The NYT endorses John McCain. Some say that's the end of his chances for the nomination -- it's confirmation for those Republicans who suspected and disliked him already, for the same reasons the NYT likes him: because he sometimes breaks with his party.
Do you suppose the Times did that on purpose, knowing that if nominated, he could win?
They just hate Giuliani so much.
But Giuliani can't win anyway, and I think his marital record is the real reason. He even had a girlfriend and wife at the same time. For a Democrat, that might be a plus, but a lot of Republicans care about morality.
Posted by: realpc | January 25, 2008 at 01:15 PM
For a Democrat, that might be a plus, but a lot of Republicans care about morality.
Ignorant and offensive statement. Look in the mirror lately?
Posted by: Randy (Internet Ronin) | January 25, 2008 at 01:57 PM
I meant to say a lot of Republicans care about sexual morality and family values. I shortened it. Sorry you got so terribly offended.
But I really don't know any Democrats who would care how many wives and girlfriends a candidate had.
Posted by: realpc | January 25, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Don't worry, Real. Randy's stock in trade is calling everyone he disagrees with names. He's just looking for a reason to be offended.
Posted by: Icepick | January 25, 2008 at 02:50 PM
But I really don't know any Democrats who would care how many wives and girlfriends a candidate had.
President Gary Hart was unavailable for comment.
Posted by: Peter Hoh | January 25, 2008 at 03:27 PM
I meant to say a lot of Republicans care about sexual morality and family values.
A lot of them say they do, but if they really did, Mitt Romney would be the runaway front-runner because he is the only GOP candidate whose record is spotlessly exemplary in this regard.
Sorry you got so terribly offended.
I'm not personally offended by your statement. 1) I'm not a Democrat. 2) I've never been divorced. 3) I've never cheated on anyone or even considered the possibility of doing so.
But I really don't know any Democrats who would care how many wives and girlfriends a candidate had.
Your sample size sounds incredibly small. Or perhaps it is a bit dated, reflecting the partisan shenanigans in 1998.
As Icepick's comments here repeatedly demonstrate, partisans tend to dig in their heels when confronted by the other side. Their side can do no wrong - the others are evil. Put another way, if Christ himself were running on the Democratic ticket, there are those who would pick at his wounds, question his sexuality, and make him out to be the devil himself if it guaranteed victory for the GOP, whoever that was. (Same holds true for dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.)
Posted by: Randy (Internet Ronin) | January 25, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Well, thank the Lord that Jesus Christ never got into this kind of politics. His wounds are already plenty deep.
I'd say the reason that Giuliani's track runs cold is because taxpayer $$$$ was used in protecting and transporting his mistriss(sp?) and then hidden behind clever accounting. Your average Pubs care about morality, but they care about $$$$, too.
The only thing i remember about Hart was a skit on The Smothers Brothers w/Paul Paulson(was that his name- the guy that was a perpetual candidate for President?) He was confronting cardboard replicas of each opposing runner for whatever year this was and would push down the image. Only, Hart's kept popping back up, to which Paulson finally said-- "It's good to keep a Hard man down"... or something like that:0).
Posted by: karen | January 25, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Oh- and *Yes to doing this kissing on purpose. I believe they are loyal to the Clintons. This bodes for illness- probably McCain's.
Posted by: karen | January 25, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Then it literally was the "kiss of death" -- like in the Mafia. Or what other scene from a movie is teasing the edges of my mind? Somebody kills somebody by embracing them, pretending to be their great friend. The "target" is horrified and pushes the deadly embrace away, but it's too late. What am I thinking of?
Posted by: amba | January 25, 2008 at 05:11 PM
Something w/Vampires??
Posted by: karen | January 25, 2008 at 05:32 PM
To respond to points made above:
To Amba's original post suggesting that the NYT endorsement of McCain is deliberately meant to undermine his nomination, since McCain, if nominated, is the Republican with the best chance of winning: Realistically, no Republican is going to be elected in November 2008, because the Republican nominee, whether he likes it or not, is going to be running on the record of the last eight years. In 2008, voters will want not only different personalities but radically different policies, and only Huckabee among Republicans even pretends to depart from the Bush program (I don't consider Ron Paul a serious candidate). The other Republican candidates more or less endorse the Bush program and merely promise to implement it with greater success. I'm a Republican, and unless McCain is nominated, I'm not going to vote. But, realistically, either Obama or Hillary is going to be elected in 2008, and the Republican primaries may as well be academic exercises. Even if the NYT was in fact trying to undermine the likelihood of McCain's nomination by endorsing him, the NYT's supposed conspiracy has mostly academic consequences as well. Either Hillary or Obama is going to be inaugurated in 2009, whether I happen to prefer that or not.
To RealPC on Republicans who care about sexual morality and to Internet Ronin's point that Republicans SAY they do: At least in Georgia, where I live, at every election Republicans care about the appearance of sexual morality. Otherwise, to be concerned about other people's sexual behavior, where that behavior doesn't threaten public order, public health, or the welfare and safety of children, is a more complicated issue, and my experience in Georgia is that Republicans publicly endorse a conservative sexual morality but, in practice, step back from acting out as social authoritarians, i.e., Republicans want to perceived as social authoritarians but actually govern as timid libertarians -- which is probably what the public in Georgia wants.
To Karen on Giuliani's private morality and misuse of tax dollars -- To me, Giuliani's private behavior COMBINED with his private use of public money is relevant because it suggests that he doesn't see himself as accountable to his wives, his children, or to the taxpayers. Giuliani might, like the Clintons and George W. Bush, be allergic to accountability in general. I don't want any more of that in the White House.
Also to Karen on "Paul Paulson" -- I think you mean the late Pat Paulsen, the Smothers Brothers regular, who, I think in the 1980s, actually ran for office as a liberal Republican in southern California (he wasn't elected).
Posted by: James Stanhope | January 25, 2008 at 09:21 PM
My recollection of the original 'kiss of death' was that it was given by Judas to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus said, 'Judas, would you betray me with a kiss?'
Posted by: Ruth Anne | January 26, 2008 at 07:28 PM
To James-- hey, thanks for the name of that man- he ran in more thn one race, i think. I was pretty little back in the Smother's Brothers days-- or maybe i just think it was farther back. Even though i know believe they were pretty "Liberal"- man, how i love them.
I would humbly ask you to reconsider your decision of not voting. The Anchoress has a great post about this-- she's found on amba's blogroll. It is food for thought and, i know-- no matter who is the nominee for the Pubs: i can't imagine a Hillary Clinton in office.
Posted by: karen | January 28, 2008 at 08:41 PM