It has started...... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 02-21-2008, 12:57 AM

Well well..... my my..... I am sure our GOP conservative friends will say this is the Dems doing, after all it was the NYTimes...... But I wouldn't be too hasty. The Dems would want to wait until McCain was officially the nominee before getting scandals out there.

No, I think especially since "it" comes from aides in his camp (or were in his camp), that the GOP leaders have found McCain not so easily controlled. Thus, they are setting out to destroy him before the convention so that Huckaby can came in and take the nomination. (Romney, Guiliani have sealed their fates by backing McCain.) Now don't be surprised if McCain ends up as VP candidate... but I have a feeling his days as the nominee may be numbered.

It's not even the scandal of the romance that will come and haunt him, it's going to be Keating and Paxson..... read the last 5 paragraphs closely, that is what is going to truly become news and drop his numbers so far down the GOP will have no other option than to nominate someone else (probably Huckaby)..... unless the GOP truly wants to lose in Nov.

Quote:

McCain: Reports on lobbyist a "smear"

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain issued a statement Wednesday night saying he "will not allow a smear campaign" to distract from his campaign as published reports questioned his relationship with a lobbyist.

The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with Vicki Iseman and urged her to stay away from McCain. The New York Times suggested an inappropriate relationship between the Arizona senator and Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The New York Times quoted anonymous aides saying they had confronted McCain and Iseman, urging them to stay away from each other, before his failed presidential campaign in 2000.

Eight years later, McCain is close to securing the GOP nomination. Aides said the senator would address the allegations at a news conference Thursday morning.

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship, and the paper offered no evidence that they had, saying only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served.

The story alleges that McCain wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman's clients.

In a statement issued by his presidential campaign, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said: "It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign.

"John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

McCain's campaign also issued a lengthy statement insisting that his actions did not benefit any one party or favor any particular interest.

McCain defending his integrity last December, after he was questioned about reports that the Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican and that his aides had been trying to dissuade the newspaper from publishing a story.

"I've never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record," he told reporters in Detroit.

McCain and four other senators were accused two decades ago of trying to influence banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate Ethics Committee ultimately decided that McCain had used "poor judgment" but that his actions "were not improper" and warranted no penalty.

McCain has said that episode helped spur his drive to change campaign finance laws in an attempt to reduce the influence of money in politics.

In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson's chief executive, Lowell W. "Bud" Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign.

McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain's request "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" and "could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties."

McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company's jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.

I knew about his membership in the Keating 5 the Paxson info is totally new to me.

Bye, Johnny we hardly knew ya.

Fotzlid · 02-21-2008, 07:04 AM

Wow. Now there is a shock. A member of congress that has done favors for lobbists/special interest groups after recieving campaign contributions.

Tully Mars · 02-21-2008, 07:09 AM

Odd the NYT would take up the cause of the right wing gas bags.

I read the article twice and I kept thinking "where's the beef?"

pan6467 · 02-21-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

Wow. Now there is a shock. A member of congress that has done favors for lobbists/special interest groups after recieving campaign contributions.

To me it's about when this all came out. It's making news everywhere and it 's going to get worse before the convention.The only reasons this would come out before the convention and not after is that either the GOP leadership really doesn't want McCain to win the nomination so they bog him down in scandal, they want to get it out before the Dems can after the convention to do damage control, or the GOP wants to show McCain what they have on him and are showing him what else could come out if he doesn't cave into their wishes.

The fact his own aids supposedly came forth with all this at this time is very telling. Maybe it's my paranoidal, conspiratorial mind..... but I just don't see the Dems doing this to McCain this early. There is a reason why it was done now though and I truly believe it's because the GOP doesn't want McCain to get the nomination.

There is a reason for everything and I just don't see having something like this come out this early as just wanting to innocently inform the people.

Fotzlid · 02-21-2008, 09:10 AM

You forgot one other option. Some reporter trying to stir up shit to make a name for themselves.

host · 02-21-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid

You forgot one other option. Some reporter trying to stir up shit to make a name for themselves.

Your "one other option", is bullshit.... the man who unmasked McCain; his hypocrisy and dismal ethical standards, was his first senate campaign opponent, Richard Kimball, citing <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=131321&page=2">newspaper articles</a> written before McCain ever came to Arizona....they support the accusation that McCain's "mobbed up" father-in-law, bought McCain with his "mobbed up" money. Is that money in McCain's bank accounts, "clean", now Fotzlid? What is your estimation of the date that McCain's money lost it's stench?

Quote:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specia...-chapter6.html
The Senate calls

Dan Nowicki, Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 1, 2007 10:34 AM

....Kimball launched another series of attacks, calling McCain "bought and paid for" by special interests because much of McCain's campaign contributions came from political action committees in four industries: defense, real estate, petroleum and utilities.

Kimball also noted that McCain was a millionaire because of his wife's interests in the beer distributorship owned by her father. Kimball wasn't shy about airing the Hensley family laundry.

He had dug up old newspaper clips that showed Jim Hensley had been an underling to well-known power broker Kemper Marley Sr., a rich rancher and wholesale liquor baron with suspected links to the 1976 car-bomb murder of Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles.

After World War II (Hensley was a bombardier on a B-17 that was shot down over the English Channel), Hensley and his brother Eugene went to work at Marley-owned liquor distributorships in Phoenix and Tucson.

