Replies

McCain's got a strange group around him---BUT McC says he won't "pander" to so/cons to get this all-important constituency behind his candidacy.

According to McQueeg, it's called "pandering" only when applied to conservatives. McC has no problem pandering to illegals

McCain chose a dual-loyalty traitor to be his "Hispanic Outreach Director." Talk about pandering-----McCain said he chose Hernandez because he agrees with his positions.

Juan Hernandez was born in Dallas and decided as an adult to become a dual-national Mexican citizen. His last verifiable job was serving in Mexican President Vicente Fox's cabinet as Fox's "American Reconquista Director."

Hernandez then worked for Bush hater George Soros' international foundations---(one such foundation published Hernendez's book that taunts Americans).

Hernandez believes all illegal Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the USA should become dual citizens and consider themselves Mexicans first, "to the 8th generation."

The "New American Pioneers" proclaimed in his book are the illegal alien invaders he urges to become settlers in the USA for "Reconquista"---the plan to take back the SW.

===================================

Another group now backing McCain is Billy Kristol (Fox pundit) his daddy, and their crowd---who are cheerleaders for the current admin's most destructive polices---including the twice-failed illegals amnesty plan.

The Kristols are also the architects of Giuliani's failed strategy to religiously cleanse the Repub party and kick conservatievs to the curb. They switched to McCain when their boy Giuliani tanked like a deadweight going down a 300 ft cistern.

Liz, have you ever read about Kristol's earlier support of McCain? Back in about 2000, Kristol and Marshall Wittmann started something called the Project for Conservative Reform (aka Kick Conservatives to the Curb Project). Seems like some of the same folks that ended up being involved in the Reform Institute (Houghton, at a minimum).

McCain may leave Republican Party to fight Bush in 2004

(snip)

The option is being discussed by McCain’s inner circle of advisers and some of his backers have begun setting up policy think-tanks and other groups to lay the ideological foundations for another third-party challenge in the Bull Moose style.
The Project for Conservative Reform at the Hudson Institute has assembled a group of what it calls Mooseketeers, while keeping up a steady stream of criticism aimed at Mr Bush for his reliance on corporate cash.
Having lost control of the Senate after the defection of Senator James Jeffords earlier this year, the White House is sensitive to the threat that the Arizona senator could also leave the party. Any such move would almost certainly deny Mr Bush a second term by splitting the Republican vote.
Mr Bush is also facing mounting pressure from moderates within his party who, like Mr McCain, are at odds with the tough conservative line taken by the Republican leadership.
“We are making life tougher for the leadership,” Amory Houghton, one of the most prominent Republican moderates in the House of Representatives, said.
Mr McCain campaigned energetically for House Republicans during the election and some are coming to see him as their natural leader.
“In the past, the House Republican moderates were the most docile group in town,” Marshall Whittmann, a McCain adviser and the director of the project for Conservative Reform, said. “That’s changing.”

How Bill Kristol ditched conservatism. Great Escape

Alienated from the GOP leadership--and convinced by the 1996 elections that its libertarian politics couldn't win-- [Bill] Kristol and [David] Brooks unveiled national-greatness conservatism. There was only one problem: No one, perhaps not even Kristol and Brooks, had a clear idea of what the phrase meant.
... As Wittmann has written on his website, conservativereform.org, "[C]onservatism need not be defined by K Street. As we pursue tax cuts, it seems reasonable to focus on middle-class relief such as cutting the payroll tax." Says Kristol, "I don't have any problems with the safety net." Which raises a question. If national-greatness conservatism scorns the Christian right, jettisons the struggle to shrink government, and champions an idealistic foreign policy more likely to be supported by The New York Times than Dick Armey, in what meaningful, contemporary sense is it conservatism at all?
If you haven't seen much of this heresy in the pages of The Weekly Standard, that's because on domestic policy Kristol and Brooks have become a minority in their own office. Unable to turn the Standard into a vehicle for their movement, they've essentially stopped writing about economics and social policy. Ironically, as its top editors have inaugurated one of the most interesting Beltway debates in years, the magazine has grown less interesting. Instead, Kristol and Wittmann have started a think tank called the Project for Conservative Reform, run out of the Hudson Institute, with the sole purpose of developing position papers for their movement. And Brooks's next book will aim to infuse national-greatness conservatism with some needed marrow.