McCain and the Presidential Albatross
Barack Obama's battle against Hillary Clinton is nearly over: Oregon should seal the deal. Meanwhile, John McCain's biggest obstacle is George Bush and the weakened GOP "brand."
A very big week in presidential politics is on tap. After ceding Kentucky to Hillary Clinton, who has stopped attacking him, Barack Obama will win big in Oregon on Tuesday night and as a result rack up the win in delegates earned in the primaries and caucuses. But, though he drew an astounding 75,000 people to a Portland rally on Sunday afternoon, according to the city fire department, Obama will be nowhere near Oregon on Tuesday night. Instead, he will hold a rally in downtown Des Moines, site of his breakthrough Iowa victory on January 3rd and a key swing state in the general election.
There Obama will note that, but for the existence of the superdelegates (who have been sliding to him for months), he would already have won the Democratic presidential nomination. Following that big rally, Obama will spend the next three days in another general election battleground state, Florida, which should belong to John McCain given its Republican slant and his historic connections there due to his famed Navy service.
You’ve noticed that little of this is about Hillary. The fact is that she is simply being left behind. I was at Sunday’s meeting of the California delegation to the Democratic National Convention. Hillary has more delegates from California than any other state - even her latest putative home state of New York, the second largest state in the union. It was probably the most mellow California delegation meeting I’ve ever attended.
This will certainly disappoint those on the far right who have been prophesying riots in the streets of Denver, but both the Clinton and Obama camps are coming together in California in a sort of kumbaya behind the most probable nominee, the freshman Illinois senator. It will not, however, surprise those who’ve been paying attention to these columns.
The Clintons are on a glide path. They have stopped attacking Obama. In this, they are following the advice not only of Democratic elders like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Al Gore, but also many of their own supporters, who are getting ready to back Obama in order to defeat John McCain.
With regard to President Bush’s “appeasement” comments last week in Israel, John McCain, unfortunately for him, not that he had much choice given the state of the conservative base in America, took the bait and defended Bush from the furious counter-attack mounted against him from across the near-majority Democratic Party. “I think it is an unacceptable position,” said McCain, “and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation’s security.”
Here is the problem with that: Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Secretary of State Condi Rice have already endorsed such talks. Clearly, with President Bush’s agreement. And, in fact, the US is already engaged in such talks. Iraq does not become the victory that John McCain hopes for by January 2013 without an agreement with Iran regarding a settlement of the security situation. In fact, the end to the latest all-out fighting in Iraq was brokered from Tehran.
Frankly, this is exactly what Obama and the Democrats want. Which is why virtually the entire Democratic Party immediately snapped into action to attack Bush and McCain.
John McCain has some big fundamental problems. And until George W. Bush decides to step away from the fray, those problems will only get bigger.
Chief among these problems are his connection to Bush, with his near record-low in job approval, and the fact that some 80% of American voters think the nation is on the wrong track.
Then there are the three straight Republican defeats in special elections in seemingly safe Republican congressional districts. First in former House Speaker Denny Hastert’s district, where Obama played a major role in defeating the Republican candidate. Then in races in Louisiana and, last week, Mississippi, in which Republicans tried to run against Obama and his wacky ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Following the latest defeat, Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, held a press conference call. “It’s evident to me,” said Cole, “that a large segment of the American people doesn’t have confidence in the Republican Party.”
What antidote to this problem does he see? John McCain. “McCain,” he said, “is a great asset for us. He runs much ahead of the Republican brand.”
Cole said that he thinks that the Democrats are advantaged in the current environment because George W. Bush is president. “We’re in a luxury period for them (the Democrats) where a lot of Americans think the Republican Party is running things.” He noted that Democrats now have majorities in both the House and the Senate. Of course, the Democrats are stymied by the White House.
How much of an albatross is President Bush?
“President Bush,” Cole said, “is a lot like Harry Truman in that he’ll look good in the history books. This really isn’t about him. It’s about where America is going to go in 2009.”
Meanwhile, Virginia Congressman Tom Davis, former NRCC chairman, distributed a memo in which he said that Bush is simply “radioactive.”