In 1948, the Hensley brothers were convicted of falsifying records to conceal, government lawyers contended, the illegal distribution of hundreds of cases of liquor. The sales occurred from 1945 to 1947, postwar years when liquor was rationed and in short supply.

Eugene Hensley was sentenced to a year in federal prison. Jim Hensley got six months, but his sentence was suspended. He received probation.

In 1953, Jim Hensley was again charged with falsifying records at Marley's liquor firms. The companies were defended by William Rehnquist, who would go on to become chief justice of the Supreme Court. Hensley was found not guilty....

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specia...-chapter5.html
Arizona, the early years

Dan Nowicki, Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 1, 2007 10:33 AM
CHAPTER V: ARIZONA, THE EARLY YEARS

.....Cindy's money came from her family business. Her father, Jim Hensley, owned a Phoenix Anheuser-Busch distributorship that had made him a multimillionaire. He gave his new son-in-law a job as vice president of public relations, but, really, McCain was just biding his time until the right political opportunity came up.

"Jim Hensley didn't care about PR," said Bill Shover, a former executive with The Arizona Republic who met McCain in 1981. "When you have the Budweiser franchise, you . . . don't need PR."

McCain himself acknowledges that he "fit the bill" of the stereotypical "upwardly mobile boss' son-in-law who obviously lacks the experience and training typically required for the job he holds." But he didn't want to let Hensley down, either.

On the political front, McCain reached out to his Capitol Hill mentors and friends for guidance. Cohen put him in touch with veteran political consultant Jay Smith, who advised McCain to discreetly get out and start meeting Arizona VIPs.

His job with Hensley allowed him to do that.

It didn't take long for McCain to meet wealthy power brokers such as developers Charles Keating Jr. and Fife Symington III, who would later be elected governor. Local polls suggested McCain start slowly by running for the state Legislature, but McCain wasn't interested.

Eager to make up for time lost as a POW, McCain wanted Arizona's new congressional seat......

How could anyone who calls himself a "maverick", be owned and maintained by a former mobster's millions, like McCain has been for 28 years?

Tully Mars · 02-21-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Your "one other option", is bullshit.... the man who unmasked McCain; his hypocrisy and dismal ethical standards, was his first senate campaign opponent, Richard Kimball, citing <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=131321&page=2">newspaper articles</a> written before McCain ever came to Arizona....they support the accusation that McCain's "mobbed up" father-in-law, bought McCain with his "mobbed up" money. Is that money in McCain's bank accounts, "clean", now Fotzlid? What is your estimation of the date that McCain's money lost it's stench?

How could anyone who calls himself a "maverick", be owned and maintained by a former mobster's millions, like McCain has been for 28 years?

How is the "He's mobbed up" mantra fit into the article being discussed? Aren't we talking about his dealings, possibly romantic, with a lobbyist?

host · 02-21-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

How is the "He's mobbed up" mantra fit into the article being discussed? Aren't we talking about his dealings, possibly romantic, with a lobbyist?

?????????????

This is the last part of the news article in the OP, almost all underlined, presumably to highlight the information, by the author of this thread:

Quote:

....."Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

McCain's campaign also issued a lengthy statement insisting that his actions did not benefit any one party or favor any particular interest.

McCain defending his integrity last December, after he was questioned about reports that the Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican and that his aides had been trying to dissuade the newspaper from publishing a story.

"I've never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record," he told reporters in Detroit.

McCain and four other senators were accused two decades ago of trying to influence banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate Ethics Committee ultimately decided that McCain had used "poor judgment" but that his actions "were not improper" and warranted no penalty.

McCain has said that episode helped spur his drive to change campaign finance laws in an attempt to reduce the influence of money in politics.

In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson's chief executive, Lowell W. "Bud" Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain's 2000 presidential campaign.

McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain's request "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" and "could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties."

McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company's jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.

A follow on post by someone who made a point of blaming the messenger, the press, for "smearing" the "noble" senator McCain, seemed worthy, to me, anyway, of a response that demonstrates that McCain's character/ethics problems are not of the press's making, it is one clearly earned, via his greed, unrestrained ambition, and stupendous hypocrisy.

I apologize if only the half dozen examples of McCain's ethical shortcomings and conflicts, mentioned in the OP article, were the ones we were supposed to confine ourselves to discussion here....

dc_dux · 02-21-2008, 10:39 AM

Clinton and Obama are correctly ignoring this for the time being.

At some point, Obama particularly, should focus on McCain's relationship with lobbyists, which is extensive (not necessarily illegal or even unethical) but a bit hypocritical if you consider how McCain touts his accomplishment of McCain/Feingold campaign finance law while at the same time bending the law to take advantage of the loopholes.

Fotzlid · 02-21-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Is that money in McCain's bank accounts, "clean", now Fotzlid?

I suppose that depends. How much time are we talking here and how long did it take for Kennedy's money to become "clean"?

Quote:

the man who unmasked McCain; his hypocrisy and dismal ethical standards, was his first senate campaign opponent, Richard Kimball,

ooooh... maybe the reporter is the one armed man...its a conspiracy I tell ya...

Politicians take money. They generally don't care where it comes from until some reporter points it out, then they return it.
Its not news, its life on Capitol Hill.

