Even money that if McCain actually gets into the White House, first thing he does is start dancing around, yelling "Free at last, free at last!"
Then we're all doomed.
Unless he has a heart attack.

Brett,

His inabiility to garner votes for the nation's highest office says nothing about his popularity. People in the party like him, they just think he's thin on policy and conservative credentials. As a cheerleader for McCain he will help TREMENDOUSLY.

Giuliani's supporters are likely to happily support McCain, too. They tend to be the defense conservatives, social moderates that resonate with McCain. I firmly expect Super Tuesday to see McCain way ahead, probably so far ahead that Romney and Huckabee will realize it's all over.

Interestingly, on the Dem side, there was a significant variability in the Florida vote depending on when they were cast. Evidently, for those who cast their vote a month ago in early voting, Clinton was way ahead (nearly 30% advantage). However, for those who made up their mind in the past few days and voted today, Obama had tied Clinton, completely eliminating that gap.

Clinton will win, but the victory won't represent what's actually happening: Clinton has the party infrastructure and many superdelegates, but the trend in voter preference is clearly favoring Obama.

I'm going to write in "Fred D. Thompson" all the way through November.

Here's why.

By doing so, you send a message that can’t be mistaken or spun. It is a message that says:

“I am a Republican who wanted to vote for a conservative GOP candidate, but wasn’t able to do so. I can’t vote for a Democrat, but I can’t vote for any of the Republicans, either. So I’m writing in the name of the candidate I wish I could have voted for, because he is the kind of candidate I could support.”

They have to learn that if they want conservative votes, they have to nominate candidates conservatives would want to vote for.

http://dailypundit.com/?p=29429

McCain vs (Clinton/Obama): If it comes to that I'll be staying home this November. So will dozens of my friends and acquaintances.

No Republican presidential candidate can win without the support of the party's conservative base. McCain has made a career of antagonizing that base and it's too late now to kiss and make up even if the Senator was inclined to do that.

There is a reason Frank Rich and his buddies are cheerleading for McCain and it is not because these liberals love the GOP.

I'm going to write in "Fred D. Thompson" all the way through November.

Though in the spirit of the Thompson campaign, what you should really do is just think for a while about writing his name on the ballot in November and talk about it wit a few people over dinner, but actually stay home and watch TV on election day.

So it's down to McCain v Romney (if Huckabee can't win even in South Carolina he obviously can't win the nomination).

Any bets on who wins that matchup?

I'm a Giuliani voter who'll be switching to McCain next Tuesday. I'm one of the moderate defense conservatives--First win the war, and as for domestic policies, on McCain's big liabilities:

Immigration - Moderation is the right approach here, unless you really think the economy would happily churn along absent 11 million immigrants doing the crappy jobs that Americans would prefer not to at those prices.

Taxes - I like tax cuts. But I also like spending cuts. Romney is probably a little better on the former; McCain is much better on the latter. Remember the $20B pander to the Detroit auto industry? If I wanted a president who fixed problems by throwing money at them, I'd vote Democrat.

Campaign Finance Reform - Can't win 'em all. But even if I were going to be a single issue voter, this wouldn't be the issue.

Judicial nominations - He struck a compromise that had the GOP getting most of what we wanted without causing a major fight which we would have looked horrible at the end of. In practice, we won--how pure does our candidate need to be?

Oh, and there's the part where McCain understands foreign and military policy, while Romney at best sounds decent without showing any substance. That's kind of important.

John McCain is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Informant,

Second best movie ever (after Shawshank).

Mr. X's obsessive support for Ron Paul is well known to anyone who reads this blog. Keep that in mind when you consider his comments.

BTW, my guess is that if John McCain is the nominee, he will do what Bob Dole did in 1996--name a conservative running mate (Fred Thompson perhaps, but more likely someone who does not have a preconceived image of being a lazy campaigner). I am not sure who that someone will be--but that is my prediction.

