McCain lost five U.S. Navy aircraft
Navy pilot John Sidney McCain III should have never been allowed
to graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school. He was a below
average student and a lousy pilot. Had his father and
grandfather not been famous four star U.S. Navy admirals,
McCain III would have never been allowed in the cockpit
of a military aircraft.
His father John S. "Junior" McCain was commander of U.S. forces
in Europe later becoming commander of American forces in Vietnam
while McCain III was being held prisoner of war. McCain III's
grandfather John S. McCain, Sr. commanded naval aviation at
the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.
During his relative short stunt on flight status, McCain III
lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents and one in combat.
Robert Timberg, author of The Nightingale's Song, a book about
Annapolis graduates and their tours in Vietnam, wrote that McCain
"learned to fly at Pensacola, though his performance was below par,
at best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it."
McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi
Bay while practicing landings. He was knocked unconscious by the
impact coming to as the plane settled to the bottom.
McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean.
"Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula," Timberg wrote,
"he took out some power lines [reminiscent of the 1998 incident
in which a Marine Corps jet sliced through the cables of a
gondola at an Italian ski resort, killing 20] which led to a spate
of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."
McCain's third crash three occurred when he was returning from flying
a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game.
Timberg reported that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" and went through standard relight procedures three times before ejecting at
one thousand feet. McCain landed on a deserted beach moments before
the plane slammed into a clump of trees.
McCain's fourth aircraft loss occurred July 29, 1967, soon after
he was assigned to the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk pilot. While seated in the cockpit of his aircraft waiting his turn for takeoff, an accidently fired rocket slammed into McCain's plane. He escaped from the burning aircraft, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and threatened to sink the ship.
McCain's fifth loss happened during his 23rd mission over North Vietnam on Oct. 26, 1967, when McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. McCain ejected from the plane breaking both arms and a leg in the process and subsequently parachuted into Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi.
After being drug from the lake, a mob gathered around McCain, spit on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. He was bayoneted in his left foot and his shoulder crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.
After being periodically slapped around for "three or four days" by his captors who wanted military information, McCain called for an officer on his fourth day of captivity. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." -U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain.
"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain.
When the communist learned that McCain's father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific, he was rushed to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable for U.S. POWs.
The communist Vietnamese figured, because POW McCain's father was of such high military rank, that he was of royalty or the governing circle. Thereafter the communist bragged that they had captured "the crown prince."
For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded McCain a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals.
"McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat," explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs -- the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. "Since McCain got 28 medals," Bell continues, "that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down."
For years, McCain has been an unchecked master at manipulating an overly friendly and biased news media. The former POW turned Congressman, turned U.S. Senator, has managed to gloss over his failures as a pilot and collaborations with the enemy by exaggerating his military service and lying about his feats of heroism.
McCain has sprouted a halo and wings to become America's POW-hero presidential candidate.
see more info on Mccain.......
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_mccain_lost_five_u.htm
more info on Mccain
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
audio recording of Mccain while as a POW ?
audio recording of Mccain while as a POW ?
I thought the North Vietnamese made audio recording of what Senator mccain said.
I also thought Mccain uncle or father had the code of conduct revised, prior to mccain's release, so as to avoid the stockade for Mccain
I thought the North Vietnamese made audio recording of what Senator mccain said.
I also thought Mccain uncle or father had the code of conduct revised, prior to mccain's release, so as to avoid the stockade for Mccain
John Mccain crashes and burns again in Michigan
John Mccain crashes and burns again in Michigan
CNN predicts a 40% victory for Romney
well his fellow Navy pilots did call him "crash" for his flying skills
CNN predicts a 40% victory for Romney
well his fellow Navy pilots did call him "crash" for his flying skills
Monday, January 14, 2008
WILL NYC MAYOR MIKE BLOOMBERG RUN?
WILL NYC MAYOR MIKE BLOOMBERG RUN?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on January 11, 2008.
While Obama and Clinton wrestle and the four Republican candidates face one another, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s shadow increasingly falls over their playing field. Armed with as much money as he could possibly need to run, this Democrat-turned-Republican could throw the entire race into chaos.
Bloomberg can wait and watch the primaries unfold before making his move. A byproduct of the front loading of the primaries in both parties is that the nominees will probably be chosen with plenty of time for a third party candidate to enter the field. The New York City mayor could either get himself nominated by the Green Party, formerly the vehicle for gadfly Ralph Nader, or set up his own party by petition in the 50 states. His massive financial resources make it possible for him to wait until early Spring before he has to begin collecting signatures if he goes the petition route.
The increasingly bitter nominating contests in both parties seem likely to offer an ample supply of disgruntled voters from whom Bloomberg could draw. Hillary and Obama are girding for a take-no-prisoners battle and the Republican fight seems likely to get equally acrimonious.
But a third party candidacy must gain its traction and impetus from discontent with the other two candidates. It is only frustration with the outcome of the Democratic and Republican nominating processes that would make a Bloomberg candidacy attractive.
Beyond the obvious difficulty Bloomberg would have running against Giuliani, both McCain and Obama would seem to pose obstacles to a viable third party candidacy. Political androgynous candidates, they draw well among both Democrats and Republicans and, so far, seem to alienate relatively few voters. Obama’s charisma has set much of the country ablaze and he appears to have done so without making a lot of enemies.
Boomberg's drawback — inexperience — is not likely to enflame enough voters to power a third party. John McCain may not win the Republican nomination precisely because his ideology and record is so appealing to those outside his party. He is the Democratic Party’s favorite Republican. If he wins the nomination, he can probably count on sufficient popularity on both sides of the race to make a Bloomberg candidacy problematic.
But if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination and either Huckabee or Romney gets the Republican nod, it is easy to see Bloomberg emerging as a very strong alternative. Hillary has a unique ability to make enemies and to polarize the electorate. If she wins the Democratic nomination, tens of millions of Democrats and Independents will want to look elsewhere in the general election. If she wins after a bitter fight with Obama, she might well alienate enough African American voters to make a third party candidacy successful, particularly with Bloomberg’s excellent record in attracting minority support in New York City.
If Huckabee is nominated by the Republicans, he may not be able to escape the evangelical ghetto and might have limited appeal to mainstream voters. Romney would also leave a lot of voters cold if he were to be nominated. The limited national security credentials of both Republicans might also open the door to Bloomberg, who has had extensive experience in fighting terrorism in New York City.
So Bloomberg needs to wait and watch as the other parties choose their nominees. If Hillary is the Democrat and either Huckabee or Romney wins the Republican nomination, he will find enough running room to make it worthwhile to take the shot.
Who would he help and hurt? He’d probably help Hillary more than the Republicans, although he’d draw votes from both parties. But, above all, he would help himself. Bloomberg could win. His money combined with his political savvy acquired facing the second toughest press corps in the nation might make it possible for him to pull it off if the other parties nominate the right people.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on FoxNews.com on January 11, 2008.
