Chris Cillizza's Politics Blog -- The Fix

washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog

McCain Loses Key Michigan Backer

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox plans to resign his post as state chairman of Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, according to state and national sources.

Cox, who was elected attorney general in 2002 and is widely expected to run for governor in 2010, did not return an email seeking comment. The McCain campaign also declined comment.

McCain won Michigan in 2000 over then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and at the start of the year seemed well positioned to repeat that feat. But as McCain's campaign stumbled nationally, his Michigan numbers fell as well. Michigan has moved its primary up to Jan. 15 as both Democrats and Republicans in the state seek to increase their say over their respective party nominees.

The departure of Cox comes at a tough time for McCain who appears to have finally arrested his free fall in polls following two disappointing fundraising quarters and the departure of nearly all of his senior staff. In recent weeks, McCain has seemed to gather himself -- performing quite well in the most recent Republican debate, reasserting his early support for the surge strategy in Iraq and upping his criticism of deposed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Even as things appear to be looking up for McCain outwardly, rumors continue to abound of fundraising struggles and more staff departures. Without an organization (or the requisite millions to fund an organization) in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire, it will be tough for McCain to capitalize on any momentum he might gain over the next few months.

By Chris Cillizza |  September 17, 2007; 9:16 PM ET  | Category:  Eye on 2008
Previous: Ramstad To Retire | Next: FixCam: The Week Ahead


Add The Fix to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I liked John McCain ever so much better when he was a thorn in the administration's side.

With presidential hopes, he morphed into one of the ubiquitous sycophants of Republican rhetoric, policies and agendas.

Is it too late to revert to what you did best John, being an island of reason in the sea of insanity?

Posted by: EuroAm | September 20, 2007 1:29 PM

McCain compromised his chances when he compromised with Bush on TORTURE and "special"prison camps outside of the country . I thought before that that he was a good man but he cannot be .

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 4:01 PM

"and who could forget |" - Bokonon

Thanks for caring.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 1:27 PM

Another note. I'm sick and tired of the right wing propoganda machine. ALl day, everyday nonstop. Fox CNN MSNBC (other than olberman) local. It's crazy. And the right cries about beign drowned out? What a croke. Nonestop all day everyday. Lies spin and right-wing propoganda.

I am trying to counter them in a small way. If you are for silencing me, you should be for listening fox and rush also. If your not your a hypocrite. I'm jsut doing my part. YOu want me gone, change the world. Or help me do it.

Posted by: rufus | September 18, 2007 12:51 PM

"Whether or not you agree, they have a right to their opinions, and a right to have those opinions taken seriously and discussed seriously.
"

I feel you. Frustration. Only republcians have free speech. Only republicans make the rules. Only republcians, the last 15 years, have a voice.

Pardon my frustration. Better to take it out here, than in reality, tough. What does the gop do when they get frustrated and not being listened to? Waco? Tim Mcveigh. So take it easy on me. You don't need to line up one by one to bash me. One bash per my post would be enough, I think. Let independant thinkers make up their own mind without the peanut gallery and without wisecracks. This is verbal combat. Better here than real. Take it as a grain of salt. If I didn't care, I would be here.

My question to the independatns and republicans, WHY DON'T you CARE ABOU TTHE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR COUNTRY? WHY? And how can I make you care? What do I have to do to make you people acknoweldge that our brothers and sisters are getting killed for profit? What must I do. Tell me. What more can I do to make you people care.

Is less more. If I post real on topic concise statemnets will it make you care more? I doubt it. So I do what I do. Hoping to caught the next man's/woman attention. Maybe they will change the world. Becasue I obviously don't have the words to make you people care, as I thoguht I did.

Posted by: rufus | September 18, 2007 12:36 PM

rufus asks
"does me leaving make your posts any more relevant? No."

Correct. It will not make them more, or less, relevant. But it will make them easier to find for the people interested in discussing the issues.

I suspect you're not interested in advice, but I'll try anyway. You may find your efforts more appreciated if you learn to carry on a conversation without treating everyone who disagrees with or challenges you like an enemy. Mark, above, was trying to have a discussion about the oil deal in Iraq and you resort to insulting him and how he raises his children. How is that relevant or helpful to your argument? I'll tell you: its not helpful. By attacking the people here who write the most thoughful & reasonable posts, you come across as somewhat deranged, which is harming the cause about which you are so passionate.

