When I said in my quick debate wrap-up (complete with regrettable typos that demonstrate my haste and which I'm none too proud of) that the John McCain revival story was brewing I didn't think it would be so soon.
New Hampshire's prominent Union Leader editorializes in a McCain love-fest (h/t: AmSpec Blog). One of the Washington Post's top political reporters as some similar but less effusive thoughts.
Both stories note the pundit class has nearly written McCain's obituary in this campaign. They fail to note a not insignificant number of Republicans have too, despite the core support McCain still holds in some pockets, especially in places like New Hampshire.
UPDATE: there's more from USA Today. Ugh. Someone should tell these people one Frank Luntz focus group does not constitute a comeback.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 07, 2007 07:29 AM | Email Thisas far as McCain - thank you for your service to your country, but really, I will never EVER vote for you for Prez.
Posted by: steve miller on September 7, 2007 08:20 AMThe media just can't bring themselves to accept the fact that McCain won't be the nominee. He would have a difficult time even carrying his own state at this point.
The white hot anger over the CIR sealed his doom. No amount of puff pieces from the media will change that.
Ken
Dallas
And some Republicans are forgiving him for his immigration thing, now that he has sort-of apologized.
But I still don't think it's going to happen. Too many Republicans have been angry with him for too long.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 09:19 AMThat hopeful little balloon will be as flat as last week's pinata.
Posted by: Rey Smith on September 7, 2007 09:29 AM/me reads
Yep, this one blows. His first four paragraphs are OK, but then he starts off the fifth paragraph with a proven lie about our President ("In August of 2001, while George Bush was in Crawford ignoring memos about the threat from Al Qaeda ..."). I won't bother reading the rest of this "not-bad" speech. One bald-faced lie is plenty.
Edwards is the scariest of the Democratic candidates. Well, not scary in that he could win, because I think any Republican candidate except maybe Ron Paul could beat Edwards, but scary in his views, as he continues to be exposed as an irredeemable liar and socialist who wants to destroy all liberty on the altar of "One America."
Of course, Kucinich is about as bad, if not worse, but Kucinich has absolutely no chance to win the nomination, which makes him less scary. Gravel is similar, although at least he thinks the people should have all the power, unlike Edwards and Kucinich, who want government to have all the power. But Gravel actually wants to hold a national referendum on every major issue, threby tossing away almost all of the Constitution.
But he too cannot get the nomination, so that leaves Edwards as the scariest.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 02:15 PM
The real Answer From a True Conservative:
"To conclude," bin Laden says, "I invite you to embrace Islam." He goes on to say: "There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent."
Osama bin Laden
I don't care to bash Democrats over the head with that, because it's not fair. Bin Laden is an evil bastard who should be shot (and I'd love to do the deed myself) and we cannot care about or trust what he says. But if YOU want to go there:
Punish Rumsfeld. Defeat Bush. Immediately end the war. Bush is a puppet of the neocons. Sarkozy is evil. Noam Chomsky is great. Global warming is the greatest threat facing us all.
Who could be saying such things? Nany Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? Michael Moore? SeattleJew? No, that's Osama Bin Laden!
Again: I think it's B.S. to use what Bin Laden says like this, because we can't trust a thing he says. It's quite likely he doesn't mean most of it. I only did this to show you that if you want to fight that battle, it is one you will lose, because from his own statements, Bin Laden is as much of a conservative as YOU are.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 12:26 AMI regard myself as a realist. I could care less whether a candidate wears donkey's ears or an elephant's trunk. I do care about realism.
Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul are both irrational. Unfo0rtunately for America, the gOP has too many such people.
OBL really believes that sharia can govern. He believes in his 2.5% tax (dhimmi would pay more) just as Time Eynman beleives his nonsense.
As to any other similarity between OBL and either party here, if you were my child I would make wash your outh out with soap for you comment comparing what this man said and believes to the candidates of eother party. That sort of filthy, Rove speak is disgusting when anyone does it.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 8, 2007 01:49 AMPlease, my ohnly point is that fanatics, OBL or GWB, should not be governing us. OBL is an evil man, he lives in a fanatasy where murder is good because his Deirty says so, That same deity says that a 2.3% flat tax is a good idea. Fantasy.
WADR, there are rational republicans this year, but too few and none of the standing it will take to beat the Dems. American reconstruction is going to take realism ... realism about the huge costs of rebuilding our military, realism about the health care crisis, reaism about ...well you get my point?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 8, 2007 01:57 AMFuck you.
You compare Osama's views to the GOP, and then have the balls to say that I can't compare his "other" views to the Democrats?
Fuck you, you hypocritical assclown. YOU are the one who drew the first comparison. YOU are the one who said that "sort of filthy, Rove speak" that you find "disgusting."
Fuck. You.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 07:55 AMCome on, this is the guy who admitted he didn't know anything about the Tenth Amendment, and then implied that my claims of Madison's view on limited federal power was incorrect. Of course, the former precludes any "rational" understanding of the latter.
He has been irrational from the beginning, but now he calls what I said "disgusting," even though I was giving it only as an example, and even though HE was saying the same damned thing SERIOUSLY.
