extreme Catholic 

The great crime of McCain and the Gang of 14 was that it signaled to the Senator and the People of the USA that the Republican leadership won in the 2004 holding 55 votes would not be able to get even a majority vote on its reforms -- the first and most important of which was to end the threat of judicial filibuster. But that was only one of many forms of assistance that McCain gave to frustrate the agenda for America that true conservatives and true Republicans held out in 2003 and 2004. Just as Republicans wanted to engage in great political even historic contests in the Senate, McCain grabbed the spotlight for himself and make that 2005-2007 term so full of possibility a Republican Titanic.

Labels: mccain

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 9:09 AM   Permalink  

I just wonder if the conservatives that I align with like Rush Limbaugh and the National Review are going to be burning their bridges with McCain and Huckabee should one of the get the nomination.

The more we learn about Huckabee, the more he seems to more like a Republican Jimmy Carter rather than a Ronald Reagan. Huckabee is simply unelectable. The country has more people who fear this evangelical than want him in the White House.

And of course we know how McCain disappointed us: interfering with the filibuster rules, McCain-Feingold (i.e. first amendment restrictions), and McCain-Kennedy (i.e. amnesty for illegal immigrants), the lawsuit against Wisconsin Right-To-Life, his frequent criticism of elected Republicans including the President and conservative leaders, his inconsistent support for tax cuts, and his pandering to the media to get the "Maverick" label. Some people always make a point that McCain called "waterboarding" torture when it doesn't physically harm the interrogatee. In respect for McCain's experience as a POW, I don't slam McCain for that.

Can the so-called movement conservatives embrace either McCain or Huckabee as their champions?

Labels: election, huckabee, mccain

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:08 PM   Permalink  

Andy McCarthy in the NRO Corner mentions something that I had only a retained a vague memory. It was this case it was "McCain (etal) v. Wisconsin Right to Life"

In June 2007 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 (New York Times) that ads which avoided the explicit identification of candidates could run within the 60 day limit set by McCain-Feingold.

Correctly and ominously, the Times said the decision would hurt McCain's standing with conservatives. I add only if we remember seven months later.

Labels: election, mccain, pro-life

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 6:55 PM   Permalink  

I was surprised. It's all about demographics.

Democrats:

With such a small black population, it wasn't simply a case of winning the black vote. It was a generational issue as Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, and others have mentioned.

As for Edwards, he has no money, no organization, Iowa was his last stand.

The remarkable thing is how old everyone (except daughter Chelsea) was surrounding Hillary is. It really is a repudiation of that generation that came of age in from 1960 to 1980. I think the people born after 1960 who have been voting now for over 20 years are saying "You generation had your turn -- this is our turn." Hillary is 61. Edwards is 54. Obama is 46.

Republicans:

I think Romney's conversion to the pro-life cause is real. I know that several people I respect do not believe it. A good showing in NH/SC/MI is going to be necessary to keep his chances alive.

Could the field be reduced to McCain and Huckabee? That would be a big disappointment to me and others who believe that McCain has too often betrayed conservative causes. Huckabee, I am convinced in January is unelectable. Among non-evangelicals Romney won by a big margin.

I would take any of Romney, Thompson, or Giuliani over Huck-a-cain or McCain-a-bee.

Labels: election

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 1:15 PM   Permalink