Ciao-

Posted by: bsimon | September 18, 2007 12:20 PM

Rufus, as someone who has once or twice defended you to other people, I have to say, you're making me look bad. I sometimes agree with what you have to say, but I never agree with your attacks on other posters. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but no one is entitled to slam other people. Mark in Austin, for example, is someone whose views I respect and enjoy reading, as are bsimon, drindl, JasonL, Judge Crater, Loudoun Voter, JimD, Andy R etc. etc. (and who could forget |.) I mean, what do I know, but these all seem to be decent people who don't deserve what you have given them. Whether or not you agree, they have a right to their opinions, and a right to have those opinions taken seriously and discussed seriously.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 18, 2007 12:18 PM

the voice of reason. Brave toughguy simon. how can I be like you simon. How can I be a seel-out traitor too. How can I benefit off the death of my brothers and sisters, like you. How can I not care that my country is being grinded in the ground? Help me not care about my country and children mark. Help me only care about money and selling out my countrymen, like you simon.

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"

Adam Kokesh

To moderates like simon and you other brave anonymous posters, it's

"When injustice becomes law, do nothing but cry about it."

Peace. I'll give you cowards all the posts in the word ok. Does that make you smarter simon. does me leaving make your posts any more relevant? No. So why do you want me gone so much? I think it puts you in your place. Right next to your girl. The sell-out moderates.

Posted by: rufus | September 18, 2007 11:45 AM

"...Giuliani, was coming under intense criticism for his aggressive tactics in prosecuting crime, including...his habit of holding defendants without bail" - the new AG

new AG - just so you know, it's the court official who presides at the arraignment who sets the bail terms, not the prosecutor. The prosecutor can only request bail terms. If a defendant is held without bail, blame the judge or magistrate.

Even Gonzo would have known that.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 11:43 AM

The peanut gallery comment made more sense than the rufs post.

Indeed, if this post is a "waste of time" rufus, it would make sense for you to just go away.

P L E A S E !

Posted by: Logic | September 18, 2007 11:37 AM

" Read the post again before making your sidebar wisecracks"


I found it disjointed, illogical, mildly schizophrenic, hard to read and, most importantly, off topic.

.

Posted by: bsimon | September 18, 2007 11:29 AM

thank you peanut gallery. Read the post again before making your sidebar wisecracks

Posted by: rufus | September 18, 2007 11:04 AM

if the site is a waste of time rufus, you should go away.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 11:03 AM

"drindl, and everybody who thinks there is an American oil grab in Iraq, please read

http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/Iraq_s_Oil_Sector.pdf

so you can engage in a knowledgeable conversation about how the system in Iraq developed and how it works or is supposed to work right now, and in the near future.
Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 17, 2007 05:58 PM "

"I got oil proof for you this weekend mark in austin. Stay logged on and I will lay it on you. If you promise to read, rather than going after me while not listening to my points. Give me a second. Stay logged on. I got you this time :)

Posted by: rufus | September 17, 2007 06:08 PM
"


""Bush friend's deal to hurt Iraq success?
Sept. 14: One of the president's friends is benefiting from an oil deal that threatens to rip Iraq apart. Talks on a law for Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds to share oil revenues fell through -- partially because of a new Kurd contract with Hunt Oil of Texas. Watch video"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

Wacth it. And now that you know the truth will you change your tune? I doubt it

Posted by: rufus | September 17, 2007 06:11 PM

"


"Are you in with Hunt oil out there in texas mark? Is that your angle :) JK

Posted by: rufus | September 17, 2007 06:17 PM
"

"Rufi, if the Hunt deal turns out to be about anything other than an indie taking advantage of a deal that Exxon would not touch, it will be that Ray Hunt KNOWS that Iraq is decentralizing, a la Biden-Gelb, despite the Admin's insistence that they support the central govt.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 17, 2007 07:07 PM
"


Sorry mark. I don't like to be patronized. Doublethink. If you don't know it's happening in your head, HERE'S YOU WAKE-UP CALL.

Doublethink mark. Personified. 1984 is not a play by play fascis manual. It was written by a socialist. It is a warning. You gop'ers with your rush limbaugh/hannity/gop talking points newspeak

Posted by: rufus | September 17, 2007 07:17 PM

Your children will not follow you mark. Dumb them down. Hide them in YOUR cave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Eventually they will go on-line. Eventually they will turn on a station other than fox. Eventually they will go to college. Your children will not be slaves to the same avatar as you. the future is now.