So he is now plonked, for time immemorial. He is a waste of time, and I changed my mind: I DO begrudge his taking of my tax money for his research, because he is obviously too ignorant to know what to do with it.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 09:21 AMOf course OBL ought to be our prinary, #1 target. But, ask yourself if the current strategy is working for or against the monster?
The irrational misuse of America's resources, often meant to pander to some political constituency, needs to stop. OBL's claim that an Islamic state operates w/o taxes is a good and all too familiar example.
Here are some more:
The Mexican Border ...the fence will cost money and do nothing. We need a national ID card, enforcement of trhe existing law using the social security database, and some rational program to deal both wiht our real needs for immigrants and the horrid reality that we have far too many illegals to simply evict them.
Stem Cells ... this is not onlky a phoney issue, it is a bizar misuse of our much needed public attention span.
Gay marriage ...I am against gay marriage but I think anyone who sees this as the most critical moral issue facing our nation is nuts.
Taxes .. the REALITY is that the US has both the lowest taxes of any industrialized nation and soem of the worst support for critical areas that determine our productivity as a society. We need to spend more carefully, BUT we do need to spend on transport, schools,healthcare, and yes , rebuilding Bus's decimated US military.
There is more. I could care less whether the realists are demo or repub. What I want is a leader who can be honest and realistic about what we need to do FOR our country.
Posted by: s on September 8, 2007 10:03 AMNo, I did not and would not use the sort of language you use. I did point out the similarity between OBL's bizar claim that an Islamic State would not need taxes and the all too frequent claims of Republicans. If you do not see the similarity, the fantasizing abut an important issue, that si not my fault.
As for the tenth amendment, WADR, what I said was that I was not a constitutional expert . are you? Nor have I memorized the Bill of Rights. Seems betetr to remember what they mean than know which one is #5 and which #6. BUT, your calims about Madison were utterly wrong. I have read Mr. Madison's comments on this issue and YOUR interpretation would not be his.
Where you are correct is that historically the Xth amendment was a compromise. Remember, Madison was NOT a Federalist. The issue of whether we were to be a single nation or a confederacy was very difficult. If we had gone with the latter model, the South would have had every right to secede as would the New Englans states earlier.
I am curious .. how you feel about returning to the Federalist era? Shall we break up the US?
Oh. BTW, I ahve never usderstand the wierdness of offering to fuck others. As a sixties person I use fuck a lot in language but why do we excoriate others by offering to commit a homesexual act.
Be good.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 8, 2007 10:15 AMYou started your post with a lie, that you didn't do what you attacked me for.
I stopped reading after that. I don't suffer fools glady; I don't suffer liars at all.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 11:17 AMI ma glad that you read HA. Ni I have never made nor would i make a gay slur. I think waht you are referring to is the discussion with a sockpuppet anmed Stamn? I did post a profile fo him, based on a guess since he will not say he was. The profile said he was gay. he took offence. I also said he was bald, lives in southern cal and has a Japanese car.
Is this what you meant?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 8, 2007 02:42 PMI do have a real problem with typing and I do apologize.
On the other issues, other than teasing pudge (who trolls elsewhere .. or someone using his name) ... I am sin cere here.
I very much want to see a reformed Republican party.l Making creation, tax free government, etc. the bais for politics is hurting our country.
May I suggest that you take a look over at my blog? SeattleJew
I just posted an interesting link to a speech the governor of California made. He is making the same point.
As for foul mothed Mr. Pudge, generally anyone who tries to address a discussion this way is pretty insecure. The odd thing is that Pudge is obviously a smart person. It would actually be fun to have a real talk with him ... the kind that does not invovle an event in the boy's locker room.
Antime you wanna pudge, anytime.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 8, 2007 02:49 PMI definitely did not mean it as a slur. My intent (I think successful) was to push "Marvin" to reveal more of himself. I do not know if you saw the part whee I figured out his choice of name? He took the name of a lesser Jasz musician. I went to that website and bought three excellent CD! The comment about "Marvin" as a gay was no more an insult then the comment that he was a musician or that he lives on an oil platform.
I have a lot of faults but I do think I avoid ethic/sexual/religous humor unless it is self directed.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 9, 2007 08:09 AMI do not lie. That si one mtizvot I take very seriously.
Anytme you want a serious discussion, you are welcome .. I will even let you be a gust editor on my own blog id f that is tempting.
Lets agree on one thing, we both love this country and want better for her!
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 9, 2007 08:14 AMYou lied several times. You said you did not do what you attacked me for. That was a lie, as everyone who saw it would agree, except for, because, well, you're a liar.
You said that I compared Osama Bin Laden to anyone. Since -- unlike when you did it, which you lie and said you did not -- I stated specifically that I was doing it only for the sake of argument, that too, was a lie. I compared Osama to no one.
You called yourself a conservative. That was a lie.
You said you do not lie. That was a lie.
Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2007 12:11 AMYou said James Madison was not in favor of strict limits on the power of the federal government, and that was a lie.
You said that Thomas Jefferson was Madison's mentor, which is true, but not in the context of the Constitution, where if anything, Jefferson looked to Madison. I'll be gracious and just call you ignorant instead of a liar on that one.
Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2007 12:14 AM