McCain does have a unique brand that might just withstand the strong Democratic tide, given Obama’s inexperience. But his effort to push that unique brand, which has major appeal to the all-important independent voters in the center, was undermined by Bush’s insistence in reclaiming the spotlight.
When I interviewed one of Obama’s biggest backers on Friday, former California state Controller Steve Westly, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist and ex-eBay honcho, I asked him if they were buying Rev. Wright a one-way ticket to a desert island.
But the fact is that Wright is not nearly the problem for Obama that Bush is for McCain. And he’s not going anywhere.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
35 Comments
1. TomJW:McCain is hated by the base of his party. The only time he will swing back from his left-leaning campaign is to support Bush. That won’t help him. He is on his own as far as I’m concerned.
May 19, 2008 - 5:35 am 2. WR Jonas:The Republican “brand”.How swiftly the media adopted this new buzz word. It is the same identification as a product on your store shelf.
May 19, 2008 - 6:32 am 3. Ed Wallis:Nothing of the beliefs or values. Its just a product and it can be cast aside like all of the other things that you buy. And the contents are of course ,suspect.
The form is usually applied as a suffix for the word Republican and it will soon acquire an un spoken negativity.
Thanks wordsmiths for another devaluation in our language and political discourse.
By the way,The Democrat “brand” seems particularly appealing to John McCain but it won’t earn him a trip to the White House.
It’s not just the RightReverendJeremiahGodDamnAmeriKKKa Wright.
It’s DOMESTIC TERRORIST Ayers.
It’s Hometown CROOK Rezko.
IT’S HIS OWN WIFE - GOOD GRIEF!
…but please feel free to keep up the “oh, Bush is bad, so McCain is too” mumbo jumbo.
It only makes your idol look more the foolish.
May 19, 2008 - 6:58 am 4. Bill Bradley:Actually, as you can see from the column, I’m quoting conservative Republican congressmen in discussing the deep-seated “brand” problems of the Republican Party.
May 19, 2008 - 7:15 am 5. Olivia:I think you might be overestimating Hillary people swinging back to Obama. My parents have been loyal Democrats. Black Democrats and if Obama is the nominee they will vote, donate, and campaign for John McCain. The Hillary bigwigs and fundraisers might swing to Obama but I don’t think the voters on the ground will.
I can’t speak for the Republican brand, but Democrats kick their butt, when it’s conservative Democrats running against lame-duck Republicans. Which is why I’m not convinced Obama can win, considering how far from the center he is. And Americans might have a short memory but 2000 was not that long ago. Not everyone clumps Bush and McCain together.
May 19, 2008 - 7:21 am 6. New West Notes » Monday Morning Quarterback:[...] You can see the whole Monday Morning Quarterback on PJ Media. [...]
May 19, 2008 - 7:24 am 7. Larry J:The key failure of the Republican Party lies more with members of Congress than with Bush. While Bush didn’t do nearly enough to rein them in, it was the Republican members of Congress who substituted their particular brand of arrogance and fiscal insanity for that of the Democrats. Bush’s approval ratings - as weak as they are - are still about twice that of Congress.
I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that I, an individual conservative, am the new RINO. If McCain and Arnold and the spendthrifts in Congress represent what the Republican Party is today, then I guess I’m no longer a Republican. When Reagan switched from the Democrats to become a Republican, he famously stated, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party. It left me.”
It appears the Republican Party has left me.
May 19, 2008 - 7:53 am 8. Texas Gal:Here is the problem with that: Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Secretary of State Condi Rice have already endorsed such talks. Clearly, with President Bush’s agreement. And, in fact, the US is already engaged in such talks. Iraq does not become the victory that John McCain hopes for by January 2013 without an agreement with Iran regarding a settlement of the security situation. In fact, the end to the latest all-out fighting in Iraq was brokered from Tehran.
Huh?
Obama isn’t referring to talks with Iran about Iraq. According to him and his senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice, their intent is talking to Iran about their nuclear program. Without pre-conditions and at the presidential level. Iraq has never been a part of that discussion for Obama. Team Obama’s ’solution’ for Iraq is to leave because our presence is aggravating Iran. And AQ isn’t in Iraq anyway, they’re in Afghanistan.
