THE PROBLEM WITH McCAIN

[K3XR]

A war hero, yes, President, no, unless you're a LIB.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/mark-levin-on-the-candidacy-of-john-mccain-2

[W3MIV]

A war hero, yes, President, no, unless you're a LIB.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/mark-levin-on-the-candidacy-of-john-mccain-2

It is easy to see why you would fear McCain. He is not in thrall to your heroes on the far right of the political spectrum.

Frankly, I see that as a plus. Of all the Republicans in the litter, he is clearly the pick. He shows a refreshing ability to think on his own, whether or not you like the topics or the conclusions. Is that the nature of your terror: That he seems to be able to think without following the dictates of right-wing bloggers?

Instead of spending all of your time rummaging around reading internet blogs, or googling deeper into the political muck on which the internet floats, you should ask yourself WHY should a man of McCain's experience permit himself to be relegated to a narrow groove spinning through narrower minds than his?

I don't expect an answer, BTW. I don't believe you could find a link that would supply one.

[kg6amw]

I wouldn't worry about John McCain. He's DOA on February 6th.

[AE6IP]

I doubt it. McCain's doing better in the polls than any of the other Republican candidates. If he does very well today, he goes into Tsunami Tuesday with a lot of momentum. I would be surprised if he's not in the top three with Romney on the 6th

[kg6amw]

Nationally, Romney leads McCain 36% to 21% among conservatives likely to vote in a Republican Primary. McCain leads Romney 41% to 12% among moderate voters. Expect the trend towards Romney among conservatives to accelerate as we move toward February.

[W1GUH]

Here's the NY Times take on the republicans...

Primary Choices: John McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html)

I think it says a lot of accurate things about all the candidates. Maybe John McCain might be a decent president. Certainly better than anyone else with a viable chance. I'd vote for him over any of the 'mocrats running.

[kc2orw]

The problem with McCain is I might just as well vote for a real Democrat, which I have promised to do even if it is Senator Clinton.

[kg6amw]

Here's the NY Times take on the republicans...

Primary Choices: John McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html)

I think it says a lot of accurate things about all the candidates. Maybe John McCain might be a decent president. Certainly better than anyone else with a viable chance. I'd vote for him over any of the 'mocrats running.


The New York Times take on the republican race at best myopic. There are much better places to go to get a read on republican politics -- certainly not the NY Times.

[N3ATS]

I wouldn't worry about John McCain. He's DOA on February 6th.

I doubt that. All these "so called conservatives" are licking his boots.

[ac4r]

I wouldn't worry about John McCain. He's DOA on February 6th.



Yep, his stand on illegals is a deal breaker in true southern states.

[W1GUH]

The New York Times take on the republican race at best myopic. There are much better places to go to get a read on republican politics -- certainly not the NY Times.

Probably good words to heed. The thing is, who is there, really, besides him? I'd be too concerned that Obama would be another Jimmy, and about as effective, and there are far too many people who viscerally and passionately hate Bill and Hil for them to be very effective. On the other side, who else is even close to acceptable? McCain just might be the lesser of many evils. The point that motivated me to look up that editorial was somebody pointed out that he's pledged not to continue the FM mode of governing. That's something I paid attention to.

Other than that....:confused:...this isn't a very inspiring election. :eek:

[K3XR]

The LIBS just love McCain.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201523795019&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[W3MIV]

The LIBS just love McCain.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201523795019&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Do you post this stuff? Or is it the dog?

If it is NOT the dog, please let the dog post for a while in your stead.

[n7rjd]

Do you post this stuff? Or is it the dog?

If it is NOT the dog, please let the dog post for a while in your stead.

I think I've seen it all when you start condoning milk bone politics. :D

[W1GUH]

Do you post this stuff? Or is it the dog?

If it is NOT the dog, please let the dog post for a while in your stead.

I thought we established a while back that that's a link bot with a not too sophisticated operating system. Except lately it seems to be running a newer version or something. I've actully liked some of the things it's posted.

[KG4JYD]

The problem with McCain is that he's a liberal claiming to be a conservative; just like George Bush!

[K3XR]

McCain is no Conservative.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/31/video-mccain-righteously-demolished-by-joe-scarborough/?print=1

[W1GUH]

The problem with McCain is that he's a liberal claiming to be a conservative; just like George Bush!

Oh puh-leeze. McCain is no FM.

[KG4JYD]

Oh puh-leeze. McCain is no FM.What is "FM" ? Please define that acronym.

[KB1KIX]

The problem with McCain?

Outside of the fact that he's not a conservative?

:eek:

Jonathan

[K3XR]

Not much choice.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDEzMDYzZjBkMDNhYjk0ZjdhZmJlZWNkMWQ1NjI4MGI=

[n4sva]

The Huckster needs to drop out of the race.

