Althouse: "Why would I contemplate such a thing? I don’t know why I would even remotely consider such a thing in the month of June and July."

July 3, 2007

"Why would I contemplate such a thing? I don’t know why I would even remotely consider such a thing in the month of June and July."

Says John McCain. Asked you know what.

20 comments:

hdhouse said...: You don't suppose it is his on again/off again support for Mr. Bush that is hurting him...one day critic, one day a rah rah?

He can't seem to get on the news anymore... a sure sign his ship has sailed and no one is on board.; 7/3/07, 8:25 AM
TMink said...: I love this sentence from the NYT: "They also sent a jolt of uncertainty through Republican circles when many in the party are uneasy with their current candidates and are worried about their prospects against a far more determined Democratic field."

The Democratic field is far more determined, eh? They want it more. And it is given as a statement of fact with no supporting evidence. Those guys are too much. "far more determined." I mean, really, can you be more biased? How about "far more qualified" or "far more intelligent?"

Amazing.

Trey; 7/3/07, 9:53 AM
Simon said...: ^ Nope, it's immigration. A policy area on which Bush and McCain agree to disagree with, well, practically everyone else in the GOP. In this climate, a pro-amnesty Republican seeking the GOP nomination is like a pro-war Democrat seeking theirs. As David Brooks has pointed out, amnesty has become the third rail in GOP circles, much as social security reform is for dems.; 7/3/07, 9:54 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Let me just emphasize the significance of the would "touchy." It doesn't mean "important" or even "contentious."; 7/3/07, 10:09 AM
Too many jims said...: Let me just emphasize the significance of the [word] "touchy."

But it is better than using the word "testy" if your only editor is a spell check.; 7/3/07, 10:33 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: a sure sign his ship has sailed and no one is on board.

His numbers weren't that good when his ship was still at the pier.; 7/3/07, 11:34 AM
Roost on the Moon said...: TMink,

I think it may be just a case of ambiguous writing. That is, maybe not determined as in "committed to winning", more like: determined as in set and predictable. If this is what they meant, "better determined" or "more fully determined" would have been better choices.

In that sense, the Democratic field is far more determined. There is a pretty clear picture of who the options will be down the home stretch. The Republican field, in contrast, is wide open. McCain is viewed as one the big 3, but after immigration, seems to be on his last legs within the party. Many in the base seem to have serious doubts about Romney and Giuliani. Thompson hasn't decided. Might Huckabee step up? Could Ron Paul pull some kind of netroots miracle? There aren't standout likely candidates. The field isn't as determined.

Seems more plausible than a flat-out declaration that the Democrats are more committed to victory, and in the context of the next sentence, this does seem to be their intention.; 7/3/07, 11:57 AM
The Drill SGT said...: I was a McCain supporter in 2000, and had hoped to vote for him in 2008. BCRA and the Grand Compromise finished that. Having said that, I admire him in a lot of areas, but think he can best serve the country as another blowhard Senator in a chamber full of them.

One should not completely count him out of the races without doing an analysis of the early races and whether independents or dems can vote in the GOP primary. same with polls. McCain always had large independent numbers.; 7/3/07, 12:29 PM
TMink said...: Roost, your post may complete sense. Is the NYT hiring?

Thanks.

Trey; 7/3/07, 1:52 PM
Roost on the Moon said...: Trey,

I'm confused. Do you agree or not?; 7/3/07, 1:54 PM
TMink said...: Sorry Roost, I did not proof before I hit send. My bad.

I agree, the secondary use of the word determined flew right over my head.

Trey; 7/3/07, 2:37 PM
Roost on the Moon said...: Yeah, well, it was pretty unclear as written. Not up to snuff for the paper of record, I must say. Not quite "fit to print".; 7/3/07, 2:44 PM
Roost on the Moon said...: Now I'm being ambiguous! I was poking fun at the Times, not your post.; 7/3/07, 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...: McCain is too old, Thompson is too lazy, Paul is too looney, Brownback is too religious, Huckabee is too laughable, Gilmore is too unknown, Tancredo is too crazy, Hunter is too mean, and Romney is just two-faced, so that leaves...; 7/3/07, 2:52 PM
Roost on the Moon said...: ...the pro-choice, gay-friendly, thrice-divorced New Yorker?

It's still wide open.; 7/3/07, 3:21 PM
Roost on the Moon said...: Has anyone else read Up Simba, D.F.Wallace's McCain 2000 Campaign reportage?; 7/3/07, 4:05 PM
rcocean said...: That McCain is failing fast is news only to non-Republicans and those who believe the MSM.

Republicans have been following McCain's antics over the last 6 years with disgust. For many, the Amnesty bill was the last straw.

Despite what others may say (or wish), McCain is finished. There is no strategy or change in policy/position that will give the nomination. He has no more chance than Tommy Thompson or Sam Brownback.

There is nothing he can do or say, because he is known quantity. His base, the media, has deserted him. Independents are against the war and amnesty. And moderate/liberal republicans see Gulliani and Rommney as more attractive.

Not to mention that fact that about 65 percent of the party hates his guts.; 7/3/07, 6:52 PM
Peter Hoh said...: My governor, Tim Pawlenty, hitched his wagon to McCain's star rather early in this campaign cycle. Pawlenty has been rather quiet of late, and I don't recall that Pawlenty said anything about immigration recently -- and I haven't heard that he's been stumping for McCain recently, either. Disclaimer: I have been busy and not following local news that closely.

Roost: Giuliani is not "thrice divorced."; 7/3/07, 10:16 PM
TMink said...: Roost, you I understand clearly! It is the Times that was confusing.

Trey; 7/4/07, 12:12 AM
Roost on the Moon said...: Giuliani is not "thrice divorced."

Good catch, my mistake. Twice divorced. Thrice married.; 7/4/07, 9:32 AM