Quote:

A follow on post by someone who made a point of blaming the messenger, the press, for "smearing" the "noble" senator McCain

Was that directed at me?

The_Jazz · 02-21-2008, 10:47 AM

Show me a politican that hasn't taken someone's money and I'll show you an unelectable politican. Or someone who's wealthy enough not to care.

SecretMethod70 · 02-21-2008, 10:51 AM

pan6467: you apparently admit that you're paranoid and conspiratorial...why not do something about it?

This is just normal campaign stuff these days. I'm not particularly concerned who is behind getting this out, and I'm certainly not interested in wasting energy speculating as to why. For one thing, McCain has the nomination in a lock. There is no scandal big enough to take it from him. Big enough to make him lose in Nov, yes, but prevent him from being the nominee, no. Counting Romney's delegates, McCain is only about 200 delegates short of securing the nomination. Even without Romney's delegates, he's about 400 short, while Huckabee is 1200 short. Huckabee would have to essentially win every state from now on, by very large percentages, to keep McCain from getting the nomination.

It's just not going to happen.

dc_dux · 02-21-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Show me a politican that hasn't taken someone's money and I'll show you an unelectable politican. Or someone who's wealthy enough not to care.

Some take more than others.

Contributions from lobbyists (not PAC money, but individual contributions from persons who list their occupation as lobbyist on the FEC reporting forms):

Clinton - $764,142
McCain - $422,376
Obama - $87,108

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

This was through 12/31/07 when Clinton was the front-runner and presumed nominee.

Perhaps Obama's lobbyists contributions will rise now that he is the man to beat, or perhaps he will turn them down....we shall see.

Fotzlid · 02-21-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Some take more than others.

Contributions from lobbyists (not PAC money, but individual contributions from persons who list their occupation as lobbyist on the FEC reporting forms):

Clinton - $764,142
McCain - $422,376
Obama - $87,108

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

This was through 12/31/07 when Clinton was the front-runner and presumed nominee.

Perhaps Obama's lobbyists contributions will rise now that he is the man to beat, or perhaps he will turn them down....we shall see.

interesting link. thanks.

dc_dux · 02-21-2008, 11:11 AM

None of them are clean if you look at campaign contributions from other industries.

It makes a pretty compelling case for public financing as a means to take industry influence out of the campaigns and subsequent officeholders... but thats a topic for another time.

Ustwo · 02-21-2008, 11:22 AM

McCain - lets see......

So far we started with poor war record, moved onto mob ties, and now to maybe had an affair in 2000.

TFP you never let me down

loquitur · 02-21-2008, 11:39 AM

considering how junior Obama was, I don't find it surprising that he didn't attract a lot of donations at the outset. I'll be more interested to see whether he sticks with his pledge to stay with public financing for the general election.

The_Jazz · 02-21-2008, 11:40 AM

Ustwo, how about he finished at the bottom of his class at Anapolis, was not thought of particularly highly by his classmates and only graduated at all by the skin of his teeth because of disciplinary issues.

He's got the same problem that Wesley Clark did back in '04 - his classmates and those in the military that he worked with directly don't really hold him in very high regard.

silent_jay · 02-21-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

McCain - lets see......

So far we started with poor war record, moved onto mob ties, and now to maybe had an affair in 2000.

TFP you never let me down

Lets see,

So far Obama is a Socialist, an empty suit, and only got where he is because he's black,

You never let TFP down

The_Jazz · 02-21-2008, 11:42 AM

This thread is not about any of us, it is about McCain. That is your topic - keep any comments to that. That goes for both of you, Ustwo and silent_jay, along with anyone else else that wants to take the opportunity to get in a cheap shot on another member. The next time someone takes a shot will result in official action.

silent_jay · 02-21-2008, 11:43 AM

............

host · 02-21-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

McCain - lets see......

So far we started with poor war record, moved onto mob ties, and now to maybe had an affair in 2000.

TFP you never let me down

I've started a <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=131906">new thread</a>, a forum where you can post back up for the accusations you've posted.....

Ustwo · 02-21-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

considering how junior Obama was, I don't find it surprising that he didn't attract a lot of donations at the outset. I'll be more interested to see whether he sticks with his pledge to stay with public financing for the general election.

As long as he is ahead in the polls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Ustwo, how about he finished at the bottom of his class at Anapolis, was not thought of particularly highly by his classmates and only graduated at all by the skin of his teeth because of disciplinary issues.

He's got the same problem that Wesley Clark did back in '04 - his classmates and those in the military that he worked with directly don't really hold him in very high regard.

Were you happy with the 'Swiftboating' of Kerry?

Just saying, and yes it was your attack on his war record I was referring to.

I don't think of McCain as a war hero myself, I think hero has been far overused these days by a media trying to overcompensate for how Vietnam was handled. He did serve his country honorably, was almost killed twice, and was a POW under very difficult conditions, and for that I can salute his service, but a hero has to DO something besides survive.

Bob Dole on the other hand is a true hero, and he never promoted it in his campaign, in fact the first time I heard anything about his record was after the election.

I really don't see McCain winning this election unless Obama stops talking about change and starts talking about how he plans to pay for it, or just how many 'working families' such as my own will not be 'working families' according to his plan, and I don't think Obama is that stupid, so its kinda moot anyways.

pan6467 · 02-21-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

pan6467: you apparently admit that you're paranoid and conspiratorial...why not do something about it?

