The GOP brand "is hurting"

As John McCain officially claimed victory Tuesday night in Florida, he expressed particular pride in having won "an all-Republican primary” (i.e., one where only registered party members can vote).

But as he and his entourage flew cross-country Wednesday to California, one of his staunchest allies stressed that, in his view, one of McCain's main political assets ultimately will stem from his willingness to sometimes buck the GOP.

“How could we possibly win by throwing into the November election someone so tied to the [Republican] label?" asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "Our brand name is hurting.”

McCain's reputation as a maverick from the party line is "a godsend for us," Graham told The Times' Maeve Reston and other reporters.

Graham noted that in poll after poll, the GOP keeps coming up far short of the Democrats when voters are asked which party they would like to see win the White House later this year. With those results in mind, Graham said, "Republicans are not stupid -– for us to think that we didn’t have to have some adjustment with the general public would be stupid.”

Of course, it is precisely the doubts that some rank-and-file Republicans have about McCain's party credentials that Mitt Romney is banking on to still give him a legitimate shot at the nomination. And lest there be any doubt that the chances are slim that at least one leading conservative commentator will reconcile himself to McCain, check out these remarks from Rush Limbaugh, who finds McCain unacceptable.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[diligentdave]

“How could we possibly win by throwing into the November election someone so tied to the [Republican] label?" asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "Our brand name is hurting.”

And so because we had a profligate spending majority of Republicans in Congress along with a spendthrift Republican President (Bush), we "fix the brand" by voting for the biggest liberal (i.e., spendthrift) Republican, John McCain??? What sense does that make? (None)!

Republicans lost their roots. The economic problems of today can be found in the spendthrift "out-Democrating the Democrats" by liberal, unrestrained spending during the Bush presidency. Just as Dick Morris taught Bill Clinton to "out-Republican the Republicans" by being tighter in government spending than even the Republican majority then in Congress were willing to be.

Voting for the "most lost of all Republicans", John McCain, in no way can or will "fix the brand" of Republicanism.

McCain is a prima donna who likes attention and power. Now, unfortunately, if things continue going his way all the way to the White House, we will have to endure another socio-pathic liar (McCain) like Bill Clinton is/was for four incredibly long, incredibly bad years.

Protect us from Islamic fundamentalism? B.S. Who will protect us from John McCain?

A liberal, left-leaning Democratic majority? I think not!

"Mac" will have his liberal friends likely backing and passing Mac's liberal agenda. Then we'll see how even more messed up the "Republican brand" can/will get!

Rush Limbaugh is/was right. If McCain becomes the GOP nominee, the Republican brand (and party) are sunk for good (or rather, for the bad ending of our nation)!

[Disappointed conservative]

Romney needed to generate fireworks. He should have said that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" is actually the "Straight BS Express." Why not come out and say it clearly? If we elect McCain or one of the Democrats, we'll give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. We'll impose more restrictions on political speech. We'll destroy the economy with unilateral "Greenhouse gas" taxes. If we had elected McCain 8 years ago, we would have had all of these plus no tax cuts. Finally, under McCain we'll have troops in Iraq for 100 years.

McCain is this year's Bob Dole, except he's liberal. Romney's too nice a guy to point this out, but McCain's too old, too much Washington establishment, and has no clue about the economy. He racks up endorsements by the same crowd that never gets anything done--the perpetual political class.

Romney has let us down here. Kudos for the effort, but next time (and I hope there is a next time) don't be so timid. Watch how Reagan did it and make the choice clear and direct.

[Alan schlar]

FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MCCAIN- GIULIANI TICKET
THAT WOULD SHOW THE WORLD THAT IN ONE CORNER YOU HAVE TOUGH SEASONED VETS WHO WILL MAKE IT VERY HARD TO BEAT IN NOV.
YOU WANT A TEAM IN THE MIDDLE NOT FAR TO THE RIGHT AMERICANS WILL GET STAGE FRIGHT FROM A PERSONALTY FROM THE RIGHT
WITH ALL THE MISTAKES THE GOP HAVE BEEN MAKING.
(SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY) NOT DEALING WITH THE HIGH PRICE OF FUEL
I STILL SAY THAT A TAX REBATE IS BAD IF YOU GIVE MORE TAX BREAKS TO THE RICH.
REBATES OF $1500 DOLLARS ONLY THE REST OF THE MONEY NEEDS TO GO TO BUILDING BETTER ROADS. AND BUILDING MORE F22,S TANKS AND HELACOPTERS BUILD UP THE AMT OF $ GOING IN THE THE US GOV
KEEP THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD APPROACH.

