Friday, February 08, 2008

Bush Hearts McCain

Just in from The Washington Post: President Bush will likely support McCain!

First of all, big shocker that the sitting president was going to support the incumbent party candidate.

Secondly, is anyone else going to find it hard to read the sure-to-be-upcoming Bush endorsement of McCain as follows: "Hey, remember me? Yeah, I'm the guy who totally pissed on your chances of being president 8 years ago by hijacking Christianity and claiming your adopted daughter was illegitimate. Um, sorry bout that, I guess. But anyway, hopefully we're cool now, because I really don't want those other guys to win. So, bros again? Sweet."

Yes, I still believe McCain was the rightful Republican nominee, and that we'd be a lot better off right now (less divided, less deficit spended to oblivion, etc.) had he been chosen instead of Dubya. Why do you ask?

Song lyric of the day:
"Cease to resist, giving my goodbye
Drive my car into the ocean
You'll think I'm dead, but I sail away
On a wave of mutilation"
- Pixies, Wave of Mutilation

5 Comments:

Blogger Ben said...

Politics makes friggin' strange bedfellows. Not that the thought of Bush and McCain in bed is something I want to remember.

But if Bush endorsed him, I fully expect McCain would accept it wholeheartedly. He needs the support of the hard Right that still, somehow, supports Bush.

And how, exactly, was McCain the "rightful" Republican nominee for 2000? Sure, he would've made a better President. (Who wouldn't have?) But I don't think the Republican Party in 2000 was in the mood to nominate a maverick. He won New Hampshire with Independents. And he'll win the nomination this year because there's no viable Religious Right candidate. So I doubt he would have won in 2000 even without the despicable smears. So, in what sense was he the rightful candidate?

February 09, 2008 12:53 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

Don't play semantics with me. You know what I meant :)

February 09, 2008 3:13 PM  
Blogger Ben said...

No, seriously....I wouldn't ask if I didn't know.

Do you mean he should've won because he would've made a better president?

February 09, 2008 6:16 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

In my opinion, McCain was the obvious choice for the Republicans in 2000. To this day, other than his name, I cannot understand why the Republicans opted for Bush. McCain was more qualified and had a longer, more distinguished, and (frankly) more conservative record. He also had the aura of a leader that Bush has seldom if ever emanated. And though I'd bet (but am not certain) he probably voted along party lines 90-95% of the time, he earned the label of "maverick" by being pragmatic rather than idealogical and actually attempting to get stuff done. In my opinion, it would have been better for both the Republican party and the country had McCain been nominated in 2000.

But anyway, Bush himself wasn't exactly the mastermind behind McCain's downfall, and McCain knows it. So naturally, McCain would accept a Bush endorsement. I didn't mean to imply he wouldn't. But I guarantee you he hasn't forgotten 2000.

February 09, 2008 11:32 PM  
Blogger Matthew B. Novak said...

I've got your back on this one Mike. McCain was the obvious choice for the Republicans in 2000, and they blew it.

February 11, 2008 11:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home