Worst GOP Prez Candidate In History Supports McCain

I don't have a problem with Bob Dole. He always was a good guy and a pretty good Senator. What I don't understand is how anyone thinks he's relevant today. He ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in history, before Rudy. So, with all due respect, it's fair to say McCain looks to be attracting some real losers in terms of endorsements. I heard the letter read on the air - it re-capped many but not all of the problems people have with McCain. I see no reason to ignore those things.

Bob Dole, the former Senate Republican leader, wrote an insistent letter to Rush Limbaugh on Monday and suggested that for the good of the party, the conservative talk-show host should stop his strafing of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Comments

[Oh, please...]

Oh, please, Dan. I normally visit, but don't comment here. But come on. Rudy (who endorsed JMc) was my first choice, but this savaging of McCain is quite lame. Ted Olson endorsed JM today, as does Calebresi (sp?) founder of the Federalist Society, as do a number of solid conservatives.

One of the reasons we have McCain, I believe, is because of the 2006 elections. All the reps stayed home or voted for Dems. The country goes leftward, and you wonder why we now have McCain to contend with. So how will staying home in November help push the country rightward? I trust J Mc to make better SCOTUS picks that Hillary or Obama. I trust him with Nat. Sec. a lot more, too.

Where is this mythical perfect candidate and why doesn't he/she run?

[seekeronos]

"--- Where is this mythical perfect candidate and why doesn't he/she run? ---"

There was one perfect candidate, he ran, and didn't schmooze the MSM enough to earn their kudos. So, the American sheeple followed the MSM who plugged McBane.

There is another candidate, who while not perfect, is a staunch defender of the constitution, but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a single committed delegate out of Tsunami Tuesday (tomorrow) because everyone is convinced (again by the MSM, but also in part to his own presentation) he is a nutter.

So we are left with two imperfect candidate - one far and away more imperfect than the other.

Mitt is the man we must rally behind if we want to save this nation from socialism.

[Sara]

McCain will not win in November. And the only reason he is ahead now is the media lovefest and the old out-of-touch Repub. establishment leaders who are scared to death of him. McCain's vindictiveness knows no bounds. If McCain should pull off getting himself elected, anyone who even remotely said anything negative about him will be destroyed, one way or the other. McCain definition of loyalty is a one-way street. Tow his line or suffer his wrath as well as being belittled and insulted. I don't care how much war hero the media wants to champion, McCain lacks honor and character.

[Roy Mustang]

Wow, McCain is the anti-Midas. Anything he touches turn into sh**. Bob Dole, WWII hero, Senator Majority Leader and 96 GOP Nominee becomes Irrelevent and Worst GOP Candidate In History who DARES to write a letter to Rush.

I have an anti-McCain story for you, Dan. I think it fits your view of McCain perfectly.

http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3068/2/

"According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an "accommodation" with his captors, and in exchange, T's father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes."

[Oh, please...]

Seeker:

Please tell me you're not talking about Fred! Seriously. Didn't he support McCain-Feingold? Yes. Were any of the Repubs campaigning on jettisoning McC-F? Uh, no.

Honestly, this is insane. I'm no great fan of McCain, but he does have a 60 ACU rating. A bit better than the Dems, right?

Wait, so the media's behind the McCain surge? Uh, okay...

[docweasel]

Just because he lost the election doesn't make him a bad person, or even a bad politician. Clinton was so scared of Dole beating him that he pulled out all the stops to get as much money in his campaign chest as possible to keep Dole from unseating him. And Clinton still was not able to get a majority vote, forced to settle for a plurality.

Would Dole have won with a level playing field and without Clinton's dirty tricks? Who knows. But Dole, in my eyes, may be the most honorable and honest politician living to day. There's no _shame_ in losing an election. It certainly does NOTHING to damage your credibility or the worth of your opinions. There can be shame in winning, however, as the Clintons proved.

Jeez, I just wish you'd try to be nominally fair in your 'pull out all the stops - smear McCain at every chance' crusade. Even the Captain has a very good post today defending McCain over the newest smears about his military service.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016866.php

Denigrating Bob Dole, who is still respected as a decent human being, was never involved in any hint of scandal, who lost use of one of his arms in the war, who served the party selflessly for many decades, but who just wasn't up to the task of defeating one of the most venal politicians in history, is just ridiculous and unfair.

