GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Is McCain Campaign Over?

by

Roger L. Simon hints that may well be the case.

I have heard various rumors that the McCain for President campaign is de facto over and today’s Hotline report on the candidate’s poor fund-raising only makes them seem true. Campaign strategist John Weaver was left to pick up the pieces. “These are moments, none of which at the end of the day impact winning the nomination. We’re on track to do that. Every campaign would trade places with us. We wouldn’t trade places with anyone else.”

Okay, John, it is so if you think so. Meanwhile, in the non-Pirandello real word, things look pretty grim for the Arizona Senator.

Couldn’t make me happier if Sen. McCain made an early exit.  To coin a phrase, “Better slice a vein than vote for McCain.”

Of course, I haven’t made my video podcast of the shredding of the many mailings from McCain that have arrived at the Patriot Household in the past few weeks.  I just haven’t gotten around to it…. kind of like potential donors to John McCain.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. McCain is living in a fantasy world if he thinks he had any chance to win.

    He was prime troublemaker number for the republicans in 2006.. interfereing with the “torture” bill, and the immigration bill.. plus his assault on free speech and other betrayals.. Good bye

  2. Of course, don’t also forget that this may be a head-feint to the other GOP candidates that McCain’s fundraising MAY (my emphasis) be in trouble.

    Don’t ever try to bluff a good poker player – he may be bluffing back.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  3. I sent my McCain mailings bck to them with notes that said, you didn’t support my President when he needed you. And Sen McCain’s attack on the first amendment is unforgiveble. Sen McCain made it okay for a Republican to attack a sitting Republican President and the media fawned all over him. How’s Chris Matthews and MSNBC doing for him now?

  4. Gene writes: “Sen McCain made it okay for a Republican to attack a sitting Republican President and the media fawned all over him.”

    Hey Gene, I think you meant to say that Sen McCain followed in the footsteps of RR when McCain attacked an incumbent president, didn’t you?

    RR, while having espoused for decades the “11th Commandment for GOPers is to not speak ill of fellow GOPers” on the rubber chicken circuit literally trashed incumbent President Gerald Ford in contesting the 1976 GOP nomination and probably gave the election to JimminyCricketCarter.

    Don’t get me wrong, McCain –like RR– gets big demerit points from me for undercutting the President. At least RR had the opportunity to redeem himself… I’m not sure McCain ever could do that even as President.

    McCain, it can be said with a honest nod to the past, learned from the best of them –none other than RR.

  5. From Ryan Sager in the New York Sun today – a pretty good review of the impact of McCain-Feingold:
    http://www.nysunpolitics.com/pf.php?id=20

    Do you like Fred Thompson? Please note he was a key excuser of McCain-Feingold. That disqualifies him for the Presidency, in my opinion. (Just as it disqualifies McCain and Feingold.)

    ANYONE who supports McCain-Feingold is hereby given a failing grade, not only in U.S. Constitution 101, but in their high school Civics class as well. As Sager puts it:

    …McCain-Feingold supporters promised that the bill would curb the scourge of “negative” and “dirty” advertising. “It is about slowing political advertising,” Ms. Cantwell said during the debate. “Making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves.” …curbing and “slowing” speech critical of politicians by “outside interest groups” (a.k.a. “citizens”) is in no way a permissible goal under the First Amendment.

  7. #5 Mich Matt, Ronald Reagan in a political campaign, attacked Ford’s policies yes. Ford was a Rockefeller Republican. McCain undercut a weak President Bush, after the 2000 election on key conservative principles. Lowering taxes and undercutting free speech with the McCain Feingold abomination. And I watched the Senator on shows like Hardball, smirk and wink when discussing the new administration. Using lots of unspoken little jabs at the President. Now we’re seeing what part of the party is faithful and loyal to the good Senator. Bout 25%. How’s the shoe fit on the other foot?

  8. Okay, I’ve read the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, but I never took Constitution 101, and I’m sure I would fail it if I did. So let me play devil’s advocate regarding McCain-Feingold, since I don’t have an opinion either way about it. Of course, the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech. But does McCain-Feingold prevent free speech? My understanding is that if someone has a gazillion dollars to spend on advertising to support or trash a candidate, there are certain limitations, and he/she may not be able to do so under certain conditions. This person, however, is free to go on a street corner and say his speech regarding his opinion of a candidate, and anyone who wants to listen can. Would he be allowed to pay for an advertisement that says “I have wonderful opinions about candidates for the election. Anybody who wants to hear it is welcome to spend their hard earned money to travel, and come here me speak about it.”? Unfortunately, I cannot afford advertising time on TV to air my wonderful and astute opinions, so is my free speech also curtailed as a result?

    The problem is that we do seem to allow the rich people who can afford advertising (and the media) to manipulate us in deciding who to vote for. Heck, Howard Dean, like him or hate him, seemed to be heading for the Democratic nomination, but because he let out one scream and the media played it over umpteen times, that we had to, on that basis alone, now find that Dean was unfit for President.

    In any case, it seems the best way to combat all the campaign shenanigans is to give the same exact weight that a person or group who spends a lot of money to share their point of view, to the poor person down the street. When that happens, it simply won’t be worth it for these people to shell out all this money, who are not doing this because they are lovers of the First Amendment, but are simply trying to manipulate the public to vote their way, which, of course, probably benefits them financially.

  9. Gene, you’re right on two points: Ford was an incumbent GOP President. RR attacked him in order to score political points and “steal” the nomination away from Ford.

    This, the ultimate hypocritical stroke from RR who advanced the 11th Commandment for GOPers.

    RR attacked Ford as a tool of the inner circle of corrupt politicos running the fed govt… he fought for the nomination based on portraying that America’s problems stemmed from the fed govt in DC… and played perfectly into JimmineyCricketCarter’s hands.

    McCain is every bit the opportunist that RR was in ’76. I hope McCain gets the same fortune: no GOP nomination.

  10. Ronald Reagan was building a movement. Leaning heavily on conservative principles. I doubt you could say the same for McCain. Reagan watched as the Republican Party was no more than Democrat lite under Ford, a Washington insider. There’s no doubt the times were gentler and less rude. Look at the change in the country the past 20 years. Reagan was a fighter for his values. The 11th Commandment has been dead a long time. Some would say good riddance because the Republicans need to be less timid in general, when attacked as they are from the left.