McCain's campaign is in danger of fracturing

[1979Shocker]

With Sarah Palin on one wing and Colin Powell on the other, don't be surprised if cracks appear in the GOP

[kcshocker11]

"Interesting, very Interesting"

Col Klink

[WuDrWu]

How is that interesting? The entire site is so one sided it's sickening.


Some of you need to grow a brain.



It would be like me writing a column on how BO has no useful experience to be CIC. Not interesting and hugely biased.

[shockandawe08]

Sorry, but it's no different than the salivating that is going on right now about Ms. Palin. For every story circulating that she is supporting a pipeline, there is another that claims it's the Trans-Canada Pipeline and the jobs will be outsourced. Granted, these things should be easy to prove or disprove, yet too much information is either not provided or it's mysteriously disappearing. A conspiracy theorist might have a heyday...
I want to hear both sides. Keep it coming. :D

[ABC]

There is some truth to that article, but it is nothing new.

The GOP has had divisions within it for the public to see at least since 1952 when Eisenhower and Taft had a very contested convention.

Moderates have been saying since then that to let the conservatives rule the party would end any chance of the GOP controlling the White House and eliminate the chance to have Congressional majorities. Obviously those folks were wrong.

The 1964 Presidential campaign highlighted this division with Goldwater and Rockefeller supporters battling it out. The Reagan vs. Ford campaign in 1976 further highlighted the division with the Republican party.

In Kansas, the split within the party is as prevalent as anywhere in the country, which is party why we have a Democrat governor and a Democrat attorney general.

[SB Shock]

I think the Palin pick although a huge gamble did exactly what it was suppose to do.

1. Stop the Obama Bump after the convention. The greatest fear the Republicans had to have was that Obama would get a unsurmountable bump coming out of the convention. From most reputable polls show no change or only a 1-2 point bump.

2. Change the discussion from Obama to something else. The Palin nomination did just that. The news cycle is two things - Gustav and Palin.

No other potential VP nominee had that ability. If Lieberman had been chose - election over. Romney has his own baggage and ultimately would have doomed the McCain campaign.

3. Firm up the the conservative base of the Republican party. I only have anecdotal evidence, but I know of some conservatives who 2 weeks ago were voting Bob Barr because they thought the Republican were deserting them and now are excited about the McCain candidacy.

Overall, I think the Palin nomination has really did 1 thing - it bought McCain campaign some time to get to the debates where McCain/Obama can either win or lose it on substance.

The big unknown is how Palin with perform in the spotlight. She has huge upside but at the same time if she's not prepared or stumbles under the pressure will be anchor around the McCain.

[SubGod22]

I only have anecdotal evidence, but I know of some conservatives who 2 weeks ago were voting Bob Barr because they thought the Republican were deserting them and now are excited about the McCain candidacy.

As a conservative I have sided with the Republican party on more things than the Democrats. And that comment pretty much described me. I was/am still looking into Barr and Baldwin but the Palin pick has me and other thinking about McCain. I'm still not positive which way I'll go but Barr was leading the way and almost a sure thing for me until Friday.

[RoyalShock]

The VP choice is little more than pandering to a segment of the party. I don't see it having any effect, unless that VP runs for office in 8 years.

Don't be suckered by a pick for VP. Unless he's a puppet-master like Cheney, what influence do they really have on policy?

[ABC]

The VP is an important bully pulpit position and the fact that Palin is conservative on issues across the board is a very important thing, imo.

Also, whoever is a winning VP is automatically a front-runner for the Presidency during the next open seat. (Nixon in 1960, Mondale in 1984, Bush in 1988, Gore in 2000)

I do understand some of you looking at a 3rd party candidate like Barr. There are many, many things I disagree wtih McCain about. But a vote for Barr or other 3rd party candidates is a vote or Obama. And as much as I disagree wtih McCain, the differences b/t him and Obama could not be more stark. (just listen to Obama's convention speech)

Probably the most imporant issue is selection of the next Supreme Court justices. Who will make a pick closer to your philosohpy, McCain or Obama.

For any of you think about Barr, please read the article below, "McCain or the Wilderness", from Daniel Henniger, a great mind from the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/mccain_or_the_wilderness.html

Here's an excerpt:

There are murmurs of heading into the political wilderness. Sit this one out. Rather than sell the party's soul to John McCain, let Hillary have it, or Barack. Go into opposition for four years while the party gets its head together and comes up with an authentic conservative candidate. If this sourness takes hold at the margin, say among GOP anti-immigrant voters, it might happen.

The wilderness is a good place to find yourself, if you're a prophet. There are reasons, though, why a principled political retreat won't make conservative prospects better. The point of a principled retreat would be to rediscover coherence amid doctrinal confusion. The exact opposite is likely to happen.

Conservatives, like everyone else, live in a new political space. It's a 24/7 world of blogs, Web sites and talk shows. It's feisty and maybe even democratic. But consensus? This milieu makes consensus harder than ever.

The Web is an engine of constant complaint, not idea formation. The vaunted, take-no-prisoners style of the left-wing netroots came a cropper with John Edwards plateauing at 18% of the Democratic vote. In four years, conservatives will be more confused, incoherent and madder at each other than they are now.

[rrshock]

In Kansas, the split within the party is as prevalent as anywhere in the country, which is party why we have a Democrat governor and a Democrat attorney general.

The split is so evident that the Democrats have been able to get alot of things accomplished in Topeka because of it. The Republicans fued with each other over issues and the Democrats slide right in and take over. It's happened many times. Plus some of the Democrats in this state are more like the lesser conservative Republicans too, which helps.

I consider myself to be one of the more Liberal (for lack of better term) Republicans, even though I am not registered that way.

[ABC]

The split is so evident that the Democrats have been able to get alot of things accomplished in Topeka because of it.

Can you list one of those accomplishments?

[rrshock]

The split is so evident that the Democrats have been able to get alot of things accomplished in Topeka because of it.

Can you list one of those accomplishments?

It will take time, and I don't know if it has been recently. Just things happened when I was younger. I'll try to find them. And by alot of things, that can be just 1 in this heavily red colored state.

[Ixiah]

In Kansas, the split within the party is as prevalent as anywhere in the country, which is party why we have a Democrat governor and a Democrat attorney general.

Fwiw - there was a recent article specifically on this topic.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/whats_wrong_with_kansas_republ.html