I wouldn't worry about rallying McCain's dogs. What GOP foot soldiers hate is campaigning, and they were going to rally no matter what this go round because Democrats are no longer abstaining from the practice to lure them away.

The fact that we no longer act as though office is a birthrite of Republicans, and something they have to work for like everyone else, was never going to go over well with the folks who find democracy a bureaocratic formality, but it was never really our job to win them over with our willingness to mind our place.

By choosing Palin, McCain got his "base" excited, but he is alienating anyone capable of choosing to vote for a non-Republican.

Face it - if you're voting Republican this year, you're not an undecided or independent. You're a partisan Republican who is incapable of voting for anyone without an R by their name. Republicans can't screw up any worse. This is as bad as it gets, and if they're undecided, it simply means they aren't quite as enthusiastic as before.

He can have his base. We'll take everyone else.

Posted at September 3, 2008 12:34 PM in response to McCain Campaign Sheds Crocodile Tears About Media To Build Up Palin's Speech Tonight

Would you want to answer those questions on Larry King?

He should cancel the interview and the convention. And the campaign, frankly.

Posted at September 2, 2008 4:50 PM in response to McCain Cancels CNN Interview As Punishment For Criticizing Palin

What else could come out? Well, a former classmate has come forward claiming Palin was NOT Miss Congeniality in 1984 - she was: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/debpeterson/story/23D7A0CF8A2E3A61862574B50011DB30?OpenDocument

Posted at September 2, 2008 1:50 AM in response to The Palin Meltdown in Slo-Mo

Still that niggling problem of him not telling his wife he went to visit his former mistress and her baby that's not his. If he's willing to take a paternity test, he was either being blackmailed or getting some while a baby was in the room.

Posted at August 8, 2008 5:41 PM in response to Edwards: "If You Want To Beat Me Up -- Feel Free"

CBS Blog had a post around 2006 about a shocking rumor of marital infidelity (actually, I don't even remember if they said that much). In the comments, through process of elimination, I pretty much figured out it had to be Edwards b/c all the Republican frontrunners had married their mistresses and/or admited to philandering, Hillary would be cheered, and though Obama would be shocking, since Dems are either wooden or "slick" philanderers, it had to be Edwards.

I have no doubt that was the "bombshell" slinking around then. Hard to have a conniption when the entire Republican field has admitted to adultery.

Posted at August 8, 2008 5:16 PM in response to Edwards' Affair Open Thread

Edwards must have kept his visit with his former mistress and her baby a secret from Elizabeth because she wouldn't believe he had perfectly honorable reasons why he would visit his fomer mistress and her baby, which isn't his.

Breasts make men stupid.

Posted at August 8, 2008 4:48 PM in response to Edwards' Affair Open Thread

So glad TPM was there to shoot down the NYT's story on McCain's relationship with the lobbyist.

Posted at August 8, 2008 3:56 PM in response to Edwards' Affair Open Thread

As with any non-partisan excuse for why the media are conservative shills, this one fails to explain why attacking a candidate's weakness, Rove style, despite going against arbitrary, pre-conceived notions, gets a lot of play.

This is something like a Democratic District Attorney get caught with prostitutes is huge. A campaign reform maverick up to his neck in lobbyists and corruption is HUGE - if it were a Democrat.

Posted at August 8, 2008 1:57 PM in response to Why McCain's "Abdullah" Contributions Aren't Deemed Controversial

I only like Paris for her energy policy.

Posted at August 6, 2008 5:49 PM in response to We'll Always Have Paris

I haven't had Paris. When's my turn?

Posted at August 6, 2008 5:35 PM in response to We'll Always Have Paris