Bush advisor to push McCain express
By Aussiegirl
You read it here first, folks. Just days ago when the 14 "Posse Comity-atus" senators, led by the ubiquitous Senator McCain, got together to de facto arrest the senate's "advise and consent" responsibility, I suspected (see: Democracy out to lunch, UT, May 5th) that Bush's hand may have been behind McCain's move -- that McCain was, in effect, doing Bush's bidding in blocking majority leader Frist and the so-called "nuclear option". Well, here's the proof, folks, which just goes to show you -- read UT and you will be well ahead of the curve on emerging trends in politics.
And this time the proof's not in the pudding -- it's in the
Mercury News:
Mark McKinnon, the Austin political consultant who oversaw the advertising for President Bush in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, has committed to help Sen. John McCain in a second presidential bid.
McKinnon - one of the president's closest friends and confidants and a frequent mountain biking companion - met with the Arizona Republican over lunch this spring in the Senate dining room to discuss his support, said a GOP activist familiar with the meeting.
At this point, McCain, who lost to Bush in a bitter 2000 Republican primary, is in the early but unmistakable stages of laying the groundwork for another campaign. And McKinnon has indicated he would review his options, should Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, run in 2008.
The White House has sent word that Jeb Bush should be taken at his word, that he will not run. Rice, just four months into her new job, is not expected to seek the presidency, though some top Republicans have suggested she might be considered for vice president.
posted by Aussiegirl @ 1:26 PM
2 Comments:
Do you believe Bush would actually back McCain in 2008? McCain-Rice could not be defeated by any democrat. Admittedly, I am probably more center-right than you are. These are interesting developments. Here's another take on McKinnon: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/7/91918.shtml
OEC
Bonnie!! - I hadn't heard that -- are you pulling my leg? Although I wouldn't be surprised.
OEC -- thanks for the comment, as usual -- I'm always going to your blog and looking for a way to comment there, so I'm happy to be able to chat with you here. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I think I might make some "extended comments" on the main board, but briefly, I do not trust McCain -and never have. He has not garnered any good will with the conservative base of the Republican Party with his campaign finance bill which has completely distorted our election campaigns and has brought in all these virtually lawless 501 groups like Soros' Moveon.org, etc. Furthermore, at every turn he seems to work against he Republican leadership for what can only be termed his own personal political gain, as the media darling -- the Republican that the media love to use against the mainstream party. That maverick status may serve him well in the current climate, but if he thinks that he will get the same pass from the media if and when he becomes the Republican candidate, he's got a nother thing coming. (extremely unlikely -- it was not Bush's meanness that kept him from winning primaries -- he simply is not going to garner the support of the base of the Republican party in primaries)
Also -- McCain has melanoma, a very serious form of cancer which has returned several times, and I think that will mitigate against him -- we don't want a candidate dying in office shortly after being elected. I personally think that many candidates who are not even being mentioned or thought about now may emerge in the future. Four years before Bush was nominated -- who had ever had the Governor of Texas on the radar? One person I would not discount is the present Republican governor of my state of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich. Not only did he manage to get elected in an overwhelmingly democrat state, but he has stuck to his guns even with a democrat legislature and is making some good progress. He has a very able and charismatic Lieutenant Governor, who happens to be black -- both men should have a bright future on the national scene, if the Republican Party isn't quite as stupid as it often appears to be.
I don't think Condi Rice is a good candidate, personally. She is attractive, and well-spoken and intelligent, no doubt -- but she has no experience in politics other than as an advisor. She has no executive experience, and she does not exude the kind of charisma and toughness that a female politician must have -- the sense of a Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meier -- she seems somewhat diffident and speaks a bit haltingly to make a convincing case as a wartime leader, for instance. Unfortunately for us, Hillary has that appearance of toughness -- of a street fighter who can lead the charge -- and she will disguise herself as being pro-military and pro-defense, while making all the right secret noises to keep her left base appeased -- all the winks, nods and elbow nudges will be there -- like -- bear with me on this one -- when we get in you know I'll do what we've always dreamed of doing - meanwhile -- help me pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting public. It's going to be an interesting few years as we head to the next election, because right now there is a complete power vacuum in Washington, no one is stepping up to the plate and leading. Bush seems out to lunch and content to have photo ops with Blair and to go on his endless "road trips" with staged speeches and media events in front of friendly audiences, but no one's paying attention to that. The issues which are really burning in people's minds are not issues that he or his associates seem to find important -- issues like the immigration crisis, our insecur borders, simplification of the tax code, or even any movement to reform taxes, he seems content to let the war in Iraq smolder on as the bodies of our finest men mount up in caskets, while he switches his attention to the more media friendly issues of global warming (!!!) and spending billions of dollars in aid to Africa -- aid which we know will line the pockets of the corrupt, and never put a dent in the real misery and suffering of countless millions there. But it will, he thinks erroneously, garner him some good publicity from the media darlings -- and from his European compatriots. He hasn't learned the painful lesson that they will NEVER like him -- no matter what he does. In that sense -- he is in the position that Americans are in vis a vis the Muslims -- they do not hate him because of what he does -- they hate him because of what he IS!!!
All in all, I see a coming major dislocation in American politics. The poll numbers show that Bush's popularity and approval is slipping in a big way -- and Congress' even more so. And these are not merely artifacts of push-polling and artificially constructed questions formulated to garner desired results -- but judging by my own reactions to the President's actions since the election, and those of many conservatives, and eve moderates who supported him wholeheartedly during the campaign, they reflect a real sense of disillusionment in the entire process -- and in the individuals themselves. Frankly, we feel like we were sold a bill of goods, and what we expected to see happening in Congress as a result of our concerted efforts to win this election and to return an ever bigger majority to both houses of the Congress have not materialize.d Instead, we have a pathetic display of inaction, appeasement, and passivity and concession. There appears to be no Republican agenda at this point.
This is perhaps the first time in decades that I have been unsure as to what our party stands for. Since the time of Ronald Reagan, who redefined what being a Republican is all about, this party has had a firm footing in its fundamental core beliefs. Gingrich sealed those ideas with the "Contract with America" and the takeover of the Congress during Clinton's watch. But since the advent of George Bush, we had sadly, except for the war on terror - which in itself seems to be undergoing some crisis of conviction, we have seen a fuzzing down of what Republicans really stand for. Ultimately -- what IS this "compassionate conservatism" -- a phrase I have always disliked as it has implicit in its core the wrong impression that conservatism as it stood was somehow "uncompassionate" -- already that phrase cedes the "moral high ground" to liberalism, which loves to arrogate to itself alone, the appellation of "compassion" - do we really need another president who "feels our pain"?
Post a Comment
<< Home