I guess, since you are default against anyone who speaks well of McCain (witness your wild attacks on Crist) and 100% behind anyone who speaks ill of him, you'd be on the side of the Weaver guy, who claims McCain is unhinged. Today's post gave me quite a bit more respect for the Capt and actually makes me give him more credit for his backing of Romney as something more than just ABM syndrome. Your posts do nothing to show the same about you.

[Dan Riehl]

you're sounding pretty unhinged there, Doc. It's well documented Dole's campaign was a mess. I said he was a good man and Senator in the post. You have no point. Pointing out that he doesn't get national electoral politics isn't a crime. Maybe you should take it up with McCain, who released the letter to the press the minute Limbaugh went off the air. No question of the timing there from you, I bet? This is all politics. One side plays hardball, that's no problem for you. But let the other side and you whine like a baby. Get over it.

[Roy Mustang]

Oh, please...

It's 60 in 2006, 80 in 2005 and 82 lifetime.

http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#AZ

[Roy Mustang]

"Maybe you should take it up with McCain, who released the letter to the press the minute Limbaugh went off the air."

O...kay....

----
On Monday’s broadcast, Limbaugh said in an audio clip posted at “The Page” on TIME.com: “He stabbed his own president in the back on legislation, a number of times. He doesn’t support his party or his president when the chips are down.

As a P.S., Dole adds a table from the Senate Library showing that McCain’s voting record — as measured by support for the president — mirrored that of the ultra- conservative former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.)

Almost as good as Rush's zing of Reid and the Senate Dems. I wonder how Rush will respond.

[*flo*]

Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, February 04, 2008 at 08:45 PM

If you are making reference to Dr Ron Paul, a 10 term congressman from Tx, who attended medical school, was a USAF flight surgeon in the 60's, a ob-gyn delivering over 4000 babies, who has served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
This I must say does not make Dr. Paul a 'nutter' except as MSM has proved to be bias providing 'very little' coverage on his presidential campaign.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Far as I'm concern, I would be worried about both McCain and Romney leading this country into ruins.
McCain/Bush = Illegal immigration policy, then McCain's 100 yr war in the middle, yeah, the same war as we all know, was illegal to begin with.

And you worry about socialism, so VOTE Romey? Have you ever researched where Romney got his money?

For Starters, look here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/17/at_times_romneys_bain_capital_profited

[Dan Riehl]

Roy, I don't have to get down in the weeds to oppose McCain. He's bad on national security: interrogtations and closing guantanamo are important for the long war - McCain doesn't get it. His position on global warming will handicap US industry in the face of non-compliant foreign competition. Economics - he doesn't get it. He has shown a prefence for ignoring the first amendment, clamping down on political speech - specifically mentioned in said amendment. So, he's willing to bury the Constitution. Those are only three of the long list, linked earlier by Quick at Daily Pundit.

I wouldn't vote for a Dem with the positions above, so your argument is vote for him because of the "R." Well, I'm not an R, I'm an I. If this is what both parties are offering, it's none of the above.

Doesn't have to be more personal, or complex than that.

[docweasel]

Whatever.

I hope this is settled tomorrow and you can get on to bashing McCain without having to defend Romney, a member of a racist, sexist, intolerant cult that teaches pre-schoolers that other religions are "a great abomination", "created and ruled by Satan" that "the Protestant and Catholic churches are the greatest forces for evil in the world today" that "dark-skinned people" have the mark of Cain on them and, after 1978, were allowed to enter heaven, but only as servants of white people there. That's not even going into the Jewish blood libel in the Book of Mormon, never reputed by Romney. His defense: leave me alone, my cult is off the table, I won't discuss it. Of course, Ron Paul is rightfully attacked for his racist, anti-Jew, anti-Catholic beliefs, but not Romney.

No one is allowed to address this elephant in the room, which is a lot more egregious than the fact that McCain was only an 86% conservative voter. Being able to ignore the fact that Romney would alienate blacks and other minorities, Catholics, Jews, and for good reason.

There is a higher reason than just politics to abhor Romney, and its that he is a member of a VERY repressive cult that attempts to control its members, harasses ex-members, refuses to address its hate teachings with "outsiders", teaches pre-school children to despise other religions, etc.

