatory, isn’t it? Links to all newspapers with an online presence.

(tags: news newspapers internet)
MyrtleBeachOnline.com | 01/20/2008 | McCain win no surprise to locals

Local reactions to the election

(tags: politics 2008 election primary McCain candidates GOP)
McCain avoids 2000 repeat, takes South Carolina

Reactions from locals in Spartanburg, SC

(tags: politics 2008 election primary candidates GOP)
(Las Vegas) ReviewJournal.com - Romney’s legwork in state pays off

“Landslide” is not a strong enough word for Mitt Romney’s victory in Nevada’s Republican caucuses Saturday.

(tags: politics 2008 election candidates primary GOP)
(Las Vegas) ReviewJournal.com - SKY-HIGH TURNOUT: Clinton hails win in the West

“Candidate also tops Obama at controversial Strip precincts,” while Silky Pony got a whopping 4%. Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

(tags: politics 2008 election primary Democrats Clinton)
Romney Parses Role of Religion at the Polls - The Caucus

Mitt Romney was asked by the Caucus if he had any reflections about the role of religion in the presidential campaign on a day that its influence was so striking in Nevada and South Carolina.

(tags: politics 2008 election primary Romney Republicans GOP religion)

South Carolina goes to John McCain

Just caught it on teevee, and here’s the story:

John McCain took the early lead in the South Carolina primary Saturday, and never lost it.

With 82 percent of precincts reporting, McCain had 33 percent and Huckabee, 29 percent. Fred Thompson had 16 percent, Mitt Romney had 15 percent. Ron Paul was polling at 4 percent and Rudy Giuliani at 2 percent. Duncan Hunter, fairing poorly in both Nevada and South Carolina on Saturday, was returning to San Diego and planned to drop out, FOX News learned.

At this point, I’m hating it for Fred–he may stay in it for Super Tuesday, but I think he’s done. If he couldn’t do better than this in South Carolina…well, you know. :sigh:

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign celebrates.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican John McCain called his victory in South Carolina’s presidential primary on Saturday evidence that his campaign “can carry right through” Florida into the giant round of caucuses and primaries on Feb. 5. “I know it’s not easy,” he told The Associated Press, “and we’ve got a long way to go.”

South Carolina was where McCain’s presidential prospects died eight years ago, and he savored the victory this time.

“It just took us awhile, that’s all,” he said in the interview. “Eight years is not a long time.”

This time, he said, “It sure was nice to have a lot of our old friends be happier that we won.”

Asked if he was now the front-runner for the GOP nomination, McCain demurred.

“I don’t know,” he said, “we like to run from behind.”

Still, he expressed optimism going forward.

“I’m very confident that we’ll win in Florida,” he said.

“We showed that the first-in-the-South primary is a very important victory, and it gives us a very important progress that we can carry right through Florida and February 5th,” he said.

McCain said he planned to stress pocketbook and national security issues going forward.

“People care about our nation’s security and they’re worried about our economy,” McCain said. “I’m going to be talking to them about those issues and how I’m best qualified to lead the nation.”

A few thoughts:

Looking around the blogosphere, I’ve seen people going for the “stupid voters” thing again, as they did after Iowa. Those people ought to be ashamed of themselves, and frankly smacked upside their narrow-minded heads.

Whatever. They can tell that to the military who are voting for McCain. Maybe they aren’t as wound up about illegal immigration or whatever as others are. So they’re stupid now. Got it.

Apparently some people don’t realize it, but the military is NOT as monolithically conservative as people on the blogosphere are. Mostly, they’re defense hawks and pretty socially moderate/agnostic. I suppose it’s news to the civilian world that people in the military really do care about the war too. The fact that they’d vote for McCain is absolutely no surprise to me, and after having served for 11 years, I assure you, it’s not due to their being “stupid.” In fact, I’d say a lot of them know more about the issues and real life than even the geniuses in the blogosphere (and especially the media) do.

Some seem to think people are voting for CMDR John McCain, POW. Those people would, of course, be wrong. In fact, I’d say that some (not all, but many, based on the things I’ve read) of those attacking McCain haven’t even bothered to do any real, honest investigation of the issues. Well, I think it’s time to do just that, starting now.

Congratulations to John McCain, and to Mitt Romney for his resounding win in Nevada. Well done!

Pro-Huckabee push-polling recorded on video!

Nice work getting it on video. This is why Huckabee will lose South Carolina.

BASTARDS.

UPDATE: Via the FredFile, here’s the group behind the push polls. Niiiice.

A brokered convention? Let’s hope not.

