John McCain decides he can quit John Hagee after all. In one interesting possible future, McCain reaches the conclusion that he's got the GOP nomination and conservatives have nowhere to go so he brings back the "agents of intolerance" talk, maybe picks a pro-choice running mate, and makes a serious high-risk high-reward effort to definitively separate himself from the mire into which the rest of the party is sinking.
« I Like The Snark | Main | Crime in DC »
Insert "Reject and Denounce" Joke
22 May 2008 10:32 pm
Comments (31)
"pro-choice running mate"
I still think Kay Bailey Hutchison would be a good selection. Pro-choice, pro-big business, all around Republican. Plus a woman. Does the Democratic ticket have a woman? Probably not. True, McCain will probably take Texas anyway, but there are many upsides to choosing Hutchison.
I tell you one thing: that takes the wind out of the McSame sails. I doubt it's gonna happen, but as you say, high risk/high reward.
He probably still loses though, in which case Republicans will be very, very comfortable in the "we abandoned our values" diagnosis.
AP-5/22/08--10:47PM
MattY digs to hell, finds ice.
I like the possible future where he goes fishing most days on his man-made pond and occasionally barbecues some chicken for Russert.
You're a funny guy, Matt.
Yes, but how late in the year does he have to wait to do that in order to prevent a religious right third-party candidate from coming in as a spoiler? And would Barr look good enough for "the rest of the party" to vote for him if McCain became unacceptable?
Uh, Freddie, your scenario has already (sub Iraq for Iran) occurred. Where have you been the last 6 years?
In 2013, I see an America without racial prejudice or religious intolerance but led by fundamentalist Christians which all Americans love and respect and obey. Ahh, 2013 only five years away.
John McCain lacks the sort of political courage required to do as you suggest and adopt a high risk/high reward strategy. His every action over the last eight years, since his loss of the 2000 nomination, verifies this.
John McCain is ultimately no different from Joe Lieberman. His every move and every action are done with eyes towards his own ambition. I suspect that had McCain won the presidency in 2000, he would have revealed himself to be the McCain we now currently know.
The "Straight Talker" in 2000 was McCain as Trojan Horse. He did this because the Republican establishment back then was lining up behind Bush and the ONLY way he had a chance at stealing the Republican nomination was to rebrand himself in such a way. Ultimately, when he realized that version of himself would never secure the Republican nomination he returned to who he truly is.
The person John McCain REALLY is, is someone willing to play politics on the torture bill that recently came up despite the fact that he himself had, at one time, been a POW and been tortured.
I love Obama, but he is wrong on one point. John McCain is not a hero. He is nothing more than a Joe Lieberman with an "R" beside of his title.
I suspect Sheldon Adelson and Gary Erlbaum (here in Philly) may have had something to do with John McCain's decision.
I posted this at the end of an earlier thread, but I'll add it here. Hagee told the NY Times in a March interview that McCain came to HIM asking for the endorsement. From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/magazine/23wwln-q4-t.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=hagee&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
----------
NY Times]As a prominent evangelical pastor based in San Antonio, you were recently catapulted into national controversy when you endorsed Senator John McCain for president. Is it true that McCain actively sought your endorsement?
[Hagee] It’s true that McCain’s campaign sought my endorsement.
He dumped Parsley too, apparently. That brings us closer to Matt's scenario. What an interesting world we live in.
Anyone have a sense whether the evangelican turnout could be seriously depressed by things like this? Is the judges issue enough to get them to the polls on its own, or do they need some feeling that McCain's "on their side" in some larger sense?
When he denounced Hagee he should have mentioned the car that pulled up to tell his father about the Maine, or whatever it was he said in reply to Obama. In fact, he should put that in every speech, and I have no doubt he will.
Doesn't it seem like McCain's a lot more offended by Obama than by a man who likes to hunt Jews?
It's an issue of judgment. How could McCain have ever sought Hagee's endorsement given the man's reputation for bigotry?
Sorry Matt, you're dead wrong on McCain picking a pro-choice running mate. First off, pro-choice Republicans are on the endangered species list. Secondly, with his campaign weaning itself off religious nutbags, one of the few remaining ways for McCain to throw the fundies a bone is with his VP pick.
Anyone have a sense whether the evangelican turnout could be seriously depressed by things like this? Is the judges issue enough to get them to the polls on its own, or do they need some feeling that McCain's "on their side" in some larger sense?