Bush, Gates and Rice at the behest of the Maliki government have supported discussions that offer up the evidence to Iran that we have the proof they are providing arms and providing assistance, training and personal to Sadr’s goons.
So the Bush administration’s focus is about Iran meddling Iraq and Obama’s focus is talking Iran out of their nuclear ambition. Apples and oranges Bill. Of course, now Obama is trying to make some kind of apple/orange compote to make his naiveté disappear.
May 19, 2008 - 8:28 am 9. Texas Gal:In fact, the end to the latest all-out fighting in Iraq was brokered from Tehran.
By brokered do you mean Maliki’s government taking the evidence of Iranian meddling that was dropped in the Iranian Minister’s lap? I think that was more of a ‘get the hell out of my country’ meeting rather the example of Obama diplomacy you would like for it to be.
May 19, 2008 - 9:15 am 10. John Samford:http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/05/ray-ban-theory-of-history.html
Wretcherd is correct. When young Iraqi males are imitating US soldiers, AQ is finished in Iraq.
http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII4.htm
Negotiation with terrorists IS appeasement.
That is a fact that can only be spun so far.
Eventually appeasement/negotiation leads to either war or surrender. All the appeasers will accomplish is to buy time for the terrorists to prepare for war.
“No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb.”*
*
_Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat (December 29, 1940)
BTW, Billery will take the nomination at the convention. Ohhhh…..BAMA has no chance of winning the White House. Anyone that thinks he does is delusional. The Supers are not delusional and will not award Ohhhh….BAMA the nomination. He had a chance to close the deal and couldn’t.
May 19, 2008 - 9:29 am 11. Bill Bradley:If Billery doesn’t win on the second ballot, then it’s not impossible that the Demonrats end up with a dark horse candidate.
As a Republican, I find that scary.
Mr. Bradley, having that (R) after their name and state doesn’t make them conservative. As an example, I give you President Bush, who by no stretch of the imagination is a conservative. Look at the budget deficits. If Dubbau was a conservative, he would have used his veto pen to control the Republican Congress. Might have kept some of them out of jail.
Big Mac is pretty much center of the road. He leans a little left on some issues, a little right on others. The undecided LOVE that.
Since it is the undecided/centerists that decide presidential elections, the left needs to fear Big Mac. Billery will make it a close race, Ohhhhhh…..BAMA will get slaughtered. Ohhh….BAMA as a candidate puts CA. in play for the Republicans. Look at the numbers there.
Ohhh….BAMA gets no southern states.
Where do his EV’s come from? PA.? Guess not. Ohio? Maybe, but unlikely. NY? Not after slam dunking Shrillery.
That’s wrong.
>Texas Gal:
In fact, the end to the latest all-out fighting in Iraq was brokered from Tehran.
By brokered do you mean Maliki’s government taking the evidence of Iranian meddling that was dropped in the Iranian Minister’s lap? I think that was more of a ‘get the hell out of my country’ meeting rather the example of Obama diplomacy you would like for it to be.
May 19, 2008 - 9:15 am
May 19, 2008 - 9:38 am 12. Bill Bradley:I think some folks here need to go debate with Congressmen Davis and Cole, the results of three straight defeats in safe Republican districts where these tactics were tried, and the results of every major poll.
May 19, 2008 - 9:39 am 13. Bill Bradley:… Incidentally, I have a personally inscribed copy of John McCain’s great memoir, “Faith Of My Fathers.”
I don’t have a signed copy of Obama’s book.
May 19, 2008 - 10:00 am 14. K.:McCain plays with words…. the Republican Party is known for wild guesses and justifying a potential military action against Iran because there was an “IF” and a “MAY BE”. Iran does not have nuclear weapon, so yes it is tiny in comparison with the Soviet Union…The Republicans and McCain like to play the world police, build enemies and assure the American people that by making enemies we will be safer…It is a Cow boy policy to try to dictate to sovereign countries what to do and what not to do..
May 19, 2008 - 10:29 am 15. hdgreene:It is a lack of wisdom in foreign policy not to use diplomacy and treat other leader like human beings and not label every leader the Republicans don’t like as “terrorist”…we have lost credibility and respect in the world because of 8 years of “COW BOY” foreign policy.