This is just normal campaign stuff these days. I'm not particularly concerned who is behind getting this out, and I'm certainly not interested in wasting energy speculating as to why. For one thing, McCain has the nomination in a lock. There is no scandal big enough to take it from him. Big enough to make him lose in Nov, yes, but prevent him from being the nominee, no. Counting Romney's delegates, McCain is only about 200 delegates short of securing the nomination. Even without Romney's delegates, he's about 400 short, while Huckabee is 1200 short. Huckabee would have to essentially win every state from now on, by very large percentages, to keep McCain from getting the nomination.

It's just not going to happen.

Look I'm a Dem. I don't care if the GOP destroys their candidate but I am wondering why now.

This is not the Dems doing, I truly believe that. I also believe this isn't just put out for he sake of information. Not with Ohio and Texas coming up so soon. there is a reason for all this.

It doesn't matter how many delegates McCain has at the convention if he is scandal ridden and doesn't have a prayer to win, I would hope for the sake of this nation that the GOP would put delegates aside and pick someone less scandal ridden and has more of a chance to win. If you put on someone you know doesn't stand a chance why put up anyone at all?

This release and the timing is just fishy. Everything is done with a reason, there was a calculated reason this is coming out now. The Dems would wait, they aren't so stupid that they would start throwing mud now, I just don't believe it.

Put that with the fact that his aids are coming out with it.... I stand by my previous posts here.

And sometimes being paranoidal and conspiratorial does not necessarily mean you are wrong. nor does admitting it mean one truly is.

SecretMethod70 · 02-21-2008, 02:03 PM

pan6467: Do you understand how delegates work? They're required to vote for McCain. The only way McCain won't get the nomination is if he somehow manages not to get a majority of the pledged delegates. That simply won't happen without Huckabee managing to win almost every state from now on with large margins of victory (which won't happen, no matter how big of a "scandal" comes out about McCain). And, really, this is nothing. Politics as usual. Not saying it should be politics as usual, but it is. It's not going to be particularly shocking or disturbing to most people.

The_Jazz · 02-21-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Just saying, and yes it was your attack on his war record I was referring to.

Ustwo, you are lazy with the English language. Consistently. It drives me up the wall sometimes.

Annapolis is in Maryland. The last time I checked, it was last invaded in 1812-13. McCain is old, but he is not old. His college record has nothing to do with his war record. My ONLY comment about his war service was that he was an average pilot - hardly a great condemnation, and really immaterial given that his "real" war record started after he was shot down.

You'll notice I've never commented on his POW years. Search all my posts over the past 4 years. You won't find a thing.

Let's get this straight - in college, McCain was a poor student and a disciplinary problem. Those that worked with him after college did not hold him particularly high regard. These are hard facts. They havenothing to do with his war record.

I'm talking about his college record. If he'd been a fratboy douchebag that went to the University of Alabama, I would have commented about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Bob Dole on the other hand is a true hero, and he never promoted it in his campaign, in fact the first time I heard anything about his record was after the election.

You weren't paying attention. There was actually lots said about it, as well as his rehabilitation.

Ustwo · 02-21-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Ustwo, you are lazy with the English language. Consistently. It drives me up the wall sometimes.

Annapolis is in Maryland. The last time I checked, it was last invaded in 1812-13. McCain is old, but he is not old. His college record has nothing to do with his war record. My ONLY comment about his war service was that he was an average pilot - hardly a great condemnation, and really immaterial given that his "real" war record started after he was shot down.

You'll notice I've never commented on his POW years. Search all my posts over the past 4 years. You won't find a thing.

Let's get this straight - in college, McCain was a poor student and a disciplinary problem. Those that worked with him after college did not hold him particularly high regard. These are hard facts. They havenothing to do with his war record.

I was giving you more credit than was due then. I figured you were doing more than talking about how he wasn't popular and hard working in college and must have extrapolated it. Your attack is rather petty don't you think?

He had bad discipline in college and some people didn't like working with him. Ok thanks, he is obviously not presidential material.

You know I had bad discipline in college too and some people didn't like me. I guess I better stay away from public office.

Quote:

You weren't paying attention. There was actually lots said about it, as well as his rehabilitation.

Oddly I never heard much beyond it was a war wound. Not that he got it volunteering to rescue a wounded man under the guns of a German pillbox.

The_Jazz · 02-21-2008, 02:54 PM

In any other college environment, you'd be right that it's a petty attack. However, the service academies are different, and they'll be the first to admit it. The placement within a class is still viewed as an important indicator of how effective a leader the individual will be, and it's mentioned quite often with historical figures. Lee and McCarthur - top of their classes; Patton and Grant - bottom.

If he wasn't popular and hard working among men being trained in leadership (and make no mistake, that's what all 4 service academies do), what does that tell you? It speaks volumes to me, and I'm not a graduate of any of them.

pan6467 · 02-21-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

pan6467: Do you understand how delegates work? They're required to vote for McCain. The only way McCain won't get the nomination is if he somehow manages not to get a majority of the pledged delegates. That simply won't happen without Huckabee managing to win almost every state from now on with large margins of victory (which won't happen, no matter how big of a "scandal" comes out about McCain). And, really, this is nothing. Politics as usual. Not saying it should be politics as usual, but it is. It's not going to be particularly shocking or disturbing to most people.

