Today is Super Tuesday! I will not be around much, but I had to publish a post about the ongoing clash between Rush Limbaugh and John McCain. As you all will know Limbaugh – and many conservatives with him – has declared war on McCain, saying that he may not vote for the Republican nominee for the first time in his life, if McCain indeed wins it.
McCain himself has not commented a lot on the controversy, but yesterday his campaign sent out a letter by Bob Dole. Dole wrote the letter for and sent it to Limbaugh, asking him to tone it down. Arguing that on important matters McCain has never broken with the party.
That is of course not true. In fact, the entire problem is that the Senator from Arizona breaks with his party’s base on the most important subjects such as immigration, free speech (McCain-Feingold) and so on.
Another problem problem is, of course, that Dole is not exactly a favorite of the conservative base either. Michelle Malkin tells Dole to ‘get back in your cage’ and adds: ‘Hush, hush, the McCain people keep telling us. Stop yer jabbering about the GOP back-stabbing, media-pandering, homeland security-undermining, First Amendment-trashing Maverick.’
As an aside I think that Jules and others are on to something: It would be good for the GOP if they lose the general elections. They have some internal matters to take care of.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
As Tully pointed out here, McCain has a 15 point lead among registered Republicans over Romney. The ‘base’ and the talking heads who carry their water prefer Romney (not surprising, since he seems willing to morph into whatever they tell him to be.) The voters, however, have seen what happens when the ‘base’ is given that kind of power without any dissenting voices within the party.
Great jobs of supporting the troops, Bob Dole( nearly killed in WWII) and McClown( tortued in North Vietnam) don’t pass tje muster for Limpbaugh. Dole was on the H&C cable show and continued his defense of McClown. Dole talked about McCain ALWAYS supporting his party when asked, a handful of votes over a couple of decades of voting doesn’t make him a "librul". He’s almost as conservative as Jones(NC) and Duncan(Tn), both of these aren’t Jesse Helms because of a certain issue.
I know this comes as a great surprise to the hard-core right, but they’re not the whole of the Republican Party, however much they want to claim the mantle.
Captcha irony on this comment: "left delivery"
It would be good for the GOP if they lose the general elections. They have some internal matters to take care of.
Gee, some of us would say that it would be good for the GOP to win the general elections, as it would take care of some internal matters.
I am with John Cole on this:
I am now completely convinced that there is no such thing as “conservative” principles. It is a joke, an empty suit- it means whatever you want it to mean, and right now it means double Gitmo, permanent war, hating on liberals, and tax cuts forever. I guess, in that light, Mitt is the true “conservative,” as he has shown himself willing to do whatever and pay whatever it takes to win the nomination. I simply can not believe that the folks who cheerleaded the Bush administration and who are not even flinching about the new 700 billion dollar military budget have the balls to pretend to be conservative, but, hey, it is their party. I hope they keep wrecking it. But when folks say “conservative,” and they will say it seriously as if it means something, no doubt also invoking the “mantle of Reagan,” just laugh at them. They might as well be talking about flogiston. Whatever conservative used to mean, if anything, it no longer does.
And here I recommend to read for everybody who deems themselves conservatives: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html
That confuses principles with policies. The war is not a principle, it is a policy.
And so-called "neocons" are in reality liberals, not conservatives, as I have explained many times.
Saying that conservatives have no principles is an insult to every one of the individual conservatives on this site who themselves have principles that are very important to them — family, faith, fiscal parsimony, etc.
The fact that the current administration has betrayed many of those principles should not be used by you and Juan Cole as an excuse to bash those who still hold those principles.
It would be the same as if I said that all liberals have no principles simply because the current leadership of the Democratic Party and many academic leftists have abandoned many of them, including freedom of speech, personal autonomy over matters of health, tolerance for difference, etc.
Never let it be said that a BDS sufferer passed on a chance to exhibit symptoms.
Jason, it is John Cole(not the Juan,the Arabist).
And also check the linked article.
Family, faith , fiscal…. are important to everybody, those are traditional principles of the majority of human beings.
Btw, I miss republicans , Jason, just like this guy:
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html
Maybe there are more of the old Republicans out there than you realize.
Maybe some of them hang around here.
Maybe those people don’t deserve to be marginalized or tainted by the perceived policy failures of the Bush administration.
John Cole makes the error of assuming that since social conservatives and so-called "neocons" (really liberals) have been dominant recently in the Republican party that no others even exist. His is a fundamentally dumb argument. It is also insulting to those he ignores in his zeal to bash Republicans generally. That was my point.
Michael if the GOP losses in November it isn’t going to be because they didn’t choose Flippy Mitt. My guess it will be because of the war.
