Category: 2008 Election

We’re going to have President Obillery folks.  Mike Bloomberg is running petitions to make a third party run (via Instapundit).  It’s looking increasingly likely that this authoritarian fascist is going to be throwing his jack boot into the race.

Normally I would suggest Bloomberg will draw the authoritarian fascist vote away from Hillary, but McCain’s saving grace in the election, if there is any, is that he has strong appeal to independent voters who like McCain.  If Bloomberg draws right leaning independents away from McCain, it’ll easily hand the election to Obillery.

And that’s not even considering the fact that Ron Paul I think will also run as either an independent or Libertarian in the general election.  I don’t see what else he’s going to do with all that money.

Stock up on EBRs while you can, it’ll be a damned miracle if we don’t end up screwed with a Democratic Congress and Democrat in the White House.

From John Podhoretz:

McCain would, there is no question, be a lousy leader of an ideological movement. But the Republican party is not an ideological movement. It is a political vehicle for the American right-of-center. Those who confuse the Republican party with the conservative movement are indulging in a fantasy — that there is purity in politics and that there is something immoral about ideological impurity.

Via Instapundit

UPDATE: Ooops… I had a quote of the day already.  Make this the Quote of Tomorrow then.  Tam’s quote was a lot funnier, and I’d hate to displace it.

Eric at Classical Values thinks so:

I think the vindictive nastiness turned people off to both McCain and Romney. And there was Mike Huckabee, a mild-mannered populist. Someone who doesn’t talk down to people like Romney, and who doesn’t frighten them like McCain (if only because there’s been no anti-Huckabee hate machine to further frighten those who fear the politics of acrimony).

Huckabee was a protest vote. And I think a lot of the Huckabee voters weren’t so much protesting McCain and Romney as they were the acrimony.

That Huckabee (a Southerner) was dismissed, derided, and laughed at by virtually all the MSM pundits might have been a factor too.

I have to admit, last night I, an anti-Huckabee guy to the core — found myself very soothed by the reassuring cadences of Huckabee’s voice, and the apparent simple humanity of the man, and it was immediately clear what happened. This might be irrational (and of course I am leaving out the Mormon issue — which sooner or later will probably be addressed by someone), but there it is.

The angry anti-McCain chorus (and the response to it) created a backlash, not in McCain’s favor, but in Huckabee’s. I think they wanted to get even with the “sides” — and I don’t blame them even though I recognize that last night’s Huckabee vote was in the long run little more than an act of retaliatory political vandalism.

Read the whole thing.  It’s an interesting take on yesterday’s events.

Ron Paul beat John McCain to come in second in Montana, with 25% of the vote.  I’m hearing his campaign thinks they have a chance at winning Alaska.

Mitt took Montana with 38%.  It seems to be that the farther Romney gets away from Massachusetts and the Northeast, where we’re all very aware of the fact that he has no soul, the better he does.

But back to Ron Paul.  His performance in Montana would indicate he has a chance of taking Alaska, but if I were to place a beer bet, I’m betting McCain takes Alaska.  What’s all this mean?  It definitely tells me is that the free state project folks picked the wrong state to try to move to.  They picked New Hampshire, when clearly Montana would be the better choice.

I actually hope all the folks who put a lot of energy, money and enthusiasm into the Paul campaign don’t get disillusioned and drop out of the process.  I am optimistic that more liberty oriented ideas can resonate with the general public, if fronted by a candidate who can carry the message.  Elections are popularity contests, and are only peripherally about ideas and policy.  We need a candidate who can win in that kind of environment, and that isn’t, and wasn’t really ever going to be Ron Paul.

Grab a knife, and some cream cheese, because Mitt is Toast.  Being unable to win any of the big states, I’m not sure how Mitt can pull this one out.  Either candidate might be able to pull enough delegates to get on the ticket, but I don’t think anyone gets to be king maker here.  He’s fighting with Huckabee over sloppy seconds in the delegate count right now.  It was a good night to be John McCain, and a good night to be Mike Huckabee too, who did much better than anyone expected.  It would seem that Huckabee is not a candidate who should be lightly left for dead.

Via Dave Hardy, I came across this article from someone who served as a POW with John McCain, refuting some of the rumors, to my mind quite disgusting rumors, that are floating around about McCain’s service.

I don’t think John McCain’s service to his country is really something that anyone can question, and the fact that some people are, with apparently false statements, is pretty lamentable.

A bit of advice from Snowflakes in Hell: Go out and vote your conscience.  Mitt, John, Ron, even Fred is on the ballot still some places; it’s all going to end up smelling just as bad come time to vote in November anyway.

It’s also Fat Tuesday, by the way, which is just fine, because the results of this election, so far, are enough to drive anyone to drink.  I think we’re quite likely to have a Republican front runner after tomorrow, and I strongly suspect that’s going to be McCain.  I have a feeling tomorrow is going to be a good day for Obama too, but we shall see.

McCain seems to be doing well among the conservative law professor crowd.  Even though I’m not voting until April 22nd in Pennsylvania’s irrelevant primary, I would feel a lot better about voting for McCain myself if he would promise to put some Volokh Conspirators on the high court.

That ought to be the mantra of the Libertarian Party, but we know exactly how much electoral success they’ve had over the years.  I know I keep beating on this drum, but I think it’s important.  Ed Morrissey is supporting Romney, but he also has this to say:

I’m supporting Mitt Romney because I think he is the better option. If Mitt doesn’t win the nomination, I plan to support John McCain. He will have won the support of more of the party, and that would make him the man to carry the banner. I will still oppose some of his policy stands and acknowledge his apparent animus at times to the party base, but he will still be a much better choice for the nation than Hillary Clinton.

Mitt is a little too unpredictable and wishy washy sleazy for my taste, but if he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him.  I won’t like it, but I guarantee I won’t like Hillary or Obama, combined with a Democratic Congress.  The last time we had that, we all remember what happened, and I don’t think, this time, we can count on a perfect storm for Republicans sweeping them into power.  Via Dr. Helen, I also found this excellent post:

It’s not that I think they must like McCain; I understand it if they don’t. And it’s not even that I think they have to vote for him if nominated by their party. Nor is it just that they are seriously out of touch with political reality in this country, although that’s certainly part of it.It’s that they have elevated party purity above considerations of the good of the country. In the end, not only is this bad for the country, but I think it’s bad for the Republican Party.

Many of the commenters on that thread have forgotten the Law of Thirds. What’s the Law of Thirds? I made it up, and described it here. The following is a short recap:

[M]y law refers to the fact that the populace of the US seems to be divided roughly into thirds, at least in the political sense: one-third on the entrenched left, one-third on the entrenched right, and one-third in between….Anyone from either radical third who thinks the American people will be happy to give his/her third a permanent ascendance in American political life is quite wrong, IMHO, and that person will be soundly rejected by said American people if he/she arrogantly and openly displays the hubris of thinking so…

The biggest mistake conservatives, and especially second amendment activists can make is not understanding that our specific political views are minority views.  It’s not that other people don’t have sympathies to those views, or are indifferent to them, but people who care enough about the second amendment enough to vote for someone based on that issue are not numerous enough to win an election.   We can help win an election in coalition with other interests, and we can break that coalition by not voting with them, but that doesn’t mean the other factions will come crawling back.  They very well may reform a majority coalition without gun owners in it by fronting candidates with a different balance of positions.  Then where do we turn?

Dr. Helen has a useful observation about the notion that it’s only by the nation hitting rock bottom, will everyone realize the solution is found in conservatives: “alcoholics often hit rock bottom and stay there”

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. Feel free to tell me how crazy I am in the comments.