"McCain stands for everything that is wrong with the GOP today. If ever there was someone who found the wrong message for presenting the GOP to the voters, it was John McCain. And the economic problems the country has gone thorough since his defeat have only made his message less acceptable." - Bruce McQuain
And there you have it. John McCain's 'makeover' of the Republican Party in a nutshell. The Progressive Democratic Party 2.0.
The timing was impeccable. On the day after HarperCollins released the cover photo for Going Rogue — Sarah Palin’s highly anticipated autobiography — Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s former chief campaign advisor, predicted that if Palin were to win the 2012 GOP nomination, “we would have a catastrophic election result.”
It was Schmidt, a veteran Republican strategist, who first advised Senator McCain to select Palin as his running mate in 2008. And it was Schmidt who first criticized Governor Palin within the McCain camp as “going rogue.” Asked how Palin’s book might describe their relationship during the election, Schmidt suggested that perhaps he was the “anti-rogue in the running of the campaign.”
Schmidt’s comments provide a nice backdrop to a recent report at Politico (”McCain’s Mission: A GOP Makeover.”) It turns out that the Arizona senator has been positioning himself as a major power broker within the Republican Party hierarchy. He is identified in the article as the party’s titular head; and the erstwhile presidential nominee has been raising money for moderate GOP candidates and hitting the campaign trail for pragmatic allies.
[I]t’s perhaps a testimony to McCain’s political skills that he’s maneuvered so well back into the top-tier of campaign politics. Or perhaps it’s also a glimpse of the media’s love affair with the moderate Republican “maverick” who will again be expected to rein in the right’s alleged “noise-machine extremists.”
And if it’s more of the latter, what we’re really seeing in this month’s GOP machinations is a preview of the Republican Party’s “post-anointed” nomination politics. As many have argued before, the GOP tends to nominate candidates who are next-in-line-to-the-throne. George H.W. Bush was a two-term VP under President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Bob Dole, who was 72-years-old during the 1996 campaign, beat out younger candidates who attacked him as “lacking fresh vision.” And McCain followed the 1996 model almost perfectly. He turned 72 on the eve of the GOP’s 2008 national convention, and like Dole, he would have entered the Oval Office as the oldest president in American history.
Think about that for a moment. "[T]he GOP tends to nominate candidates who are next-in-line-to-the-throne."
How important is your vote again? Just asking.
A 'Major Storm' for Congressional Elections 2010 is brewing, and I don't think it's politics as usual.
But it’s ideology more than age when we really get down to basics. The Palin vs. Schmidt battle is a contest over vision, and by implication so is Palin vs. McCain, despite age contrasts. With Sarah Palin, there’s no other figure in American politics who gets the conservative juices gushing as well.
[T]he change movement that is simmering now is the manifestation of larger issues that transcend regionalism, among them individual liberty (ObamaCare), State's rights (Cap and Trade) ... a sound dollar (Federal Reserve secrecy). Oh, and unemployment ...
But this story does have a "silver-lining." Because while McCain's maneuvering the GOP away from the grassroots, per usual, he's already missed the boat.
Having been involved with both the tea parties and GOP leadership, color us unsurprised:
While the energy of the anti-tax and anti-big government Tea Party movement may yet haunt Democrats in 2010, the first order of business appears to be remaking the Republican Party.
Whether it’s the loose confederation of Washington-oriented groups that have played an organizational role or the state-level activists who are channeling grass roots anger into action back home, Tea Party forces are confronting the Republican establishment by backing insurgent conservatives and generating their own candidates—even if it means taking on GOP incumbents
'Red Team vs. Blue Team.' Really?
Since 2000, usage of the term has been expanded to differentiate between states being perceived as liberal and those perceived as conservative.
This unofficial system used in the United States stands in contrast to the system of political colors in most other long-established democracies, where blue represents right-wing and conservative parties, while red represents left-wing and socialist parties.
Color-based schemes became more widespread with the adoption of color television in the 1960s and nearly ubiquitous with the advent of color in newspapers. A three-color scheme: red, white and blue, the colors of the U.S. flag, makes sense, as the third color, white, is useful in depicting maps showing states that are "undecided" in the polls and in election-night television coverage.
Early on, some channels used a scheme of red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. The first television news network to use colors to depict the states won by presidential candidates was NBC. In 1976, John Chancellor, the anchorman for the NBC Nightly News, asked his network's engineers to construct a large electronic map of the USA. The map was placed in the network's election-night news studio. If Jimmy Carter, the Democratic candidate that year, won a state it would light up in red; if Gerald Ford, the Republican, carried a state it would light up in blue.
People act in their own self-interest, and having the power of the State can enrich someone. Politics is big business, and billions of dollars exchange hands.
Common sense tells you that people will collude to use the power of the State to enrich themselves, and do their best to go undetected while they do it.
The 2 major parties aren't fighting for "we the people," they're fighting over the control of a $2 trillion dollar budget.
Follow the money ...