I understand exactly how delegates work, I don't believe they are "required" to vote for the candidate. I believe the process is that each candidate sets out a list of say 23 "delegates" that if they are win will go to the convention and vote for them. However, those delegates, while almost always voting for the person they represent are not forced to. That is a basic summary of my knowledge of delegates.

Now, in the convention, individuals that have the belief the party can win, see the candidate they are there for scandal ridden and looking like he has no chance, they may change their votes. Much like the Electoral College, they represent the candidate but if for whatever reason it would not be in the best interest they can change their votes.

Then again, maybe I'm totally wrong.

SecretMethod70 · 02-21-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Then again, maybe I'm totally wrong.

You're totally wrong.

There are 463 unpledged delegates to the Republican convention, but the rest (1,917) are pledged, meaning they're required to stick to their candidate on the first vote. Right now, McCain has 870 pledged delegates, and that's not counting the 48 unpledged who have expressed their support for him, or Romney's 286 pledged delegates. McCain only needs 1,191 to win the nomination, and if you count his unpledged delegates plus Romney's delegates who will almost certainly vote for McCain, he already has it. Even without them, he only need to win 321 more delegates in order to win by pledged delegates alone. Huckabee would have to absolutely crush him to prevent that from happening.

pan6467 · 02-21-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

You're totally wrong.

There are 463 unpledged delegates to the Republican convention, but the rest (1,917) are pledged, meaning they're required to stick to their candidate on the first vote. Right now, McCain has 870 pledged delegates, and that's not counting the 48 unpledged who have expressed their support for him, or Romney's 286 pledged delegates. McCain only needs 1,191 to win the nomination, and if you count his unpledged delegates plus Romney's delegates who will almost certainly vote for McCain, he already has it. Even without them, he only need to win 321 more delegates in order to win by pledged delegates alone. Huckabee would have to absolutely crush him to prevent that from happening.

Soooooo.... you want to personally attack me instead of comment on the OP???? No wonder politics is dying here.

So, if McCain is embroiled in scandals..... those delegates have to vote for McCain?

Why even have delegates to vote then? What if they don't vote McCain their vote doesn't count?

Don't even answer this is just blowing smoke away from the OP.

SecretMethod70 · 02-21-2008, 04:34 PM

When did I personally attack you? You said you might be totally wrong, I confirmed that you were. Nothing wrong with being wrong, but it makes no sense for me not to correct you.

Anyway, this is entirely relevant to the OP. You say that you believe this is the GOP's doing to tank McCain before the convention so that he doesn't end up with the nomination. I'm explaining that that's extremely unlikely because it'd be nearly impossible to prevent McCain from getting the nomination at this point.

The_Jazz · 02-21-2008, 04:59 PM

Pan, objectively speaking, I don't see where Smeth "attacked" you. He disagreed with your factual position and supported it with his own set of facts.

Unfortunately there are no degrees of truth here. It's an absolute truth that pledged delegates HAVE to vote for their man (or woman on the Democratic side). Those are the rules of both parties and there's zero room for the elected delegates to change their minds. They will be thrown out of the convention and their vote stricken if they don't vote their pledge. They probably won't be back to any future conventions either.

Sorry, but you're mistaken in how you're interpreting this. In other words, you're wrong.

powerclown · 02-21-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

...The placement within a class is still viewed as an important indicator of how effective a leader the individual will be, and it's mentioned quite often with historical figures. Lee and McCarthur - top of their classes; Patton and Grant - bottom.

If he wasn't popular and hard working among men being trained in leadership (and make no mistake, that's what all 4 service academies do), what does that tell you? It speaks volumes to me, and I'm not a graduate of any of them.

Are you saying Patton wasn't an effective leader? The man won every single military campaign he participated in. Granted, he was tempermental, crude and politically incorrect measured by todays retarded standards, but there's no doubting his outstanding battlefield record. He was street smart over book smart, which his soldiers appreciated.

So I certainly can't penalize McCain his real-world leadership capabilities based upon some tenuous-at-best assertion he wasn't "popular" with his peers as a lad, or that he had "disciplinary" problems in college. He's certainly more than made up for "a lack of popularity" since then.

Seaver · 02-21-2008, 05:31 PM

If anyone thinks that academic placement within an Academy shows any indication of leadership, that person needs to pick up a history book.

host · 02-21-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.....Bob Dole on the other hand is a true hero, and he never promoted it in his campaign, in fact the first time I heard anything about his record was after the election.....

From my post #20, on the thread linked at the top of the following quote box, in response to UStwo making the same erroneous claim about Bob Dole, two years ago.....as he does today:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Just to make it clear to some people, Kerry was not attacked FOR his war record, he was attacked for trying to use it to advance his political goals. In so doing he opened it up for debate and it turns out there was a ton of debate there. Democrats use their war record as some sort of invulnerability shield from criticism. Republicans almost never bring there’s up, even Bob Dole who lost use of his hand in true heroic fashion. I never heard the story though until AFTER the 1996 election was over.