While Obama and Clinton wrestle and the four Republican candidates face one another, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s shadow increasingly falls over their playing field. Armed with as much money as he could possibly need to run, this Democrat-turned-Republican could throw the entire race into chaos.
Bloomberg can wait and watch the primaries unfold before making his move. A byproduct of the front loading of the primaries in both parties is that the nominees will probably be chosen with plenty of time for a third party candidate to enter the field. The New York City mayor could either get himself nominated by the Green Party, formerly the vehicle for gadfly Ralph Nader, or set up his own party by petition in the 50 states. His massive financial resources make it possible for him to wait until early Spring before he has to begin collecting signatures if he goes the petition route.
The increasingly bitter nominating contests in both parties seem likely to offer an ample supply of disgruntled voters from whom Bloomberg could draw. Hillary and Obama are girding for a take-no-prisoners battle and the Republican fight seems likely to get equally acrimonious.
But a third party candidacy must gain its traction and impetus from discontent with the other two candidates. It is only frustration with the outcome of the Democratic and Republican nominating processes that would make a Bloomberg candidacy attractive.
Beyond the obvious difficulty Bloomberg would have running against Giuliani, both McCain and Obama would seem to pose obstacles to a viable third party candidacy. Political androgynous candidates, they draw well among both Democrats and Republicans and, so far, seem to alienate relatively few voters. Obama’s charisma has set much of the country ablaze and he appears to have done so without making a lot of enemies.
Boomberg's drawback — inexperience — is not likely to enflame enough voters to power a third party. John McCain may not win the Republican nomination precisely because his ideology and record is so appealing to those outside his party. He is the Democratic Party’s favorite Republican. If he wins the nomination, he can probably count on sufficient popularity on both sides of the race to make a Bloomberg candidacy problematic.
But if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination and either Huckabee or Romney gets the Republican nod, it is easy to see Bloomberg emerging as a very strong alternative. Hillary has a unique ability to make enemies and to polarize the electorate. If she wins the Democratic nomination, tens of millions of Democrats and Independents will want to look elsewhere in the general election. If she wins after a bitter fight with Obama, she might well alienate enough African American voters to make a third party candidacy successful, particularly with Bloomberg’s excellent record in attracting minority support in New York City.
If Huckabee is nominated by the Republicans, he may not be able to escape the evangelical ghetto and might have limited appeal to mainstream voters. Romney would also leave a lot of voters cold if he were to be nominated. The limited national security credentials of both Republicans might also open the door to Bloomberg, who has had extensive experience in fighting terrorism in New York City.
So Bloomberg needs to wait and watch as the other parties choose their nominees. If Hillary is the Democrat and either Huckabee or Romney wins the Republican nomination, he will find enough running room to make it worthwhile to take the shot.
Who would he help and hurt? He’d probably help Hillary more than the Republicans, although he’d draw votes from both parties. But, above all, he would help himself. Bloomberg could win. His money combined with his political savvy acquired facing the second toughest press corps in the nation might make it possible for him to pull it off if the other parties nominate the right people.
MAN TO BEAT: MCCAIN'S CROSS-PARTY APPEAL
MAN TO BEAT: MCCAIN'S CROSS-PARTY APPEAL
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 12, 2008.
John McCain is starting to look like the candidate to beat for the GOP nomination. Not long ago, he was dismissed, unable to compete with Rudy Giuliani's star power. But with New Hampshire, the tortoise has overtaken the hare.
If McCain wins Michigan on Tuesday (as he did in 2000), Rudy may find himself so far behind before he starts to run that he can never catch up.
McCain could even beat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. His record taps into a latent populism that attracts Republicans, Democrats and Independents. His battle against big tobacco, efforts to address global warming, opposition to torture during interrogations and fight to reform corporate governance and to protect investors and pensioners appeal to voters of all stripes.
His issues cut across party and ideological lines, for an attraction far broader than the single notes sung by the evangelical Mike Huckabee and the anti-terror Giuliani. His heroism is apparent and his independence from special interests notable. He's pro-life and suitably conservative on social issues, so he attracts conservatives as well as moderates. And his credentials on terrorism and other national-security issues are outstanding.
He's got two main obstacles to overcome: his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants and his age.
* McCain denies that he backed amnesty (citing the fines that illegals would've had to pay to regularize their status under his bill), but conservatives have pinned the label on him so indelibly that it's unlikely to come off no matter how hard he scrubs.
Ultimately, though, he can likely transcend the nativist vote and appeal to the broad spectrum of Republicans. Polls indicate that nobody really believes it is feasible to deport 11 million people back to their home nations. If we can't do that, they'll linger on our streets and in our fields forever, as illegal tomorrow as they are today, unless we move to meet them halfway.
The Pat Buchanans of the world will split their votes between Mitt Romney and Huckabee, so this negative is not likely to prove any more lethal in Michigan, New York or California than it was in New Hampshire.
* His age is a bigger problem. The New Hampshire and Iowa contests were animated by record turnouts. One Granite State voter in five had never voted before in a primary. (Obama carried them by 20 points.) An incredible 11 percent of voters were under 24. (Obama won them, 3 to 1.) With young people storming the polls, a 71-year-old candidate labors under a huge handicap.
But consider his competition: Giuliani, who draws from the same well, has squandered his early lead in what can only be described as a determined passivity. Fred Thompson is also catatonic.
And each primary provides more proof of how how unattractive voters find Romney. Despite massive spending and a field organization with all the efficiency and busy-tailed enthusiasm of a good car-rental company, he still can't sell because people don't like him. His vast checkbook will let him linger on past Michigan, but he loses traction with each balloting.
Huckabee has yet to show an ability to transcend social-conservative issues. His pledge to repeal the IRS and instead adopt a fair tax (i.e., a national sales tax) might help him "go secular," but until he achieves that, he's just a regional candidate - a good vice president pick, not top-tier material.
For the general election, McCain is unique among the GOP field because he can attract centrist votes. He's every Democrat's and independent's favorite Republican. He doesn't have Rudy's hard edges or family problems, and he knows how to push a lot of populist hot buttons, from CEO pay to credit-card overcharges to hedge-fund tax shelters to subprime chicanery.
Being able to win doesn't mean he will win. But McCain is clearly back.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 12, 2008.
John McCain is starting to look like the candidate to beat for the GOP nomination. Not long ago, he was dismissed, unable to compete with Rudy Giuliani's star power. But with New Hampshire, the tortoise has overtaken the hare.
If McCain wins Michigan on Tuesday (as he did in 2000), Rudy may find himself so far behind before he starts to run that he can never catch up.
McCain could even beat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. His record taps into a latent populism that attracts Republicans, Democrats and Independents. His battle against big tobacco, efforts to address global warming, opposition to torture during interrogations and fight to reform corporate governance and to protect investors and pensioners appeal to voters of all stripes.
His issues cut across party and ideological lines, for an attraction far broader than the single notes sung by the evangelical Mike Huckabee and the anti-terror Giuliani. His heroism is apparent and his independence from special interests notable. He's pro-life and suitably conservative on social issues, so he attracts conservatives as well as moderates. And his credentials on terrorism and other national-security issues are outstanding.