[kf6rdn]

Other than that....:confused:...this isn't a very inspiring election. :eek:


And the LAST one was?
And the one before the last for that matter.

:p

[w4aut]

Lets just save the election process and save everyone alot time and money..convene a Joint Session of Congress and declcared John the winner by virture that the rest of them .....
A. Did not serve this country in uniform
B. Have no foreign policy experience
C. Will go with the "FLOW" if it means vote's
D. Has proven that he was correct on "Rummie" and his failure to listen the the Joint chief's about the need for more "Boots on the ground"
E. ETC ETC!!!!!!!
F. Has a great looking wife....
G. He was there along with myself and other's fighting a thankless war for a thankless Nation..And he my friends stated it best..."May God Have Mercy on Thier Souls, Because we won't".......John is the last person that those RAGHEADS want to see as Commander-in-Chief.....I personnaly met and talked with him while we were in the Navy...You cannot find a more honest and respectful person the Capt. Mccain...He has the "Metal" to lead this Nation when it all hits the FAN...He has staying power on his conviction's..Spent 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp telling them everyday to Kiss his Red White and Blue American Ass.......Who ever you vote for ..Vote...

[KG4JYD]

The Huckster needs to drop out of the race.
He will after Tuesday

[n4sva]

The State allowed my particular county to early vote yesterday due to Super Tuesday being on Fat Tuesday.

All I saw electioneering were Ron Paul people and on the way out an exit poller asking "who'd ya vote for man".

[KG4JYD]

The State allowed my particular county to early vote yesterday What state do you live in?

[kc2orw]

So if on Wednesday after Super Tuesday and Ron Paul is still doing no better the 8% will he finally drop out?

[K3XR]

With good reason, if you want a LIB in the White House, make it a DEM so the Dems can get the blame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

[W1GUH]

What is "FM" ? Please define that acronym.

[Freakin'] Moron

[W1GUH]

And the LAST one was?
And the one before the last for that matter.

:p

Might have to back, at least, to '64. That one was great because there was a ham, Barry Goldwater, running. And if he'd won, things would have been very different today....probably a lot better.

[KG4JYD]

So if on Wednesday after Super Tuesday and Ron Paul is still doing no better the 8% will he finally drop out?No. Ron Paul will not drop out until his support dries up.

[W3MIV]

No. Ron Paul will not drop out until his support dries up.

Look at his results. It already has dried up. It will shortly blow away.

[KG4JYD]

Look at his results. It already has dried up. It will shortly blow away.No it hasn't. He is continuing to raise more money unlike the others.

[AE6IP]

No it hasn't. He is continuing to raise more money unlike the others.

Actually, Matt, both the democrat candidates and McCain are raising money at a faster clip than Paul at the moment.

I haven't seen how Romney's currently doing, but then he's got more of his own money available than Paul's raised, if he feels like writing himself another check.

[K3XR]

Another LIB endorsement for McCain.

http://newsbusters.org/node/18924/print

[KG4JYD]

Actually, Matt, both the democrat candidates and McCain are raising money at a faster clip than Paul at the moment.

Perhaps, but the recent Q4 Reports Ron Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All Other Republicans Combined.

Source:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080203005049&newsLang=en

[AE6IP]

Perhaps, but the recent Q4 Reports Ron Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All Other Republicans Combined.

Source:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080203005049&newsLang=en


That's amazing unimpressive, when put into context.

What context? Paul raised less money from the military in fourth quarter, than Obama is raising every eight hours in February.

It's been a long time since anyone has been naive enough to fall for the trick of trumpeting a small victory to cover a great loss. You really should give it up.

[KG4JYD]

Paul raised less money from the military in fourth quarterComparing Ron Paul to Obama is apples and oranges and your sorry intellectually dishonest self knows it.

Against his competition, which at the moment is the other Repulicans, it's obvious the troops want Ron Paul as their Commander in Chief!


See this thread:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=151653

[AE6IP]

Comparing Ron Paul to Obama is apples and oranges

Well yes, Obama is a competent senator who gets legislation passed and is currently raising over a million dollars a day, every day, without hokey "money bomb" tactics, while Paul is a nutter with a tiny fringe following.

Against his competition, which at the moment is the other Repulicans, it's obvious the troops want Ron Paul as their Commander in Chief

No, it's not "obvious". What is obvious is that you're using this tiny way in which Paul is raising funds as a cover to hide how poorly he's doing in almost every other way, including all the important ones, like, oh, I don't know, getting votes.

A handful of military folks willing to put up money does not prove that "the troops want" anything.

[K3XR]

McCain/Obama ticket??

