Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Meanwhile, in the GOP “race”
While most of the attention in Pennsylvania yesterday was on the battle for the Democratic nomination, the Republicans also held a primary in the Keystone State (as NJLawyer commented in last night’s results thread). The presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain, of course, won, capturing nearly 73 percent of the vote. But what about that other 27 percent? Ron Paul, who has not officially stopped running, picked up 16 percent, while Mike Huckabee, who has dropped out of the race, accounted for a little more than 11 percent of the vote.
Is this a protest vote against McCain, meaning that he still has a lot of work to do to unite his party? It will be interesting to chart this in the few primaries that remain.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top29 Comments to “Meanwhile, in the GOP “race””
McCain doesn’t need all the conservatives if he can pick up white working class voters by default (i.e., by not being Black) in Pensylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.
It’s looking more and more to me like HC is the smartest candidate. She’s running to win the next election.
No president could clean up Bush’s mess and McCain will drive the country deeper into despair. Meanwhile, Democrats can improve their margins in Congress.
Hillary is filing a strong dissenting opinion against the Democratic decision of ‘08. Her fierce performance shows her the better, if unsuccessful, candidate, and guarantees that Obama won’t be in her way in ‘12.
This election will be settled by a decision that HC knows she cannot win, because delegates fear the loss of Obama supporters in the general election. What HC can do — do very well — is to file a strong dissenting opinion. Her fierce showing in the late primaries makes her look preferable even if unsuccessful and lowers Obama’s chances in the general. Waiting out this presidential election is not a bad strategy for a Democrat. No president can clean up Bush’s mess, and McCain will drive the country into deeper despair. Meanwhile Democrats can build their margins in Congress! I’m and Obama supporter.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm, I agree with Slate on this one. They said that since John McCain is the obvious Republican nominee, he doesn’t have the same kind of support at the polls now, and even people who would tend to vote for him see no real reason to go out and do so, seeing as their vote is just ceremonial at this point. Ron Paul and Huckabee supporters are still going strong, since their votes still make a statement. I do agree that McCain has some work to do with the conservative base… but as a socially liberal, economically conservative independant, I’ve gotta say that the reason that I voted for McCain in the first place was because he’s NOT courting the right-wing…
Report comment to moderator
Evidently, I think it is something to watch. The tally of the votes was more than 200,000 people. That’s quite a “protest.” I think these people are saying that they might very well stay home or vote for a “write in” if McCain seems TOO liberal to them. He has work to do to win them over and shouldn’t rely on those who would defect from the Dems if Obama is the nominee to make up the difference.
I realize Obama is Scroopy’s guy so he makes his case, but I’m not so sure Hillary has lost the nomination. If she does well in the remaining states, she can make a case to the superdelegates that she’s more electable. Obama lost the white blue collar vote, and they could turn to McCain if their “girl” doesn’t make it in the end. Race was a factor for 1 in 6 PA voters from what I’ve heard. Whatever Scroopy thinks, his candidate won’t be able to brush everything off if he goes up against McCain. As Hillary says: everything is on the table.
(I personally don’t think she has another chance after this one unless McCain wins.)
This is one exciting election!
Report comment to moderator
Emma – “but as a socially liberal, economically conservative independent, I’ve gotta say that the reason that I voted for McCain in the first place was because he’s NOT courting the right-wing”
Well said. You and me both.
And that’s the horn’s of McCain’s dilemma. If he starts to obviously court the right wing base, as suggested, he risks losing the moderate swing voters (me, Emma, and our millions of close personal friends. {wink}
NJL – This is one exciting election!
No kidding! I missed the Game 7 overtime winner in the Caps/Flyers hockey game because I was watching the primary coverage. That’s saying something!
Report comment to moderator
NJL, this isn’t an EXCITING election, it’s fearful. I’m afraid of all of them. The price of food is going up and each of them wants to convert food to fuel. They all have plans for “energy independence’, none of which includes new sources of petroleum.
Report comment to moderator
I voted for Huckabee simply because I could. It wasn’t a ‘protest’ vote per se; McCain has won the Republican nomination and, without doubt he’ll get my vote in November. I just decided to excercise my right to “vote for the candidate of my choice.”
