A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Just checked the Washington State Republican Party's website and found these results that show the counting started again on Saturday night but then stopped again with 93.3 percent of the precincts reporting:

http://www.wsrp.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=7042

Saturday, February 09, 2008
2008 Precinct Caucus Results

Statewide Results 2008 Precinct Caucuses:

Precincts Reporting 93.3 %

Candidates Percentage

Huckabee 23.8 %

McCain 25.4 %

Paul 20.7 %

Romney 16.7 %

Other 1.0 %

Uncommitted 12.3 %

Last Updated at: 10:55 PM

These are the results that were announced earlier on Saturday on the same website here:

http://www.wsrp.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=7043

Saturday, February 09, 2008
2008 Precinct Caucus Results

Statewide Results 2008 Precinct Caucuses:

Precincts Reporting 87.2 %

Candidates Percentage

Huckabee 23.7 %

McCain 25.5 %

Paul 20.6 %

Romney 16.5 %

Other 1.1 %

Uncommitted 12.3 %

It also contains a footnote that says:

The percentages reflect the preferences of delegates who were chosen at precinct caucuses around the state earlier today. A final report is not expected to be available until Monday, February 11.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't give a rats ass how the media reported it ... I also am not swayed by opinion polls, if you're keeping score at home.

If you and okie find it "embarrassing," great ... if you find comfort that others -- newspaper reporters, even -- share your views, I'm glad for you. I don't share your -- or their -- view on the matter. I say we leave it at that.

Ticomaya, I would like to apologize for my sarcastic comments in regard to McCain. I know you are a supporter, I respect your opinions, and as regards other supporters here, the same apology is extended. I admit I am having a tough time with McCain, and if this is worth anything, it has alot to do with his personal demeanor, as observed over the last many years, as it does his policies. Part of my debating style uses sarcasm, either to my advantage or detriment at various times, so I have also done it with McCain. I won't guarantee I cut out all criticism of McCain in the future where I think it is justified, but I will try to be fair.

Also realize my opinion is typical of alot of people, and I think not unjustified for all the reasons I have posted. When I watched the Republican debates at first when many were there on the stage, it struck me that all of those guys were decent and capable. Even at that time, I had to admit, McCain was near the bottom of my list, and not much has happened to change it. I will try to give him the benefit of the doubt where possible.

0 Replies

No worries, okie ... and no need to apologize.

If you're interested, you might skim through "Worth the Fighting for: A Memoir," written by McCain. Might give you a different perspective on the man, other than the one you've seen in most media outlets over the years.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't give a rats ass how the media reported it ... I also am not swayed by opinion polls, if you're keeping score at home.

If you and okie find it "embarrassing," great ... if you find comfort that others -- newspaper reporters, even -- share your views, I'm glad for you. I don't share your -- or their -- view on the matter. I say we leave it at that.

Hey, I already wrote a couple of posts ago that if you dont find it embarassing, I'm glad - more power to ya. But then you went on about how you hadnt seen any headlines about it being embarrassing, etc - so I showed 'em as I thought you were asking.

But sure, no need to attach any great value to them personally, of course. Their only relevance is in how McCain fares in the game of media coverage and politics - he'll win the nomination, for sure, in any case, but whether he gets there with glowing wins or through precarious crosswinds will have some impact.

But yeah, I mean, even that - the generals are 9 months away, we're all just yakking in the meantime...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't give a rats ass how the media reported it ... I also am not swayed by opinion polls, if you're keeping score at home.

If you and okie find it "embarrassing," great ... if you find comfort that others -- newspaper reporters, even -- share your views, I'm glad for you. I don't share your -- or their -- view on the matter. I say we leave it at that.

Hey, I already wrote a couple of posts ago that if you dont find it embarassing, I'm glad - more power to ya. But then you went on about how you hadnt seen any headlines about it being embarrassing, etc - so I showed 'em as I thought you were asking.

Eh? I "went on" about it, and you thought I was asking?

I suppose I "went on" about it in the sense that when you asked me whether I had "seen the media headlines today," I replied that I had not seen any that said the results were an "embarrassment" to McCain, but that I was sure you could find some that supported your position.

If you thought that by replying that way I was asking you to provide examples, you were wrong.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't give a rats ass how the media reported it ... I also am not swayed by opinion polls, if you're keeping score at home.

If you and okie find it "embarrassing," great ... if you find comfort that others -- newspaper reporters, even -- share your views, I'm glad for you. I don't share your -- or their -- view on the matter. I say we leave it at that.

Ticomaya, I would like to apologize for my sarcastic comments in regard to McCain. I know you are a supporter, I respect your opinions, and as regards other supporters here, the same apology is extended. I admit I am having a tough time with McCain, and if this is worth anything, it has alot to do with his personal demeanor, as observed over the last many years, as it does his policies. Part of my debating style uses sarcasm, either to my advantage or detriment at various times, so I have also done it with McCain. I won't guarantee I cut out all criticism of McCain in the future where I think it is justified, but I will try to be fair.

Also realize my opinion is typical of alot of people, and I think not unjustified for all the reasons I have posted. When I watched the Republican debates at first when many were there on the stage, it struck me that all of those guys were decent and capable. Even at that time, I had to admit, McCain was near the bottom of my list, and not much has happened to change it. I will try to give him the benefit of the doubt where possible.

For sure McCains negatives among Conservatives are high:

He pronounced Sam Alito as 'too conservative'

He joined with Democrats in an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants that made conservatives go ballistic.

He threw free speech out the window with McCain-Feingold.

He opposes drilling in ANWR and supports the global warming religionists--not sure whether he voted in favor of Kyoto or not.

He voted against the Bush tax cuts and making them permanent.

And that doesn't even count in the social issues.

But even with all that, he will support the military and maintain a strong defense and national security will be a high priority. Do we trust either Hilllary or Barack to do that?

He will appoint judges that are unlikely to legislate from the bench while both the Democrats will almost certainly appoint more social engineering judges.

He is a fiscal hawk and I doubt we'll see a lot of new entitlement programs initiated that our great great grandchildren will still be saddled with. As the two Democrats have promised to fix every existing human problem short of curing the common cold, I think we can expect more entitlements under a Rodham-Clinton or Obama administration.

He has pledged to sign no legislation containing earmarks. That along should get him several million votes.

All and all we might have to hold our noses to vote for McCain, but he is a far better choice for the country than any ultra liberal Democrat. I wish we had another choice too, but we also could do a lot worse than McCain.

0 Replies

Quote:

He voted against the Bush tax cuts and making them permanent.

Well heck, he's for that one now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

If you thought that by replying that way I was asking you to provide examples, you were wrong.

Thats what I thought, yeah. I'm sure if you reread your post, you can see how I might have thought that:

Ticomaya wrote:

I've obviously not seen ALL the media headlines, but I've glanced through the Real Clear Politics links, and don't see the word "embarrassment" there. Not sure that indicates anything, one way or another, but I'm also sure you would be able to find one if not more opinion headlines out there that are supportive of your views in this regard.

Sounded to me like one of those, "well if you say it's so, I'm sure you could find some examples" things. I got that wrong, obviously, but you can see how.

0 Replies

Quote:

All and all we might have to hold our noses to vote for McCain

I suggest, as an iconic image for use in reminding conservatives to remain steadfast in their principles, that they arrive at polling booths with purple noses.

0 Replies

God in heaven. Will this man please get a plane ticket and just disappear

Quote:

Bush sees the rich skipping out on taxes
By: Steve Benen @ 5:22 AM - PST There were quite a few interesting gems in the president's Fox News interview over the weekend, but this one stood out for me:

Quote:

Does this make any sense at all? Wealthy people hire accountants, so the government should leave their tax rates alone?

As Isaac Chotiner put it, "The Democrats want to raise rates on the wealthiest Americans, but Bush is saying that in fact this will screw the middle class because the rich have ways to avoid paying taxes. The obvious question is, then, why has Bush spent so much time giving tax cuts to the rich?!?!"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

0 Replies

This came in my e-mail this morning as an obvious copy and paste, but without a source. I believe it is a published article however. I think those who are considering just not voting because they can't stomach McCain might find it instructive.

The Right Is Wrong on McCain
By ROBERT MCFARLANE
February 9, 2008; Page A8

There's an old Groucho Marx riff in which he launches a new career as a stick-up artist -- while worrying that his native cowardice may not induce the requisite fear among his victims. Sure enough, after a little time in a dark alley he springs out to confront his first victim, points his gun to his own head and says, "Take one step closer and I'll kill myself."

Such is the posture today among pundits on the far right of the Republican Party as Sen. John McCain moves closer to receiving his party's nomination. Consider the destructive implications of their pledge to work against Mr. McCain's nomination and even -- in the event he is nominated -- not to vote in the general election. Start with where it would leave our country -- presumably under the leadership of either Democrat candidate -- in the two domains where we will face critical challenges in the years ahead: our national security and the threat of an economic meltdown.

Notwithstanding the reversal of trends in Iraq of a year ago, we face a long and difficult struggle in the war to turn back the nihilistic crusade being waged by radical Islam. By my reckoning after 25 visits to Pakistan, over a half-million adolescents willing to blow themselves up have "graduated" from more than 1,000 Wahabbist madrassas in that country.

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are on the threshold of sinking into violent chaos as failed states unless new, experienced American leadership can conceive and launch an effective strategy -- and convince allies to join in its execution -- to turn matters around and cut off the Taliban and al Qaeda at their roots. Such a victory is feasible under competent leadership by introducing a classical counterinsurgency strategy.

Concurrent with the conflict on the battlefield, the new administration must tackle the complex task of fostering long-term economic and political stability in these forlorn countries. Here again, such a strategy is complex but not difficult to conceive. Its successful execution is only imaginable, however, in the hands of a knowledgeable, experienced leader -- who enjoys respect among allies -- who will be sorely needed to win this struggle.

Clearly John McCain fits the bill. To choose anyone without the vital knowledge, experience and leadership skills for this role is to invite disaster.

The nonmilitary cost and impact of these national security challenges form a natural segue to consideration of major economic challenges we must overcome in the years ahead. Today we are spending more than $300 billion annually to purchase foreign oil. It is well known that some of that money is passed on to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, it is fair to say that we are funding both sides in this war.

We spend $500 billion each year on our military forces. One of their most vital missions is to protect the flow of Persian Gulf oil which fuels the global economy. The disruption of those oil flows -- such as by terrorists disabling a major Saudi processing terminal -- would bring down economies throughout the industrialized world.

Here again, one can conceive a strategy for neutralizing this threat. It involves moving urgently to introduce a profoundly different national energy policy designed to do the following:

- Provide market-based incentives to justify the essential re-tooling of our automobile industry to enable it to produce flexible-fuel, plug-in hybrid electric cars and trucks, using carbon composite materials (as Boeing is doing in the new 787 airliner);

- Accelerate the commercial production of cellulosic ethanol, butanol and other bio-fuels; and

- License new nuclear power plants.

In addition to the aforementioned challenges, our next president must prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by any of the more than 40-plus nations that are capable of that step within five to 10 years. Of course we must also prevent terrorist groups from gaining access to nuclear materials -- not a task for someone learning on the job.

Surely Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter can agree that these challenges are terribly demanding and cannot be left to luck or divine providence. Finally, there is the cost of their extremist rhetoric to the Republican Party. As President Reagan once told me, "Going over the cliff, flags flying, is still going over the cliff."

Mr. McFarlane served as President Reagan's national security adviser

0 Replies

It's from the WSJ.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

It's from the WSJ.

Thank you. Didn't want to take the time to look it up.

0 Replies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs&eurl=http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/

0 Replies

This presidential primary is not only ironic but funny to an observer lke me! The republicans all but destroyed McCain during the last election, and their best shot for the white house is the very man they destroyed last time.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

This presidential primary is not only ironic but funny to an observer lke me! The republicans all but destroyed McCain during the last election, and their best shot for the white house is the very man they destroyed last time.

Ironic, isn't it. Just goes to show what these politicans will do to get elected.

0 Replies

About that GOP caucus in Washington state..

It just gets weirder and weirder.

