As the Blues Brothers said - the band is being put back togther. :cool:
Mehlman, Rove boost McCain campaign
March 8, 2008 11:33 AM EST
John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and fundraising help for his campaign. He’s getting Bush's staff.
It’s no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush’s attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, the president’s media strategist, are performing similar functions for McCain now.
But other big-name Bushies are lining up to boost McCain, too.
Ken Mehlman, who ran Bush’s 2004 campaign, is now serving as an unpaid, outside adviser to the Arizona Republican. Karl Rove, the president’s top political hand since his Texas days, recently gave money to McCain and soon after had a private conversation with the senator. A top McCain adviser said both Mehlman and Rove are now informally advising the campaign. Rove refused to detail his conversation with McCain.
The list could grow longer. Dan Bartlett, formerly a top aide in the Bush White House, and Sara Taylor, the erstwhile Bush political adviser, said they are eager to provide any assistance and advice possible to McCain.
Rove explained that he and McCain “got to know each other during the 2004 campaign.” In a separate interview, Mehlman noted that “McCain was completely loyal to the president in 2004 and worked incredibly hard to help him get elected.” According to Taylor, “The Bush Republicans here in town are excited for John McCain.”
Despite the president’s low approval ratings, there are clear benefits to McCain for this cozy relationship with the Bush team. They are seasoned operatives with a track record of winning back-to-back national elections in tough political environments. But there are obvious drawbacks. First and foremost, any association with the Bush administration helps Democrats make their case that McCain represents a clear extension of an unpopular presidency.
One of those making that argument is Matt Dowd, Bush’s chief strategist in 2004.
“[McCain] has sided himself so closely to the administration, especially on Iraq, now having various Bush advisers — that doesn’t sit well with the public,” said Dowd, who has recently broken with the Bush inner circle. “The public wants the non-Bush candidate.”
Dowd also argued that he believes that the proximity of Bush’s advisers could lead McCain to a strategic mistake: refighting the 2004 campaign. “There is a real danger of that,” Dowd added. “And I think some of the things John McCain has done, and how he’s done it, has been a fight or a battle that’s gone. I don’t think this is going to be a terrorism election or a national security election.”
The McCain adviser said Dowd's concern is unwarranted, pointing to the campaign’s belief that the economy will play a far greater role in the 2008 race than it did in 2004.
That hasn’t stopped Democrats from seizing upon the Bush-McCain axis. When Bush and McCain met at the White House on Wednesday, a Democratic leaning group aired an ad that day in the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio titled “McSame,” attacking McCain as a Bush clone with similar policies on taxes, health care and the war in Iraq. The Democratic National Committee quickly posted a video of the news conference on its website. Beneath the video, it read that McCain would carry on Bush’s “failed economic and foreign policies.”
The McCain campaign, for its part, has been coy about how — or whether — the senator will distance himself from the president.
McCain said that he intended to campaign with Bush but quickly added a caveat: only “as it fits into his busy schedule.” The scheduling disclaimer followed each of the five times — in the 10-minute press conference — that McCain invited Bush to join him on the trail.
For now, said a senior adviser to McCain who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the “the No. 1 strategic goal” was “to solidify the base of the party.” A strong majority of Republicans continue to approve of the president.
Yet independents and Democrats do not share Republicans' approval of Bush. And former Bush aides recognize the political exigencies surrounding the McCain-Bush relationship.
“We agree on far more than we disagree on,” Bartlett said. “Everybody will do everything they can to help. And if part of being helpful means [to] stay away, I’m sure people will stay away.”
At the moment, McCain’s campaign seems to believe Bush’s assistance is more valuable than not. But the McCain adviser noted that, down the road, the campaign will “reinforce that [McCain] is an independent.”
And I just found this - John McCain's first campaign commercial:
Fdubya247
Mehlman, Rove = the (not so) closeted homo repuke contingent
:giggle:
MLBoros72s
This is great news...for the Democrats!
Bush is showing his egotistical blindness to have no bounds.
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247 Mehlman, Rove = the (not so) closeted homo repuke contingent
:giggle:
Funny how you Liberals claim to be so accepting and open-minded, yet you constantly bash homosexuals (or engage in rumor mongoring).
If either of those two gentlemen were homosexuals, I wouldn't matter to me at all. But it's a major issue to hypocrites like yourself.
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s This is great news...for the Democrats!
Bush is showing his egotistical blindness to have no bounds.
Don't kid yourself - if Karl Rove went crazy and became a Liberal overnight, your party would welcome him with open arms.