[John Patrick Smith]

As a Republican leaning independent, if the Democratic party were to give me Barack Obama vs. Republican John McCain, I would probably pick Barack, because of what I see in his character qualities.

A person’s character is shaped and tested by their experiences which is why our next President's character should matter as much if not more than their experience. I don't want to denigrate John McCain's character but I do have differences with him on his Constitutional views. As far as Hillary Clinton's character and experience is concerned, the following comparison demonstrates why I would abandon the Democrats if they were to give me Hillary to vote for.

1969 – While Barack Obama was being raised by a single mother and experiencing a life of racial and cultural diversity, Hillary Clinton was learning the art of triangulation and writing an admiring college thesis on Saul Alinsky whose fifth rule of political agitation was, “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.”

1979 – While Barack Obama was actively involved in the South African divestment movement to end apartheid, Hillary was reaping profits of almost 10,000% in the futures markets and leaving taxpayers with her real-estate losses in the Savings & Loan bailout.

1989 – While Barack Obama served as the Harvard Law Review’s first black president in its 104 year history, Hillary Clinton then wife of the Arkansas governor was receiving payments from a law firm that was doing the state's business and receiving board of director payments from Wal-Mart where she remained silent about Wal-Mart’s anti-labor union practices.

1999 – While Barack Obama was securing bipartisan support for health-care reform and passage of low-income tax credits and child care subsidies in the Illinois legislature, Hillary Clinton was urging her husband to bomb Yugoslavia and supporting his Iraq “regime change” policy in order to divert public attention from the president’s marital, legal and ethical infidelities.

2007 – While Barack was promoting a restoration of balance between work and wealth and criticizing special interests for distorting U.S. tax codes, Hillary and her husband were liquidating their blind trust of the nearly $50 million amassed during their years in public office.

The U.S. needs a uniter not a divider for President as the global economy teeters on the brink of economic meltdown not unlike the Great Depression.

Afterall the Roaring Twenties decade that preceded the Great Depression, like the Irrational Nineties that preceded our current decade, were both a golden age for technology, scandal-plagued politicians, corporate greed, and unrestrained personal debt and speculation.

[JanetP]

If McCain should win the presidency it is clear that Traitor Lindsey Graham will play a big part in his administration. The two of them were the primary architects and biggest supporters of the 'path to citizenship' legislation. Would Graham be the Attorney General or secretary of Homeland Defense? God help us. We will have completely open borders and citizenship for every foreign criminal who can limp across the border.

[Brad Arnold]

It really doesn't matter wheither McCain or Romney win the Republican nomination, because they are both totally for our occupation of Iraq. Bush would have lost his bid for a second term if he hadn't been an incumbent President (i.e. that gave him a 10 pt edge according to analysts). Neither McCain or Romney have that advantage, plus in a weakened economy the public will further scrutinize the ten billion dollars a month (minimum) we are spending there for the foreseeable future if either Republican candidate is elected.

By the way, it is highly unlikely that a rapidly growing population and world economy will cut emission so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided. Instead, any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing the CO2 from the air, and therefore no Democratic or Republican candidate is offering a viable plan to combat this catastrophic threat.

I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration of removing CO2 from the air. The last severe global warming episode was ended when ocean life kicked into high gear and removed the excess CO2 from the air over tens of thousand of years. Read my blog at www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for more information.

[Mandy]

Romney's lead in his home state is stronger than Mccain's lead in his home state, Arizona. I am an Arizonan that will not be supporting McCain! The GOP needs to rally hard behind Mitt Romney

[James]

McCain isn't even of the same brand so if throwing in a democrat to save the day is your idea of fixing the GOP brand, then by all means let McCain destroy the republican party!

[JanetP]

"Romney's lead in his home state is stronger than Mccain's lead in his home state, Arizona. I am an Arizonan that will not be supporting McCain! The GOP needs to rally hard behind Mitt Romney."
Posted by: Mandy | January 31, 2008 at 07:40 AM

It would be wonderful if McCain got shut out in his home state. I know that Arizonans are sick of illegal immigration; perhaps it could happen. Write in Sheriff Joe.