This is beyond politics. This is about basic human decency. This cult is as batshit insane as Scientology, just as oppressive and controlling, plus it has the added flavor of racism and active hatred of all other "Christian" denominations.

To ignore that because you don't like McCain's voting record is strange.

[*flo*]

Posted by: docweasel | Tuesday, February 05, 2008 at 01:42 AM

Rightfully attacked? Though Dr Paul's changes of becoming the next U.S. President are slim....

How does one associate 'Freedom and Liberty' to racism?

"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.” Ron Paul

The Head person of NAACP, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years said its an absurd notion to think Dr. Paul is a racist. Also, Ron Paul wants to end foreign aid to middle east which is 3 times great (10 times as a whole) than aid to Israel. So, cutting aid to both helps Israels sovereignty.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

[Mark]

Doc & Roy, two sophists for McKerry, (nice slander on Mormons, Doc) meet Flo, a Ronulan that thinks a video from DEMOCRACY NOW! can be used to show anything besides the fact that strategically shaved monkeys have apparently figured out how to operate a video camera.

Flo - here's a clue: Libertarianism isn't about smoking pot, hoarding gold, or letting 7th century savages push Israel into the sea. Ayn Rand's personal editor had a plan for responding to 9/11: Nuke 4 to 7 capitals in about a 30 minutes to remind the lesser cultures whose in charge.

Have you three considered voting for Huckabee? He seems to collect a lot of the clue-challenged.

[Kaitian]

Thank you for showing your cards Docweasal. As usual another Huckabee baptist basher against the mormon candidate. Now I come from a mormon family and I can say with certainty that 90% of the crap you said is hmm let's see bullshit. Why? I grew up in that life but I got to the point I'm an agnostic person. Heck even the pre-schoolers were not taught that other religions were an abomination. You claim that which I can easily refute as BS. They were indoctrinated no differently from how baptist were indoctrinated about Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Ghost, being reverent, etc. They would say that they believe that their church is the true church, then again all religions say that their church is the true church. Has Jerry Falwell come out strongly against certain issues? You bet he has but does he go bashing people's lifestyle? No, he doesn't but in fact he sincerely loves people. Now come on, a former mormon defending Jerry Falwell? Is this the world coming to an end?

You're not against Romney on any political issues. You're against him because he's mormon. Who else reminds me of a time that people were railing against for their religion. Oh yes, John F. Kennedy. I'm supporting Romney no different from Riehl here on the topic of political issues, not religion like you're trying to bash on.

You claim that Romney will alienate blacks, catholics, jews, etc but that's bullshit because of the fact Romney's father supported MLK in Michigan (Not marched of course despite what Mitt said), the LDS Church and Israel shares extremely close relations and they're vehemently supportive of Israel. Now what about the catholics? The Catholics here in the United States has their largest dioceses in what state? Utah. Which they also have their Cathedral of the Madeleine but mormons don't discriminate against people today. They take positions on things like gay marriage but do they really hate gay people? No, they don't in fact they don't have any issues with gay people at all. Guess who else is like this? Oh yes, every other religion except probably conservative Islam.

Seriously you're off your rocker.

[seekeronos]

Wow. This thread got interesting really fast.

For the Ron Paul guy upthread: Don't get me wrong. I think that Dr. Paul is spot on in *some* areas, particularly on the matter of keeping the government subordinate to the Constitution, and not the reverse situation we have today where we try to bend the meaning of the Constitution or disregard it outright.

And he is a credit to his congressional district in Texas, where he strives to represent his district according to the mandate of his constituency and the Constitution. Yet, I do not think that the American peopole as a whole regard him as a viable POTUS candidate, regardless of the (very negative) media spin.

I say this because Dr. Paul's application of his ideas may not be practical in light of the bed we've made for ourselves fiscally... (eliminate federal taxes? go back to the gold standard? And how exactly do we pay for gov't. while we make such a wrenching transition...? )

... and also in light of a particular external (increasingly becoming an internal item as well, esp. if JMc gets his way and opens the immigration floodgates ever wider) with the threat of Global Jihad.

I am no fan of entangling alliances with foreign powers, but it is 60 years to late to undo much of that, especially when we are a 12-hour plane flight or a 30-minute ICBM flight or a 5-minute SLBM flight or 2-minutes to walk away from the suitcase nuke in the Metro station from our enemies, as opposed to six weeks by tramp steamer.

