Updated: What Did McCain Do?

Oops, I thought I had read differently. Evidently, McCain is not attending CPAC. My guess, McCain hasn't gotten traction pandering to the Right, so he's looking to broaden his appeal and play to what has allegedly always been his strengths - Independents and the media. If he can get his poll numbers high enough, he becomes a threat to go third party. In a sense, he could dare the Republicans to not nominate him. If nothing else, such a move fits with McCain's non-conservative, non-party-loyalist past.

Sen. John McCain is the only major Republican presidential candidate who will not address the nation's premier gathering of conservatives this year.

Sponsors of the Conservative Political Action Conference, which begins today in Washington and brings together thousands of conservative leaders and grass-roots activists, say the Arizona Republican has "dissed" organizers by attempting to schedule a private reception for attendees after rejecting invitations to speak at the event.

McCain announced on Letterman? Isn't Letterman the guy who wasn't sure he wanted us to win in Iraq? (YouTube may be temporarily down for maintenance)

I realize he's a late addition to CPAC, but does an alleged conservative Republican announce on the Letterman show? Or is that reserved for someone with other plans in mind?

I've always suspected McCain will go Bull Moose if he can't win the Republican nomination -  and I don't think he can. If that SOB ultimately goes another way and throws the election to a Dem like Hillary or Obama, nothing will stem the conservative wrath.

Joe Gandleman asks, is his candidacy is already over.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

I think that if *you guys* nominate a drag queen you deserve whatever fate can dish out.

[Buzzy]

For once (and don't ever mention it again) I have to agree with scarshapedstar.

[Cindi]

That should read DRAMA QUEEN. As a conserative, I have not supported McCain in a very long time. Like Kerry,he flip flops, its his last stand.

[Darth Malice]

Sorry McCain,it's Rudy or Romney.You betrayed us too many times(Gang of 14,CFR,torture) At least Rudy went to C-Pac.

[BobInStamford]

So the cons are down to either a Scientologist or a drag queen. Love it.

[Darth Malice]

Bob,given the morons in my party I am looking for someone to lead the war on militant Islam.If Rudy or Mitt will do that fine.As for McNasty,yall can take him,along with Hagel.

[Jeff]

I have a few problems with McCain I will just list them, because you all have heard of each of these already

-McCain-Feinstein
-Gang of 14
-Very weak on immigration
-Doesn't believe that we can use whatever means necessary to interogate a terrorist

And the libs hate him because he's pro-war

Doesn't this but Gingrich at an interesting position. He polls well for someone who's not running, and Conservatives have no ne that makes us giddy, so when Obama and Hillary are too battered up to run, we might see a Edwards/Richards ticket and a Gingrich/ Giuliani ballot. The candidates have declared ridiculously early - I don't think that we will ever see an election like this again.

Has anyone noticed that Edwards is staying out of media? I think he just wants Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton to kill each other - and it looks likely.

[Zifnab]

By December '07, no one here should be surprised to see McCain/Lieberman '08 bumper stickers on... well... on somebody's car.

The Republican nomination will got to not-Lieberman, and he'll say FU to the Republicans (again) and run in the Lieberman for Lieberman party for President.

[Phoenix]

I like the idea of the "G-Boys" - Guiliani and Gingrich. "Gee, yeah, we've had a couple of wives and all that, but we mean business and we're not apologizing for anything to get votes."

Edwards is staying out of the limelight because he got burned real bad by those lights a few weeks ago. He's trying to make that debacle fade out of our collective memories.

I'm for any republican candidate who refuses to pander to any fringe group or who refuses to apologize for past behavior. Anyone who is not a phony...

[Zifnab]

*not-McCain

[seekeronos]

Gringich would get my vote in a heartbeat. Guliani I am not too crazy about though. But he could easily pull the Independents and the Log Cabin Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats into the camp. An uneasy compromise, but it sure beats having Barrack Hussein Osam- erm,.. Obama, or Queen Billary back in the WH.

My "dream ticket" would be a Gringrich-Hunter ticket.

Newt from 2008-2016, and then Duncan Hunter from 2016 to 2022.

[Legalize]

I love that one of the Con critiques of McCain is that he is allegedly anti-torture. In other words McCain is disliked on the right for (a) allegedly being opposed to what happened to him in Vietnam, thereby (b) allegely being pro-American/Western/civilized values - the very same values we criticize Islamists for violating at every turn. The rejection of civilization by the right is puzzling.

[Phoenix]

Legal,

I'm allegedly puzzled by what you just said. Can you bring it down a level?

[Legalize]

Sure. I'm puzzled as to why being anti-torture, which is inherently as "American" and pro-western a concept as there could possibly be, is considered a negative quality of McCain's.

The "allegedly" stuff arises from the fact that I don't think McCain IS in fact anti-torture.

[Hard Right]

McCain deems interrogation techniques that AREN'T torture as torture. Apparently we should only allow harsh language in questioning the enemy-even when American lives are at stake. He doesn't have the guts to fight the WOT as needed and he only out for himself IMHO. He's the best of the worst choices...which isn't saying much.

[Phoenix]

Okay. Thanks. Just read an article about the CIA transporting prisoners to various countries so they can apply 'vigorous' torture. There was argument that these prisoners were flown via air space not granted by certain countries. The funny thing - the countries doing the griping were pro-torture.

I agree with your 'allegedly' stuff about McCain. Maybe that's why it's considered a negative for him - no one believes him. At least those who possess PDI. <--- Phony Detection Intuition.

[Legalize]

"Okay. Thanks. Just read an article about the CIA transporting prisoners to various countries so they can apply 'vigorous' torture. There was argument that these prisoners were flown via air space not granted by certain countries. The funny thing -the countries doing the griping were pro-torture."

Well, I'm not concerned with the griping of states who openly conduct torture. It should be pretty clear that they have no moral authority to proffer such complaints. I'm concerned about the U.S. openly conducting torture. Just because countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt disengenuously bitch about our practices doesn't mean that said practices are not barbaric. The trouble we are getting ourselves into is COMPARING ourselves to states like the aforementioned, while we slowly but surely whittle away at our own moral credibility - by choice.

"I agree with your 'allegedly' stuff about McCain. Maybe that's why it's considered a negative for him - no one believes him. At least those who possess PDI. <--- Phony Detection Intuition."

Wait; now I'M confused. Are you saying that because GOPers perceive McCain to be anti-torture, this is a negative for him? If so, why is it negative?

[Greg D]

Amusing. You know, worrying about McCain bolting makes Rudy a strong candidate, because there's no chance of McCain getting traction 3rd Party if Rudy is the Republican nominee (who's McCain going to appeal to? Social conservatives? Not a chance. "Moderates"? What non-Democrat "Moderates" are going to favor McCain over Rudy?).

[Hard Right]

GOPers consider McCain weak on the WOT. He has publicly come out against waterboarding and other interrogation techniques that are effective and do not physically harm the prisoners. His surge idea did not improve his image as it is seen as little more than a political gimmick.

[Phoenix]

Legal,

Anything detected as a phony ploy to win over voters is a negative. At least for people who are able to detect a phony. Unfortunately, not many people go to the trouble of that kind of intuitive analysis.

"I'm concerned about the U.S. openly conducting torture."

The U.S. is not open about it. They're sneaking around conducting torture in countries that sanction it. I wonder how many lives they've saved because of this clandestine effort.

"...while we slowly but surely whittle away at our own moral credibility - by choice."

What? Can you explain how we're doing this?