He's got two main obstacles to overcome: his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants and his age.
* McCain denies that he backed amnesty (citing the fines that illegals would've had to pay to regularize their status under his bill), but conservatives have pinned the label on him so indelibly that it's unlikely to come off no matter how hard he scrubs.
Ultimately, though, he can likely transcend the nativist vote and appeal to the broad spectrum of Republicans. Polls indicate that nobody really believes it is feasible to deport 11 million people back to their home nations. If we can't do that, they'll linger on our streets and in our fields forever, as illegal tomorrow as they are today, unless we move to meet them halfway.
The Pat Buchanans of the world will split their votes between Mitt Romney and Huckabee, so this negative is not likely to prove any more lethal in Michigan, New York or California than it was in New Hampshire.
* His age is a bigger problem. The New Hampshire and Iowa contests were animated by record turnouts. One Granite State voter in five had never voted before in a primary. (Obama carried them by 20 points.) An incredible 11 percent of voters were under 24. (Obama won them, 3 to 1.) With young people storming the polls, a 71-year-old candidate labors under a huge handicap.
But consider his competition: Giuliani, who draws from the same well, has squandered his early lead in what can only be described as a determined passivity. Fred Thompson is also catatonic.
And each primary provides more proof of how how unattractive voters find Romney. Despite massive spending and a field organization with all the efficiency and busy-tailed enthusiasm of a good car-rental company, he still can't sell because people don't like him. His vast checkbook will let him linger on past Michigan, but he loses traction with each balloting.
Huckabee has yet to show an ability to transcend social-conservative issues. His pledge to repeal the IRS and instead adopt a fair tax (i.e., a national sales tax) might help him "go secular," but until he achieves that, he's just a regional candidate - a good vice president pick, not top-tier material.
For the general election, McCain is unique among the GOP field because he can attract centrist votes. He's every Democrat's and independent's favorite Republican. He doesn't have Rudy's hard edges or family problems, and he knows how to push a lot of populist hot buttons, from CEO pay to credit-card overcharges to hedge-fund tax shelters to subprime chicanery.
Being able to win doesn't mean he will win. But McCain is clearly back.
Immigration in their own words
Immigration in their own words
From: Steve Elliott (alert@grassfire.net)
From the Desk of:Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org Alliance
++ Click here to access video footage ofeach of the G.O.P candidates and theirposition on immigration.
http://www.firesociety.com/article/20930/?src=111 ed, This may be the most important update you will receive from Grassfire.orgall year, and I urge you to forward it immediately to your friends andfamily. ed, our research team has compiled special videos from this pastweekend's debates on each of the candidates’ statements on immigration. As the Election Cycle begins in earnest, it is imperative that Grassfireteam members and concerned citizens know what each of the candidates aresaying about immigration. Don't just read what they said, and wade through the media spin. Insteadclick on the link below and actually listen to what each candidate says--in their own words--free from spin.
Click here to access the videos: http://www.firesociety.com/article/20930/?src=111 , I believe there is a very real possibility that the big winnerin the 2008 Presidential race could be the amnesty message.
You heard meright.Unless grassroots citizens--the very same ones who fought so hard to holdblanket amnesty at bay and secure our borders--stay atop the issue, andknow what each candidate is saying, we could end up the biggest loser! Please click below and review each of the video clips,and then forward this message directly to 30-40 friendsand family.
This is a message that must be heard. http://www.firesociety.com/article/20930/?src=111 As always, thank you for taking a stand with Grassfire. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org
From: Steve Elliott (alert@grassfire.net)
From the Desk of:Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org Alliance
++ Click here to access video footage ofeach of the G.O.P candidates and theirposition on immigration.
http://www.firesociety.com/article/20930/?src=111 ed, This may be the most important update you will receive from Grassfire.orgall year, and I urge you to forward it immediately to your friends andfamily. ed, our research team has compiled special videos from this pastweekend's debates on each of the candidates’ statements on immigration. As the Election Cycle begins in earnest, it is imperative that Grassfireteam members and concerned citizens know what each of the candidates aresaying about immigration. Don't just read what they said, and wade through the media spin. Insteadclick on the link below and actually listen to what each candidate says--in their own words--free from spin.
Click here to access the videos: http://www.firesociety.com/article/20930/?src=111 , I believe there is a very real possibility that the big winnerin the 2008 Presidential race could be the amnesty message.
You heard meright.Unless grassroots citizens--the very same ones who fought so hard to holdblanket amnesty at bay and secure our borders--stay atop the issue, andknow what each candidate is saying, we could end up the biggest loser! Please click below and review each of the video clips,and then forward this message directly to 30-40 friendsand family.
This is a message that must be heard. http://www.firesociety.com/article/20930/?src=111 As always, thank you for taking a stand with Grassfire. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org
HERE COME THOSE TEARS
HERE COME THOSE TEARS
By DICK MORRIS
Published on January 8, 2008.
Why did Hillary cry during an ABC interview yesterday?
Some say it was phony, contrived to make her appear more human and empathetic. Wrong. She must have known the political consequences, particularly for a female candidate, of tears. Ed Muskie watered his political grave in New Hampshire in 1972 by crying in public over the false accusation that he had used a derogatory ethnic term to describe French Canadians. Nixon’s dirty tricks people had planted the phony story. But the tears ended Muskie’s candidacy.
Others say that the tears reflected genuine emotion and sorrow for the diminished future prospects of America now that it would not have Hillary Clinton to lead it into the future. Wrong again. Even she is not that arrogant.
The real reason was that her frustration at not being able to control events boiled over and metastasized into tears.
I know because I saw it once before in 1994 after the Democrats lost Congress due, in large part, to her failed health care reform initiative. A few days after the election, she sobbed to me over the phone that she was “bewildered” and that “nothing I do seems to work out.” She confessed to being “totally at a loss” and not to grasp why “nothing is working.”
Hillary is a control freak whose most admirable quality (yes, there are some) is her amazing self-discipline. She wears the right clothing, exercises properly, eats sensibly, stays on script when she answers questions, memorizes the briefing papers, follows the strategy, hits all the right talking points, gets her makeup and hair just right. So why is she losing? The essential equation for her is that if she disciplines herself sufficiently and prepared arduously, she will prevail.
But when she doesn’t, she is at sea. She becomes frustrated by her loss of control and doesn’t know where to turn. She has great faith in gurus and chooses them carefully. But once she invests her faith in one of them, she follows their lead to the end of the earth. But if she doesn’t achieve her objective, if the guru’s instructions prove flawed, she is at a loss as to what to do and she becomes very emotional.
A person who never bends, she sometimes breaks.
Contrast her reaction to adversity with Bill’s. The former president becomes furious. He rants and raves to all who will listen about the injustices being done to him (or to Hillary) and demands redress. He refuses to concede the merit in his attackers but, red in the face, screams in rage at his adversity.
For us the question is which we would rather have as president, an angry, determined, energized chief executive or one who is lost, awash in self-pity and confused by failure? The answer is obvious. Hillary lacks the temperament to be president.
What is the political consequence of her lapse on ABC? Probably huge. Americans are warmed when a politician is moved to tears by the plight of someone else. But they get turned off when it is their own plight that the public figure bewails. Pity for others is positive. Self-pity unforgiveable in our politics. We want a president who will not go to pieces when the missiles start flying.
And, on Monday, in the snows of New Hampshire, Hillary Rodham Clinton failed the test.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on January 8, 2008.
Why did Hillary cry during an ABC interview yesterday?
Some say it was phony, contrived to make her appear more human and empathetic. Wrong. She must have known the political consequences, particularly for a female candidate, of tears. Ed Muskie watered his political grave in New Hampshire in 1972 by crying in public over the false accusation that he had used a derogatory ethnic term to describe French Canadians. Nixon’s dirty tricks people had planted the phony story. But the tears ended Muskie’s candidacy.
Others say that the tears reflected genuine emotion and sorrow for the diminished future prospects of America now that it would not have Hillary Clinton to lead it into the future. Wrong again. Even she is not that arrogant.
The real reason was that her frustration at not being able to control events boiled over and metastasized into tears.
I know because I saw it once before in 1994 after the Democrats lost Congress due, in large part, to her failed health care reform initiative. A few days after the election, she sobbed to me over the phone that she was “bewildered” and that “nothing I do seems to work out.” She confessed to being “totally at a loss” and not to grasp why “nothing is working.”
Hillary is a control freak whose most admirable quality (yes, there are some) is her amazing self-discipline. She wears the right clothing, exercises properly, eats sensibly, stays on script when she answers questions, memorizes the briefing papers, follows the strategy, hits all the right talking points, gets her makeup and hair just right. So why is she losing? The essential equation for her is that if she disciplines herself sufficiently and prepared arduously, she will prevail.
But when she doesn’t, she is at sea. She becomes frustrated by her loss of control and doesn’t know where to turn. She has great faith in gurus and chooses them carefully. But once she invests her faith in one of them, she follows their lead to the end of the earth. But if she doesn’t achieve her objective, if the guru’s instructions prove flawed, she is at a loss as to what to do and she becomes very emotional.
A person who never bends, she sometimes breaks.
Contrast her reaction to adversity with Bill’s. The former president becomes furious. He rants and raves to all who will listen about the injustices being done to him (or to Hillary) and demands redress. He refuses to concede the merit in his attackers but, red in the face, screams in rage at his adversity.
For us the question is which we would rather have as president, an angry, determined, energized chief executive or one who is lost, awash in self-pity and confused by failure? The answer is obvious. Hillary lacks the temperament to be president.
What is the political consequence of her lapse on ABC? Probably huge. Americans are warmed when a politician is moved to tears by the plight of someone else. But they get turned off when it is their own plight that the public figure bewails. Pity for others is positive. Self-pity unforgiveable in our politics. We want a president who will not go to pieces when the missiles start flying.
And, on Monday, in the snows of New Hampshire, Hillary Rodham Clinton failed the test.
NOW BARACK BETTER BRACE FOR BARRAGE
NOW BARACK BETTER BRACE FOR BARRAGE
By DICK MORRIS
Published in the New York Post on January 9, 2008.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's stunning comeback victory in New Hampshire duplicates the feat of Bill Clinton who overcame the draft and Gennifer Flowers in the Granite State primary in 1992.
But Hillary did Bill one better. He placed second. She won. Those who counted Hillary out don't know her and don't know the Clintons.
The clear message of the New Hampshire primary is there is no front-runner, but it's a two-way race between the queen and the challenger that won't be decided by an early knockout.
But Hillary approaches the balance of the month in very good shape.
The Battle of Hillary, in a sense, is over.
She has been challenged and hit, but stayed on her feet. She has weathered the negatives, lost her momentum, and still emerged, in effect, tied for the lead.
Now the Battle of Obama is about to begin.
The negative researchers and detectives who staff the Clinton campaign - we call them the secret police - now go into overdrive combing through the Illinois senator's life for any shred of poison to use.
What did he say (or what does a disgruntled student recall him saying) in each of his constitutional law classes? What causes did he work for as an organizer in Chicago? How did he vote on every issue that came before the Illinois legislature? What are the precise details of his financial life going back to the beginning?
Obama had it right when he joked yesterday that he saw a dump truck pull up alongside him and start beeping! And the theme of Hillary's attack will be that Obama cannot win, that he's not "electable."
By that, she will mean, but never say, that a black man cannot be elected president in middle America. As surely as Bill used the race card by attacking rap singer Sister Souljah in 1992, Hillary will use race to win in 2008.
Hillary has withstood the full force of Obama's momentum. Now we will see if Barack can stand the onslaught he is about to face.
A big question for Obama is whether John Edwards will stay in the race. With less than 20 percent of the New Hampshire vote, he is clearly splitting the anti-Clinton vote.
In recent days, he has gone out of his way to praise Obama. Could he be running for vice president again?
On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani has paid the price for his refusal to campaign actively in the early primaries. He now must contend with John McCain.
The voters of New Hampshire did America a favor by knocking Mitt Romney back and possibly out of the race.
The GOP race will boil down to McCain, Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, a tough choice for down-the-line conservatives, but a choice among candidates who are most electable in November.
Whether or not Huckabee can win is debatable. But McCain and Giuliani sure can depending on which Democrat they end up facing.
THANK YOU!
By DICK MORRIS
Published in the New York Post on January 9, 2008.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's stunning comeback victory in New Hampshire duplicates the feat of Bill Clinton who overcame the draft and Gennifer Flowers in the Granite State primary in 1992.
But Hillary did Bill one better. He placed second. She won. Those who counted Hillary out don't know her and don't know the Clintons.
The clear message of the New Hampshire primary is there is no front-runner, but it's a two-way race between the queen and the challenger that won't be decided by an early knockout.
But Hillary approaches the balance of the month in very good shape.
The Battle of Hillary, in a sense, is over.
She has been challenged and hit, but stayed on her feet. She has weathered the negatives, lost her momentum, and still emerged, in effect, tied for the lead.
Now the Battle of Obama is about to begin.
The negative researchers and detectives who staff the Clinton campaign - we call them the secret police - now go into overdrive combing through the Illinois senator's life for any shred of poison to use.
What did he say (or what does a disgruntled student recall him saying) in each of his constitutional law classes? What causes did he work for as an organizer in Chicago? How did he vote on every issue that came before the Illinois legislature? What are the precise details of his financial life going back to the beginning?
Obama had it right when he joked yesterday that he saw a dump truck pull up alongside him and start beeping! And the theme of Hillary's attack will be that Obama cannot win, that he's not "electable."
By that, she will mean, but never say, that a black man cannot be elected president in middle America. As surely as Bill used the race card by attacking rap singer Sister Souljah in 1992, Hillary will use race to win in 2008.