Travis: I can’t believe you missed the Flyers/Caps game! Great finish, except that the Flies [sic] won. Go Pens!
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: I personally don’t think she has another chance after this one unless McCain wins.
Yes! McCain winning is her best chance, I think. She doesn’t think Obama can win, so it doesn’t matter how much she damages him, as he would have lost anyway. Her persisting makes her look both strong and discriminated against, and insures that Obama really won’t be around in ‘08. She can spend the McCain administration saying, “You’re bitter now, if you weren’t before. I told you so.”
She probably also realizes she can’t win this year, either. Too many Democrats hate her. Even if Blacks don’t all stay home, Nader will take Florida away from her, if she runs.
The consolation for Democrats is that Obama will be good for the party even in defeat by helping the “downstream” candidates. Besides, the only medicine for White men who vote for McCain because he’s not Black and white women who vote for McCain because Obama’s not a woman is four more years of Bush. Fortunately, too, a bunch of these people will be dead in four years.
Report comment to moderator
“She’s running to win the next election.”
My husband said the same thing about Huckabee.
Report comment to moderator
Chas (5): The price of food is going up and each of them wants to convert food to fuel. They all have plans for “energy independence’, none of which includes new sources of petroleum.
Frank: Just out of curiosity, Chas, how do you feel about making the growth of hemp legal in America again?
I ask for two reasons: 1) It supposedly yields more ethanol per acre than any other crop; and 2) Ron Paul has a bill to legalize the growth of hemp.
I have nothing against exploiting our own oil fields or finding new sources of oil, but how about exploiting a NON-food crop for ethanol?
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, I didn’t think you’d even entertain the thought of Obama not winning!!
McCain and Bush are not one in the same, though I understand that it is important to you to keep saying it, hoping it will stick. And if I may be a tad sexist, don’t forget that Hillary is getting a little long in the tooth. I hear you reminding me of Golda Meir — but this ain’t Israel. We’re shallow.
Chas, believe me, I know fearful. All those things you mentioned and more! The price of food for one person and a cat is shocking. I even tell my cat to “eat your meat” if he walks away from his plate too soon. But this election is still exciting. Seeing all this participation in government inspires me to believe that we’re not dead yet. As long as there’s “fight” in us, we’ll be okay.
Report comment to moderator
McCain just needs to pick the right VP to shore up his weaknesses and the ticket for real conservatives, him being light on economics, being too old and shore up relations with the religious right.
There are plenty of VP’s who fit the bill and can add much to his ticket, especially when he drops the bombshell that he is only going to be president for 1 – 4 year term – because of his age. But, he won’t do that till later.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I can’t think of a reason to make hemp legal. Fuel has nothing to do with it. I don’t believe we can cultivate enough of anything to replace petroleum.
I have nothing against alternative fuels where they are cost effective. I think we should build many more nuclear power plants. There is a candidate for governor here in NC who says, “No coal fueled power plants will be allowed when I’m governor.” He’ll get some votes, but not mine.
I had a solar collector on my house in Virginia. It was useful for augmenting the winter fuel bills. I knew a guy in Durham who had a diesel truck. He used oil from restaurants to power it. That’s great. It’s practical on a local basis. It won’t work as government policy.
Recently, a plane flew from London to Amsterdam on cocanut oil. Great! How many cocanuts does it take to go from London to Amsterdam? That is not a stupid question. How many bushels of corn does it take to get me from Hendersonville to Greensboro? How much energy does it take to power the tractors that make the corn? These are relevant questions. The answer to them shows what an idiotic idea it is to try growing our way out of the energy problem.
Some people have been brainwashed by the media into thinking we are running out of oil. But China is going to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Russia at the North Pole. Almost every day I get a stock tip about oil in the Dikotas, Wyoming and Colorado. Seems there is oil everywhere.
For some reason we can’t exploit it.
Report comment to moderator
I had such a long post above that I thought that when I hit “Post”, it would disappear and tell me I had to register. I’m usually reluctant to make extensive statements because of that.
