Does Hayworth pose a real threat to McCain?

This is John McCain’s challenger for his Senate seat.  I cannot believe we still have people who are trying to beat the birther drum.  I wonder if he drinks tea?

Lilac 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/jd-hayworth-a-birther-mcc_n_438004.html

14 Comments

Filed under Elections, Playing Politics, Primary Elections, Radical Rightwing groups, Republicans, Wingnuts!

14 responses to “Does Hayworth pose a real threat to McCain?

  1. Pingback: Does Hayworth pose a real threat to McCain? »coolweather

  2. Zippy

    Hahhaha! GO JD!

    The more the base is split, the more the Dems might produce a serious candidate instead of a throwaway sacrifice.

    • I agree. McCain showed in the presidential election that he isn’t above pandering to the extreme right. Given his opponent is already at that extreme, could McCain be pulled so far right to win the primary that he is distasteful to moderates in the general election.

  3. lillacluvr

    Zippy, you have an interesting perspective about this.

    McCain has been a Senator for a long, long time. Is it because he is the political machine in Arizona?

    And why is the McCain political machine any better or worse than the Kennedy political machine or the Obama machine, for that matter?

    To hear Republicans talk, they hate these political machines – unless, of course, that machine is in overdrive for their side.

    • Zippy

      Arizona basically has two real cities (sorry, Flagstaff, you don’t count!)–Phoenix and Tucson. Tucson’s metro pop is about 1 million, but Phoenix is well over twice that and, yes, the home to many wealthy old Republicans and the Republican machinery.

      Tucson is kinda-sorta liberal–the Mayor is a Republican, but the kind who takes progressive positins that would never get him elected in Wichita. But compared to Phoenix (the home of infamous Sherriff Joe), it’s practically Berkeley.

      But both burgs are full of the Arizona anti-goverment “don’t tread on me” sentiment, too.

      McCain wins handily each time by being a “maverick”–pulling just enough of both conservatives, self-described moderates and even liberals (seeing the daunting math with Phoenix) to coast to re-election.

      Jon Kyl (the other Senator) won 56% in 2006 because his opponent was a Tucson real-estate developer who was terrible on camera and had never held elective office. And he got 5 sheriffs (excluding this county) to show up on TV in cartoonish cowboy hats and lambast Pedersen’s supposed softness of illegals and lack of experience.

      A good candidate could have won, especially that year.

      JD Hayworth is a nut who got defeated in 2006. If he could fire up the base against McCain, ol’ John has already the lost the respect of the more progressive members of his coalition. He’s still have money out the wazoo, but he could be in trouble.

      Unless the Dems run another loser.

      Incidently, that’s what they did in 1986 when McCain first ran for the Senate–I was in Kansas then but saw a debate on CSPAN. Richard Kimball might have been a good candidate on paper, but, again, another Tucson nobody, whose speaking voice was positively annoying.

  4. tosmarttobegop

    It may in deed become the Ross effect, split the party and the end result no one candidate get enough votes to win.

    If I learned anything from going to a causus I learned that only those with the real desire attend them.

    Very few average citizen are concerned enough to time the time.

    • lillacluvr

      I remember the night of Kansas caucus – wasn’t the weather terrible?

      It certainly takes someone with a strong will to show up for one of those.

      I did not participate – because I was a registered Independent at that time.

      I am now a proud RINO dedicated to one goal – get Tiarht out at the primary level. And from what I’ve read on other blogs and the Opinion Line, I am not alone in that endeavor.

      • I went to the caucus and watched as people–deciding for some reason that their candidate had no real chance–eventually all moved into two camps, Hillary and Obama.

        At that point, I knew the whole thing was a waste of MY time. There really wasn’t much of a difference between those two candidates. And there really isn’t much ideological difference between those two candidates and the republicans. (I didn’t realize that, then, however, and thought Hillary the more conservative of the two).

        The weather was terrible and the two camps quickly set to bickering about this and that with the Hillary camp basically accusing the Obama camp of cheating. I shook my head and walked out into the snow with grave doubts about our whole political system.

        Eventually, prodded by the choice of Palin as a running mate to McCain, I decided that I needed to work for Obama. I couldnt’ stand the thought of what another moronic administration might do to our country.

  5. iggydonnelly

    I stood for Hillary Clinton at the primary election. The weather was awful. Luckily I live about two blocks from the polling location and did not have to drive to get there. The place was cram packed with people. Obama supporters were clearly the majority. I think Obama’s trip to Kansas helped him with folk willing to go to a Kansas Primary caucus.

  6. lillacluvr

    Obama was seen as a new face on the political scene and he was black.

    Maybe those two factors were also in play in getting out the people for Obama? I don’t know – I am just throwing out an idea.

    I liked Hillary but I really thought she would just be another family dynasty thing going on – Bush-Clinton-Bush and now another Clinton. I thought that might go against her. And she did have alot of baggage of her own.

    But I watched Charlie Rose on KPTS this past week and he had those two authors that wrote ‘Game Change’.

    They had some interesting information about Hillary.

    She seriously thought about running in 2004 against GWB. She had advisors telling her that this was her time. Bill Clinton, of course, advised her to go for it. Chelsea Clinton told her mother that she should honor her promise to people of New York and fulfill her Senate term.

    And that was what Hillary kept going back to – the fact that she had promised the New York people that she would fulfill her term.

    Hillary thought that she would be punished for going back on her word – but nevermind that Bill Clnton and Barack Obama both reneged on their promises to fulfill their terms.

    But, as these two authors pointed out, Hillary wisely said that she is a woman and women are held to a different standard.

    She did not run, Kerry ran and lost to GWB.

    Just think what the current political scene would be if Hillary had just said – you know what, I want to run for president and hell be damned if I am kept to a promise the guys don’t have to honor.

  7. Thunderchild

    Hillary supporters were poorly treated at my caucus location. And the event was SO disorganized that I was forced to leave before getting a chance to vote as my son was home alone.

    Did ya hear that Palin endorsed McCain over Hayworth?

    The far right is having baby alligators over that one.

    • Zippy

      Heh. Maybe someone convinced her that opposing one of the most powerful Republicans for re-election–and her former running mate–was suicide, if she has any future in politics.

      They were right.

  8. lillacluvr

    I heared about Palin’s endorsement of McCain on MSNBC tonight.

    I had to laugh. I wonder if Palin will now be a RINO lover??

  9. Zippy

    By the way, screwing with anyone at a caucus is wrong, but I think Iggy can provide his own take on that.

    I of course in protest of the indefensible supported the dropped-out dumbass adulterer.