« Slim Pickings | Main | The Other Mayor Of New York »

December 17, 2007



Love McCain, hated the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill that he tried pass this summer. We need to hear what Buchanan says about this. Who is Buchanan endorsing?

Get us the inside scoop Monica.


I like McCain but every once in while he comes up with something like the McCain/Feingold or the McCain/Kennedy ("Comprehensive Immigration") which was amnesty. He is willing to compromise with extreme leftwing kooks like Russ Feingold or Teddy Kennedy. If the Republican Party stands for anything then let it stand for this, no compromise with kooks like Feingold or Kennedy. Is that too much to ask for? My respect for Joe Lieberman will allow me to give McCain another chance and another look, but he better stay away from Feingold and Kennedy.


Buchanan was endorsing Ron Paul. I forgot.

I'll look at McCain again, but I just don't see how I can trust him around the libs, especially when it comes to immigration.



Forget John McCain. I mean admire the old maverick, respect his service and derring-do and sense of tradition, honor him for what he endured and survived in Hanoi during years when I could jump back and forth from a firebase to Saigon any time I felt like it---but forget him as a candidate or political viability. The endorsements by three Des Moines Register yentas and the Sulzberger Boston Globe are near laughable.

McCain lost out to Bush in 2000 (possibly unfairly and probably, for the country, unfortunately.)But that was then, when the bantering old fighter pilot could still excite. Since that time McCain has gone the way of all Beltway flesh, congealing into an establishment fixture. The flash is gone, even if he's not just carrying on right now to get campaign debts paid off. Everybody (except possibly tone-deaf liberals) knows it. The chemical residue has crystallized into just another Washington pol,albeit with more personality. His moment arrived in 2000. He tried gallantly to seize that day, fought a good fight, but The Club won out, as it usually does.

Oh, sure, if by a miracle Johnny could swing the nomination, conservatives would probably still have to vote for him against the choice of MoveOn.Soros. I would have to vote for Shamnesty John against The Yale Medusa.

But take note, cara mia: No such miracle is showing up in the gringoBall.

And yes, there could be a "surprise" in Iowa, but not this one. You heard it here first. More later. (Full disclosure: If the "suprise" I mean does not materialize, then I may have to concede that you, not to mention most of the Stream, were right all along about a certain someone else.)


Here is the gringommentary on McCain from last summer.

[Gringommentary June 08, 'BYE, JOHNNY (McCAIN']
Possibly the most celebrated POW in U.S. history (Vietnam War), McCain the maverick and media star was out-maneuvered (or shafted, some still think) by Karl Rove, who won the Republican nomination in 2000 for George Bush. But McCain, as he states, never gives up. He hung in there as Senator from Arizona, working the establishment, working the Beltway, becoming the odds-on favorite for 2008, despite age seventy looming.

It looked so predictable. Two years ago McCain vs Hillary for 2008 seemed as certain as Republicans and caddies, or Democrats and taxes.

And then it all began to unravel.

Problems old and new compounded. Dems and some independents began to loathe him for stoutly defending the unpopular war in Iraq despite the Bush mismanagement. Old sore points with Republicans got sorer. There was McCain-Feingold, seen as liberal suppressing of free speech and electioneering. As a politician he also--surprise--flip-flopped. His record showed him good on the unborn, but not good enough for some. He also (1) opposed same-sex marriage (2) opposed a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage (3) would not oppose a homosexual President (and of course didn't say whether this President should bring the significant same-sex other to the Inaugural Ball, could they hug with cameras present, could they raise children in a civil union etc? ) Independents gagged. Republicans groaned.

Finally, the Beltway (sic) high life and the furor over the Illegal Invasion sealed his doom. It was called the Bush-Kennedy-McCain Amnesty-Don't-Say-It's -Amnesty bill, hundreds of incomprehensible pages that few even tried to read. It was like wading through jungles of IRS Tax Code. What was this once golden guy of the "Straight Talk Express" thinking?

McCain-Feingold. Establishmentarianism. Then the Shamnesty flooding while the nation was already gasping for relief from the illegal tidal waves. The temperamental John McCain, Republican heir apparent for 2008, had slapped himself upside the head, then shot himself in the foot, and finally jumped off the bridge. Possibly the strangest case of Post-Vietnam Stress Syndrome on record.


Lieberman said today that none of the Democratic Presidential candidates asked him to endorse them. McCain asked Lieberman to endorse him and no Democrat wanted Lieberman's endorsement. That tells you a lot about the state of the Democratic Party. How could a Party completely reject someone like a Joe Lieberman? It's incomprehensible to me how you could treat someone with his stature this way. I understand that many in the Democratic Party disagree with his position on the Iraq War, but many of these same people voted to authorize the war. How could you write someone with his stature off over one issue like that?