Look at the delegate count and the state count for Dr. Paul -- he has virtually nothing to work with (still in the race, spent millions, and has the same number of delegates - five - as Fred! - a guy who ran a dysfunctional campaign and even more against the MSM tide than Dr. Paul)

Popular votes may help win the race, but due to the Founding Fathers' design, they do not decide the contest alone. The representative republican model we have eliminates those weaker and those populist candidates by design to prevent us from becoming a "mobocracy".

- - - - - - - - - - -

For "Oh, please..." :

Fred! was indeed a signer of McCain-Feingold - a matter for which he has stated a certain amount of regret for doing it. As Fred! is no longer a candidate, I'll save the time for googling this up, to say that Fred would have chosen strict constructionist judges to work toward overturning Mc-F.

And Fred! had a lifetime ACU rating of 86.1%, with ratings generally trending upward (growing more conservative) -
1995: 83% >>
1996: 85% >>
1997: 88% >>
1998: 84% >>
1999: 84% >>
2000: 92% (!) >>
2001: 84% >>
2002: 89% >>

...with McCain trending downward (82% lifetime, but 80% in 2006, and 60% in 2006... with quite a few years in between where he did not break out of the high 60's)

Ratings like these are not the hallmark of a consistent conservative, but of someone sliding significantly leftward over time.

And I hate to break it to ya, but a guy with a consistent string of ACU ratings of 60%~70% is much more likely to get his palms greasy with the Democrats than folks who have ACU ratings consistently in the 80s or higher.

Yet this is really a non-started, because Fred augured his campaign into the ground by a combination of not schmoozing the MSM (a necessary evil until the RNC takes control of things by eliminating the liberal-biased MSM from picking its candidates, and until GOP candidates as a whole repudiate endorsements from the NYT, WaPo, and LAT).

The players in this race are McCain (liberal media "favourite", until Geo. Soros says otherwise) and Mitt Romney (the guy who will get things done well, if not 100% to my liking)

If you want the GOP to have half a chance of retaining the White House this election year, vote for Mitt.

If you want to guarantee a history-making landslide in November to Obama, or less so to Hillary, then go for Johnny Mac.

And Huckabuck? A clueless clown from Arkansas, just like the reverse-carpetbaggers from Hope that came before him.

He knows he cannot win anymore than Dr. Paul could... he is just hanging on for tablescraps from the winner (in his mind, that will be McCain).

[Sharon]

I can't believe the intolerance of the idiot talking about Mormons. It sounds just like the way ignorant Muslims talk about Jewish blood libel and the protocols of Zion. Has Mitt ever brought his religious beliefs into the way he governs or runs a company? If anyone has shown intolerance, it is Huckabee and Paul. Paul has not repudiated the anti-semitic writings done under his name and Huckabee wants to impose his evangelical moral values onto me. He has let his religion impact his governance by letting criminals out of jail because they"got religion". I have actually met Mitt several times at Republican functions in Massachusetts. I am a nobody - just a voter. Mitt looked at me the whole time he was speaking with me and actually listened to what I said. The second time I met him, he actually remembered what we had talked about. I support him because I believe he is the future of our party. I am tired of hearing about Vietnam and consensus postions just for the sake of compromise. I want a President who will stand up for a position because it is the right thing to do and not cave to achieve a watered down consensus. Republicans are supposed to be smart,reasoned adults, yet they seem willing to let our country surrender in Iraq and let capitalism go down the drain because of same sex marriage and abortion issues which should vbe decided by the states and not the feds anyways.
Thank you for letting me rant, Dan.

[*flo*]

meet Flo, a Ronulan that thinks a video from DEMOCRACY NOW! can be used to show anything besides the fact that strategically shaved monkeys have apparently figured out how to operate a video camera.
Flo - here's a clue: Libertarianism isn't about smoking pot, hoarding gold, or letting 7th century savages push Israel into the sea. Ayn Rand's personal editor had a plan for responding to 9/11: Nuke 4 to 7 capitals in about a 30 minutes to remind the lesser cultures whose in charge.

Have you three considered voting for Huckabee? He seems to collect a lot of the clue-challenged.

