A simple result tells the tale. It’s the 2008 Arizona Republican Presidential Primary:
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage | Delegates |
|---|---|---|---|
| John McCain | 255,197 | 47.17% | 50 |
| Mitt Romney | 186,838 | 34.53% | 0 |
| Mike Huckabee | 48,849 | 9.03% | 0 |
| Ron Paul | 22,692 | 4.19% | 0 |
| Rudy Giuliani | 13,658 | 2.52% | 0 |
| Fred Thompson | 9,492 | 1.75% | 0 |
| Duncan Hunter | 1,082 | 0.20% | 0 |
| Alan Keyes | 970 | 0.18% | 0 |
Now, mind you this 47.17% came after McCain won Florida, and the “let’s go ahead and nominate someone so we don’t end up with a brokered convention” vibe was going. If he only got 47% then, what will he get in a normal primary in the age of the Tea Parties?
The Arizona exit poll provide two interesting pieces of information that I find fascinating. First, is that McCain won 33% of Arizona’s GOP primary voters who favored deportation. That relatively high percentage had to include some “rally ’round the flag” vote and would be considerably lower.
If there’s any upside for McCain, it’s a religious one. Part of the closeness of the 2008 contest was the LDS vote which went for Romney by an 88-8% margin. J.D. Hayworth wouldn’t beat McCain by that type of margin among LDS voters, which could change numbers around, but I think only slightly. Given the trouble that Senator Bob Bennett’s (R-UT) having in in the State of Utah, I’m not share how much McCain will be able to increase the 8% of the LDS vote he got in 2008, and if the anti-immigration and tea party groups swing hard against him, any minor shifts will probably be inconsequential.
I think McCain could be on the ropes if Hayworth ops to get in in January. He got less than a Majority in his own home state’s Presidential primary. And since that primary he hasn’t done a whole lot to improve his position.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
88% to 8% … Oh my! Nice job, Mitt ; )
November 20th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
It’s unbelievable that Hayworth is that close. Then again, totally believable. McCain is not perfect but he is clearly conservative. The crazies in our party are demanding perfect. There is no reason to jeopardize this seat. McCain is no Crist and he is certainly no Scozzafava.
Why are Republicans so goddamned stupid?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Is Alan Keyes still around?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
No post on the Palin/O’Rly interview?
I only caught a minute or so but it seemed fairly interesting. She talked about 2012 a lot.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
#3, he’s a Constitution Party member now.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I’m very confident that Huck will support McCain. : )
November 20th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I agree with Adam (#2). As far as “purging” goes… Scozzafava, for sure. Crist, maybe. McCain, definitely not. This would just be ridiculous.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
I hear AZ is in a particularly foul mood. Isn’t Gov. Brewer about as low in the polls as Paterson in NY?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
If you can beat McCain, you do it. The only reason to elect a moderate is if that’s as good as it gets. If you can get an upgrade that can win, and Mr. Hayworth can win, then go for it.
#5:
Alan Keyes isn’t a member of the Constitution Party, he’s started a new party that’s on the ballot in three states.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Only if he wants McCain to lose, and lose badly. For LDS, nothing would be more toxic than to have an Endorsement by Huckabee.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:02 am
Wow. Talk about an ideological purity test. As another participant in this thread said:
November 21st, 2009 at 12:18 am
Well, Hayworth kinda lost in 2006. And with his ties to Abrahamoff he is hardly an upgrade.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:21 am
The primary is also at the end of August. The arizona primary was during super tuesday and McCain got a lot of independent votes. You can vote in the republican primary if you are an independent and ask for a republican ballot. I think the republican vote in the primary between mccain and romney was very close. Hard to see McCain expanding the electorate in a late August primary. The electorate in a late august primary will be much more conservative than during the super tuesday primary.
Sixcox could be key if he could split off some of the anti McCain vote. One other thing to note is that Rasmussen had McCain and Romney very close and McCain won by 13 percent so it would be interesting if there is another local poll done to see if it backs up rasmussen. Rasmussen tends to downplay the independent vote in the az primary and with a late august primary he might be right be I bet he is still not giving the independents that support mccain in arizona enough percentage of the electorate in his poll.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:28 am
McCain also had a lot of momentum going into that arizona primary on super tuesday. He was coming off the south carolina and florida wins and was considered the de facto nominee. He was polling higher nationally than in his own state. I always thought that the 47 percent he got in the gop primary in arizona primary showed how he had trouble with the primary voters in his own state. You got to remember immigration is huge with the republican primary electorate in arizona.
This is the third race to watch that could tip the seat to the dems if the primary voters pick the wrong candidate. Rubio, Paul in kentucky and this race could give the dems three seats they would have no chance of winning otherwise.
I still don’t think J.D will run because the word is he doesn’t want to go back to the east coast after he has settled back in arizona and he would have to quit his talk show job. He was saying with kids getting older it wouldn’t be easy to give up the income. There doesn’t seem to be any of the talk of looking around to put a staff together that you would expect if he was running.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:32 am
Comment #3 jokingly asked if Alan Keyes is still around. His little “partner in what may really be crime”, Chris Simcox is still running for Senate in AZ. His name was left out of the poll, which may have helped McCain. Believe it or not, Simcox and Hayworth would split the far right, white supremacist vote there in AZ, which in Maricopa County is considerable.
Running someone like Hayworth is a recipe for disaster for he would lose a solid GOP seat to a DEM. I can’t think of anyone in their right mind who would vote for him considering how he got a little close to Russell Pearce and that nasty bunch in Maricopa.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
November 21st, 2009 at 12:39 am
This is absolutely ridiculous.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:43 am
Put me squarely in the “this is insane” column. Aside from everything else, let me just point out that this doesn’t just put Arizona’s seat at risk. If he lost in the Primary EVERY Democratic Senator would point to this and use this as an example of how “extreme right wing” the GOP has become, that it is no longer a big tent party, etc. It might even work to swing some independants back to the GOP, and not just in Arizona.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:02 am
The idea of trying to primary John McCain; war hero, fiscal hawk, supporter of the Surge, our 2008 NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT, is just patently absurd. These purists are quite frankly, utter lunatics. You don’t build a majority party by throwing everyone you don’t like out.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:15 am
“If you can get an upgrade that can win, and Mr. Hayworth can win, then go for it.”
Hayworth is a perfect example of why the Republicans lost the majority. And you consider him an “upgrade”?
November 21st, 2009 at 2:00 am
Hayworth is not an upgrade!!!!!
November 21st, 2009 at 2:04 am
Is this a joke?
McCain is one of the most popular politicans in the country and will easily win another term (including any primary if anyone wants to be embarrased by running against him).
November 21st, 2009 at 2:16 am
If McCain loses, he should run as an independent.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:23 am
#14:
So, Conservatives will always lose?
Give me a break. I think that all three of these candidates could win, particularly in a wave year. Rubio and Hayworth are good candidates.
#20:
McCain=81.43% ACU Rating (mostly based on a conservative first half of his career.)
Hayworth=97% ACU rating over 12 years.
Is Hayworth an upgrade? Heck yeah.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:24 am
#22:
So, let’s get this thread’s logic correct?
Doug Hoffman was wrong to run as a third party because the legitimate process of the Republicans worked out against him.
John McCain would be right to run as a third party if the GOP’s legitimate nominating process worked out against him.
Makes sense.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:42 am
Let me just say that this reactionary renegade of the religious right would vote for McCain. We should have listened to him on the Bush tax cuts, back then, and we might not be in as big a financial mess now. Running half trillion dollar deficits in times of prosperity is unconscionable. The guy isn’t always right, for sure, but he is a conservative and a man of integrity- a characteristic that is sorely lacking in Washington today.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:48 am
Has anyone missed the fact that Hayworth was affiliated with Jack Abramoff?
Adam? Hello?
November 21st, 2009 at 2:51 am
By the way, this is not unprecedented. Just look at the last ten years.
It has happened, really. Walter Mondale, former vice-president and presidential candidate, lost in 2002 to a nobody named Norm Coleman in a Senate race.
Joe Lieberman, the 2000 vice-presidential candidate, was kicked out by his own party in 2006.
Oh, and Winston Churchill lost immediately following World War 2.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:56 am
From Wikipedia (sources cited there):
“Between 1999 and 2005, Hayworth received $69,000 from lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients, primarily from Indian tribes. $62,000 of the money went to TEAM PAC.[11] After Abramoff was convicted of defrauding the tribes, Hayworth decided to keep the donations.”