Imagine.

Posted by: rufus | September 17, 2007 07:19 PM
"


this site is a waste of time because goper's are not living in reality. They will never aknowledge what is right in front of their faces, if it is bad for the gop. Never. The left gladdy let's the democrats know when they stray. You republicnas are slaves. What a waste of time.

I'm taking a break.

"Do not speak to fools, they scorn the wisdon of your words"

NAs

One WOrld One People.

All praise to the one true God.

Gop! your time is almost up. Use your time wisely. Lie spin and discredit. The divide and conquer that has served you so well the last 80 years will only dig you deeper in the hole.

For those that whould choose party over country. You are a traitor to your nation. Army infantry soldier 11B.

Remember Pat TIllman. A wasted oppurtunity on emmy night. What the people should have done is said "All praise to God." And therw that stupid statue on the ground and break it. In the name of the lost patriot's liek Mr. Tillman.

Use your time gop. You have a year and a half for a generation. use that time better than you used the last 15. Fascism never wins over the long term.

FREEDOM

Peace.

Posted by: Why this site is a waste of time | September 18, 2007 10:59 AM

When Gen. David Petraeus was asked last week to explain why his report from Iraq was so much rosier than that of the Government Accountability Office, he said that he had more recent data than the GAO did. Petraeus claimed that the GAO's "data cutoff" came at the end of July while his report to Congress included data running all the way through the end of August.

So how do we explain this? The Pentagon released its quarterly report on Iraq Monday, and it paints a significantly gloomier picture than the one Petraeus offered just last week, particularly with respect to the security situation in southern Iraq, where the Pentagon says "the security environment" took "a notable turn for the worse in August."

Among the seeming contradictions:

Petraeus on Basra: Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the level of violence" in Basra "has come down fairly significantly." He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that it has "just flat plummeted."

The Pentagon on Basra: "With the expected continued reduction of British forces, insurgent groups are increasingly focusing on Basra and are posturing themselves to control the city, where violence has increased due to the presence of multiple Shi'a militias -- most notably JAM and its splinter groups, the Badr Organization and the Fadilah Organization -- and criminal groups."

Petraeus on Muthanna and Dhi Qar: "Muthanna province, even though the governor was assassinated, we're pretty certain by militia extremists, continues to stay fine. They will have a new governor. They'll work out OK ... In Dhi Qar province, the capital of Nasiriyah, we have a single U.S. special forces team, there's an Australian battalion focused primarily on civil military operations. And, again, that province [is] doing really quite well."

The Pentagon on Muthanna and Dhi Qar: "There may be retaliation [for the assassination of the governors of Qadisiyah and Muthanna] and an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the south, whereas before, this violence was mostly limited to Basra. Violence in Qadisiyah, Dhi Qar and Muthanna in recent months has highlighted JAM's ability to attack Iraqi forces and cause instability in the south."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 10:48 AM

anon writes
"the spineless cohen goes after the dems..."

Ironically, he's demanding from them a spine. Or, from Sen Clinton, at least. I find myself compelled to agree with Mr Cohen - Sen Clinton appears concerned with the 'politics of personal destruction' only when she's on the receiving end. I'd be more impressed if she demonstrated understanding that such attacks hurt everyone, even if you disagree with the victim, who in this case is Gen Petraeus.

Posted by: bsimon | September 18, 2007 10:11 AM

BAGHDAD -- The Iraqi government said Tuesday it would review the status of private security companies as anger over the alleged involvement of Blackwater USA in a fatal shooting of civilians threatened to spread to other firms providing protection for dignitaries and Westerners on Iraq's chaotic streets.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for all contracts of foreign securities firms to be annulled and blamed the government for failing to protect Iraqis, noting the shootings occurred on a busy square filled with Iraqi troops.

An Iraqi soldier stands guard after a parked car bomb detonated at a parking lot in central Baghdad, Iraq on Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2007, killing seven people and wounding 23. Around the Iraqi capital, at least 12 people were killed and 37 wounded in incidents that included another car bombing and two roadside bombings, police said. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban) (Hadi Mizban - AP)
PHOTOS


The week's events from around the world, captured in pictures.
» VIEW THIS WEEK'S PHOTOS
Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google

del.icio.us
Yahoo!