Let’s see, surveys tell us that about 85% of Americans think the nation is on the wrong track — heading off a cliff — and have thought that for several years now. And surveys tell us that 85% of the American people are happy. Explanation: the nation has gone off the cliff and we are all going weee!
If polls show the President is personally unpopular with the electorate at large (which is different from job approval numbers), then attacking him while he is oversees might make political sense — and as we all know, Barak Obama is a politician, maybe The Politician. But if most voters do not hold a personal grudge, they may well see Obama’s attack as unfair and over the top — which it plainly was. After all, President Bush was speaking in the capacity of Head of State and is not running for reelection. The statements he made about appeasement are the same we have heard dozens of times before. And a President meeting “unconditionally” with an adversary is not the same as an Ambassador holding talks on specific subjects “unconditionally.”
The media seems to be sending out the message: don’t be like those low class Hillbilly whites, support Obama. I can see that working out west. Not so much in the border states and Midwest.
May 19, 2008 - 10:35 am 16. K.:CORRECTION:
May 19, 2008 - 10:40 am 17. Ciscokid:It is a lack of wisdom in foreign policy not to use diplomacy and label every leader the Republicans don’t like as “terrorist”… why not simply treat them as leaders? We have lost credibility and respect in the world because of 8 years of “COW BOY” foreign policy.
Bill, If most of what the democrats have is to link McCain to Bush then turnabout is fair play linking Obama to Carter. After all Zbigniew Brzezinski has hitched his wagon to Obama. Ask the Persian people of Iran what they think their chances of getting their country back from control of the mullah’s with Zbigniew’s help & advice AGAIN. Zbigniew didn’t help this time to elect the pope again now did he? I believe that practice was outlawed long ago by the church but what the heck it looks good an a resume. Salt two didn’t signify to the soviet union a weakness thereby encouraging them to try and take Afghanistan. Nah, that never happened. Human rights was way more important than Detent. Political capital comes from goodwill towards America. How the world ”feels” about America will help them help us defeat dictators bent on destroying the west. Chavez, Ahmajinidad, Nasrallah, Mashal, Bin-Laden, Kim Jung-Il, and others will back down when they feel the love emanating from the world once again for America. Maybe Brzezinski can finish this time giving Taiwan completely to China and they’ll love us more. Dangerous doesn’t even start to describe what might happen with Obama as president. History is not such a mystery when it comes to Brzezinski’s past influence.
May 19, 2008 - 11:02 am 18. Texas Gal:Bill Bradley: That’s wrong.
According to whom? The Iranians?
Nothing was ‘brokered’ in Iran through Obama-style negotiations. Maliki sent his delegation with the evidence that he has been lied to by the Iranians. He told them to cut it out. They responded with the usual denial but in a few days the results were seen with the capitulation of Sadr City now under the joint security of US and Sons of Iraq.
Seems to me that what went on in Iran was Bush-style instead of Obama-style.
Marine Lt. Gen. John Sattler, director of strategy, plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki possesses the evidence, which other officials said contradicts Tehran’s stated commitment to stop providing arms, weapons technology and training to Shiite militias inside Iraq.
“It’s in Prime Minister al-Maliki’s hands right now, the evidence as to whether or not he’s been lied to – bald-faced lied to – by the Iranian government,” Sattler told a Pentagon news conference.
“The evidence inside Baghdad has been shared with the Iraqi leadership, and that’s where it stands right now,” he added.
Dabbagh said that after Maliki launched an offensive last month in the southern city of Basra, weapons were found that were clearly produced in Iran.
“The truth came out; there is evidence of Iranian weapons in Iraq,” he said. “Now we need to document who sent them.”
Dabbagh said the high-level committee was formed three days ago and includes officials from the Interior and Defense Ministries.
“The Iraqis wish to first show what they have to the Iranian government before they show the world,” an official travelling with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.
“First and foremost, it’s an attempt to say: ‘Hey, listen: we know what you are up to. This is not helpful. Cut it out!’”
May 19, 2008 - 11:11 am 19. Hannah Stevens:It all comes down to Money and greed. There is absolutely no money in diplomacy. Or very little. Can’t bring in those defense contractors, the price of oil could go down…. no money in it. I am amazed that McCain after being a POW that he is such a hawk. I repeatedly wrote to him on the run up to Iraq war, pleading not to attack Iraq and he was all for it. The same with bomb, bomb Iran. You have to wonder how much the ME is going to put up with the US meddling in their region, starting wars… and with our soldiers doesn’t that put them at higher risk? And it is bush cheney who are driving this, not congress as someone suggested.
May 19, 2008 - 11:41 am 20. John Samford:“We have lost credibility and respect in the world because of 8 years of “COW BOY” foreign policy.”
Evidence please! I always see this claim coming from the BDS crowd but when I ask for evidence they present a poll. All that proves is they are completely clueless about Statistics as a science.
May 19, 2008 - 7:42 pm 21. Night Owl:Opinion poll is an oxymoron. The good thing about opinion polls is that they give pollsters a way of making a living that doesn’t involve graft, corruption, insurance or card sharking.
A poll doesn’t prove anything. That means polls are NOT evidence. Statistics is a tool used by scientists to find evidence.
That microscope they use in CSI is NOT evidence, it is a tool used to find evidence. So it is with polling. It is a tool. In this precise case it is a tool that can be used to provide clues as to why Ohhhh….BAMA is getting his arse kicked among Whites, Latinos, Jews, old, married Etc. He only polls well among Blacks and those with low experience levels in politics ( aka the young). Find the common element among those sets ( intersection is what it’s called in set theory) and you will know why Ohhhh…BAMA is getting jack slapped now. Here is another clue. He was doing well early in the campaign.
Plot a trend from last June to this June and you will see he is slipping about 2 points per month in his approval rating. By the election, he will be down in the low 20’s.
Mr. Bradley, Local elections are local elections. Forecasting a NATIONAL election from several local elections has no foundation in fact. I would have to look it up, but IIRC, there were several ‘out’ elections during the ‘04 cycle. They were won by Democrats and the pundits used them to predict the Demonrats taking the White House. We know how that worked, don’t we?
Now if you want to argue that the out elections predict a Democratic party surge in Congress, you will need to find someone else, since I agree. It won’t be for any other reason then Dean has done a brilliant, superb, magnificent job of organizing the DNC. His deck is short a few cards but he keeps the 47 or so he has in good order.
Also keep in mind that the DoS IS NOT carrying out President Bush’s foreign policy. They have spent the last 7 years foot dragging and doing their bureaucratic best to obstruct this administration. President Bush is fighting Al Qaeda but the enemy is the State Department.
SO you have 3 or 4 groups fighting over the steering wheel.
Bush reclaiming the spotlight? He had to make a speech to commemorate Israel at it’s 60th anniversary. Should he have simply said “Happy 60th, and here’s to many more”? Maybe sent a Hallmark card instead?
Take it from one of those “all-important” independents- Obama’s people and other Dems put the speech in the spotlight by reacting so defensively to it. Otherwise no one would’ve paid much attention to it.
May 19, 2008 - 8:58 pm 22. Night Owl:Upon further reflection, I see I may have missed your point. Namely, that the Dems can use opportunities like this speech, to push Bush back into the spotlight. They can then attempt to tar McCain by association with an unpopular President, by forcing him to respond. Valid point.
I think this particular battle may have backfired on them, by making them look too defensive on the issue of appeasement. As I said previously, I think most people would not have paid much attention to this speech, and therefore not have connected the appeasement statement to Obama, if they hadn’t made an issue of it.
May 19, 2008 - 10:23 pm 23. Ed Wallis:“Namely, that the Dems can use opportunities like this speech, to push Bush back into the spotlight. They can then attempt to tar McCain by association with an unpopular President, by forcing him to respond.” - Night Owl
But Sir: How can that possibly be valid?! One may not “associate” Crook Rezko, Domestic Terrorist Ayers, RightReverendGodDamnAmeriKKKa Wright or others with The Bamboozler! /sarc
“Texas Gal” said it correctly above; also well stated here:
May 20, 2008 - 1:28 am 24. Bill Bradley:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDUwNTRmMDI1N2U3OWY5MWRkNTcxNDM1OTVhODdkMWI=
That’s not accurate.