Hillary has withstood the full force of Obama's momentum. Now we will see if Barack can stand the onslaught he is about to face.
A big question for Obama is whether John Edwards will stay in the race. With less than 20 percent of the New Hampshire vote, he is clearly splitting the anti-Clinton vote.
In recent days, he has gone out of his way to praise Obama. Could he be running for vice president again?
On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani has paid the price for his refusal to campaign actively in the early primaries. He now must contend with John McCain.
The voters of New Hampshire did America a favor by knocking Mitt Romney back and possibly out of the race.
The GOP race will boil down to McCain, Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, a tough choice for down-the-line conservatives, but a choice among candidates who are most electable in November.
Whether or not Huckabee can win is debatable. But McCain and Giuliani sure can depending on which Democrat they end up facing.
THANK YOU!
Building Momentum For Victory
To: McCain Team
From: Rick Davis, Campaign Manager
Date: January 11, 2008
Subject: Building Momentum For Victory
The confetti from the victory party is cleaned up, but the energy on the campaign trail is just as strong as it was on Tuesday night in New Hampshire. John McCain hit the ground running Wednesday with an early flight to Michigan for two exciting rallies before heading down to South Carolina.
I wanted to give you a quick update on our campaign's strategy as we head into these two important primaries -- Michigan on Tuesday and South Carolina on Saturday, January 19th. The momentum and energy from New Hampshire's victory is propelling us toward wins in these two states, but we all know we have much more work ahead of us.
We know our opponents are hungry for an early state win and are throwing their resources at these next two states. However, the good news is that John McCain is positioned to do very well in both contests.
John McCain won the Michigan primary in 2000, and eight years later we believe he's in a strong position in this state. We know that once voters hear John McCain, they respond. Michigan voters are starting to get the McCain message of improving our economy and keeping America safe in the struggle against radical Islamic extremism. Like New Hampshire, Michigan voters appreciate a candidate who is authentic and gives them straight talk on the issues, and we believe that momentum will continue to build in this important state. Moreover, New Hampshire exit polls confirm that John McCain does well with both Republican and Independent voters, and we believe broad-based appeal will play an important role in helping John McCain win in Michigan.
We're also focusing on building a strong team in South Carolina. Thanks to the efforts of our great South Carolina leadership, including Senator Lindsey Graham, Attorney General Henry McMaster, State House Speaker House Bobby Harrell and many others, we've built an enthusiastic base of support in the Palmetto State. One important group in South Carolina is a large coalition of veterans. If anyone understands the need to stand strong against radical Islamic extremists, it is our veterans, and so far reaction has been very positive and support is building for their fellow veteran, John McCain.
While some of our opponents are focusing exclusively on one state, we believe John McCain is prepared to have solid performances in both contests. We've already built strong networks of supporters in both states, and will spend the week ahead working hard to build on the momentum we gained in New Hampshire. Our campaign boasts strong organizations in these states and we have headquarters throughout each where supporters can come and be a part of the momentum on the ground. Our rallies are larger than ever with filled-to-capacity crowds coming to hear Senator McCain's authentic and straight talk on the issues that matter most.
In addition to these two states, we're working hard to build support in Florida. Florida's primary on January 29th represents the last chance to build support heading into "Super Tuesday" on February 5th. This is a large state, which is why we're beginning to organize support and build our Florida Victory Fund right away.
As John McCain reminded us on Tuesday night, our victory in New Hampshire is just the first step in this process - now we must begin again in Michigan, South Carolina and Florida. Early indications are good for our campaign, but that just means it's more important than ever to redouble our efforts to nominate the man we all know is uniquely prepared to be our next commander in chief - John McCain.
You can play an important role in these efforts by doing three simple things today:
First, forward this message to five of your friends to help us build our team. The McCain bandwagon is growing and we're always looking for more people to join our team! Tell them why you are supporting John McCain and invite them to become a part of this exciting campaign.
Next, sign up to make phone calls to Michigan and South Carolina voters to tell them why you support John McCain. You can make these calls right from your own home using our online phone bank tool. Click here to get started today with this important effort.
Finally, help us get our message out in Michigan, South Carolina and beyond by making an online contribution immediately. The great news about online donations is they can immediately be put to use and your donation will help us make important strategic decisions to continue our momentum and keep winning.
Keep up the great work and on to victory!
Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
From: Rick Davis, Campaign Manager
Date: January 11, 2008
Subject: Building Momentum For Victory
The confetti from the victory party is cleaned up, but the energy on the campaign trail is just as strong as it was on Tuesday night in New Hampshire. John McCain hit the ground running Wednesday with an early flight to Michigan for two exciting rallies before heading down to South Carolina.
I wanted to give you a quick update on our campaign's strategy as we head into these two important primaries -- Michigan on Tuesday and South Carolina on Saturday, January 19th. The momentum and energy from New Hampshire's victory is propelling us toward wins in these two states, but we all know we have much more work ahead of us.
We know our opponents are hungry for an early state win and are throwing their resources at these next two states. However, the good news is that John McCain is positioned to do very well in both contests.
John McCain won the Michigan primary in 2000, and eight years later we believe he's in a strong position in this state. We know that once voters hear John McCain, they respond. Michigan voters are starting to get the McCain message of improving our economy and keeping America safe in the struggle against radical Islamic extremism. Like New Hampshire, Michigan voters appreciate a candidate who is authentic and gives them straight talk on the issues, and we believe that momentum will continue to build in this important state. Moreover, New Hampshire exit polls confirm that John McCain does well with both Republican and Independent voters, and we believe broad-based appeal will play an important role in helping John McCain win in Michigan.
We're also focusing on building a strong team in South Carolina. Thanks to the efforts of our great South Carolina leadership, including Senator Lindsey Graham, Attorney General Henry McMaster, State House Speaker House Bobby Harrell and many others, we've built an enthusiastic base of support in the Palmetto State. One important group in South Carolina is a large coalition of veterans. If anyone understands the need to stand strong against radical Islamic extremists, it is our veterans, and so far reaction has been very positive and support is building for their fellow veteran, John McCain.
While some of our opponents are focusing exclusively on one state, we believe John McCain is prepared to have solid performances in both contests. We've already built strong networks of supporters in both states, and will spend the week ahead working hard to build on the momentum we gained in New Hampshire. Our campaign boasts strong organizations in these states and we have headquarters throughout each where supporters can come and be a part of the momentum on the ground. Our rallies are larger than ever with filled-to-capacity crowds coming to hear Senator McCain's authentic and straight talk on the issues that matter most.
In addition to these two states, we're working hard to build support in Florida. Florida's primary on January 29th represents the last chance to build support heading into "Super Tuesday" on February 5th. This is a large state, which is why we're beginning to organize support and build our Florida Victory Fund right away.