Reddit
Facebook

"This aggression wouldn't have happened had it not been for the presence of the occupiers who brought these companies," al-Sadr's political committee said in a statement issued by his office in the holy city of Najaf.

It also called for a speedy investigation, the referral of those involved to the Iraqi justice system and compensation for families of the victims.

A series of bombings, meanwhile, ripped through Baghdad, killing at least 18 people and wounding dozens, police said.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 10:08 AM


'Republicans criticized Clinton's plan as heavy-handed. Rudy Giuliani's campaign called it the "Clinton-Moore plan" after filmmaker Michael Moore, whose film Sicko lambastes the U.S. health care system and lauds government-run programs in other countries. Mitt Romney called it "a European-style socialized medicine plan."

and it's exactly the same as the one mitty started in Massachusetts. Is there no line this liar won't cross? no flipflop too far? are R primary voters really THIS stupid?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 10:05 AM

Andy R-
I'm inclined to agree with your 8:44 post, but I'm not sure if its rational analysis or wishful thinking.


.

Posted by: bsimon | September 18, 2007 10:02 AM

| at 8:48A - Do you think that Cheney's oil industry dominated energy task force thought that removing Saddam would have the salutary [for them] effect that they could compete on AT LEAST an equal footing with Russian drillers for contracts with a post-Saddam government?

For the record, I do think that.

And I do think that in the mix of motives that led to the invasion, Cheney's fears that Saudi Arabia was eventually unstable and that Iraq under Saddam was unstable, were of some significant weight.

The more interesting question, today, is whether Ray Hunt got to bid on Kuwait drilling because the State Dept. did not intervene because State and the Admin. have given up hope on the central govt. even though they will not admit it.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 18, 2007 9:59 AM

'After Petraeus Is Slimed, Spineless Silence'

the spineless cohen goes after the dems...

funny, i don't recall any republican apologizing for sliming Generals Shineski or Batiste, or the swiftboating of Kerry, Cleland or Murtha... where was the outrage then? the outrage, as it turns out, is reserved for democrats. it's ok for republicans to slime the military, you see.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 9:56 AM

Andy R, you are correct, and Cohen was only referring to the D candidates serving on the panels that questioned Crocker and Petraeus.

You may have noticed my criticism of McCain's overreaction to the MoveOn ad as opportunistic rather than statesmanlike. I doubt that we disagree about this at all.

I agree with Biden and with Mrs. Edwards, too.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 18, 2007 9:45 AM

Mark,
The Edwards campaign has come out pretty strongly against the ad too. Probably due to the fact that Elizabeth Edwards comes from a military family and has always been a big supporter of military folks.

I personally disagree with what Moveon said and is why I am not a member of that organization. But I am even more against the GOP's ridiculous response to this. Moveon is an independent organization and its members have the right to say whatever they want to. If you don't agree with it then get your own ad and complain.

This is still America and we have freedoms; as long as you aren't a terrorist, or an immigrant, or a Muslim, or homosexual, or a student at the University of Florida....

Posted by: Andy R | September 18, 2007 9:35 AM

I posted at 9:33A.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 18, 2007 9:34 AM

9:23 AM, your argument that when the world is going to hell in a handbasket common decency is a luxury they cannot afford is the same argument that all ideologues make to defend their inflamed sense of passion over propriety.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 9:33 AM

Does anybody really believe the problem with the war in Iraq is too much questioning of those in authority, too much bluntness, and not enough deference to those who have been in charge of the war for the last four years?

That's apparently the feeling of all the conservative talk-show hosts and GOP presidential candidates who came down with the vapors over the MoveOn ad that had the temerity to question Gen. David Petraeus. Tens of thousands of dead civilians, nearly 4,000 dead American soldiers, half a trillion dollars spent, and the squandering of America's moral authority -- none of that seems to have ruffled their feathers very much. But the ad? Now that has got them royally steamed.

Rudy Giuliani is up in arms, railing against "character assassination on an American general who is putting his life at risk." John McCain thinks "MoveOn.org ought to be thrown out of this country." Even Don Rumsfeld popped his head out of his spider hole to blast the ad.