My sense, for what it's worth, is that these sorts of preachers are the machine politicians of the red parts of the country. Ultimately, whether the evangelical voters turn out depends on whether these guys want them too.
As TPM says, Hagee's territory in Texas is pretty impenetrably red, so that won't matter so much. Parsley is a big deal in Ohio, which is itself a big deal, so a lot will turn on whether Parsley decides to feel offended.
In fairness to the evangelical community, I think it should be pointed out that a younger faction within that community has already turned against people like Pat Robertson and John Hagee. Possibly because they actually ..uh.. READ the Bible.
There are rumors that a significant portion of the evangelical community is deserting the Republican Party -- and right wing leaders in general for a more humane movement based on Christian values. See e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
So even if McCain firmly pressed his lips against Hagees' buttocks, it might not buy him any votes from the real Baptists.
Ultimately, whether the evangelical voters turn out depends on whether these guys want them too.
too = to
I don't even want to think about the implications of that typo.
"I still think Kay Bailey Hutchison would be a good selection. Pro-choice, pro-big business, all around Republican. Plus a woman. Does the Democratic ticket have a woman? Probably not. True, McCain will probably take Texas anyway, but there are many upsides to choosing Hutchison.
Posted by Dirk | May 22, 2008 10:44 PM"
That would probably be a way to depress Republican turnout. There would be some women who would vote for the ticket just to have a female VP, but there are a lot of GOP women that would see that VP as too fundamentally evil to vote for. It would also drive away male GOP voters. In addition, if Obama chooses Sebelius and Napolitino, any benefit of having a female pro-choice VP on the GOP ticket would disappear overnight.
Hutchison is anti-choice.
McCain doesn't have to worry about starting the Iran war.
I suspect he's been told on background already that Bush is going to start it, and to be ready to take advantage of it in his campaign.
When he gets a fifteen point "war bounce", he isn't going to be worrying too much about Obama, who will lose ten points by being unable to distinguish himself from McCain on Iran.
Once again, my prediction: McCain is the next President.
And the US is going to be SO screwed up within five years, you'll think the last eight were the "Good Ol' Days".
Are you suggesting that pro-life = the mire into which the party's sinking? There are non-bigoted pro-lifers, you know.
McCain reaches the conclusion that he's got the GOP nomination and conservatives have nowhere to go
Oh, they could stay at home on election day. And that could hurt McCain in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, no?
"He dumped Parsley too, apparently."
Is that really true? I've seen no evidence of that. Got some?
Parsley is less of a problem because he only hates Muslims and most Americans do too. He's got some weird theories relating to American history, but most Americans don't know their history, so I don't see how that really matters. Parsley should be a problem, but he won't be.
Re: There would be some women who would vote for the ticket just to have a female VP, but there are a lot of GOP women that would see that VP as too fundamentally evil to vote for.
Goodness, how does Ms Hutchinson manage to win Senate elections in Texas then?
"He dumped Parsley too, apparently."
Is that really true? I've seen no evidence of that. Got some?
McCain Cuts Ties to Pastors Whose Talks Drew Fire
Senator John McCain on Thursday rejected the endorsements of two prominent evangelical ministers whose backing he had sought to shore up his credentials with religious conservatives.Mr. McCain repudiated the Rev. John C. Hagee, a televangelist, after a watchdog group released a recording of a sermon in which Mr. Hagee said Hitler and the Holocaust had been part of God’s plan to chase the Jews from Europe and drive them to Palestine.
Later in the day, he also rejected the endorsement of the Rev. Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio, whose anti-Muslim sermons were broadcast on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday.
Maverick! First he seeks the endorsement, then he rejects it! Maverick!
"McCain picking a pro-choice running mate"
Does someone else feel the Joementum building?
So with this strategy, not only would he lose the presidential race, but he would suppress turnout so much that the Republicans would lose 30 House seats and 6-7 Senate seats?
Ah, but does he deject and rejounce Hagee?
Comments closed June 05, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
In another interesting possible future, he draws us into a land war with Iran that truly begins an American decline like the ones people have been talking about, one which cripples our already wounded military, destroys what's left of our reputation, undermines the international institutions that some worked so hard to empower in the 20th century, and plunges this country into a Middle Eastern clusterfuck hell.
Posted by Freddie | May 22, 2008 10:43 PM