Thanks for the analysis Gringoman. Question for everyone. What was so different about the John McCain we saw in 2000? What if he had elected President? Would he have met our expectations or are we seeing the "real McCain" now? John McCain is what bothered me about that 2000 election. Is there any possibility that maybe whatever happened in South Carolina in 2000 was for the best?


Ok, I realize how stupid the last question sounds, but I can't tell you often I've wondered how different the country would be if McCain had been elected President. No one can really answer that question, but we are seeing examples of McCain's decison making ability now. Introducing the Shamnesty bill alienated many of the voters who were willing to overlook McCain-Feingold, like me. What could have happened if he was elected to the power of the Presidency?


Could McCain possibly have been worse than the disaster that is George W. Bush?

I suspect that McCain would not have gone to photo ops and gone bicycling while New Orleans was 80% under water.

And I suspect that McCain would not have finished reading "The Pet Goat" when he was told that America was under attack.


Pat Buchanan bummed cigs off of Ms. Ryan, intending to quit. The Nixon women were against his running. They just wanted a "normal life", not one of being "on exhibit", and always in polite company. Julie wanted to get married. If her father ran, they would have to postpone the wedding. They were tired of politics.

" On Dec. 22, 1967, a day he later described as one of the longest in his life, he had lunch with his law partners, followed by a meeting with some of his unofficial campaign advisors and then the annual Christmas party at 810 Fifth Avenue for over 100 friends".
-- From Pat Nixon, the Untold story, pg. 233.



The question, I admit, is not without interest. No doubt many have pondered it. Suppose Team Bush had not slimed John McCain in S. Carolina, in efffect torpedoing the greatest obstacle to Bush ascendancy? Suppose their not taking such a low road led to a President John McCain? What differences would four (and likely eight) years of McCain instead of Bush make to the country and the world?

Unfortunately---or maybe fortunately---we will never know. Would McCain have delivered on his promise of Maverick Magic? Who can say? We know what did happen after 2000. The golden boy of the Straight Talk Express morphed into Shamnesty John, Establishment pet, clueless on why such a national furor had broken out over Illegalismo.

We do, however, know what happened to the guy who Republicans were so euphoric about after the Election.
He became El Presidente Jorgecito Bush, defending the powerful corporate globalistas (and by extension the cunning socialistas) against the American people who see their nation disappearing.

Who knew?


You can play the what if game until kingdom come but I don't see what good it will do. What if Gore would have won in 2000, what if Kerry would have won in 2004, what if Guiliani had run against Hillary for Senate? How about talking about reality, duh. Bush won an electorial victory in 2000 and then won outright in 2004 as confirmation of his Presidency. Bush has done an excellent job against terrorism, he has appointed perhaps the greatest Chief Justice in the history of the Supreme Court, he has cut the income tax rates for everyone, and rebuilt the military from the Clinton years when the military was gutted. I haven't agreed with everything he has done, but if I'd been alive during Abraham Lincoln's Administration I probably wouldn't have agreed with everything he did although I worship the ground he walked on.


Dick Morris:
"The decision that Hillary should run as the candidate of experience was an enormous blunder. In a Democratic electorate that's in the party precisely because it so intensely dislikes things as they are and wants change, experience is the wrong virtue to stress.

Democrats back insurgency and political insurrection - but Hillary offers them only a synthetic and imagined incumbency. She has ceded the field of change to her rivals and sequestered herself with those pining for the 1990s, like fans at an old-timers day baseball game.
To voters who want change, she offers only nostalgia."
This is one of the main reasons Hillary's campaign is tanking. If Obama wins in Iowa and New Hampshire as it now appears he will, the Clinton machine is finished forever. Even though she is way ahead in the national polls I believe those will reverse in favor of Obams if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire. The black voters have been jumping off her bandwagon for the past few weeks and I believe the rest of the Democratic Party will dump her after Iowa and New Hampshire.


Sorry Steveok, but I'm not happy with W's immigration policies. I'm looking for someone to actually implement a tough immigration policy. Buchanan '08.

Thanks for the excerpt from Pat Nixon's book Truther. I'll have to add it to my reading list along with Patrick Buchanan's new book.


Tough immigration policies or tough ILLEGAL immigration policies? I think all this conservative tough talk about immigration is really racism in disguise, kind of like supporting state's rights when what you are really saying is you are against civil rights.


I am hoping that all the "first tier" republicans will peak, and Tankredo will rise. I can not vote for Flake Paul (he is not a modern day Aristotle), but the flake at least is the only republican who will say that he will abolish the automatic citizenship for children of illegals born in America. If this was abolished today, tomorrow about half of illegal immigration would end. Tankredo will also abolish this stupid law, just as England and Australia have ended this same thing. TANKREDO

The comments to this entry are closed.