The page linked here, from the conservative National Review's own 1992
print edition archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/...0408231323.asp
makes enough references to the techniques that the George HW Bush campaign used
in 1992 to repeatedly attack opponent Bill Clinton's anti-war record in the Vietnam
War era, to reasonably call into question, the reliability of your central point.

There are even more accounts at the above link, of GHW Bush promoting his presidential
candidacies in 1980, 1988, and in 1992, by making statements in media interviews and in campaign
appearances, that were obviously intended to link his WWII military service with his presidential
campaigns, to promote his own leadership, and to favorably compare himself to his opponents' lack
of combat service.

The next two quote boxes provide ample evidence that Bob Dole promoted his candidacy, as far back as
his 1966 congressional campaign, and in his several presidential campaigns via the recounting of his
WWII military service, and his combat "wound". Dole was still denying how blatant his use of his war
record had been in his politcal career, as recently as on Aug. 23, 2004, in a CNN transcript linked
below.

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2067/
The Wound
How bashful is Dole about his wartime injury?
By Jack Shafer
Posted Saturday, Aug. 24, 1996, at 3:30 AM ET....

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240003
Dole falsely claimed that '96 campaign didn't promote his war record

On the August 23 edition of CNN's Crossfire, co-host Tucker Carlson repeated a false claim made by former Republican presidential candidate and regular CNN contributor Bob Dole on CNN the day before, then falsely denied that Dole had made another.....

....On August 23,{2004] Dole <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/23/wbr.00.html">called in</a> to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports to discuss his comments from the day before. During that call, Dole suggested he was irritated by how much Kerry talked about his war record and claimed, "I reminded him [Kerry] that in 1996, I didn't have anybody out writing these great stories about Bob Dole's war record and I don't think we were feeding them to people."

Though Blitzer didn't point this out, in 1996, Dole and the RNC heavily promoted Dole's war record. For example, the Republican National Committee (RNC) ran a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/campaign.96/the.story.mov">TV ad</a> that used photos of Dole recovering from war injuries. And Dole explained that the RNC ad was coordinated with his campaign.

From a March 15, 1998, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce52/52text/01legal.htm">article</a> published in Capital Eye, a newsletter of the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">Center for Responsive Politics:</a>

"We can, through the Republican National Committee, through what we call the Victory '96 program, run television ads and other advertising," Dole said on ABC television. "It's called 'generic'....It doesn't say 'Bob Dole for President' it has my -- it talks about the Bob Dole story. It never says that I'm running for president, though I hope that it's fairly obvious since I'm the only one in the picture!"

In addition, a 1996 Dole campaign <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/campaign.96/dole.values.mov">TV ad</a> boasted that he was "tested in war."

The two quote boxes below contain information tha makes a strong case for an argument that it is
doubtful that, examining Kerry's "war Record" "it turns out there was a ton of debate there".
Who can offer an argument against my observation that, if George W. Bush received confirmation that he had
indeed continued his ANG service when he moved to Alabama in 1973, as he claimed that he did, by a witness
with the independence and integrity of William Rood, the newspaper editor who vouched for the legitimacy of
John Kerry's combat actions that resulted in Kerry's receipt of the Silver Star combat medal by the U.S. Navy,
the controversy over Bush's inability to offer convincing proof that he served in Alabama ANG, would have disappeared.

Quote:

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record

Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.

August 6, 2004

Modified: August 22, 2004

Quote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed
Published August 22, 2004

......William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry......

pan6467 · 02-21-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

When did I personally attack you? You said you might be totally wrong, I confirmed that you were. Nothing wrong with being wrong, but it makes no sense for me not to correct you.

Anyway, this is entirely relevant to the OP. You say that you believe this is the GOP's doing to tank McCain before the convention so that he doesn't end up with the nomination. I'm explaining that that's extremely unlikely because it'd be nearly impossible to prevent McCain from getting the nomination at this point.

So no matter how scandal ridden a candidate is, even if the vast majority knows that nominating the man would lead to certain defeat, however, someone else may stand a chance, the delegates still have to vote for that man?

I find it hard to believe. Not that that will happen, purely hypothetical, but I find it very hard to believe.

This is a direct quote from the article linked.... by all means feel free to go to the link and read the whole article..... or if asked I'll post it.

Quote:

There also seems to be confusion surrounding the obligation of delegates to actually vote for their pledged candidate.

According to the Democratic National Committee, technically, they don't have to.

"A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required."

The party's rules ask delegates to "in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/109353/output/print

OOO and how are the GOP delegates to vote (again link follows feel free to read it.

Quote:

One might respond that the Republicans have no such contingency plan for their nomination - even though their nominee is also selected by majority rule. So, why must the Democrats? In fact, the Republicans do have a plan. Theirs is just informal. The Republican solution is that most delegates become like super delegates after a few rounds of balloting. Some Republican delegates are obligated to their candidate as long as he is in the race - but most of them are free to vote their consciences after a few rounds.

This offers a different way to understand the super delegates. Perhaps they seem more reasonable than they first appeared. Every majority system must have some kind of contingency plan for when nobody has won a majority. If we accept the legitimacy of the majority requirement (and why wouldn't we?), we necessarily accept the need for a "majority maker" clause. The Constitution uses the House. Louisiana uses a run-off. The Republicans create de facto super delegates out of the rank-and-file. The Democrats give that power to party leaders.