“Hayworth’s wife had been the only employee of TEAM PAC after December 1999. Through the end of 2004, the fund had paid $107,000 for her salary and payroll taxes, or roughly 26 percent of its $411,000 in revenue. ”
Do we really need this guy? Abramoff practically put a direct deposit in Hayworth’s bank account.
Why do some conservatives think Hayworth is so much more trustworthy than McCain? Is picking up a few points of ACU rating really worth picking the guy with a proven integrity problem?
November 21st, 2009 at 3:01 am
28 – I cannot fathom what the logic is. Play Devil’s Advocate here. I have no idea what to say. We disgrace our party by kicking out our nominee, with an 80%+ ACU rating who simply cannot lose, in order to put up an ethically disgraceful bombthrower and proven loser so — we can get a somewhat-higher ACU rating in? What? Good God.
November 21st, 2009 at 3:09 am
Alex,
Doesn’t make sense to me. This is starting to make me wonder if the whole Tea Party movement is starting to become unhinged.
Rhetoric over honesty and integrity? Are we that conditioned by talk radio that words are the only thing that matter anymore?
November 21st, 2009 at 3:14 am
I don’t know who the Democrats are going to run, but if their candidate has any strength at all, he would kill Hayworth in the general.
We actually have a chance to add seats in what was supposed to be a very difficult cycle for Republicans (based on the ‘10 Senate map, retirements, etc…) We can ensure we don’t have nailbiters on cloture votes by adding 3 or 4 seats. And yet some would have us jeopardize that opportunity so we can get a corrupt blowhard in office who is an absolute embarrassment to the party.
November 21st, 2009 at 3:30 am
Alex K., Winston did not lose just after WW2, Churchill lost just after VE day. The British were still fighting in the Pacific Ocean and in Burma.
If anyone is interested to learn why Churchill lost in 1945, read this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/election_01.shtml
November 21st, 2009 at 3:50 am
What does this show is that Huck needs to prove he can compete outside of Iowa/the south.
9%!!!!!!!!!!
November 21st, 2009 at 3:53 am
Time to bone up on your political history AK.
Mondale was a very reluctant last minute stand in candidate after Wellstone was killed. And he would have won too if the the funeral wasn’t turned into an unedifying politcal rally.
He had also been out of the country for many years and hadn’t been VP for 22 years!
November 21st, 2009 at 4:36 am
Heyworth lost to Mitchell in a R+18 district. Even being an off year election against weak competition I can’t see Heyworth winning state wide. Brewer isn’t fairing well against dems in state wide polls and I don’t think Heyworth would either.
Chris 50 Meeks 33 latest poll while it was Meeks 38 Rubio 30. Yes a lot of the undecideds were republicans but flordia is a purple state and we can wind up with a liberal like Meeks if Rubio is the candidate.
Rand Paul is losing to Conway in every poll I have seen. Greyson is a stronger general election candidate. Paul, Heyworth, and Rubio are rolling the dice even when 2010 is looking like gains for the gop.
November 21st, 2009 at 4:54 am
Mondale was a very reluctant last minute stand in candidate after Wellstone was killed. And he would have won too if the the funeral wasn’t turned into an unedifying politcal rally.
I know, but it’s still astounding that such a Minnesota icon lost like that.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:03 am
Even I want Mr. McCain to win. It is unfortunate that it take a civil war to get the elite to listen. I think polls like this (and Arizona is not the only state) are scaring the pants of the party leaders. It may be too late now to put the worms back in the jar and heal a divided party, but hopefully this wake up call will actually help. Perhaps if Mr. McCain is smart, he would endorse somebody like young Mr. Paul or Mr. Rubio because Conservative will need to get a pound of flesh if you will, let’s just hope that it is not somebody high like Mr. McCain.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:46 am
Why do I get the feeling that OJ and his mates would be more than contents if only extreme conservatives get elected, even if that means in 5-10% of the seats. What exactly would that achieve except Great Society II? Why don’t all these people simply leave the republican party and start a new party called Palin/Beck for America or something and see how far that gets you.
You really want a civil war? Smart.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:55 am
I think we need to bear in mind that that Arizona poll was only 500 odd.
The way I see Florida is:
Bush endorses Rubio – Rubio wins
Palin endorses Rubio – Crist wins
Bush & Palin endorse Rubio – Toss up
I also think that we need to be careful what we wish for as Crist (however disappointing he’s turned out to be) obviously has a better chance in the general. Before we talk about President Rubio I could now see him beating Crist but losing to Meeks (especially if Palin endorses him because Florida is not Oklahoma).
