I think there is no doubt that John McCain will be The Republican candidate.

THe Republicans will NOT turnout in droves for McCain; but, the centrists will...

I think I agree with Dick Morris: Nominate Condi for 2008! Condi can out-woman and out-minority any canidate the Democrats throw up.

McCain could not beat a moderate Democrat, or a Dem who can pass for moderate. Conservative turnout would suck lemons due to McCain-Feingold and (among those with long memories) his ugly campaing against Dubya in the 2000 primaries. Thus, McCain would require a huge percentage of the moderate vote on a national scale. In a race between perceived moderates - i.e. when the brand differentiation is slim - the Dem tends to win. Giuliani might be able to buck that trend with his reputation and charisma. But McCain needs a truly incompetent opponent to make up for his baggage.

I dread the 2008 election, and not just because McCain is one of the touted frontrunners. None of the oft-cited names are inspiring. The battle of the midgets.

Alan, I think the ugly campaign you speak of was actually waged by "Dubya" against McCain; you need to get your facts straight before minimizing McCain's chances...

What presidential campaign not involving a sitting president or vice president wouldn't be called a battle of the midgets? 2004 was a year in which many people weren't satisfied with either candidate, either. I'm not sure how anyone could feel vindicated or inspired by Bush - even if he is basically decent. At least McCain will try to speak for all Americans, and not just a fleeting ideological movement.

Alan nailed it. McCain has serious problems with grass-roots conservatives. I'm about as "true-red" of a Republican as they come, but if it were McCain against a true moderate Democrat (e.g. Joe Lieberman), I might vote Constitution party.

Interesting. What are the 'serious problems' (besides McCain-Feingold) that cause such loathing among 'grass-roots conservatives' for the self-described 'Reagan Republican?'

I still have a hard time seeing either McCain or Hillary make it out of their respective party's primaries.

It won't be too long now. Governors and Senators with presidential aspirations will be popping up like the daffodils of spring and they will fade in summer from not being known nationally and lack of the well oiled machines like those of Hillary and McCain
If security is still a driving concern, I think McCain has a good chance.

McCain-Feingold is a biggie. No, make that a "great-biggie," to borrow a term from Wendy's restaurants. He's not seen as being strong on abortion and other social issues, he's been openly critical of President Bush on terrorism and Iraq at times, and he is a member of the "Gang of 14" which, in the eyes of many conservatives, caved in to Democrats' unprecedented use of filibuster threats.

Eric got it right. In addition to that, he has said he isn't a "gun guy" and has made derogatory comments about the NRA. That is a 4 million member organization and it might not be smart to cheese it off. He is seen by a lot of Republicans as someone who loves to run to any camera and who will say whatever it takes to get on that camera. Still... better than Hillary...

The same Gang of 14 that got two SCOTUS justices with impeccable conservative creds on the court without using any nuclear option? There's not much room to complain on that account, I wouldn't think.

Anyway, more thoughts here.

I remember that McCain was a pretty abrasive guy during the 2000 campaign. The Bush campaign South Carolina push-poll incident was one incident; McCain's mean-spiritedness was constant. He was being called Captain Queeg long before the Gang of 14 fiasco was dubbed "The McCain Mutiny."

Oh, I had completely forgotten about the "gooks" remark.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

I did some Googling - the source of that push poll was never confirmed, and no one ever owned up to it.

So tell me, why was the Bush 2000 campaign ugly?

So tell me, why was the Bush 2000 campaign ugly?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/649237.stm

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/index.html

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2105781

Link 1: Nothing out of the ordinary here, except for McCain's whackball comparison between Bush and Clinton.

Link 2: The untraced push-poll. Already addressed that.

Link 3: The untraced push-poll again, and attacks against McCain originating outside the Bush campaign.

Link 4: Dole has no evidence of Bush campaign collusion with front groups. Why shoudl we believe him? And what political campaign professional could possibly stupid enough to think that the dirty tricks in question would help a local primary race more than it would hurt other primaries, as well as the national race?