So, the real question is how good is the Democratic solution? I think it has several advantages over the Republican one.

First, I think that if you are going to make any type of delegate "super" - it is best to make it the party leaders. They are most likely to have the interests of the party as a whole close to heart. To appreciate this, imagine what would happen if there were a knockdown, drag-out fight between McCain and Romney. The only concern on the minds of McCain delegates would be getting the nomination to McCain. Ditto the Romney delegates. But who is looking out for the party? Which delegates will calmly recognize that the elevation of their man would require a nasty battle that might do damage to the party's prospects? Neither. The McCain delegates would probably prefer a nasty floor fight that McCain wins to a cordial process that he loses because their paramount concern is the success of their candidate. Ditto the Romney delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...the_super.html

Quote:

Delegates And Their Role In The Republican Nomination Process

After determining the number of delegates to represent each state and territory, the delegates are then divided into two categories: pledged and unpledged. The differing roles of these delegates at the conventions are fairly self-explanatory.

Pledged delegates have their vote cast before they even enter the convention, based on which candidate won either their district or state. For Republicans 1,917 out of the 2,380 total delegates are pledged around 81 percent.

Unpledged delegates are not restricted or bound to vote like pledged delegates. Rather, they are the wild cards of the convention, and they vote purely their own based on their own decision-making process.

The Republican Party has a state-by-state approach to determining unpledged delegates. States typically choose one of three options. Some, like Pennsylvania, refuse to pledge any delegates. Others, like Illinois, leave the At Large portion of their delegation as unpledged while keeping district level delegates firmly bound. For a third category, one example being Connecticut, there are no unpledged delegates sent to the convention - every representative is bound. As a rule, there are more pledged than unpledged delegates in the Republican primary contests.

As noted earlier, there are two kinds of pledged delegates: district level and At-Large. District level delegates promise to vote for the winner of their congressional district, while At Large delegates are “bound” to support the candidate who emerges victorious in their State, even if that candidate did not win their congressional district. Although they pledge to support a candidate “pledged” candidates can support another nominee at the convention, although such switching is rare. In order to ensure that delegates follow through on their pledge, candidates are allowed to look through every “pledged” delegate and can eliminate anyone whom they feel would stray from the agreement.

http://www.rttnews.com/sp/todaystop....&item=54&vid=0

In ALL 3 articles delegates CAN switch and vote for someone else.

Not saying it WILL happen, but it can. And it is exactly how I stated above....

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I understand exactly how delegates work, I don't believe they are "required" to vote for the candidate. I believe the process is that each candidate sets out a list of say 23 "delegates" that if they are win will go to the convention and vote for them. However, those delegates, while almost always voting for the person they represent are not forced to. That is a basic summary of my knowledge of delegates.

dc_dux · 02-21-2008, 08:12 PM

As I understand the issue of delegates required to vote for their specific candidate, it is a matter of state law or state party rules. There is no specific rule established by the national parties.

In some states with primaries, delegates are required by law to vote for the candidate for whom the voters were told they were pledged. In states with caucuses, it is generally guided by the state party, which would have the right to impose future sanctions on those delegates who break the rules (ie prohibit them from serving as delegates in the future.)

edit: Pan, as to the larger issue you raised in the OP, its hard to imagine the scenario you proposed. There is no love among the party hierarchy for Huckabee and a recognition among those same party insiders that McCain probably offers them their best hope of victory or the least damaging loss that could impact other races.

SecretMethod70 · 02-21-2008, 08:47 PM

The articles you quote state that the delegates can switch their votes after the first round of voting. This is true, but McCain will have enough pledged delegates that they won't get past the first round.

dc_dux · 02-21-2008, 08:56 PM

Here is an example of how the delegate selection process is codified into law:

Quote:

California Elections Code

...Each delegate to the Republican National Convention shall use
his or her best efforts at the convention for the party's
presidential nominee candidate from California to whom the delegate
has pledged support until the person is nominated for the office of
President of the United States by the convention, receives less than
10 percent of the votes for nomination by the convention, releases
the delegate from his or her obligation, or until two convention
nominating ballots have been taken. Thereafter, each delegate shall
be free to vote as he or she chooses, and no rule may be adopted by a
delegation requiring the delegation to vote as a body or causing the
vote of any delegate to go uncounted or unreported.

http://law.justia.com/california/cod...6460-6461.html

Other states with primaries have similar laws.

02-21-2008, 07:09 AM	#3 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Odd the NYT would take up the cause of the right wing gas bags. I read the article twice and I kept thinking "where's the beef?" __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