>hdgreene:
Let’s see, surveys tell us that about 85% of Americans think the nation is on the wrong track — heading off a cliff — and have thought that for several years now. And surveys tell us that 85% of the American people are happy. Explanation: the nation has gone off the cliff and we are all going weee!
May 20, 2008 - 11:31 am 25. Bill Bradley:What you don’t understand is that Maliki is close with Iran. Ahmadinejad was received rapturously by the Iraqi government when he visited Baghdad.
The fighting was between religious factions.
>Texas Gal:
Bill Bradley: That’s wrong.
According to whom? The Iranians?
Nothing was ‘brokered’ in Iran through Obama-style negotiations. Maliki sent his delegation with the evidence that he has been lied to by the Iranians. He told them to cut it out. They responded with the usual denial but in a few days the results were seen with the capitulation of Sadr City now under the joint security of US and Sons of Iraq.
May 20, 2008 - 11:33 am 26. Bill Bradley:The Democrats saw a big opportunity to force McCain to embrace Bush, and they jumped all over it.
>Night Owl:
Bush reclaiming the spotlight? He had to make a speech to commemorate Israel at it’s 60th anniversary. Should he have simply said “Happy 60th, and here’s to many more”? Maybe sent a Hallmark card instead?
Take it from one of those “all-important” independents- Obama’s people and other Dems put the speech in the spotlight by reacting so defensively to it. Otherwise no one would’ve paid much attention to it.
May 20, 2008 - 11:35 am 27. Texas Gal:May 19, 2008 - 8:58 pm
Bill Bradley:
What you don’t understand is that Maliki is close with Iran. Ahmadinejad was received rapturously by the Iraqi government when he visited Baghdad.
The fighting was between religious factions.
Oh my goodness.. I’m shocked!
I evidently understand a lot more about what is going on in Iraq and between Iraq and Iran than you do. The fighting in Basrah was between Iraq’s military which is not a religious entity and the Sadr militia who was seeking to take control of Southern Iraq on Iran’s behalf. In Basrah it was clear that Iran was not fighting the American occupiers, they were fighting the Iraqis.
I can understand how difficult it can be to actually see the developments in Iraq clearly when you have to meld them with the Democratic agenda. What I’m interested in though, why is there this race between the Democrats who want to throw Iraq to the wolves and the Iraqis who want to live in freedom?
May 20, 2008 - 12:04 pm 28. Bill Bradley:Thanks for your non-serious, yet amusing, comment.
May 20, 2008 - 12:41 pm 29. Texas Gal:Bill Bradley:
Thanks for your non-serious, yet amusing, comment.
If you are talking to me Bill, I’m serious as a heart attack. It’s very clear that with the exception of the newly elected Blue Dogs, the Democratic agenda has been to get out of Iraq before the Iraqis develop their ability to defend themselves from the predators. If y’all weren’t so absorbed with defeat you would not only see what a historical accomplishment is unfolding in front of your eyes, but you could be a part of the pride in what our magnificent military and coalition partners have accomplished.
May 20, 2008 - 12:59 pm 30. Ed Wallis:“Texas Gal,” You’re spot on with your comments. Don’t get too riled at Bwill Bwadley’s lame responses. He too often confuses true debate of ideas with hubris: “look at me! look at my blog!” I gave up responding to his prattle when he started calling me names(!).
May 20, 2008 - 1:54 pm 31. Ann:Huh? lol
May 20, 2008 - 2:27 pm 32. Bill Bradley:As a proud veteran who publicly backed the invasion of Iraq, I am, of course, amused by constant spin.
May 20, 2008 - 3:32 pm 33. Texas Gal:Thanks for the advice Ed. I see what you mean.
Bill, I’m not sure how that relates to my question or adds to the discussion but I do realize that it puts you in the same boat with John Murtha and John Kerry.
May 20, 2008 - 5:41 pm 34. Bill Bradley:Actually, you don’t see.
May 21, 2008 - 4:18 am 35. Bill Bradley:… As I’ve noted for well over a year, the only Republican who can win is … John McCain, a great Navy guy. As long as he is not caught up in the George Bush II stuff.
You sound like one of those folks who thought that Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney had a real shot.
Not a chance.
May 21, 2008 - 4:22 am