Posted by: Mark | Tuesday, February 05, 2008 at 04:09 AM

Mark, assumption leads to disinformation, if you read the article, http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/17/at_times_romneys_bain_capital_profited
you would notice, Los Angeles Times reporter, Bob Drogin provided the information to DEMOCRACY NOW! Pointing out where Romney got his money should be exposed. Closing U.S. Factories, Laying Off Workers is definitely a practice which effects our economy.

As for Dr Paul's logic behind 'hemp'....alternative fuel.
I also understand Dr Paul is a Ayn Rand yet he too is the only republician which did not vote for the 'illegal' Iraq invasion...
Huckabee? You're kidding ....Huckabee: Amend Constitution to be in 'God's standards'... Don't think so! http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html

[*flo*]

Posted by: Sharon | Tuesday, February 05, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Whatever conversation you had with Romney, guess this convinced you he is your man;) I certainly don't fell Romney will be helpful with the economics of this country, period!

[docweasel]

heh, I'm sure you didn't have any problems with Robert Byrd being chastised for being a minor member of the KKK. Romney, and his family for generations, were in the leadership of the LDS. He was 31 in '78. That's a magic year because that's when they allowed blacks to be ordained. So, for at LEAST a decade of his adult life, he was in the top leadership of the LDS. What did he think about the ban? What did he do about it? Did he try to change it?

Chris Hitchens certainly thinks its fair game to ask him-

It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

The Book of Mormon, when it is not "chloroform in print" as Mark Twain unkindly phrased it, is full of vicious ingenuity. From it you can learn of the ancient battle of Cumorah, which occurred at a site conveniently near Joseph Smith's home in upstate New York. In this legendary engagement, the Nephites, described as fair-skinned and "handsome," fought against the outcast Lamanites, whose punishment for turning away from God was to be afflicted with dark skin. Later, in antebellum Missouri and preaching against abolition, Smith and his cronies announced that there had been a third group in heaven during the battle between God and Lucifer. This group had made the mistake of trying to remain neutral but, following Lucifer's defeat, had been forced into the world and compelled to "take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the negro or African race." Until 1978, no black American was permitted to hold even the lowly position of deacon in the Mormon Church, and nor were any (not that there were many applicants) admitted to the sacred rites of the temple. The Mormon elders then had a "revelation" and changed the rules, thus more or less belatedly coming into compliance with the dominant civil rights statutes. The timing (as with the revelation abandoning polygamy, which occurred just in time to prevent Utah from being denied membership of the Union) permits one to be cynical about its sincerity. However that may be, it certainly makes nonsense of Romney's moaning about any criticism or questioning being "un-American." The Mormons have already had to choose—twice—between their beliefs and American values.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has had to be asked about his long-ago membership of the Ku Klux Klan (which, I would remind you, is also a Protestant Christian identity organization), and he was only a fiddle-playing member, not a Grand Kleagle or whatever the hell it is. Why should Romney not be made to give an account of himself? A black candidate with ties to Louis Farrakhan could expect questions about his faith in the existence of the mad scientist Yakub, creator of the white race, or in the orbiting mother ship visited by the head of the Nation of Islam. What gives Romney an exemption?

There is also the question—this one more nearly resembles the one that John F. Kennedy agreed to answer so straightforwardly in 1960—of authority. The Mormons claim that their leadership is prophetic and inspired and that its rulings take precedence over any human law. The constitutional implications of this are too obvious to need spelling out, but it would be good to see Romney spell them out all the same.

So phooey, say I, to the false reticence of the press and to the bogus sensitivities that underlie it. This extends even to the less important matters. If candidates can be asked to declare their preference as between briefs and boxers, then we already have a precedent, and Romney can be asked whether, as a true believer should, he wears Mormon underwear. What's un-American about that? The bottom line is that Romney should expect to be asked these very important questions, and we should expect him not to obfuscate and whine anymore but to give clear and unambiguous answers to them.

[CLF]

Docweasel,

You're just about the stupidest excuse for a waste of skin I've ever read. You know nothing about my religion, its' restoration, nor it's doctrine. History is full of liars like you and, like you, amount to nothing and are swept into the ashbin of history. I just you investigate the history of Lilburn Boggs 'cause you're headed in the same direction. I feel sorry for such a miserable, vile wretch like you.