02-21-2008, 10:39 AM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Clinton and Obama are correctly ignoring this for the time being. At some point, Obama particularly, should focus on McCain's relationship with lobbyists, which is extensive (not necessarily illegal or even unethical) but a bit hypocritical if you consider how McCain touts his accomplishment of McCain/Feingold campaign finance law while at the same time bending the law to take advantage of the loopholes. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-21-2008, 10:47 AM	#11 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Show me a politican that hasn't taken someone's money and I'll show you an unelectable politican. Or someone who's wealthy enough not to care. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-21-2008, 10:51 AM	#12 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	pan6467: you apparently admit that you're paranoid and conspiratorial...why not do something about it? This is just normal campaign stuff these days. I'm not particularly concerned who is behind getting this out, and I'm certainly not interested in wasting energy speculating as to why. For one thing, McCain has the nomination in a lock. There is no scandal big enough to take it from him. Big enough to make him lose in Nov, yes, but prevent him from being the nominee, no. Counting Romney's delegates, McCain is only about 200 delegates short of securing the nomination. Even without Romney's delegates, he's about 400 short, while Huckabee is 1200 short. Huckabee would have to essentially win every state from now on, by very large percentages, to keep McCain from getting the nomination. It's just not going to happen. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-21-2008, 11:11 AM	#15 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	None of them are clean if you look at campaign contributions from other industries. It makes a pretty compelling case for public financing as a means to take industry influence out of the campaigns and subsequent officeholders... but thats a topic for another time. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-21-2008, 07:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	Wow. Now there is a shock. A member of congress that has done favors for lobbists/special interest groups after recieving campaign contributions.

02-21-2008, 09:10 AM	#5 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	You forgot one other option. Some reporter trying to stir up shit to make a name for themselves.

02-21-2008, 11:22 AM	#16 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	McCain - lets see...... So far we started with poor war record, moved onto mob ties, and now to maybe had an affair in 2000. TFP you never let me down __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-21-2008, 11:39 AM	#17 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	considering how junior Obama was, I don't find it surprising that he didn't attract a lot of donations at the outset. I'll be more interested to see whether he sticks with his pledge to stay with public financing for the general election.

02-21-2008, 11:40 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Ustwo, how about he finished at the bottom of his class at Anapolis, was not thought of particularly highly by his classmates and only graduated at all by the skin of his teeth because of disciplinary issues. He's got the same problem that Wesley Clark did back in '04 - his classmates and those in the military that he worked with directly don't really hold him in very high regard. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-21-2008, 11:42 AM	#20 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	This thread is not about any of us, it is about McCain. That is your topic - keep any comments to that. That goes for both of you, Ustwo and silent_jay, along with anyone else else that wants to take the opportunity to get in a cheap shot on another member. The next time someone takes a shot will result in official action. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-21-2008, 11:43 AM	#21 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	............ __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder Last edited by silent_jay; 02-21-2008 at 12:07 PM..

02-21-2008, 02:03 PM	#25 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	pan6467: Do you understand how delegates work? They're required to vote for McCain. The only way McCain won't get the nomination is if he somehow manages not to get a majority of the pledged delegates. That simply won't happen without Huckabee managing to win almost every state from now on with large margins of victory (which won't happen, no matter how big of a "scandal" comes out about McCain). And, really, this is nothing. Politics as usual. Not saying it should be politics as usual, but it is. It's not going to be particularly shocking or disturbing to most people. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-21-2008, 02:54 PM	#28 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	In any other college environment, you'd be right that it's a petty attack. However, the service academies are different, and they'll be the first to admit it. The placement within a class is still viewed as an important indicator of how effective a leader the individual will be, and it's mentioned quite often with historical figures. Lee and McCarthur - top of their classes; Patton and Grant - bottom. If he wasn't popular and hard working among men being trained in leadership (and make no mistake, that's what all 4 service academies do), what does that tell you? It speaks volumes to me, and I'm not a graduate of any of them. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-21-2008, 04:34 PM	#32 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	When did I personally attack you? You said you might be totally wrong, I confirmed that you were. Nothing wrong with being wrong, but it makes no sense for me not to correct you. Anyway, this is entirely relevant to the OP. You say that you believe this is the GOP's doing to tank McCain before the convention so that he doesn't end up with the nomination. I'm explaining that that's extremely unlikely because it'd be nearly impossible to prevent McCain from getting the nomination at this point. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-21-2008, 04:59 PM	#33 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Pan, objectively speaking, I don't see where Smeth "attacked" you. He disagreed with your factual position and supported it with his own set of facts. Unfortunately there are no degrees of truth here. It's an absolute truth that pledged delegates HAVE to vote for their man (or woman on the Democratic side). Those are the rules of both parties and there's zero room for the elected delegates to change their minds. They will be thrown out of the convention and their vote stricken if they don't vote their pledge. They probably won't be back to any future conventions either. Sorry, but you're mistaken in how you're interpreting this. In other words, you're wrong. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-21-2008, 05:31 PM	#35 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	If anyone thinks that academic placement within an Academy shows any indication of leadership, that person needs to pick up a history book. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

02-21-2008, 08:12 PM	#38 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	As I understand the issue of delegates required to vote for their specific candidate, it is a matter of state law or state party rules. There is no specific rule established by the national parties. In some states with primaries, delegates are required by law to vote for the candidate for whom the voters were told they were pledged. In states with caucuses, it is generally guided by the state party, which would have the right to impose future sanctions on those delegates who break the rules (ie prohibit them from serving as delegates in the future.) edit: Pan, as to the larger issue you raised in the OP, its hard to imagine the scenario you proposed. There is no love among the party hierarchy for Huckabee and a recognition among those same party insiders that McCain probably offers them their best hope of victory or the least damaging loss that could impact other races. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-21-2008 at 08:20 PM..

02-21-2008, 08:47 PM	#39 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	The articles you quote state that the delegates can switch their votes after the first round of voting. This is true, but McCain will have enough pledged delegates that they won't get past the first round. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling