Posted on 02/06/2006 5:56:11 PM PST by wagglebee
With the 2008 presidential election less than three years away, more than a few members of President Bush's campaign team have begun to migrate to the current GOP frontrunner, Sen. John McCain.
According to Newsweek magazine, Mark McKinnon, Bush's longtime media adviser, has told the president he's ready to leap aboard McCain's "Straight Talk Express," unless brother Jeb or Condoleezza Rice change their minds and get into the race.
Among Bush fundraisers, the biggest catch, says Newsweek, is Tom Loeffler, a former congressman from San Antonio, who is a Bush-family loyalist and helped build Bush's money machine in 2000.
Ron Weiser, who was Bush's finance chairman in Michigan in 2000, has also joined McCain.
However, in a bizarre observation considering the Arizona maverick's frontrunner status, McKinnon told Newsweek: "I'd rather lose with McCain than win with somebody else."
Other presidential hopefuls scouting for campaign talent include Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist, Virginia Sen. George Allen and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Notably absent from the competition: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was leading McCain in most GOP presidential preference polls last year - but has done little to advance a presidential bid lately.
Does this make any sense, considering that all of these Bush team members are now migrating over to McCain in apparently large numbers?
Pence definitely.
Allen, maybe, I'm not sure about him.
No Rinos and absolutely nobody with ties to George Soros and his Council on Foreign Relations.
That drops Rice, Cheney and many others off the list.
Especially anyone named Bush.
I'd guess that even if they allow a real conservative to run, they'll handicap him with one of their own like they did with Reagan.
The Council wants either McNut or Hillary.
They will have backups just in case.
Okay Dan, you've got my vote! No McCain No Way!
If you study politicians and politics long enough you will find that elected officials try to do what a majority of the public wants done. They will play a lot of politics in trying to get majority support, but at the end of the day the will of the people prevails.
Often times some of us disagree with the majority and we long for elected officials that will do our will. But that never happens.
The Democratic party base was very opposed to both Roberts and Alito. They wanted to defeat them on what they said was their anti-abortion stance. But a Majority of the American people do not want unlimited abortion. They want very limited abortion or no abortion.
Karl Rove knew that anti abortion Democrats would give George Bush Ohio in 2004. That is exactly what happened. It took the Democrats a while to figure that out. That is not the case in New York and other very liberal states. So their senators chose to fight Alito and fight for abortion.
19 Democrats voted for cloture on the Alito filibuster. Why? They could not afford to lose the home state support of some Democrats and most Moderates who are opposed to abortion. So they voted cloture. They voted the will of the people, and not the will of their party leaders, and not their own beliefs.
It is the way it works. I used a Democrat example but the same is true of Republicans. George Dubya Bush bends to the will of the people as he can determine that will. Jeb Bush would be no different.
Politicians who say .. "I will not do what the voters want.. I will do what I know is right!" are soon former office holders or failed candidates.
If a movement can get the support of the voters, the politicians take care of themselves. If one can get 70 percent of the voters to favor a policy both parties will adopt it and then accuse each other of dragging their feet on adoption.
It is very interesting. If the voters find out they were wrong. .. They just fire the office holder with which they used to agree.
Yeah... we used to.
So Eddiebear, do you think Hillary will still allow our nation to be occupied, like President Bush is? Do you think she'll allow our most formidable enemy on the world stage to be propped up by our trade dollars? Let me know when you've finally figured out that both parties are screwing your kids into the ground.
I will not be voting to put John McCain into the White House. Is that plain enough for you?
This Republican ain't staying home to watch Hillary, Begala, Blumenthal, Conason, et al take over the Executive Branch. You want Mccain (who has been a strong supporter of Bush's conservative nominees to the bench) or Hillary replacing Beyer or Ginsburgh on the Supreme Court?
If the Republican elites put up McCain without listening to the base, and Hillary wins, blame the Republican elites, not me.
When you were in the majority. What part of being in the minority don't you understand?
Things get too much worse though and I'm gonna have to find a Galt's Gulch...
Not McCain, and NOT Mitt.
The only lesson 1992 taught us all is "DONT LOSE TO A CLINTON DEMOCRAT".
Have we learned that lesson for 2008?
My ideal candidate: Former Governor George Allen.
I agree, McCain is the wrong nominee.
But I dont agree with the thought that it's not worth voting him over Hillary Clinton.
I'll take annoying, smarmy, and sometimes wrong media darling over the pure evil of a partisan hater of everything I believe in. ABC: Anyone But Clinton
The key thing will be to make sure McCain is *NOT* the nominee. We have to be pumping up the alternatives.
The media candidate has lost seven of the last ten presidential races.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.