Ikefan said 02/23, 03:25 AM
Radio hosts like Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham (who were previously quite insulting to McCain) are now rallying around him like a martyr. The voters who really care about the moral fiber of a candidate will be reassured by Limbaugh and Ingraham that McCain fits that criteria- and that the New York Times is an evil newspaper stooping to the level of the National Enquirer. Because of this story, McCain has finally obtained the support he so desperately wanted- the Conservatives. This is not a Nelson Rockefeller case. This is not a Gary Hart case. They lost the nomination because of the affairs they had. This is a (Bill)Clinton case- where the printing of such a hainous story will result in great sympathy, and a rallying of many undecided voters. Gennifer Flowers didn't ruin Clinton in '92, Iseman won't ruin McCain in '08.
Skipper04 said 02/23, 07:54 AM
What will hurt McCain as a result of this so-called scandal is not its claim to a lack of moral fiber on his part, but rather the fact that he did have such close ties to Washington lobbyists and that he did appear to be doing favors for Iseman's clients. The prevalent theme in this election seems to be that voters want change. It's not only the wind behind Obama's sails, but a large reason why McCain has done as well as he has. This along with all the money that he has taken from lobbyists is likely to turn voters off. It also gives them a glimpse behind John McCain the politician. It makes him look like a shady, Washinton-insider. Also, McCain often lambasts Obama for his rhetoric, saying that it amounts to empty promises. This turns the tables on him, because he often calls himself a maverick and straight-talker. Now people are going to start looking behind his words though. Also, having the support of people like Limbaugh and Ingrahim will help him shore up support amongst conservatives. But he was likely to have their votes anyway. And actually, having the support of those two won't help him win the support of the the all-important moderates and independents
Ikefan said 02/23, 11:53 AM
Well, McCain is already a moderate (he was almost prepared to switch parties back in '04), so he'd get those votes anyway. That means he'd get the votes of the moderate Democrat (the study saying Obama was the most liberal senator will surely hurt him), the moderate Republicans, and now, because of this story, the conservative Republicans will go for him. Though I don't know the exact specifics, I'd imagine 50% of Republicans are conservatives. That means that 25% of Conservatives make up the American voting block. Now McCain has their support (because a ton of people stay home if they don't like the candidates Remember 1988? Half the people voted in '88 than in '84), and there won't be a Conservative third party to steal his votes. The whole lobbyist thing doesn't really matter. People who care about that will go for Obama anyway, people who have disdain for the corporations. The only voters McCain will lose because of the lobbyist thing will be voters that were for Obama in the first place. People like McCain because he seems like a good, conventional guy, and this will only draw support.
Skipper04 said 02/24, 02:04 AM
i argee that McCain has a lot of support based on his character, but when going up with the likes of Obama i doubt that will be enough. I should have been more clear but when i say moderate i really mean independent. I think you are overestimating McCain's appeal to what you call "the democratic moderate". If they really identify themselves with the democrats, then they are certainly not going to turn their back on the "Obama movement", even though he is much less moderate than McCain. What Obama has going on here transcends politics in some ways. It goes beyond the issues. At first it looked like McCain might be able to match him on that appeal. But with the revelations of his close ties to lobbyists i don't think he does anymore. This might help him energize the republican base, but look at the number of votes in the democratic primaries. Their base is already mobilized and energetic. So even if both party's bases roll out the votes from within, the question then becomes who is going to win the independent vote. Again, i think that when they are given the choice between a change-candidate and a Washington-insider they'll go with the change, and thats how this hurts McCa
Ikefan said 02/25, 05:06 PM
But McCain will appeal to even the Democrat moderats. He was about switch parties for God sakes! What voter cares about lobbyist that much?? People want a Washingotn insider because they'll dislike a president who has little experience. With the country in such a volitile state, Americans want a man who knows what he's doing. I sound like I'm doing a commercial for McCain, and I'd rather Obama, but I feel McCain will win on this.
Skipper04 said 02/26, 06:42 AM
well, so do I. but i still think you're overestimating his appeal. Any conservative that was against McCain (and there weren't many who weren't already going to vote for him in a general election) was against him on principle and that's not going to change with a character appeal on his part. No he most certainly will not get many Democratic moderates on his side, especially not with his stance on Iraq. The fact that he almost changed parties is ancient history to most in this general election and no democrat is going to go McCain over the current nominee. Let's remember he also supports Bush's tax cuts. People hate the special interests and their candidates. If you look at the polls and results of the primaries, your statement about people who want a washington insider is just false.
Skip, that's a good point about the lobbyist/hypocrite dimension of it. That's the real issue here.
IamFry | 02/23/08
Report Offensive CommentI think its a move to get more Republicans (who hate the NY times) to feel sorry for McCain. I also think its funny how the story wasnt run until he was more likely to be the nominee.
UncleSam70 | 02/24/08
Report Offensive CommentIke is completely correct. Everybody is sick of people digging stuff up on other people.
Antioxidant Overdose | 02/25/08
Report Offensive CommentPersonally, I'd like to know if my elected leaders are two-faced. The Times didn't "dig" this up; former staffers came to them. Quit blaming the messenger for the message and deal with reality.
Austhus | 02/26/08
Report Offensive CommentPlease keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
it seems the ny times is the one having the bad day not mccain he came out smelling like roses this was a story that never should of ran had no back up no proof this is libel at it best the ny times is the one getting emailed to death by subscriptins demanding keller be fired the times played this wrong not two weeks ago they endorsed mccain lol but yet they said they had this story for months lol i as republican will say mccain wasnt my first choice but it had nothing to do with his character mccain was the one person to write this about even the liberal will tell the ny times that they can keep the downhill spiral going pretty soon there wont be no ny times no one will read it
missy | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment