McCain Takes South Carolina, Romney Crushes In Nevada
By Greg L | 19 January 2008 | National Politics | 49 Comments
Another couple of horse races are decided, and still we’re no closer to seeing a clear Republican nominee emerge from the pack, although a few clearly have faded into obscurity and will soon end their races. Duncan Hunter, who is a great man who should have gained more traction than he did is certainly gone. RuPaul (oops, I mean Ron Paul) has failed to gain traction outside of his noisy band of supporters, and should soon understand his is a fruitless cause. Guiliani is holding out to see if Florida will rescue his collapsing campaign, which probably won’t happen.
That gives us Mitt Romney, Mike “I was for illegals before I was against them” Huckabee, maybe Fred Thompson, and John “Give me your guns, your free speech, and amnesty for illegals” McCain. Personally, I can’t stand McCain at all — his voting record on everything but the war is an abomination — and with Huckabee’s long connections with the illegal alien lobby while Governor, he must think I’m stupid if his recent conversion is going to be taken seriously by me.
Tom Tancredo endorsed Romney, and as this race has developed, I think I am beginning to grasp the tremendous wisdom that was behind his decision. Let’s hope he starts grabbing a few more “golds” in the primaries ahead of us.
UPDATE: Indeed, Duncan Hunter has announced his withdrawal. It’s unfortunate to see, but recognition of an undeniable political reality. Duncan was a much better candidate than most realized.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
49 Comments
Views: 1024
Loading ...
Sigh. I don’t like anyone on either side. Another “lesser of all evils” vote for me.
Greg for Mitt?
Ron Paul gets second in Nevada and you still make fun of him.
Good job Greg, keep making fun of a real conservative, that will really help the republicans.
Here is my deal with Romney, I think he is a phoney pure and simple. Yes, he is indeed saying the right things now but look back at how he governed.
Romney’s plan on healthcare is not much different than Judy Feder’s plan in the 10th. They are both for socialized . I am not even sure Romney supported Reagan. I could be wrong bgovernment run healthcare. Yes, Romney is good NOW on illegal immigration but look what he did when he was governor. Romney also claims to be pro-life now but just look back in 1994 at his debate with Tedd Kennedy. I think Romney is nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing and a snake in the grass to conservatives.
I don’t like McCain either, but at least we know what we are getting. He is at least good on national defense and protecting our country. He was preaching the surge before it was popular.
I would rather take my chances with McCain in a general over Romney who will have difficulty winning southern states even against Obama and Hillary. To me McCain is the better of two evils because he is not a phoney.
Paul is a damned nutjob…worthy of all the laughter he gets. Now we get to laugh at you for defending the nerd.
Ron Paul came in second because he was the ONLY OTHER CANDIDATE IN THE PRIMARY.
That would also be known as LAST. That said….
The Reagan Revolution is dead. Long live the liberals. When you get a liberal president, don’t blame the Fred Heads.
Fred Thompson misjudged the electorate. He listened to the GOP and thought that there was support for him. His qualities match EVERY SINGLE THING we’ve asked for in the last 20 years. And you turned it down. Because you couldn’t get excited….
Small government? Federalism? Repeal McCain-Feingold? Immigration? 2nd Amendment?
Abortion? Non-activist judges? AND fighting the GWOT?
What if……
Too late now. Should’ve voted for the conservative when you had the chance.
McCain is at least honest where he stand on taking away your civil liberties. Kinda like a democrat.
I don’t know who I will vote for if Fred is out. Would voting for a liberal Republican be a betrayal of conservatism? Do I want to blame a Republican when a “moderate” President restricts my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights? Or do I want a fascist DEMOCRAT in office so we have a reason for conservatives to get of their collective butts.
lol, you guys have nothing on Ron Paul, so you call him names.
You guys are RINOs (and immature)
[…] WeHateGringos.com wrote an interesting post today on BLACK VELVET BRUCE LI: McCain Takes South Carolina, Romney Crushes…Here’s a quick excerpt…emerge from the pack, although a few clearly have faded into obscurity and will soon end their races. Duncan Hunter, who is a great man who… […]
arepublican said on 19 Jan 2008 at 10:18 pm:
To me McCain is the better of two evils because he is not a phoney.
Yes, we know what we’d be getting (giving this country over to Mexico.)
Anonymous said on 8 Jan 2008 at 10:50 pm:
Ducky said on 8 Jan 2008 at 8:16 pm:
CNN is projecting McCain the winner!
Yes!!!!!
NO! he’s a loser! It will be the only primary he will take.
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2008/01/08/weekly-open-thread/#comments
Anonymous, would you like fries with your helping of humble pie and crow?
This Time, McCain Defused Conservative Attacks
By Juliet Eilperin and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 20, 2008; Page A01
CHARLESTON, S.C., Jan. 19 — From Rush Limbaugh to Tom DeLay, voices that once held sway over the Republican rank and file unloaded on John McCain over the last week, trying to use a conservative electorate in South Carolina to derail the Arizona senator’s quest for the Republican nomination.
But though McCain failed to persuade many of the old Republican power brokers, he wrapped up the Republican establishment where it counted most, South Carolina.
Limbaugh led the way with a verbal blitz, not just against McCain but against his closest rival in South Carolina, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
“I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party. It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it,” Limbaugh fumed on his radio show Tuesday. It was a line of argument that he kept up all week long.
The assault may well have narrowed McCain’s lead over Huckabee, but it was not enough to revive the ghosts of 2000, when an insurgent McCain campaign slammed into a wall in South Carolina, and Bush, the establishment’s candidate, cruised to the White House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/19/AR2008011903187.html?hpid=topnews
Not even Rush could stop him!
McCain actually got fewer votes in SC this time than he did in 2000 against Bush. Now I’ll still take McCain over Huckabee, though with some reluctance. McCain has also taken a better view on economic growth than he has in the past (and maybe that is the influence of Phil Gramm on his economic team).
For me, Fred Thompson is still my first choice. If he goes, my support goes to Giuliani, again for economic reasons (and the fact that Rudy “gets it” on the GWOT). After that, I am wavering between McCain and Romney. I cannot in good conscience support Huckabee at this point.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, well, I can understand how his libertarian brand of economics and lawmaking has quite a bit of appeal, especially to those who are otherwise quite frustrated. However, the fact that he is so wrong on defense issues, coupled with his associations with the white supremacist types, makes Ron Paul an unacceptable candidate.
Sometimes I think we need to “duck” for four years and then get a Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin four years from now.
I’m still sticking with Fred, period. Unless he says he’s out. He is the only consistent conservative in the bunch. Rush Limbaugh is spot on about McCain/Huck vs Fred; Fred’s conservative, the other two are not, and they can’t rally the base of the party.
off topic but…..
Did everyone hear the “esteemed” Sen. Saslaw’s comments last night and today on WMAL re chances of any illegal immigration bill being passed in this session?
He stated, “thirty bills were submitted last year and do you want to know how many passed? Zero, none, nada. This year so far over 100 bill have been submitted and as for any passing - IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.”
This guy is NUTS (and not the truck kind!)
Fred is the only one I will vote “FOR”. I will vote, but if Fred isn’t on the ticket b my vote will be “AGAINST” the socialist in the other party. But my God, pulling the lever for Rudy, Huck, Mitt or Paul will take all my strenght, and a bottle of cognac.
I’m sticking with Fred as well.
Senator Saslaw is one out-of-touch politician. He needs to be slammed with emails and phone calls NOW. First is his constitutuent hotline (800 number), his email addresses, then his contact information:
Constituent Hotline: (800) 889-0229
EMAILS:
district35@sov.state.va.us
vasenate35@aol.com
Capitol Office
Senate of Virginia
P.O. Box 396
Richmond, VA 23218
Email*: district35@sov.state.va.us
Room Number: 613
Legislative Assistant: Janet Muldoon
Phone: (804) 698-7535
Fax: (804) 698-7651
Constituent Hotline: (800) 889-0229
(Session Only)
District Office
P.O. Box 1856
Springfield, VA 22151-0856
Phone: (703) 978-0200
Fax: (703) 978-1221
Email*: vasenate35@aol.com
Legislative Assistant: Janet Muldoon
I do not understand how illegal immigration can be a top issue in this state and others, yet people vote for McCain and Huckabee. Just because you are a vet or military family, shouldn’t mean that you vote for McCain. I feel like I am in the twilight zone and this country is continuing to go straight down the toilet, with votes going to McCain, Huckabee, HC, Obama, and Edwards. I don’t think Romney is that great either. Why isn’t Thompson getting more votes? If McCain or Huckabee win the Rep Ticket, will the draft Lou Dobbs for President movement gain momentum?
Thank you, Loudoun, for providing the contact info for Saslaw.
I tried posting this earlier and it didn’t post. When I try to repost it, I get a message saying that this is a duplicate message and that it was already posted. What’s going on?
I do not understand how illegal immigration can be a top issue in this state and others, yet people vote for McCain and Huckabee. Just because you are a vet or military family, shouldn’t mean that you vote for McCain. I feel like I am in the twilight zone and this country is continuing to go straight down the toilet, with votes going to McCain, Huckabee, HC, Obama, and Edwards. I don’t think Romney is that great either. Why isn’t Thompson getting more votes? If McCain or Huckabee win the Rep Ticket, will the draft Lou Dobbs for President movement gain momentum?
Another case of bad and worse to vote for. All the Democrats are pandering for the illegal vote & McNut with give them amnesty again.
Bridget, you are most welcome!
Amnesty is a foregone conclusion and pretty much always has been. There are greater forces at work here than what the people want. South Carolina GOP voters polled with the economy as their top issue with illegal immigration a VERY close 2nd a few percentage points behind, yet they chose McCain as their candidate who is on record as wanting to give amnesty to 30 million people after they learn English and pay a fine (HAHA riiiiiight and I’ve got some nice beachfront property to sell you too). Sounds to me like South Carolinians and the rest of you that vote for McCain deserve what you get. McCain will splinter the party and will keep most true conservatives at home come election day. I know that I will not vote for a President in November if he is my candidate unless I see him go on record as changing his views on numerous issues between now and then. As it stands now, I will write in my own name before I vote for him. He is GW jr.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss….
Agree with you all about Fred, and I certainly hate to sacrifice principles, but at this point, the most important thing is to keep the socialists out. Our capitalistic democracy simply cannot afford a modern Democrat President and Congress.
Unfortunately, there are just too many voters out there who support wealth redistribution and want to be “taken care of” by the rest of us.
…but Park’d, which is better, a liberal Republican (McCain/Romney) or a socialist?
I don’t think that amnesty is a forgone conclusion at all. The people slamed D.C. with their voices during the last try for amnesty and we can and will do it again.
At least Romney isn’t saying that family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande like Jorge Bush did. I don’t especially like Romney but he’s not the RINO that McCain is. I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances.
Lelia - you forgot that the base rejected Huckabee after courting the evangelicals for years and years. Now would that be hypocritical?
Agree with your last comments regarding McCain and illegals. Haven’t ruled out a vote for him yet, though.
Say, you don’t suppose that McAmnesty comment about not wanting to call a soldier regarding the deportation of his grandmother was anything but pure pandering?
Perhaps John will call this guys grandmother to ask about his whereabouts:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22608032/
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080116/BREAKING/164692648
Plenty of trans-national pride and joy to share.
There are other issues on voters’ minds besides illegal immigration. Among these are the economy and the Iraq war. McCain supports decreasing government spending and winning the war. The war especially is s very, very important issue for folks like myself who have close ties to the military, and millions of others like me.
For those voters who believe illegal immigration is the most pressing issue of the day, I think most realize that there are no simple solutions. Everyone agrees that the current situation is unacceptable. I think most people realize that a compromise of some sort will be necessary.
Ducky
Your past derogatory comments not withstanding, this morning I find myself on the same page with you. Yes, the economy and the war are also extremely important issues. I have a cousin in Iraq who shipped out this month.
I am happy to hear you say that the current illegal immigration situation is unacceptable. I disagree, however, that a compromise will be necessary, unless it is a compromise that allows the illegal aliens a certain amount of time to self-deport (say two years) or face deportation.
The problem with McCain is that he supports amnesty. That is unacceptable.
Fred Thompson has solid plans for the war, how to deal with the illegal aliens, the economy, etc… Please visit his website and read his positions on the issues facing our nation.
I have asked you a question before and I don’t think you answered it. Are you the Ducky that grew up on Woodstock in Westgate?
fred08.com
The pro-amnesty people are always talking about how complicated the problem. No, actually it is simple. You’re here illegally–you go home. Pronto.
Calling the problem complicated is just a ruse to keep the borders open.
I like Fred too, but the problem is he isn’t doing enough to get his campaign going. He sat on his ass for far too long.
Amen, monticup!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080118/EDITORIAL/434959524/1013
Blacks had better recognize the facts & wake up ..Latinos are the new Blacks for Democrats politicians & they are deserting Blacks & pandering for the Latinos vote. . Obama would have a better chance of getting Independents & Republicans to vote for him than pandering for the Latino vote! We have let them Hi-Jack Blacks civil rights by equating walking across the border to the welfare office as the same as blacks struggle in slavery. Open borders and Amnesty will be the end of Blacks Civil rights and progress! Do not deceive yourself that Blacks and Latinos can make common cause because Latinos are very racist and hate blacks. As La Raza (the race) says everything for the race nothing for the rest! Then if further proof is required check out the Ethic cleansing of Blacks in LA by illegal Hispanics soon to be extended Nation wide!
It would be interesting to see what the issues are that drive people…for me it’s Homeland Security/counterterrorism, borders and immigration, national defense, and spending/taxes/deficit. Because he represents me the best, if Fred is still in when we vote in Virginia, I’ll vote for him. Yes, I read the polls, but I’d like to have the option of being FOR someone for the first time since Ronaldus Magnus. With Fred out, I probably go to Rudy….don’t like him, but he gets it on GWOT and is honest enough to not try to re-image. McCain is the least acceptable candidate, but I’ll hold my nose in November and pull his lever if he is the nominee. Huckleberry Hound is not acceptable in any measure and if he is on the ticket in Nov, I’ll go third party….big government of the right is not more desired than big government of the left, and a theocracy is the worst of both. He is the one Republican candidate that I will not only refuse to endorse, but will vote against. He is a danger to the Republic.
This one is for Bl:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007410.html
———————————————————————————-
“There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
April 16, 1963
Anonymous, 8:12 pm, my remark seems to have been removed, although I am not sure why. Are you saying the GOP base doesn’t include a large portion of evangelicals? How do you view the base?
Bl said on 21 Jan 2008 at 11:41 am:
Blacks had better recognize the facts & wake up ..Latinos are the new Blacks for Democrats politicians & they are deserting Blacks & pandering for the Latinos vote. .
Pandering, is that right? And what do you call this?
January 21, 2008, 10:48 am
Romney’s Spanish Ad
By Sarah Wheaton
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — As Adam Nagourney told you this morning, Mitt Romney is out with a new Spanish-language ad today. The spot is running in the Miami media market, and it features narration by Craig Romney, one of the former Massachusetts governor’s five sons.
Craig honed his Spanish skills working as a missionary in Chile.
Here’s the English script for the spot, called “Mi Padre”:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/romneys-spanish-ad/
Sounds like pandering to me. No surprise coming from Romney.
Isn’t pandering pretty much what most politicians do? Why is it worse if it is directed toward black people or Latinos, but not so bad if it is directed toward evangelicals, Southern white people, or others perceived to be conservative voting blocs (whether that is indeed true or not)?
It seems people are objecting to pandering only when it is pandering of their opponents. If it is bad, isn’t it bad all the time? Hillary Clinton, for example, pandered to the right when she co-sponsored a bill that attempted to ban flag burning despite the fact the Supremes have ruled twice that it is a constitutionally protected form of free speech. She’s a lawyer, she knows the Constitution and the precedent, she knows the only way to make flag burning illegal is a Constitution amendment, yet she made the gesture in a ridiculous effort to appear more conservative.
Pandering is business as usual.
This is for Loudon:
Title: Thompson soft on illegals in Senate votes
Source: Washington Times
URL Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070905/NATION/109050083/1001
Published: Sep 5, 2007
…on immigration, Mr. Thompson had several votes where he bucked the pack — and seemed to favor illegal aliens.
The most stark example was his 1995 vote on the welfare overhaul, when he voted to preserve illegal aliens’ ability to receive federal benefits. He was one of just six senators to vote that way, joining four other Republicans and one Democrat.
And in 1996, as Congress considered a crackdown on illegal aliens, Mr. Thompson voted against setting up a system so employers could verify the legal status of their workers.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=199205
This is for Ducky, who refuses to answer my question about whether or not he grew up on Woodstock in Westgate:
You cut and pasted from the article without providing all of the comments about Fred Thompson’s past stances - see page two of your posted article, which explains the reasons for the past stances, which says:
“An adviser to the campaign on immigration matters, who asked not to be named, said Mr. Thompson had concerns about how broadly the public-benefits provision was drawn. As for the employer verification system, the adviser said Mr. Thompson joined a majority of Republicans in the chamber in opposing it, with many of them thinking the new system would lead to a national ID card.
Since then, the verification system has proved to be successful and has not led to a national ID, and Mr. Thompson’s immigration plans would actually expand the system, which the Bush administration recently renamed E-Verify and announced its own plans to bolster.
The campaign adviser also said Mr. Thompson had several votes proving that he is strong on immigration, including voting in the Judiciary Committee to reduce chain migration and voting to eliminate the diversity visa lottery.”
Fred Thompson’s stance on immigration:
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:
Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.
Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.
For the full version of his plan, please visit http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx
So, Ducky, did you grow up in Westgate?
Romney get’s my vote. Any number of reasons but to me, he’s the best change agent that’s going. He seems to have the best business talent to actually give Washington some firm orders and track results. He has shown that in the past.
McCain has just been a part of the process too long to have new vision. I just can’t get behind him. Forget Obama and Hillary. Both have a voting record too far from my own views.
Hunter endorsed Huckabee
I agree with you Greg,
Mitt Romney is the logical candidate for the country.
His religion is not encased in far right wing issues. He is more center and that will be a welcome change from the religious group radicalism that has swept our nation and entrenched itself into politics until the country is locked into a death grip between religious groups against everyone else.
He seems to have his head on straight about the importance of following the law, why it was made for a reason and a solid understanding of the principals of the nation and the rationale behind the argument “if you don’t like the law change it”, but it has to be beneficial and fair to all citizens before you do, not just favor some supremacy group looking out only for their own race, gender, culture or ethnic group.
I think all of the Democrats except John Edwards just want to promote more supremacy group laws and special benefits for races, ethnic and gender groups. I think this will be very bad for America and only divide the Nation even more than it already is. We need a candidate who with stop the ethnic group favoritism crap and abolish group advocacy political actions.
I believe Mitt will fairly and justly do that, better than any other candidate. I think he will also care about the planet, and help us to realize we need to reduce our population growth to something the planet can handle without it killing us. The current administration just doesn’t believe in facts. As the current administration has been parodied. “What you mean we need to give them facts???. They believe in the fantasy of thousands of “man-made” religious doctrines that put people’s heads in the sand about nature and scientific reality. There is only one doctrine, and “men” especially men (and women) in politics that tend to have a lot of anger as religious people are not qualified to interpret it for the rest of us.
BL, why would you advocate that just Blacks deserve civil rights in this country? Why are you against Hispancis deserving the same civil rights as Caucasians and Asians? Or the thousands or other races and ethnic groups in this world? Why are you focusing on race, and ethnic group at all. Is this not a supremacy concept?
Your mindset showcases why civil rights that once solved a problem are now creating an even bigger problem of racial prejudice?
Are you incapable of thinking in terms of the civil rights of “individuals” without putting a race label on them?
The reason we are having such a problem with “illegal” immigrants is they are “racists” and self-segregating ethnic supremacists on a scale not seen since the 1950s and 1960s, and wnat to remain so by asking for the special privilige to “break the law” so it will benefit only thier own kind
You are right about one thing they could care less about your ethnic group, but they don’t care about anyone but their own kind. Do your words have echo’s of being afflicted with the same myopia and social bias as the kettle you are calling?
Very few “illegal” epole from other nations have been trained to respect “individual rights”. They only know the rights of people defined by their ethnic affiliation in the countries they came from. They will speak out of both sides of their mouth at once. If is benefits my racial or ethnic group than it is lawful and just. If it does not benefit my racial or ethnic group then it is heineous and unjust!
They have no concept of the supreme court ruling “equal opportunity for all (individuals), but not guaranteed outcomes for all (racial, gender, religious and ethnic groups). That is the law, and very few people understand that.
They understand only a different “illegal” version.
“equal opportunity and diversity for all ethnic, gender, racial and religious groups” and guranteed equal outcomes by racial, gender, religious, or ethnic group, regardless of whether the “individual” deserves it or not.
This is the abomination of “civil rights” thinkers and social engineers today and they don’t understand how it will divide and destroy America.
Do you who advocate on this blog not understand this???