Try again.

So tell me, why was the Bush 2000 campaign ugly?

From Newsweek:

"…Voters were told that McCain was a liar, a hypocrite, a philanderer and a jerk. They were told he was not a hero at all but a Manchurian Candidate, brainwashed or broken in captivity and sent home to betray his comrades in arms. They were told he had had affairs, illegitimate children, that he infected his wife with a venereal disease and that he had sex with hookers. The Bush team protested that their hands were clean. The dirty tricks were all locally generated, the Bush camp said, and if anything they tried to discourage low-road attacks by independent groups. But McCain's advisers were sure that Bush and his men were hiding behind “plausible deniability”: they may not have wanted to know exactly what the assassins did, or even who they were, but they were satisfied with the outcome.

The negative attacks were also aimed at McCain's wife Cindy. Her addiction to prescription painkillers years earlier had been dug up during the campaign by dirty tricksters and the night before the South Carolina primary a man appeared outside a McCain event with a stack of leaflets calling her a drug addict and a 'weirdo.' When Cindy and her husband sat watching the exit polls the next night, Cindy began weeping when it became evident McCain had lost, her loud sobs breaking the silence in the room. McCain tried to stop her tears, telling her it was part of the game. 'Think of how the Bushes felt two weeks ago in New Hampshire.' Cindy turned to him sobbing. 'We never called his wife a weirdo.' "

Once again, dirty tricks with no evidence pointing to the culprit.

It would be monumental irony if the Bush campaign were behind it - being nicer to Kerry than to McCain.

Ah, the cult of Bush.

Ad hominem is a lot easier than providing evidence of collusion.

I don't think the Bush cult would let me join, not after complaining about him spending money like "a drunken teenager on Spring Break in Cancun with the parents' credit cards."

Alan K. Henderson

When Bush lost New Hampshire primary to McCain his team made a tactical decision to go negative in South Carolina. The Bush team's hands would have to appear clean, so it makes sense that the dirty tricks and smears would have been carried out by local supporters. And they playing very rough in South Carolina.

So yes, technically the Bush team could probably plead innocent to "directing" one of the dirtiest political campaigns in modern American history. But when the going got rough during the 2000 recount, Bush sent the the guys who actually did "direct" that campaign (chief South Carolina strategists, Warren Tompkins, Neal Rhodes and Tucker Eskew) to Florida to help out. That tells me that Bush certainly didn't disapprove of their tactics, or they wouldn't have been used again.

I don't even know how this old subject came up! Trust me, I am NOT a John McCain fan, but what happened in South Carolina, HAPPENED.

And it's not like we haven't seen team Bush use surrogates to perform their dirty work on opponents. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Alan?

The Bush campaign was opposed to the Swift Vets, remember? They accused Kerry of misrepresenting *their* records, and responded with those ads. Nothing wrong with that.

The subject started with my remark about McCain's ugly campaign. That opinion is based on having witnessed the candidate's own antagonistic personality. Regrettably, my memory of the details are faint, and Googling hasn't helped.

Alan K. Henderson

Now you're pulling my leg, right? You're really trying to tell me that the Bush campaign was OPPOSED *laughter* to the Swift Boat campaign!?

Sure they were - even while one of Bush's election lawyers was resigning when the press discovered that he was advising Swift Boaters on their tv ads and after a member of Bush's steering committee was seen in a Swift Boat ad. *more laughter*

Sure they were. Karl Rove and Swift Boat sugardaddy Bob Perry worked for 26 years on more than 15 Republican campaigns. Perry gave $200,000 to help start up Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In fact, seven of the 10 people who initially funded Swift Boat contributed to the Bush Campaign. One of the biggest of those donors, Harlan Crow, is a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation.