Didn’t mean to rant. But I’m reminded that as an alternative source of energy, we can’t use wind power off the coast of Mass. Some powerful senators live there.
We also need some oil refineries. I’ll bet we could build an oil refinery in Charleston if they would do it.
Report comment to moderator
If Ms. Clinton’s strategy really is to set up a 2012 run, I have to hand give her an impressed nod at her audacious planning. It is playing chess a few too many moves ahead than I think is really possible for a person, but to see the attempt is impressive.
Report comment to moderator
Remember, HC is a “monster.” If her terminator tactics stop Obama, she can turn them on McCain, who is certain to reveal his savage temper if he doesn’t get Parkinson’s disease first — imagine that hand on the button! This future involves the fall of one opponent after another and perhaps an historic spiral of chaos, but HC could come out on top, with the daddy party finally under mommy’s heel. She’ll bring Bill back into the Oval Office on a leash and make him tell mommy he’s sorry.
Whether we enter this temple of doom now depends on older White Catholics in Indiana!
Report comment to moderator
I disagree that Hillary is running for 2012. I think Obama might have been doing that initially, but now he’s running for real. Hillary? She’s finished if she loses. She’s already beginning to look old (as NJ Lawyer suggested), and an older man may look “distinguished,” but an older woman doesn’t. She’ll just be seen as a person who really thought she could be president, and failed. Obama is young enough that even if he’s the nominee and fails, he might have another chance in a few years. (I’m betting he won’t, but he could.) For the other two, it’s now or never.
Report comment to moderator
For those people (like myself) who live in a state which hasn’t held its primary yet, don’t vote for McCain. Many of you once (incorrectly) thought a vote for Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee would be a wasted vote. Applying your own reasoning to the current situation, your vote for McCain is now a wasted vote, because he already has enough delegates to secure the nomination. In my opinion, a vote for Ron Paul in the primary shows the strongest protest against the excesses and injustices we see in our government today.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
It is clear that ethanol has a place but the place isn’t with corn. Brazil is 100% self sufficient with ethanol (admittedly nothing like the USA’s requirement) but it uses sugar cane. Sugar cane produces 10 times the amount of ethanol that corn does using the same energy to produce it. The USA can’t do sugar cane but it can easily do sugar beets.
Ethanol is part of the alternative fuel equation but it will work and be 8 time moire successful than using corn plus human food that depends on corn is not affected. For some reason beets aren’t that popular as food and we don’t use sugar to feed our meat stocks nor is sugar a big food additive.
Corn is just the wrong raw material and people hav already realize and accepted this. Beets will replace corn for US ethanol production.
No one has figured out how to replace the huge amounts of water requjired for ethanol production though and water is the real limiting factor for US ethanol production
Brazil has trillions of gallons of water going to waste running out to sea in excess Amazon rain. Lucky them.
Report comment to moderator
I would say it is a protest vote, as well as a way to give Paul some say in the party platform.
McCain and the GOP leaders need to remember recent history, in that it seems when the GOP ran to the middle, they lost.
Report comment to moderator
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for insanity.
Report comment to moderator
Albeit, what Peter said in post #19 is correct. If McCain runs too close to the middle (as Travis would love to see, since he’s merely a tool of the left) McCain will alienate the conservative and evangelical vote in the US.
And of course, that’s the only way a radical leftist such as Hillary Clinton or Osama Hussein Obama can win the presidency in our nation.
Report comment to moderator
Chas (12): Frank, I can’t think of a reason to make hemp legal.
Frank: Then concerns of biofuels aside, can you think of any reason to keep hemp illegal?
Hemp has a wide range of legitimate uses, and American companies are even “allowed” (I thought we lived in a free country) to import it for those uses. American farmers simply are not “allowed” (there’s that word again) to grow it.
Do you support this policy, Chas? If so, why?
————————-
And a free blogging tip: When I write a post of more than a few sentences, the first thing I do before clicking either “Preview” or “Post” is to Select All > Copy. That way, if anything unfortunate happens and my work disappears into the ether, at least I have it on my clipboard, and I can simply paste it into the text-entry field and try again. If I get a dialog telling me that “You appear to have sent this message already,” I just alter a word or two and try again. It always works.