November 21st, 2009 at 6:56 am
By the way the teabaggers are actually imploding (Romney was very wise to stay out of that fad too):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29744.html
November 21st, 2009 at 7:14 am
“You really want a civil war? Smart.” Unfortunately, it has began, the question is how to stop it, not start it.
“By the way the teabaggers are actually imploding (Romney was very wise to stay out of that fad too):” No, that is false, but hey Mr. Romney is free to choose who he wants in his camp.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:10 am
18
You really can’t help who puts their name on the ballot… it’s not as if the “purists” recruit everyone who gets it into their head to run.
30
The ‘problem’ with the TPM is that it is completely decentralized, if you consider that a problem. There is no central authority leading it.
40
Again, I don’t see that. A loosely-affiliated (VERY, VERY loose) movement is going to have some bumps along the way. It ain’t fallin’, though.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:15 am
I think we need to bear in mind that that Arizona poll was only 500 odd.
…That really does not matter. Look at the margin of error and the confidence rate if you want to see what counts.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:16 am
it’s not as if the “purists” recruit everyone who gets it into their head to run.
They can decide whether to vote for them.
teabaggers
I hate this phrase.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:17 am
Honestly, after attending a Tea Party, I had a more favorable impression of the movement than before I attended one. Most of the people there are honest, hardworking citizens who are just angry at how much their government is spending. “Why didn’t they do it under Bush, why didn’t they do it under Bush” — who gives a rat’s @$$ why they didn’t do it under Bush? They’re doing it now! Better now than not at all! All of them — all of them! — are mad at Bush, too, if you speak to them. But Bush is gone. Obama’s in now.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:20 am
41. OJ,
Romney has praised the efforts of the tea party people many times.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:42 am
I wouldn’t be so sure about that.
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
November 21st, 2009 at 8:48 am
I’d be surprised if McCain were to lose his seat — surely not in a contested primary.
It’s interesting to note that he’s not siding with his pals Lieberman and Graham on climate change legislation. Says McCain, the cap-n-tax proposals on the table are “a government slush fund”.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:52 am
33. Have ya read the polls the past 9 months, my friend? LOL
This ain’t ‘08, Heath
H e l l o
November 21st, 2009 at 9:45 am
“41. OJ,
Romney has praised the efforts of the tea party people many times.” Well, I want to try to avoid another nasty contest with with Martha in part because I have been indirectly warned by MarK and Kavon, but it short, your camp seems to be somewhat divided on the Tea-party movement.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:46 am
Sarah will ride to the rescue to save John.
It’s called payback.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:50 am
“Sarah will ride to the rescue to save John.
It’s called payback.” Great idea, in fact I think Mrs. Palin should tell Mr. McCain that as long as he can keep his camp on the reservation, she will give him some Sarah PAC $.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:04 am
Remember this is the same McCain who was considering change party in 2000 and accepting the VP nomination on the democratic ticket in 2004. Loyal?, Integrity?…Give me a break.
On the other hand, Hayworth is not a good candidate, if a real and good candidate emerge I don’t see any reason to keep the cranky old guy.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:10 am
#53,
Almost? Did he actually DO it? No. If George Bush was spreading rumors in South Carolina that I fathered an illegitimate black child out of wedlock, solely for the purposes of sabotage, and the party lined up for him against me while I was a war hero and he was yucking it up in the National Guard to avoid the war – I might be a bit bitter too.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:12 am
Sarah Palin believes in John McCain as a great American and a great PUBLIC SERVANT and that is why she will campaign for him even if she is not asked to.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am
[...] race42008.com » Blog Archive » Why McCain Could Be In Trouble [...]
November 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am
“a war hero” this “a war hero” that…BS…What cout is that he has been a cuasi-democrat senator for almost 10 years.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:37 am
what counts
November 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
So Hayworth took money from Abramoff and was exonerated of all wrongdoing.
McCain took money from Charles Keating and was reprimanded by the U.S. Senate. What’s your point?