As John McCain reminded us on Tuesday night, our victory in New Hampshire is just the first step in this process - now we must begin again in Michigan, South Carolina and Florida. Early indications are good for our campaign, but that just means it's more important than ever to redouble our efforts to nominate the man we all know is uniquely prepared to be our next commander in chief - John McCain.
You can play an important role in these efforts by doing three simple things today:
First, forward this message to five of your friends to help us build our team. The McCain bandwagon is growing and we're always looking for more people to join our team! Tell them why you are supporting John McCain and invite them to become a part of this exciting campaign.
Next, sign up to make phone calls to Michigan and South Carolina voters to tell them why you support John McCain. You can make these calls right from your own home using our online phone bank tool. Click here to get started today with this important effort.
Finally, help us get our message out in Michigan, South Carolina and beyond by making an online contribution immediately. The great news about online donations is they can immediately be put to use and your donation will help us make important strategic decisions to continue our momentum and keep winning.
Keep up the great work and on to victory!
Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
Saturday, January 12, 2008
John "crash" Mccain on Jobs ?
John "crash" Mccain on Jobs ?
look want he done for his home state of Arizona....shit
"crash" was his handle /nickname given to him by his his fellow Navy pilots.
does getting captured by the enemy in Vietnam make you a war hero ?
www.mccainalert.com
look want he done for his home state of Arizona....shit
"crash" was his handle /nickname given to him by his his fellow Navy pilots.
does getting captured by the enemy in Vietnam make you a war hero ?
www.mccainalert.com
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Big media hide truth about immigration
Dobbs: Big media hide truth about immigration
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Bush administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party are preparing to take another legislative leap at imposing a massive illegal alien amnesty on American citizens.
And the mainstream media are complicit in advancing this thinly veiled blanket amnesty. Instead of asking and answering important questions about why our immigration laws aren't being enforced and why we're permitting pervasive document fraud, the national media seem hell-bent on trying to obfuscate the issue, shamelessly playing with language, equating legal immigration with illegal immigration while obviously trying to preserve the illusion of objectivity.
Too often, the language of the national media describes illegal immigration as "migration" and illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants," even though many of them have lots of documents, most of which are fraudulent or stolen. Some media outlets have taken to calling illegal aliens "entrants." Whether such language is meant to engender sympathy or to intentionally blur the distinction between legal and illegal, the mainstream media are taking sides in this debate.
The Arizona Republic, for example, used "undocumented immigrant" more than 80 times in 36 separate stories in the past month alone; the term appeared as many as 12 times in one article on "migration," according to our Lexis-Nexis search. At the same time, "illegal alien" appeared a total of only nine times during that span, with seven of the references coming from readers' opinions, one from a quotation and one from an editorial.
The mainstream media report as if America would no longer be a welcoming nation if we stopped illegal immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do the national media conveniently and routinely neglect to report that the United States brings in more lawful immigrants than the countries of the rest of the world combined? Each year, we accept 2 million immigrants legally. We give a million legal immigrants permanent residency every year. We bestow citizenship on 700,000 people a year and provide almost half a million work-related visas a year.
Illegal immigration, in fact, has the potential to change the course of American history: Demographers at the Brookings Institution and the Population Reference Bureau paint a troubling picture of the future of our democracy. As more illegal aliens cross our borders and settle in large states like California, Texas and Florida, congressional seats will be redistributed to these bigger states following each decennial Census. States with low levels of immigration will ultimately lose seats as a result. Unfortunately for American citizens, this seismic shift in political representation will be decided by noncitizens that cannot vote.
Congress will soon take up so-called comprehensive immigration reform, and a bipartisan House bill would probably admit 400,000 guest workers a year. And since any plan calling for eventual legalization would include family members who live outside the United States, the legislation would open our borders to tens of millions of people. The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector estimated that the 2006 version of the McCain-Kennedy bill would have added an additional 66 million immigrants over the next 20 years. The bill may change, but that estimate has yet to be refuted.
There's no question this type of mass immigration would have a calamitous effect on working citizens and their families. Professor Carol Swain, professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University and author of "Debating Immigration," would like to see more people speak up for the sectors of society most affected by illegal immigration.
"How many African-American leaders have you seen come out and address the impact that high levels of illegal immigration [are] having in the communities when it comes to jobs, when it comes to education, when it comes to health care?" she asked. "And often, these low-skilled, low-wage workers compete in the same sectors for jobs."
Let's have a vigorous open debate on illegal immigration in this country, and let's begin with the facts. Estimates of illegal aliens in this country range from 12 million to 20 million people. Why doesn't our government know how many there are?
Shouldn't this Congress and this president at least recognize that the industries in which illegal aliens are employed in the greatest percentages also are suffering the largest wage declines? And shouldn't there be an economic impact statement researched and delivered to this Congress, this president and the rest of us before any legislation granting amnesty is even considered?
Shouldn't we first bring the facts of illegal immigration out of the shadows?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
more news
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The Bush administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party are preparing to take another legislative leap at imposing a massive illegal alien amnesty on American citizens.
And the mainstream media are complicit in advancing this thinly veiled blanket amnesty. Instead of asking and answering important questions about why our immigration laws aren't being enforced and why we're permitting pervasive document fraud, the national media seem hell-bent on trying to obfuscate the issue, shamelessly playing with language, equating legal immigration with illegal immigration while obviously trying to preserve the illusion of objectivity.
Too often, the language of the national media describes illegal immigration as "migration" and illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants," even though many of them have lots of documents, most of which are fraudulent or stolen. Some media outlets have taken to calling illegal aliens "entrants." Whether such language is meant to engender sympathy or to intentionally blur the distinction between legal and illegal, the mainstream media are taking sides in this debate.
The Arizona Republic, for example, used "undocumented immigrant" more than 80 times in 36 separate stories in the past month alone; the term appeared as many as 12 times in one article on "migration," according to our Lexis-Nexis search. At the same time, "illegal alien" appeared a total of only nine times during that span, with seven of the references coming from readers' opinions, one from a quotation and one from an editorial.
The mainstream media report as if America would no longer be a welcoming nation if we stopped illegal immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do the national media conveniently and routinely neglect to report that the United States brings in more lawful immigrants than the countries of the rest of the world combined? Each year, we accept 2 million immigrants legally. We give a million legal immigrants permanent residency every year. We bestow citizenship on 700,000 people a year and provide almost half a million work-related visas a year.
Illegal immigration, in fact, has the potential to change the course of American history: Demographers at the Brookings Institution and the Population Reference Bureau paint a troubling picture of the future of our democracy. As more illegal aliens cross our borders and settle in large states like California, Texas and Florida, congressional seats will be redistributed to these bigger states following each decennial Census. States with low levels of immigration will ultimately lose seats as a result. Unfortunately for American citizens, this seismic shift in political representation will be decided by noncitizens that cannot vote.
Congress will soon take up so-called comprehensive immigration reform, and a bipartisan House bill would probably admit 400,000 guest workers a year. And since any plan calling for eventual legalization would include family members who live outside the United States, the legislation would open our borders to tens of millions of people. The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector estimated that the 2006 version of the McCain-Kennedy bill would have added an additional 66 million immigrants over the next 20 years. The bill may change, but that estimate has yet to be refuted.
