It's going to be McCain
John McCain holds a prodigeous national lead among Republicans as we head into Tsunami Tuesday.
He already leads in delegates, and holds the following average leads in major Tsunami Tuesday states:
In St. Paul, Minn. on Sept. 3 of this year, John McCain is going to be nominated for president by the Republican party on the first ballot.
He is as strong an economic conservative as there is in the race. He is solidly pro-life, and has been for a quarter century. He has defense and security credentials the equal of which can be found in neither party. He is the one candidate whose credentials for the White House easily surpass Hillary Clinton's. And as a practical matter, he's the only available alternative (or soon will be) to either Hillary or Barak Obama. He is, moreover, the only candidate in the Republican party who has consistently been competitive with both in an election the Republicans are supposed to lose, and is recognized by the experts as by far the strongest potential nominee the Republicans have.
One may disagree with him about McCain-Feingold (I myself have mixed emotions). One may disagree about the Gang of Fourteen. One may be more skeptical about global warming than McCain is. But if conservatives study him objectively, I think they'll come to realize that he's a great deal more palateable a choice than they think he is- and certainly (whether Ann Coulter recognizes it or not) a better choice than Hillary.
The time has come for conservatives and John McCain to mutually begin making peace with one another. There is too much at stake for all of us for them not to.
He already leads in delegates, and holds the following average leads in major Tsunami Tuesday states:
National 12.4
California 8.3
New York 12.5
Illinois 14.0
Missouri 5.0
New Jersey 17.3
Tennessee 5.3
Alabama 6.5
Connecticut 22.0
In St. Paul, Minn. on Sept. 3 of this year, John McCain is going to be nominated for president by the Republican party on the first ballot.
He is as strong an economic conservative as there is in the race. He is solidly pro-life, and has been for a quarter century. He has defense and security credentials the equal of which can be found in neither party. He is the one candidate whose credentials for the White House easily surpass Hillary Clinton's. And as a practical matter, he's the only available alternative (or soon will be) to either Hillary or Barak Obama. He is, moreover, the only candidate in the Republican party who has consistently been competitive with both in an election the Republicans are supposed to lose, and is recognized by the experts as by far the strongest potential nominee the Republicans have.
One may disagree with him about McCain-Feingold (I myself have mixed emotions). One may disagree about the Gang of Fourteen. One may be more skeptical about global warming than McCain is. But if conservatives study him objectively, I think they'll come to realize that he's a great deal more palateable a choice than they think he is- and certainly (whether Ann Coulter recognizes it or not) a better choice than Hillary.
The time has come for conservatives and John McCain to mutually begin making peace with one another. There is too much at stake for all of us for them not to.
Comments
Skepticism is not what objection to McCain-Leiberman is about. That legislatin involves the theft of liberty.
It's not over until it's officially over and it's not polite or nice to bludgeon people into not supporting their own people because someone else is doing better now.
People's problems with McCain are all valid. Check out David Limbaugh's article.
I'm not sure what I'd rather see.
1) Tomorrow is close between McCain and Romney and the nomination continues to be a slugfest for the next couple of months with a possible brokered convention.
or
2) McCain wins big enough so Romney basically drops out. McCain slacks off campaigning in the later contests enough such that Ron Paul is able to embarrass him here and there (I think and hope Ron Paul will keep the heat up 'till the end just to keep the GOP on its toes).
Either one would be great fun.
And nobody is paying any attention to Ron Paul. They won't, no matter what happens tonight. He's irrelevant, just like he's always been.
Bludgeon? What bludgeoning? As of tonight, the race will be over!
McCain is going to be the nominee, Chris. You're going to have to deal with it.
I think you mean McCain-Feingold, and I would challenge the idea that to give the free speech of people with lots of money access to to a greater audience than the free speech with less money is "a theft of liberty." I have mixed emotions about McCain-Feingold on philsophical grounds, but the absence of the corrupting influence of soft money is hardly a negative thing.
Tell me about it! The media goes to great effort "paying no attention" to him. Glad you acknowledge the blackout.
Since nobody is paying attention, you may not have heard the story from West Virgina. Ron Paul supporters there went for Huckabee in the second round of voting in exchange for 3 delegates. Real, old-fashioned political dealings. Interesting! I've never payed enough attention to the nominating process to know that kind of stuff goes on.
If you're looking for a reason why he's being ignored, compare his delegate count with that of the others.
By that standard, Ron Paul has always been about 17 times more newsworthy than Rudy.
Ron Paul was evidently more newsworthy than Rudy. He beat Rudy in most all contests. Yet, Fox News seems unembarrassed about shutting Ron Paul out of the New Hampshire debates.
Besides, which comes first here, the chicken or the egg? Do you think it might be a little easier to get delegates if you first get free media news coverage? If you are ignored, wouldn't that tend to suppress delegate count?
He's a crank on the fringe.
Being a crank on the fringe would make him more newsworthy, no?
Wouldn't it me newsworthy if a crank on the fringe raised more money than Romney and McCain combined in 2007 Q4? Ron Paul did raise that much.
No. Ron Paul has never been newsworthy at all.
Ron Paul was evidently more newsworthy than Rudy.
On what planet?
He beat Rudy in most all contests. Yet, Fox News seems unembarrassed about shutting Ron Paul out of the New Hampshire debates.
Because Ron Paul was never a serious candidate for the nomination. Rudy had the sense to drop out when he realized he couldn't do better than Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't.
Besides, which comes first here, the chicken or the egg? Do you think it might be a little easier to get delegates if you first get free media news coverage? If you are ignored, wouldn't that tend to suppress delegate count?
And being a nut case with no following worth mentioning will do it, too.
Being a crank on the fringe would make him more newsworthy, no?
Er..no. Just more irrelevant.
Wouldn't it me newsworthy if a crank on the fringe raised more money than Romney and McCain combined in 2007 Q4? Ron Paul did raise that much
And received due credit for it in the media. It's just that the media didn't confuse fellow cranks sending him a lot of money with his being a serious candidate. With all the money that Paul raised, where were the votes? Where are the delegates? Hmmmm?