Funny how the Democrat party threw Joe Lieberman overboard just because he didn't want to hand Iraq over to Al Qaeda, yet they still consider him part of their majority in the Senate.
rod_jammer
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord Funny how you Liberals claim to be so accepting and open-minded, yet you constantly bash homosexuals (or engage in rumor mongoring).
If either of those two gentlemen were homosexuals, I wouldn't matter to me at all. But it's a major issue to hypocrites like yourself.
It only matters when they lie about their own sexuality and stay in the closet while passing anti-gay legislation. How could anyone respect that? Be honest with yourself, and then you can be honest to your constituents. I find it hard to believe that the GOP would be cool with a gay or lesbian representative.
MLBoros72s
Quote: Originally posted by VacateYourFreedoms Don't kid yourself - if Karl Rove went crazy and became a Liberal overnight, your party would welcome him with open arms.
Funny how the Democrat party threw Joe Lieberman overboard just because he didn't want to hand Iraq over to Al Qaeda, yet they still consider him part of their majority in the Senate.
Joe Lieberman proved that anyone can become a neo-con.
See: John W. McSame.
mr wrong
So what..
Kerry was a douchebag, and still only lost by ~3%
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s Joe Lieberman proved that anyone can become a neo-con.
See: John W. McSame.
So by taking the defense of this country from Terror seriously, one automatically becomes a "neo-con?"
Give it a rest.
The fact remains that the Democrat party threw Joe Lieberman under the bus because he didn't want to turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda. So they went with Ned Lamont. What's 'ol Neddy up to these days? Well, besides endorsing Barack Obama.
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd Funny how you Liberals claim to be so accepting and open-minded, yet you constantly bash homosexuals (or engage in rumor mongoring).
If either of those two gentlemen were homosexuals, I wouldn't matter to me at all. But it's a major issue to hypocrites like yourself.
:rolleyes:
God you are stupid.
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd So by taking the defense of this country from Terror seriously,
:rolleyes:
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by mr wrong So what..
Kerry was a douchebag, and still only lost by ~3%
I agree - Kerry was and is a douchebag. And so is Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership.
This was supposed to be the year for the Democrats, right? After what a "miserable failure" (employing Liberal logic) the Bush administration has been, winning the White House is a foregone conclusion, right?
Well, Howard "the scream" Dean and the DNC is completely dysfunctional and cannot even run a sensible primary. Only the Democrat party would strip two key states of all of their delegates and then find themselves in the middle of a battle that might end up in court. What a joke.
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd [B]As the Blues Brothers said - the band is being put back togther.
Yep, more evidence McSame has sold his soul/honor.
Rove basically "fucked his mother" in 2000....but all is forgiven I guess, as Grampy makes one last ego-driven grab for power.....
Its a lost cause, but these Vampires aren't above milking some cash out of a foregone conclusion.
:hitler::ps:
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd Only the Democrat party would strip two key states of all of their delegates and then find themselves in the middle of a battle that might end up in court. What a joke.
The real joke is how 30 Reichpublican Congressional INCUMBENTS aren't even BOTHERING to run for re-election.
:opps:
R.I.P.
G.:hitler:.P.
:hw:
JTProcess
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord Funny how you Liberals claim to be so accepting and open-minded, yet you constantly bash homosexuals (or engage in rumor mongoring).
If either of those two gentlemen were homosexuals, I wouldn't matter to me at all. But it's a major issue to hypocrites like yourself.
MLBoros72s
Quote: Originally posted by VacateYourFreedoms So by taking the defense of this country from Terror seriously, one automatically becomes a "neo-con?"
Yes retard, buying into Bush's cowboy foriegn policy is a neo-con stance. How stupid are you, seriously?
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s Yes retard, buying into Bush's cowboy foriegn policy is a neo-con stance. How stupid are you, seriously?
"Cowboy foreign policy?"
As opposed to what - Jimmy Carter's diplomacy that led to the Iran Hostage Crisis or Bill Clinton's "ignore it and hopefully it will go away" way of dealing with Al Qaeda?
If taking the fight to the enemy is the definition of "cowboy foreign policy," then anybody with a shred of common sense would vote for the candidate who vows to win this fight against Al Qaeda and not the two nitwits who want to cut, run, and then reinvade.
Fdubya247
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd "Cowboy foreign policy?"
Yeah, making up false reasons to attack countries that pose no threat to us, while draining the Treasury, weakening the Republic, and enriching the Servants of Mammon.
This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans. We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.
All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.