There's no question this type of mass immigration would have a calamitous effect on working citizens and their families. Professor Carol Swain, professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University and author of "Debating Immigration," would like to see more people speak up for the sectors of society most affected by illegal immigration.
"How many African-American leaders have you seen come out and address the impact that high levels of illegal immigration [are] having in the communities when it comes to jobs, when it comes to education, when it comes to health care?" she asked. "And often, these low-skilled, low-wage workers compete in the same sectors for jobs."
Let's have a vigorous open debate on illegal immigration in this country, and let's begin with the facts. Estimates of illegal aliens in this country range from 12 million to 20 million people. Why doesn't our government know how many there are?
Shouldn't this Congress and this president at least recognize that the industries in which illegal aliens are employed in the greatest percentages also are suffering the largest wage declines? And shouldn't there be an economic impact statement researched and delivered to this Congress, this president and the rest of us before any legislation granting amnesty is even considered?
Shouldn't we first bring the facts of illegal immigration out of the shadows?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
more news
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
John McCain is a CROOK! (The last surviving KEATING FIVE SCANDAL senator
On Jan 6, 11:57 pm, MURS radios wrote:
John McCain is a CROOK! (The last surviving KEATING FIVE SCANDAL
> Senator!):http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
"Crook" is about the mildest thing one can say about the illegal alien
loving
bastard.
greg
www.mccainalert.com
John McCain is a CROOK! (The last surviving KEATING FIVE SCANDAL
> Senator!):http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
"Crook" is about the mildest thing one can say about the illegal alien
loving
bastard.
greg
www.mccainalert.com
Senator John "crash" Mccain still playing the war hero card?
Senator John Mccain still playing the war hero card? with all due repect?
He was captured by the enemy, to me that doesn't make him a hero
more of a victim.
He was a victim of the Vietnam war, that was the 5th plane he lost.
his fellow pilots gave him the nick name of "crash" that shows something,
He barely graduated from the Naval Academy, almost last in his class. Problaby
with a little nudge from the his admiral uncle.
While captured by the North Vietnamese he made tape recordings for them.
He would have been in the stockade after the war for his pow behavior,
but his admiral uncle had the rules changed to avoid imprisionment for him.
This has all been documented, but the media still treats him as a sort of
war hero/pilot.
Wish someone in the media pick up on past and shed a little light
on his real military career.
I am stumped as to why ?
www.mccainalert.com
more insight into Senator John Mccain
He was captured by the enemy, to me that doesn't make him a hero
more of a victim.
He was a victim of the Vietnam war, that was the 5th plane he lost.
his fellow pilots gave him the nick name of "crash" that shows something,
He barely graduated from the Naval Academy, almost last in his class. Problaby
with a little nudge from the his admiral uncle.
While captured by the North Vietnamese he made tape recordings for them.
He would have been in the stockade after the war for his pow behavior,
but his admiral uncle had the rules changed to avoid imprisionment for him.
This has all been documented, but the media still treats him as a sort of
war hero/pilot.
Wish someone in the media pick up on past and shed a little light
on his real military career.
I am stumped as to why ?
www.mccainalert.com
more insight into Senator John Mccain
Hillary Clinton's Menopausal moment with a tear,,,
Hillary Clinton's Menopausal moment with a tear,,,
Senator Hillary Clinton's menopausal moment with a tear,talking about elections and pizzas?
was that a sympton of late menopausal ?
www.mccainalert.com
Senator Hillary Clinton's menopausal moment with a tear,talking about elections and pizzas?
was that a sympton of late menopausal ?
www.mccainalert.com
Monday, January 07, 2008
wow, Mccain could be 80+ years old in the White House ?
wow, Mccain could be 80+ years old in the White House ?
a disturbing thought for all americans...........
a disturbing thought for all americans...........
Sunday, January 06, 2008
remember the Mccain-Kennedy Amensty bill ?
remember the Mccain-Kennedy Amensty bill ?
is this a Senator Kerry type of flip flop ?
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
is this a Senator Kerry type of flip flop ?
www.mccainalert.com
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
when grandpa mccain loses his 2nd presidential bid
when grandpa mccain loses his 2nd presidential bid who's gonna replace him as the Arizona senator ? he is 72 years old ????
www.mccainalert.com
see more on Mccain
www.mccainalert.com
see more on Mccain
Saturday, January 05, 2008
WHO NEEDS WHAT FROM IOWA TODAY?
WHO NEEDS WHAT FROM IOWA TODAY?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 3, 2008.
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 3, 2008.
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
HILLARY ON THE ROPES
HILLARY ON THE ROPES
January 5th, 2008
HILLARY ON THE ROPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 4, 2008.
The amazing victories by Obama and Huckabee in Iowa are truly historic. They demonstrate the impact and viability of a message of change in both parties. In the Democratic Party, Obama, winning in a totally white state, shows that racism is gone as a factor in American politics. On the Republican side, Huckabee’s win shows how a truly compassionate conservative can win by harvesting voters who want the message of concern for the poor and for values to prevail.
But what of Hillary? She’s down but she’s not out. Hillary Clinton, in the first really contested election of her own political career, lost dismally– outclassed, outdrawn, and outpolled by Barack Obama.
Her campaign professionals (including Bill) decided to stress experience, precisely the wrong message in a Democratic primary. Prematurely appealing to the center and abandoning the left, she fell between two chairs – not sufficiently centrist to win independents or liberal enough to attract Democrats.
On the Republican side, Huckabee brought a new phenomenon into politics. A New Testament Christian politician, he takes the Biblical message to the center-left, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. His refusal to indulge in negative advertising sent a message to Iowa voters showing his strength under fire.
The Obama victory in Iowa probably presages a victory in New Hampshire and follow up victories in Nevada and South Carolina. (Hillary will win Michigan because she is alone on the ballot). Suddenly, Hillary’s argument that she should be the candidate because she has a record of defeating the “Republican attack machine” will backfire. Sold as a winner, she will be exposed as a loser. The overhang of Iowa will dog her for all of the early primaries.
Particularly important for Obama is the poor finish of John Edwards, who has campaigned in Iowa for six years. Now Obama can count on being the nearly unanimous choice of the anti-Hillary voters. No longer will the vote be divided.
Hillary faces a serious problem: Voters rejected her and rejected Bill on a very personal basis. Iowa was a referendum on Hillary and she lost 30-70. Her argument of experience only reinforced her phoniness and her issues positioning showed how contrived her ideology is. This is a stinging personal defeat for Hillary.
But what will happen next? With the limelight comes the spotlight. Obama will suddenly become the putative candidate of the Democratic Party and will be subject to the scrutiny that comes with the title. Can he weather the examination?
Perhaps not. Democrats may turn on Obama, worried that he may not win in November. The doubts about Obama, up to now hidden behind concerns about Hillary’s candidacy, will be on center stage. I wonder if he can stand the scrutiny.