God, I hope not. In the Washington Post’s The Trail blog, the possibility is considered.

Yes, yes, we know. Every four years, the political class, including wise-acre journalists, gets all caught up in breathless speculation about the prospect of a brokered convention. After all, no presidential nomination has required more than a single ballot since 1952 and the prospect of actual drama seems like such a refreshing thought at conventions that in recent times have been sucked dry of any suspense whatsoever. And then every four years, the notion evaporates as modern political reality takes hold again.
…
The talk has only escalated as Iowa and New Hampshire voters weighed in. “None of our candidates seem to be able to break through,” former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum said on Fox News last week as voting began in the Granite State. “And if you look at the candidates, all have serious problems. I think, it’s my prediction, I think we’re headed for a brokered convention. I don’t think we’re going to get a nominee.” Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) even postulated that a contested convention could be a useful thing for a Republican Party trying to find its way after President Bush. “I just think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion,” he said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time where we’re about to start redefining … the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.”

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that a brokered convention is good news for political journalists and junkies but bad news for a party. While the opposition rallies around a single leader in the spring, your party is divided and wasting resources with internal fighting all the way until the end of summer.

Well, why the hell do you think Kos wanted Romney to win Michigan? (For the record, I doubt they had much effect on the outcome–I think Romney would have won without the idiotarian help.)

But the point is correct: the longer this drags out, the faster the candidates’ campaign war chests drain. Well, except Romney’s, of course, but I’m not yet confident that he can win in November anyway. And let’s face it–Hillary and Obama have massive war chests. Our guys? We’ve got a lot of catching up to do, and we won’t catch up until we have a nominee, if we do at all. Remember, Bush had a huge pile of money going in to the primaries in 2000. This time around, we’re scraping around to get money for ad buys in each state because the big donors are waiting for a sure thing. I mean, if you’re looking to wisely invest big bucks, which one do you bet on? Thompson, who hasn’t even come close to a primary win (yet)? McCain, who has only won New Hampshire and has issues with many conservatives, but as of now is the only candidate who polls a win against the Democrats? Huckabee, who’s only won Iowa but has a dedicated base? Romney, with his “two golds and two silvers” but whose support looks soft? Or Giuliani, whose campaign looks dead but promises to come to life in Florida? A year ago, I figured Giuliani would be the nominee. Hell, two years ago, I figured George Allen would be the nominee. Who knows? Michigan didn’t decide anything, and apparently, neither will South Carolina.

I don’t want a brokered convention–at all. Nor do I think there will actually be one. Sure, it’d be fun to watch, but I want to WIN. Badly. I just wonder if other Republicans want to win as badly as I do–or more to the point, as badly as the Democrats do.

What this year’s primary season is showing, though, is the huge diversity of views in this country; the issues important to Michigan voters, for example, are not the issues important to Iowa or New Hampshire voters. And as we’ll see in South Carolina, Florida, and on “Super Tuesday,” those states’ issues will be different as well. Whichever candidate can best represent the issues of all regions should rightfully be the nominee. This is why I think Fred Thompson made a mistake getting in to the process late–he didn’t have the early months for his views–approved of by most conservatives–to become well-known. This is also why I have doubts about John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and especially Mike Huckabee: they all have things that are objectionable to most Republican voters to varying degrees. But so does Mitt Romney, and I have doubts about Romney’s electability in November. I personally can live with the disagreements I have with each of them, some more than others, but can and will other Republican voters?

How badly DO Republicans want to win? And are those like me the only ones who think a Democratic presidency in 2008 would be a disaster, not “good for the GOP” as some conservatives say (wrongly, IMHO)? Why are we demanding perfect candidates now when we never did before? I say that it’s because we’re more informed about the candidates’ voting records and things they’ve said, thanks to the 24-hour news cycle and the internet (especially with blogs and YouTube). No longer are we stuck with the spin machines and sound bites; we can do our own research and either confirm our biases or find things that are “unacceptable. I’d say that even if Ronald Reagan were running in 2008, there would be people who would find things “unacceptable” as well. Remember, Reagan was once a Democrat, and a union president (the SAG) at that! (Oh noes, a flip-flop!)

Again, I don’t think we’ll have a brokered convention, but if voters insist on perfection and we end up with no candidate having enough delegates, it could happen–and this won’t be a brokered convention like those that existed decades ago, not with 24-hour news and the internet. We also won’t end up with a “perfect candidate,” either. If it happens, I assure you, we will not win in November.

(Note: I left out L. Ron Paul Hubbard and sadly, Duncan Hunter, because they’re irrelevant to the discussion, obviously.)

Older Entries