Jim Geraghty hits the nail on the head when it comes to my reaction to this mess for McCain. But I'd broaden the criticism beyond simply campaign finance reform. John McCain is, in my opinion, a bigger government guy at heart - whether it's regulating business, environmental issues, etc. Yet, when he comes up against the one system he helped build most relevant to him, he wants it both ways. If only I thought he was smart enough to learn the right lesson here. Honestly, I try very hard to get right with this guy as the nominee. But every time I try to give him another look, I find myself averting my eyes, a McCain Presidency being almost as ugly to contemplate as a Democrat one - with the added liability of a Republican legislative branch unable and unwilling to buck a too liberal Republican President.
Further complicating matters for the likely Republican nominee will be the instincts of conservatives, who may feel some hidden glee at watching McCain getting stuck in a Byzantine, over-regulated campaign finance system he helped create.
Petard hoisting, gratifies
Posted by: Yoda | Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:48 PM
"Hidden" glee? Not so much hidden in my case.
Posted by: jr | Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:51 PM
always comes back to bite you in the butt, I guess. This McCain I cannot trust him when and if he becomes president. That's why I will not support him or any other candidate come November.
Posted by: mary | Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Well, the Republicans tell us we must support McCain because of the Federal Judges. They say that if we don't support him we'll get liberal judges. Of course McCain started the gang of 14 and killed the nomination of many conservative judges.
So, we must support the guy who prevented conservative judges so we will get conservative judges.
I need a drink.
Posted by: Peter | Monday, February 25, 2008 at 11:52 PM
yes cons, be sure not to vote
Posted by: LOL | Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 07:44 AM
I'm voting for the troops and their mission to kick Global Jihad into oblivion; Conservatives have to stay alive so we can continue our fight against the Liberal Fascists here at home.
Posted by: syn | Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 08:26 AM
Well.... I have no love for the grumpy ol' geezer to say the least.
But here is how I see the each of our less-than-stellar candidates lie on the political "main sequence" - a scheme which I've used here since it is awfully hard to make a drawing work here with ASCII art :
Scale 0-9 (where 0 is extreme moonbat left, 4 is centrist, and 9 is extreme wingnut right)
Scale A-I (where A is ultra-authoritarian, E is fair-but-firm, and I is anarchy)
J-Mac weighs in with a 5C (center-right moderate, but very big into big government)
Hillary fits in the scheme on the cusp between 3C and 2B, depending upon the particular issue.
Obama is canted way over to the left with a 1B. He might even cross over to a 1A, or be moderating himself down from a position much closer to zero (ultra-moonbattery) given his past connections with the Weather Underground and certain questionable Islamist people and organizations.
His tendency towards authoritarianism is typical as most Democrats tend to favor big government above all else, but he has no proven track record to base that "A" on.
Net Result: John McCain is nowhere near being my ideal candidate... and I trust him about as far as I could lob toss the Boob from Stamford.
But I am *certain* that any Democrat president would be far more disastrous for this country, especially if it is Obama.
Unfortunately, I think J-Mac is banking on this, and will not seriously look to court the conservative voters who roundly rejected him in the Deep South and also in the West.
Yes, Huck was the spoiler for the South... but contrary to what "Doc" Weasel will moan on breathlessly about as he works himself up into an orgiastic anti-Mormon froth ... the votes for the Huckster were just as much a referendum against J-Mac and his petulance, his backstabbery, and his dalliances with such liberal luminaries as Tedward Kennedy and Russ Feingold).
Those Huckstered voters were against Mitt, who might have been just another "country-clubbing elite damnyankee politico from Taxachussetts" than for his Mormonism.
Indeed, we are caught sailing between Scylla and Charybdis with this lot. Scylla will eat you for lunch, if you get too close to her... no bones about it. On the other hand, Odysseus got lucky when he steered to close to Charybdis, clinging on for dear life to a fig tree which was overhanging its lair... and he had to wait some time for it to belch the raft back up it ate in a gush of water.
The question to reflect upon is, who does Scylla and Charybdis properly represent in our crop of three (potential) nominees?
Moreover, will we be so fortunate as Odysseus to escape/weather the next four years as a nation?
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Keep it up, LOL, you moron. You are helping to defeat the Dems come Nov and you don't even know it. I may vote just to spite you.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 09:08 AM