The Dems are having a lot of contention - and there were even whole ballot boxes taken home for the night by party officials in New Mexico ( Exclamation

). But even so, there's nothing been quite as brazen as what the Washington GOP did!

Quote:

WTF?

By Josh Marshall

As you know, [..] we've been really curious what happened in the Republican caucus in Washington state. For probably the first time in all the primaries and elections I've ever watched, the folks running the election decided to stop counting the votes with 13% of the votes uncounted. And this wasn't a 70-30 blow out, but a tight race where the two top vote getters were separated by less than 2% of the vote. Then this morning, state party chair Luke Esser decided to declare McCain the winner.

Now, when we were watching this last night [..] I was assuming they'd come forward with some story that there was some hang up with the votes or some mechanical issue. [..] But state party chair Luke Esser said that he just thought it was the right thing to do. According to Esser, sometime overnight Esser did some sort of back of the envelope statistical analysis of the the margin of McCain's lead (1.8%) and the number votes left uncounted (13%) and decided that Huckabee didn't have a chance and he'd shut the thing down and declare McCain the winner.

So was that a good idea? Here's Esser's rationale ...

"Maybe it would have been safer if I hadn't said anything. But it was an exciting and historic day for the state and I thought if I was confident about what the outcome would be I should share that with the people who had gone out to their caucuses."
So it was just such a rollicking good time Esser figured he owed the participants a decision as long as he was confident what the outcome would be.

I'm really not sure I've ever heard anything that ridiculous.

In terms of consequence, Bush v. Gore it ain't. This is a relatively small contest in a nomination campaign that appears to be over. But this is something you'd expect either from Soviet history or a farcical passage in a Faulkner novel. And let's not forget the context. Huckabee starts the day with a blowout win in Kansas. That evening he gets the largest number of votes in Louisiana. Then in the third contest he's neck and neck with John McCain and looks like he may win all three contests of the day -- a shut-out for the all-but-declared nominee. Then as it's going down to the wire, the head of the state party decides he's seen enough and calls it for McCain.

[A]s we watched the rate of the reporting slow to halt on Saturday evening, we joked amongst ourselves that with McCain already getting beaten by Huckabee twice that day maybe the organizers of the election figured that if they just held out long enough people would just forget they'd held a caucus. But as it got later and later we started to wonder if it wasn't a joke.

I still find it pretty hard to imagine [they] would try something quite this brazen. And it may well be an electoral tempest in a teapot. But this one looks and quacks like a duck. So someone should give it a much closer look.

Late Update: It seems that Washington State GOP chair Luke Esser spent most of the day avoiding calls from the Huckabee campaign. And when he finally got back to them he told a lawyer for Huckabee's campaign that they'd probably count the rest of the votes some time next week. When the lawyer, Lauren Huckabee, the candidate's daughter-in-law, requested that a Huckabee lawyer be present when the remaining votes were counted, Esser hung up on her.

Before the hang up, Huckabee also asked Esser about the DIY statistical analysis he did to conclude that he should call the race (Esser's expertise in statistics apparently stems from previous work as a state prosecutor and a sports writer). Was there an analysis of what precincts the remaining votes came from? According to Huck campaign manager Ed Rollins, Esser admitted that he didn't know which precincts the remaining votes came from.

0 Replies

Oh my goodness...!

0 Replies

I was looking for popular vote totals thus far and came across this snippet:

Quote:

McCain's is viewed favorably by 47% and unfavorably by 50%. His ratings are lower within his own party than those for either Obama or Clinton.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

0 Replies

Here's some commentary from Limbaugh today...

Quote:

I'm aware of the New York Times, what they're writing, and all this. I've been thinking about this. The Bill Kristol, David Brooks wing of the party right now consists of about three people: Kristol, Brooks, and McCain. They're being repudiated, and they may not be comfortable with this. So I'm thinking that maybe I should support McCain to help them out.

The New York Times-McCain wing of the party's in trouble. Obviously they're in trouble

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021108/content/01125106.guest.html

This reflects a very agreeable growing division and animosity between the Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity etc crowd and the neoconservative camp. Note how Limbaugh is now counting Kristol as an agent of the despicable NY Times (along with McCain). Which ought to yield some funny flare-ups on various Fox shows.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know