It's the political version of the old lawyer's axiom: When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff. And when the war is an unmitigated disaster, the facts on the ground are against you, and your only plan for the future is 'more of the same,' go crazy over a newspaper ad.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 9:23 AM

For those of us who inspect the HRC candidacy with cautious skepticism, her conduct during the recent Crocker-Petraeus presentation was another harmonic abuse. Richard Cohen captured this well in the WaPo this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091701394.html

I am coming closer to ruling her out but I have not yet done so. These candidates make choices I strongly question. McCain's choices to duck any meaningful questions at the C-P hearing and then to call for MoveOn to leave the country were
also opportunistic and unstatesmanlike. In his case, I was disappointed, because I expect more from him.

During the hearing, while he was certainly a friendly interrogator, Lindsy Graham asked some questions that required asking.
McCain just made sound bites for his campaign.

Joe Biden went his own way and was critical of the MoveOn ad - but he was the only D candidate who was, according to Cohen.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 18, 2007 9:13 AM

According to Smiley, the Thompson campaign knew about the debate - taking place at 9 pm on September 27 at Morgan State University- well before he declared his candidacy. Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman chose the date because it worked best for all the potential candidates, Smiley said.

An official on Thompson's staff called up the PBS host on Monday to deliver the message.

"I told them I thought they were making a grave mistake and I thought they should reconsider," said Smiley. The Thompson campaign did not respond for a request for comment by the time of print.

The five other Republican candidates for president have all committed to the PBS debate and Smiley plans to proceed with the plans - albeit with four empty lecterns on stage.'

how do you think this looks to black audiences? it's a slap in the face.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 9:06 AM

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has become the fourth leading GOP presidential candidate to shun the PBS debate this month at a historically black college in Baltimore, the Huffington Post has learned.

The debates, moderated by Tavis Smiley, will go on as planned, despite the absence of Thompson, former mayor Rudy Giuliani, former governor Mitt Romney, and Sen. John McCain. Each campaign cited scheduling issues as the reason for their absence. Nevertheless, the rejections underscore the consistent absence of GOP candidates at minority voter forums.

"There is a pattern here," Smiley told the Huffington Post. "When you tell every black and brown request that you get throughout the primary process that 'no, there's a scheduling problem.' That's a pattern... Are we really supposed to believe that all four of these guys couldn't make it because of scheduling?"

The Republican frontrunners' snubbing of Smiley and PBS comes on the heels of their rejection of a debate sponsored by the Spanish-language network Univision (McCain was the only GOP candidate to accept that invitation). This past June, only one Republican presidential candidate, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, showed up at the convention of the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials.

"It's not just that they are not coming. It's that some of them are visibly insulting us," Cecilia Munoz, vice president of NCLR, told the Politico.

Posted by: the old white man party | September 18, 2007 9:04 AM

Casualties rose from about 130 killed or wounded on average per day in June to nearly 150 a day in July and August.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 9:02 AM

The base hates McCain, because he made some feeble attempt to clean up elections. They'll never vote for him.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 9:01 AM

Security is deteriorating in southern Iraq as rival Shiite militias vying for power have stepped up their attacks after moving out of Baghdad to avoid U.S.-led military operations, according to the latest quarterly Pentagon report on Iraq released yesterday.

"The security environment in southern Iraq took a notable turn for the worse in August" with the assassination of two governors, said the report, which covers June through August. "There may be retaliation and an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the South," it said, whereas previously the violence was centered in the main southern city of Basra.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 8:58 AM

'In 1994, Giuliani selected Mukasey, then a federal judge, to preside over his inauguration as mayor. The ties only strengthened after Giuliani left City Hall. Mukasey's son, Marc, a former assistant U.S. attorney himself, works as a partner at Giuliani's consulting firm, and Giuliani named Mukasey and his son to one of his presidential campaign advisory committees.'

Not only does Mukasey's son work for Guiliani, but Mukasey himself is an advisor to Guiliani's campaign. Funny coincidence that he'll be the new AG, isn't it?

Imagine if there were some voting irregularities in 2008, this would be the person to preside over the issue. Gee... funny how things work out.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 8:56 AM

'In 1985, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Rudolph W. Giuliani, was coming under intense criticism for his aggressive tactics in prosecuting crime, including his use of mass trials, his habit of holding defendants without bail and his practice of subpoenaing defense lawyers to testify at their clients' grand jury hearings, which lawyers argued was a violation of client confidentiality.

Springing to Giuliani's defense was a former colleague, Michael B. Mukasey, who argued in a strongly worded opinion piece that Giuliani's tough tactics were justified to defeat an enemy that, he said, was far more dangerous and powerful than Giuliani's critics were willing to acknowledge.