November 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
Heath,
“Teabaggers” is not a word any self respecting person should ever use. Prove to us that you are a self respecting person. Don’t follow the lead of the leftist pigs who started that. And I don’t consider myself to be a part of that movement at all.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
Graham,
That’s weak. McCain was only very peripherally involved in that. Even the Democrats knew it and essentially kept quiet about it last year.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
It will really be interesting to see 2010 endorsements in Arizona. Who will Palin and Huckabee and Romney go with ? Odds are they ALL go with McCain.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
JD Hayworth is not an announced candidate. This is basically a McCain vs. “a Republican name that you recognize poll.” If this were Trent Franks instead, McCain would be down.
Resentment for John McCain in Arizona goes far past and has been around a lot longer than the Tea Party Movement. For that matter, the Tea Party movement outside of Tucson and Prescott is really weak in Arizona. I don’t believe that Tucson or Prescott are pushing a McCain alternative.
What IS happening is that McCain is actually visiting areas outside of Phoenix for the first time in years, and is actually paying attention to local concerns. He has dropped support for climate change legislation, he is opposing the disastrous health care bill, and is actually acting conservative. If this poll causes more of that, then GOOD. Incumbents should fear that they will not be reelected.
McCain NEEDS to fear for his future as a senator. If he gets reelected is entirely up to him. He needs to go back to representing Arizona.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
#61:
Yeah, well Hayworth wasn’t found to violate any laws, or any ethics rules, so what’s the deal with waiving the bloody shirt of Abramoff? That’s just as lame.
#62:
Romney and Palin will go in for McCain, but I’d probably not bet on Huckabee getting involved in a primary like this. He did help Don Young, but that was returning the favor of Young supporting him. I think he’s smart enough to stay out.
#63:
McCain NEEDS to fear for his future as a senator. If he gets reelected is entirely up to him. He needs to go back to representing Arizona.
Bingo! Without term limits, it’s only the fear of voters that keeps politicians in line. They serve at our pleasure.
Listening to some people, you’d swear it was the middle ages and we were talking about treason against the King, rather than the voters of a Political Party deciding they’d like someone else to be their nominee for U.S Senate.
November 21st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
# 22,
Liberman could endorse him. members of the same party.
November 21st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
The idea that Hayworth is better than McCain for Senate is absurd. Since when do the ratings of a conservative political group determine the value of a Senator to us, so long as that Senator is shown to be of conservative ideology (of which McCain and Hayworth both are)?
We’d be throwing out a true lion from our party, someone whose years upon years of public service, willingness to break with ideology to do what’s right, and extremely high level of respect and honor in the Senate are EXACTLY what we should expect in every single one of our leaders and what sadly we cannot always get. We’d throw this away for a loudmouthed conservative hack? This ain’t McCain vs. Reagan, folks. This is McCain vs. Hayworth.
It’s the pinnacle of idiocy for conservatives to cast out one of their finest to appease the mob. If McCain was to lose, not only should he run in the generals as an Independent (since Arizona at large widely respects him as their Senator – Dems, Independents, and Republicans), I would gladly send my money to support him.
November 21st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
And term limits are a terrible idea, Republicans should drop it immediately. California did term limits and look how well their legislature runs.
This is why we have a federalist system. So California can do all the dumb fads of the day, left and right, and the rest of us can see for ourselves how stupid they are
November 21st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I would support McCain as an independent, financially and in every other way. In a 3-way general, Hayworth would get about 20-25%.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
#66:
The problem is that McCain has gone against ideology to do the wrong thing.
John McCain pushed the rape of our Constitution known as McCain-Feingold. That alone is enough to say Hayworth would be better.
#67:
I’ll take Lord Acton over you any day. Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts.” The longer members stay in Congress, the less conservative they get. I’m with 80% of Americans on term limits, and I say that 28 years in Washington is more than enough for anyone.
In addition, California is not in such bad condition because of term limits. In fact, the lousy California House Speaker was term limited. The problem is gerrymandering.
To argue that term limits is to blame for California is absurd. Florida has term limits and isn’t as bad a spot. New York is a really bad spot and they don’t have term limits. There is no causation.
#68:
Explain why Conservatives shouldn’t run third party candidates, then. If it’s Okay for McCain do it, it’s okay for everyone to do it.
And lest we forget, this McCain was considered for Kerry’s running mate and considered switching parties in 2001. The same folks that are now making the argument for McCain, made the argument for Specter, and anyone who WOULD run as a third party if they lose the GOP primary should not be the GOP nominee.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:08 pm
69,
I’m no expert on campaign finance reform, but I found a good reading from Reason here:
http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/07/fix-the-mccain-feingold-law
“The rationale for the new restrictions is that corporate treasuries should not be spent to influence elections. But BCRA made a mistake. In debating the bill, Congress cynically and thoughtlessly approved an amendment, sponsored by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., that defined “corporation” to include nonprofits.”
That’s our issue. McCain-Feingold was to keep corporations from backing their political sponsors, which is great. This amendment prevented citizens advocacy groups from doing that, which is a mistake. So you’re going to trash McCain for an amendment to the bill he didn’t even include?
The law ain’t fundamentally wrong. But like all legislation that goes bad has a flaw that needs to be cut out. So McCain, who stood against a raising of our deficit when every other Republican idiotically went along with it, who fought to give Petraeus time in Iraq when the rest of Republicans were running away, who is a pragmatist that pushes for a positive Republican agenda, not a reactionary crusade in the name of principle, is a Republican we should even think about wanting to lose? The Senate needs MORE of him, dozens more, not one less.
On term limits:
If you are constantly rotating legislators out, the lobbyists and political machines will control the halls there even more than they already do. They, not Congressmen, will be the insitution. In almost all cases (gerrymandering as you brought up being the exception) bad and corrupt congressmen already have great term limits – the electorate.
Freshman congressman are also generally useless and have no idea what to do to craft and pass an effective law. They are only good at party-line votes, which is the beginning of the end for any republic’s ability to do anything. The net result of such restrictions will be to further weaken the independence of the Congress, subjecting it to more powerbrokers and to more mob whim. Seniority and experience as key attributes will be all but lost.
It’s an almost irresistible argument you have electorally, though. That I agree with. Everyone wants to raid the palace, so to speak. But devolution of too much political power into the hands of the people and corrupt bosses that manipulate them for power is one huge recipe for disaster. It’s an argument we should resist as long as possible.
To desire term limits for the sake of conservative mob rule ain’t conservative at all. Problem is conservatives usually only figure these things out after they’ve already been passed and start to wreck the place.
Lastly:
McCain should run Independent if he loses because A)For all the reasons that make him a great Senator as explained above B)Because his enemies like the “I can’t do anything but repeat Limbaugh lines” Hayworth are the sort of conservatives that destroy our party and should be crushed wherever they appear C)Because Arizona by and large likes him. His approval across the electorate is high. JD Hayworth would not represent Arizona well because he will only represent its conservative citizens. And D)McCain is a class act, one of a kind character. His opponents ever since 2000 have been midgets by comparison.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
I was under the impression that the teabaggers had co-opted that word and accepted it as a term of endearment (much like black rappers and the n word).
However if I’m wrong I’m open to other descriptions but they must be catchy???????
November 21st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Term limits are a joke as shown by the 50% or so of republicans that simply broke their 94 pledge in due course!
November 21st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
#70:
Yeah, we wouldn’t want lobbyists to get undue influence. Lord knows they’re powerless with all these smart career politicains running around.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
You want it to be worse? Term limits. Freshmen legislators all over the place, no experience, no reputations, no nada. And our good legislators, those that do their jobs well and we like and happily will send back so long as they keep that way, will get sacked regardless and no doubt replaced by some stupid party hack who doesn’t care about doing a good job for the people in his district. Lobbyists will have a 90% stake in our Congress, up from their 50% share now.
A term-limited Congress kills the seniority and experience of legislators that make Congress able to do things.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“They don’t have the incentive to look at long-term solutions,” she explains. “An example is how are budgets have been handled in recent years. It is much easier to balance it on the credit card when you are not going to be around when the bills come due.”
http://www.policytoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=140&Itemid=146
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 am
MPC, excellent points regarding term limits. Were they enacted in Washington, not only would pols and lobbyists wield even greater power, congressional staffers would become the de facto power brokers. All these figures would operate only behind the scenes and have no accountability to any local electorate.
Another fundamental flaw of term limits is that, as statutes, they are fundamentally undemocratic. Such laws tell the voters whom they cannot vote for.
Term limit supporters seem oblivious to the potential negative consequences, preferring to assume instead that good and selfless individuals will be available as fresh blood every few cycles. This might be little more than wishful thinking. If so, term limits enacted as law will be nearly impossible to reverse.