Report comment to moderator
Meanwhile, in the McCain Campaign, the old man has time to remember the “forgotten places” and pay visits to Selma and the 9th Ward. Such places have remained in the constant thoughts of Democrats, so who does McCain think has “forgotten” them? Bush, of course.
Report comment to moderator
outkast (20): A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for insanity.
Frank: Well, that certainly settles that.
Elaborate, please?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop(1) [hope this blog noob -- me -- is doing this right] when you say “No president could clean up Bush’s mess and McCain will drive the country deeper into despair. Meanwhile, Democrats can improve their margins in Congress.” it sounds more visceral than reasoned or fact-based.
Have you forgotten how the DNC chose Governor Granhom to tell us at the 2004 convention what the Democrats were going to do for the economy. For the last four years we have been able to see in Michigan just what their policies will do for the country. Oh, wait, did I forget? Oh yeah, she is just a victim of circumstance, it’s really not HER fault — it’s all that DeVos guy’s doing…
Report comment to moderator
OTPW –
You have a valid argument and would prevail in the circumstance of Gore in the White House, but as you’re in charge, blaming Bush trumps blaming Granhom. Which, I admit, doesn’t address the economic substance of your point.
Regardless of the assignment of blame, did Republican rule hurt America? Of course, any way you calculate.
By the standards of conservative ideology, Bush was bad. Sure he cut taxes on paper but everyone knows that spending is taxation in real time. All Bush did with his paper cuts is shift the burden of taxation off the wealthy, on to everybody else’s future. If you measure this administration from a lefty point of view, as I do, Bush hurt working people by installing policies and cultural values that have driven up inequality to the levels of the Gilded Age. (I have that from a far better economist than Thos Sowell.)
Are you from Michigan? Does McCain have a good chance?
Report comment to moderator
Who Pays the Most Income Tax?
Higher income earners pay the most, Treasury says
Robert Longley,
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush’s tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like I was only directionally correct. Sorry for the error.
Scroop, what a stimulating discussion!
“did Republican rule hurt America” now there is the substance of a long debate — one best answered by comparison.
What was the economy like during the last conflict we had with an enemy who attacked American Citizens on American soil? Can we use WW2? I don’t see any rationing. We can still find voluminous supplies of all that is necessary for life and prosperity. Yes, our women are working, but that is not because of the war effort but due to shifting social values.
Re your comment about taxes on the rich vs. poor, I would direct you to IRS.gov to see who pays the most Federal taxes. Over 97% of taxes are paid by those with incomes in the top 50% of Americans. Only about 3% is paid by those with incomes in the lower 50%. Now, please tell me, who is more overtaxed?
If reduction of “inequality” is your goal. One must first define that rather broad term.
If you judge the level of inequality by the gap between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots”, the data would surely drive you to be a Conservative Republican – the data tells us that the gap closes during Republican administrations and widens during rule by the Dems. Reality is the opposite of media propaganda.
If you judge inequality by how equally Citizens are treated under the law regradles of the group (ethnic, racial, gender, etc.) to which they belong – again you would be a Conservative republican. For it is the Conservative GOP members who are against special rights for some groups over others and it is the Dems who pander to special interest groups by granting them unique rights or exceptions.
Now, if you judge “inequality” by the amount Govenrment takes from one person by force or coercion (a.k.a. taxes) and redistributes to another who did not earn it… well, you get the picture.
Please note, in order to stay in power, the Democratic part elite need to perpetuate the perception of a victim class (composed multiple victim sub-classes) who are convinced that they are powerless and will vote Dems into office ostensibly to “fix” their victimhood. If the “victims” ever emerged out of the slough of despond in which the hatemongers have convinced the victims they should reside, there would be no one to put the Dems in office so they can vote largess from the working man’s pocket into the pocket of the “victim”.
I do agree with you that Republicans of late clearly seem to be moving away from Conservative ideology. I would posit that Conservative reaction to Republicans’ waste of the opportunity provided by Republican control of both white House and Congress was in large part responsible for their loss of congressional majority.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the long post…
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!