Posted by: the new AG | September 18, 2007 8:52 AM

'Is your view that GWB led an invasion of Iraq in 2002 so that Ray Hunt could invest in a drilling operation in Iraq in 2007? '

'In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001. For six years, those names have been a closely guarded secret, thanks to a fierce legal battle waged by the White House. Some names have leaked out over the years, but most have remained hidden because of a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that agreed that the administration's internal deliberations ought to be shielded from outside scrutiny.

'One of the first visitors, on Feb. 14, 2001, was James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; a week later, longtime Bush supporter Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp., came by for the first of two meetings. Later that day, Ray L. Hunt of Hunt Oil in Dallas, dropped by. On March 5, some of the country's biggest electric utilities, including Duke Energy and Constellation Energy Group, had an audience with the task force staff.

British Petroleum representatives dropped by on March 22, one of about 20 oil and drilling companies to get meetings. The National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were among three dozen trade associations that met with Cheney's staff, the document shows.'

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 8:48 AM

I wouldn't ever count McCain out. He is a savy politician and has gotten alot of good press this past week or so. Thompson is a joke, and if you look at his numbers in NH they have plummeted (guess he should have gone to the debate instead of the tonihgt show). McCain still on paper has the best resume to run as a pro-military fiscal conservative.

The race hasn't gotten nasty yet, but when it does expect Romney and Guiliani to go after each other with the gloves off. They both are fundamentally flawed in the GOP race and they will make sure you know it. That leaves a situation where someone waiting in the grass can make a push as the uniter, and 'compassionate conservative'. My guess is that person will be Huckabee. BUT he is very soft on the foriegn policy, military stances. In steps McCain as a running mate (or vice-versa). If you are a democrat like me, that ticket should scare you because it just might win. Any other combo of the three stooges, Romney, Thompson, and Guiliani, doesn't have a chance.

Posted by: Andy R | September 18, 2007 8:44 AM

Late summer brought no relief from soaring foreclosures. The number of mortgages in default jumped 36 percent from July to August, according to a survey.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 18, 2007 8:35 AM

1 week of not getting pummeled in the media does not make a potential candidate a better one!

Posted by: Eric | September 18, 2007 5:30 AM

McCain's Presidential prospects are dead. There is a flatline on the monitor, and the pundits are wondering if the spasmodic jerks on the table are just the corpse twitching or signs of a miraculous recovery. I say it is the corpse twitching. Perhaps he will have more power as a martyr.

Posted by: Ogre Mage | September 18, 2007 2:35 AM

McCain was starting to balance the ship. Now it seems that only NH stands between him & oblivion.

I wonder if he'll repeat 2000 by skipping Iowa, betting the farm on NH, and if he fails - drop out.

Posted by: JayPe | September 18, 2007 1:20 AM

Generally, I admire John McCain. He's correct that he was amongst the very 1st people with the courage to castigate Rummy for the way Rummy was running the war. The problem was that he chose to stick his head in the sand and not connect Rummy's decision making to the President. Why? Because he felt like he had to bend over backwards to woo the extreme right and assure the party of his loyalty which he'd need in '08. Well, he was never really going to have the deep commitment of party loyalists or the right and now he's left to narrowly focus on Iraq. More often than not, John, you do stand up for what you believe. It is just that your timing is way off because the public FINALLY understands that "supporting the troops" at its core means giving them a coherent and achievable mission and Bush has done neither.

Posted by: Cliff | September 18, 2007 12:19 AM

I have no idea why Mike Cox has left, but with Fred Thompson now officialy in the race and high in the national polls, Mr. Thompson may take away some of Sen. McCain's voters since they are very similar candidates. Of course, Mr. Thompson could also do poorly in future debates and Sen. McCain may benefit so you never know!

Posted by: Kind671 | September 17, 2007 10:30 PM

Personally, I always think Hillary Clinton and John McCain are terrible in debates, very arrogant in his case and a shouter in hers.

The third quarter fundraising numbers are going to be interesting. At what number does McCain have to drop out? Hard to imagine donors wanting to invest in him.

Posted by: Karen | September 17, 2007 9:52 PM

Does anyone in Michigan who posts here [spartan?] know why Cox has left the campaign?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 17, 2007 9:50 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2008 The Washington Post Company