I also love how no one mentions that the great GWB was for those immigration reform. No instead McCain gets bashed for it and on top of that being against oh great one’s tax cuts.
The far right talking heads need just shut up for once. I think they have done more damage to the GOP than McCain ever could.
A new TIME magazine article "The ‘I Hate Romney’" Club
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1709507-1,00.html
an excerpt
To be sure, the candidates’ staffs do seem to have bonded in their dislike of Romney. "It was very common for e-mails to be flying around between the Thompson, McCain and Giuliani campaigns," says the former Thompson staffer, "Saying, ‘No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it’s not him.‘" The staffer says that campaigns would share opposition research on Romney and offer each other tips on how best to undermine him: "Like, ‘Hey, I saw you hit Mitt on immigration — have you thought about going after him on this issue?" In some cases, the attitude even extends to the top of the campaigns. The night of the Iowa caucuses, after getting a congratulatory call from McCain, Huckabee told the candidate, according to aides: "Now it’s your turn to kick his butt."
Before and after debates, rival campaign staffers note, Romney tends not to mingle with the other candidates — most of whom know each other professionally — preferring instead to keep close to his family and staff. And those same staffers delight in trading stories about Romney’s odd behavior. The day before the Republican primary, Huckabee mocked Romney for ordering lunch at a Kentucky Fried Chicken, then peeling off the fried coating and eating it with a knife and fork. Presented with a golf club, Huckabee said he wouldn’t be very good at the game: "I’d be like Mitt Romney eating fried chicken."
But such jibes mask more substantive complaints that many of the candidates have about Romney. "What Romney has done," says a Huckabee adviser, "he’s attacked people for positions he once held. That annoys people. And he uses his own money to do it, which rubs it in." He’s gone after McCain on campaign finance reform (which he once supported), Huckabee on tax increases (Huckabee countered that Romney’s raised "fees" amounted to the same thing), and nearly all the candidates on immigration.
I suppose if you are Limbaugh or Hewitt, you can claim some justification for your campaign whilst your candidate is still in the mix. At this juncture, then, it is ultimately more bad sportsmanship than actually throwing the game.
After all, accusing McCain of not being conservative enough isn’t exactly giving fodder to Obama or Clinton down the road.
There will come a time though……
Redfish,
Other candidates, their staffers and other D.C.-types professing a dislike for Romney does nothing but increase his stature in my eyes.
Using his own money rather than the money of others is no fault as far as I’m concerned either – McCain, ever worried about the influence of money on politics should certainly approve. As far as changing positions go – McCain ain’t so hot on that either.
Tap,
Right, that’s what Romney likes to say, but Huckabee is no more a "DC Washington insider type" than Romney is. I guess you’re going to talk about how Huckabee wants to be VP , but its clear that he dislikes Romney regardless. The plain fact is they hate Romney not because he’s using his money, but that he’s using his money to run dishonest ads, claiming everyone in the race except him is a liberal and no different than Hillary Clinton, while he supported the same policies as governor. McCain is right when he says Romney is the one dividing the party.
To repeat:
"What Romney has done," says a Huckabee adviser, "he’s attacked people for positions he once held. That annoys people. And he uses his own money to do it, which rubs it in." He’s gone after McCain on campaign finance reform (which he once supported), Huckabee on tax increases (Huckabee countered that Romney’s raised "fees" amounted to the same thing), and nearly all the candidates on immigration.
Okay, all the DC insider types PLUS Huckabee don’t like Romney…still a plus in my book.
As far as the stated reasons go…this still doesn’t impress me…like I said, I can quote you changes of positions on all of ‘em…and neither McCain nor Huckabee can be said to have refrained from lying in ads.
Are you just posing as a Romney detractor, secretly trying to drum up support for him? :D
Tap: The specific complaint here about Romney is that he once held certain positions, and criticized the opposing positions. Now he says he holds the positions he once criticized, often with no explanation of how he reconciles his new positions with his own past criticism (case in point: on immigration, he praised McCain’s and Bush’s approach and said it wasn’t amnesty, and he talked about how it was impossible to deport 12 million people so we had to figure out some other way to handle the illegals who are already here; now he says that he’ll deport the 12 million, and gives no explanation as to why just a short while ago he thought that was impossible but now he thinks it’s possible and essential to do this.)
So now he claims he holds these new positions which are at odds with past statements he’s made, with no explanation of how his new positions rise above HIS OWN CRITICISM of those positions. And on top of that, right from the start in this campaign he chose to run negative ads against his opponents for holding some of the same positions that he used to hold himself and defend.