Jeb Magruder, Nixon's White House counsel and deputy director of the campaign to re-elect Nixon served time in prison for obstruction of justice during Watergate. Even a old pro like him said that so much Swift Boat money came from Bush supporters that it made it very difficult to separate Swift Boat from the presidential campaign.

Donald Segretti, a Nixon administration lawyer, who also served time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal (illegally distributing campaign literature) to has helpfully explained how to plan a 'dirty tricks' campaign - just like the pros do!

It's called, 'plausible deniability'. Mr Segretti says that the *ahem* 'political maneuvers' *laughter* used during Watergate were designed to keep working details away from top Nixon banannas so they could truthfully say later that they didn't know a thing about the schemes.

That's the way to do it! That's why George Bush, in his best Hogan's Heroes Sgt. Schultze voice could say, "I know nothing...N-O-T-H-I-N-G!"

As for your post about McCain's 'ugly campaign.' Of course "Googling hasn't helped." You have a set of preconceived notions that you don't want 'facts' to get in the way of.

Just Google this: south carolina, 2000 primary, dirty tricks.

Or this: south carolina, 2000 primary, smears

You'll find lots.

Now you're pulling my leg, right? You're really trying to tell me that the Bush campaign was OPPOSED *laughter* to the Swift Boat campaign!?

Bush himself condemned the Swift Vet ads. I thought everybody knew that. Media Matters has the story:

On August 23, while vacationing at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, President George W. Bush responded to advertisements released by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying, "I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV of the 527s." When asked specifically about the Swift Boat Vets' advertisements, Bush said that he was calling for an end to "that ad, every other ad."

Evidently, some people associated with Bush disagree. BUT THEY'RE NOT BUSH.

I didn't say that the South Carolina dirty tricks didn't happen. I said nobody found a smoking gun with the Bush campaign's fingerprints. Bob Jones U certainly doesn't need anyone's prodding to do something crass.

Search engines have limitations. They tend to turn up newer stories or older major stories. Personality profiles on presidential candidates tend to not exist. Googling "McCain Queeg 2000" doesn't turn up details on the McCain-Queeg comparisons during the 2000 campaign - but I do get this from AnkleBitingPundits:

A lot has changed since 2000, when Sen. John McCain stuck his thumb in every Republican eye he could find and then lapped up the drippings of approval from a national press corps, prouder than a new puppy on graduation day of obedience school.

I remember as a witness to news broadcasts what ABP remembers, that McCain went out of his way to alienate Republicans. I also remember from broadcasts that McCain often acted like a jerk.

Wait a minute...googling "McCain 2000 jerk" ...

One blogger, who once worked for a Dem challenger to McCain, has similar eye/earwitness testimony, that "The guy has a record of being incredibly vindictive." (I disagree with the bloghost that the Obama item serves as evidence.) Mentions some pre-2000 incidents, no source material. Let's see if I can find more on the Amy Matthews story...

Here's an editorial written by Pat Murphy, retired publisher of the Arizona Republic, and former friend of John McCain. Money quote:

If McCain becomes President, America will have more than a prickly president with a low boiling point. He carries grudges, fibs rather than admits mistakes, cannot endure criticism, threatens revenge, controls by fear, is consumed with self-importance.

Murphy lists a number of incidents, including the Silverman episode. It's all pre-2000, but the McCain personality I remember seeing and hearing is consistent with Murphy's profile of the man.

Smoking gun? What smoking gun did you expect? George Bush may know zero about governing, but he and his team are campaigning pros - nobody was gonna find their fingerprints on ANYTHING. So it's a matter of connecting the dots and asking the obvious question, "who stands to gain from the smears and/or dirty tricks?"

And you obviously did not bother to read my last post regarding what Watergate alumns had to say about the Swift Boat 'Campaign" and 'plausible deniability.'

I suspect this is all a gigantic waste of time. Believe what you want to believe, Alan.

Murphy lists a number of incidents, including the Silverman episode. It's all pre-2000, but the McCain personality I remember seeing and hearing is consistent with Murphy's profile of the man.