Much the same process will evolve on the Republican side. Ignored in the Iowa result, Giuliani appears to be in even worse shape than Hillary with his fifth place finish. But the same process that will unfold for the Republican Party may take place on the Democratic side. Voters may wonder if all that stands between the White House and the Democratic Party is a Mormon, a Christian evangelical, and a 70-year old. Rudy, like Hillary, may look better once the rest of the field unfolds.
But don’t write off Obama or Huckabee. Their appeals are truly unique and obviously resonate with voters. Their approaches are now and the outcome shows how relevant their message is.
January 5th, 2008
HILLARY ON THE ROPES
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 4, 2008.
The amazing victories by Obama and Huckabee in Iowa are truly historic. They demonstrate the impact and viability of a message of change in both parties. In the Democratic Party, Obama, winning in a totally white state, shows that racism is gone as a factor in American politics. On the Republican side, Huckabee’s win shows how a truly compassionate conservative can win by harvesting voters who want the message of concern for the poor and for values to prevail.
But what of Hillary? She’s down but she’s not out. Hillary Clinton, in the first really contested election of her own political career, lost dismally– outclassed, outdrawn, and outpolled by Barack Obama.
Her campaign professionals (including Bill) decided to stress experience, precisely the wrong message in a Democratic primary. Prematurely appealing to the center and abandoning the left, she fell between two chairs – not sufficiently centrist to win independents or liberal enough to attract Democrats.
On the Republican side, Huckabee brought a new phenomenon into politics. A New Testament Christian politician, he takes the Biblical message to the center-left, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. His refusal to indulge in negative advertising sent a message to Iowa voters showing his strength under fire.
The Obama victory in Iowa probably presages a victory in New Hampshire and follow up victories in Nevada and South Carolina. (Hillary will win Michigan because she is alone on the ballot). Suddenly, Hillary’s argument that she should be the candidate because she has a record of defeating the “Republican attack machine” will backfire. Sold as a winner, she will be exposed as a loser. The overhang of Iowa will dog her for all of the early primaries.
Particularly important for Obama is the poor finish of John Edwards, who has campaigned in Iowa for six years. Now Obama can count on being the nearly unanimous choice of the anti-Hillary voters. No longer will the vote be divided.
Hillary faces a serious problem: Voters rejected her and rejected Bill on a very personal basis. Iowa was a referendum on Hillary and she lost 30-70. Her argument of experience only reinforced her phoniness and her issues positioning showed how contrived her ideology is. This is a stinging personal defeat for Hillary.
But what will happen next? With the limelight comes the spotlight. Obama will suddenly become the putative candidate of the Democratic Party and will be subject to the scrutiny that comes with the title. Can he weather the examination?
Perhaps not. Democrats may turn on Obama, worried that he may not win in November. The doubts about Obama, up to now hidden behind concerns about Hillary’s candidacy, will be on center stage. I wonder if he can stand the scrutiny.
Much the same process will evolve on the Republican side. Ignored in the Iowa result, Giuliani appears to be in even worse shape than Hillary with his fifth place finish. But the same process that will unfold for the Republican Party may take place on the Democratic side. Voters may wonder if all that stands between the White House and the Democratic Party is a Mormon, a Christian evangelical, and a 70-year old. Rudy, like Hillary, may look better once the rest of the field unfolds.
But don’t write off Obama or Huckabee. Their appeals are truly unique and obviously resonate with voters. Their approaches are now and the outcome shows how relevant their message is.
Friday, January 04, 2008
WHO NEEDS WHAT FROM IOWA TODAY?
WHO NEEDS WHAT FROM IOWA TODAY?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 3, 2008.
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published in the New York Post on January 3, 2008.
The Iowa caucuses mean different things to different candidates. Of course Obama, Clinton and Edwards, for the Democrats, and Huckabee and Romney, for the Republicans, are vying for a win in Iowa. But there are separate sub-primaries going on as well: Obama v Edwards for the position of chief challenger to Clinton, McCain v Giuliani for the right to wear the “moderate” Republican mantle, and Fred Thompson v Oblivion for the right to stay in the race.
So here’s the scorecard to use in keeping track of what each candidate needs to get from Iowa.
Hillary Clinton
If she scores a decisive triumph, the race for the nomination is almost over. A victory here would likely propel her to a win in New Hampshire and the nomination would be hers’. But she doesn’t need to win. Her national base is so strong that she just has to stop anyone else from winning. If no clear winner emerges, but the results show, instead, a three-way tie with Obama and Edwards, or a two-way tie between herself and either of her challengers, she comes out the winner. But if she clearly loses by a good margin or finishes third, she has blown a major opportunity and is in for a long cold winter of primaries. She won’t be knocked out in Iowa no matter what, but she could be knocked down.
Barack Obama
He’s got to win in Iowa. He is so far behind Hillary in the national standings that he needs a decisive victory to give him the momentum to prevail in New Hampshire and to compete in Florida and on Super Tuesday. He also needs to leave the pesky John Edwards far behind so he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote behind his candidacy.
John Edwards
His immediate need is to finish close to or ahead of Obama so he can show that a vote for him is not wasted. With pro and anti Hillary sentiment so strong, Edwards risks being excluded as an also ran if he doesn’t make it. He also needs Hillary not to win decisively so that the race stays alive. He has a decent shot in New Hampshire if he can stay in the race and make sure there still is one.
Mike Huckabee
Win or die are his choices. The Huck-a-boom will be right in the ancient history books with the Howard Dean surge in September of 2004. But even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, he’ll probably lose in New Hampshire. Then his candidacy will come back to another game-set-match point in Michigan the following week.
Mitt Romney
He doesn’t have to win, place, or show. He’s got a big checkbook so he can survive any kind of showing and stay in the game. But, a defeat in Iowa might make him vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. A loss in the first two states would cost him Michigan and he would limp into super Tuesday with only a checkbook to protect him. Only.
John McCain
He’s got to finish third – or, in other words, beat Rudy. If he does, he has a good shot at winning New Hampshire and getting back into the game. If he doesn’t, Romney will win New Hampshire and McCain will be out of the race. Huckabee has to hope McCain does finish third so Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire and, therefore, doesn’t win Michigan. Got it?
Rudy Giuliani
The Republican front runner is in a parallel situation with Hillary. He won’t be knocked out no matter how badly he does. But finishing below McCain means that he has to split the moderate vote with the charismatic Arizona Senator and could weaken his chances in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Rudy can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and still survive to compete in the big states that follow. But he lost a golden chance to avoid a fight by winning in Iowa.
And, if Hillary wins big in Iowa, it will help McCain and hurt Romney in New Hampshire. Why? All the independents who would have voted for or against Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire will pile into the Republican Primary and may boost McCain to victory (if he survives Iowa).
And…by the same token, Rudy needs Hillary to win in the early rounds so he can draw independents into the Republican Primary to vote for him rather than the religious right crowd.
Having fun yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)