NYU 3L and Ohio Bob share some of my views, but I also have questions for those who see McCain-Feingold as the game stopper. I understand that political speech is core speech, but aren't "fair" elections fundamental to our Constitutional government? Isn't there some chance that money can corrupt or threaten the legitimacy of elections? Would some lesser regulation of speech be reasonable? Is there another proposal to safeguard elections from corruption?

Thanks.

Well, this small 'c' conservative will hold his nose and vote for Obama if it's a Obama/McCain race.
I'd rather vote for a liberal who is fairly honest* than a corrupt 'conservative such as Keating Five McCain.


*Unless credible allegations of corruption with plenty of supporting evidence come out about him, of course.
In that case, I'm voting Libertarian for President.
Just like I will if it's HRC vs. McCain.

In that case, God help the Republic for we shall surely need divine intervention.

I do plan to vote Thompson -- no need to write him in; he's still on the ballot here -- next week. In November, it's going to be tough.

The only viable candidate with any executive experience and any appreciation for the private sector economy is Mitt Romney. He suiccesfully created a multi-billion dollar, investment finance firm. He went on from there to turning around a corrupt and financially hemhoraging Olympic games situation into a clean and financially solvent operation. He spent a term as a Republican, outsider governor in an entirely Democratic state that is totally run by insiders. He survived that and introduced a few modestly conservative reforms. His Mormon family-values (I'm an ethnic Roman Catholic.) convince me that his social conservatism is sound on the most basic level. What's not to like and respect?

John McCain has spent his entire life in the bossom of the federal government. His stint in the Senate has given him a love for regal prerogatives on a level with those of George III. He has been as annoying as Arlen Spector in thwarting conservative policies and generally badmouthing conservatives of every stripe. Why would any conservative ever vote for him?

And while it is true that anti-McCain conservatives may not be even a majority within the Republican party; no Republican candidate can win without their ardent support.

Mitt Romney is the country's, Republicans', and conservatives best hope for President in 2008.

[Rudy's] inabiility to garner votes for the nation's highest office says nothing about his popularity.

I agree in one respect; of the candidates that nobody votes for, I think Rudy is probably the most popular.

In a McCain v. Obama election, the important question is the VPs, since neither candidate would live long as president.

Is it not already a forgone conclusion that McCain would pick Lindsay Graham?

As much as I personally like Lindsay Graham and think he would be a terrific President naming him as his running mate would do nothing to McCain's standing among the anti-McCain faction of the Republican Party.

No, I am predicting that McCain chooses a running mate completely outside his orbit--Mitt Romney or one of his supporters or if someone within his camp, a hard C conservative like Tom Coburn.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson for VP? Assuming she's in good health. Even though she's from Texas, it seems that she could get southern conservatives, while McCain does okay on the coasts...

sbron-

Having followed Krikorian, I'm inclined to ignore any hit piece he does related to immigration. This is the same guy who argued that kicking immigrants out of the country was needed for the compelling purpose of inflating wages so American teenagers would take lousy jobs. That's not conservative; it's protectionist. When he speaks on the subject, he has no credibility.

Guiliani, as a former prosecutor, had a pretty good understanding of the Supreme Court and could speak intelligently about the shifts from the Warren Court era to the Rehnquist Court era. I think he would have been the one with the best personal insight into selecting a SCOTUS nominee. Of the remaining candidates, at least Romney has the right people around him.

McCain, on the other hand, would probably be hostile to the kind of judges that would overturn his precious free-speech-stifling "campaign finance" law.

As far as immigration goes, I don't know any sane libertarian who is in favor of opening the borders before the welfare state and public education are dismantled. It's one thing to say in the abstract that freedom of contract should permit people to contract for employment and housing anywhere they like, it's another to invite the world's uneducated masses to dine at our Handout Buffet. Nor do I think a libertarian could be too happy with the massive amount of regulations that will issue from an executive branch that suddenly has bought into the global warming hoax. No, McCain is not a valid option.

Big government, endless war, economic stupidity, amnesty for illegals. Of course you neocons love Mc Cain.