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-agrees-with-mccain-on-illegal-aliens

[KG4JYD]

A handful of military folks willing to put up money does not prove that "the troops want" anything.Wrong again.

Seeing as Ron Paul has raised the MOST funds of any other Republican candidate from active military servicemen, it is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60 that is who the Republican troops want. Of course your IQ may not be over 60 so I can see why you might have a hard time grasping this concept.

[AE6IP]

Wrong again.

Seeing as Ron Paul has raised the MOST funds of any other Republican candidate from active military servicemen, it is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60 that is who the Republican troops want.

Math has never been one of your strong suits has it, Matt?

More funds does not necessarily equal more voters, as Ron Paul fans like to point out whenever someone mentions how poorly he's doing against Obama or Clinton at fund raising.

There is no direct correlation between the number of people contributing to, nor the amount contributed to, a candidate, and the number of people who will vote for that candidate.

[kg6amw]

Dick Morris summed up the situation the best -- McCain's likely nomination is, of course, very bad news for the Democrats. He is, by far, the candidate most likely to beat Hillary in November. The very immigration bill that made him anathema to many conservatives can help him attract significant Hispanic support, while the bitterness of the Clinton-Obama contest is likely to drive many anti-Hillary Independents and Democrats to support the moderate maverick from Arizona.

[kg6amw]

Now that they feel comfortable he will beat Romney, I see the mainstream media (MSM) has started their long march against McCain by running an article on his famous temper. (February 4, 2008 - GOP Senators Reassess Views About McCain). Next it will be an article about his age and health.

[W3MIV]

Now that they feel comfortable he will beat Romney, I see the mainstream media (MSM) has started their long march against McCain by running an article on his famous temper. (February 4, 2008 - GOP Senators Reassess Views About McCain). Next it will be an article about his age and health.

Like it or not, these are all issues for examination. One cannot expect to admire careful analyses of Romney's flip-flops or Billary long list of ethical "challenges" or Obama's family and religion without expecting McCain to be put under a glass as well.

[KG4JYD]

Dick Morris summed up the situation the best -- McCain's likely nomination is, of course, very bad news for the Democrats. He is, by far, the candidate most likely to beat Hillary in November. The very immigration bill that made him anathema to many conservatives can help him attract significant Hispanic support, while the bitterness of the Clinton-Obama contest is likely to drive many anti-Hillary Independents and Democrats to support the moderate maverick from Arizona.
Absolutely not.

If a Hillary/Obama ticket exists vs McCain then you'll see many conservatives sitting out or voting for a 3rd party, independent, write-in etc.

The GOP is fractured and if McCain gets the nomination they are finished. In the mind of a conservative there really is zero policy difference between McCain and Hilary.

Not that Romney is any better either.

[kg6amw]

Absolutely not.

If a Hillary/Obama ticket exists vs McCain then you'll see many conservatives sitting out or voting for a 3rd party, independent, write-in etc.

The GOP is fractured and if McCain gets the nomination they are finished. In the mind of a conservative there really is zero policy difference between McCain and Hilary.

Not that Romney is any better either.

The GOP has a long record of holding their nose and voting when necessary and Ron Paul is not electable.

[n1ohx]

The New York Times take on the republican race at best myopic. There are much better places to go to get a read on republican politics -- certainly not the NY Times.


Yeah, internet News sites are real credible. Some
suggested names would be "FiredNewspapercolumnists.com"
And shady ones like "newsexpress.com". Better yet,
for an "Accurate" take on the election, why not just
go to rushlimbaugh.com? I love how the Right
is always claiming Liberal bias when the media
reports on what the Majority of America is feeling at
a particular time. And then dare to come up with
Phrases like "Fair and Balanced" and "No-Spin" zone.

LOL at both of those.

Steven - N1OHX

[kg6amw]

[QUOTE=n1ohx;1125044]Yeah, internet News sites are real credible. Some
suggested names would be "FiredNewspapercolumnists.com"
And shady ones like "newsexpress.com". Better yet,
for an "Accurate" take on the election, why not just
go to rushlimbaugh.com? I love how the Right
is always claiming Liberal bias when the media
reports on what the Majority of America is feeling at
a particular time. And then dare to come up with
Phrases like "Fair and Balanced" and "No-Spin" zone.

LOL at both of those.

Steven - N1OHX[/QUOT

I’m looking for web sites whose writers are a little more insightful than the average journalist who maybe has degree in journalism and no practical experience in government or the law. Several of the larger well known sites that I do frequent include Real Clear Politics and Townhall. I also read the Drudge Report, National Review and the New Republic when time allows. As for Rush Limbaugh, I don’t listen to his program and I have never been to his web site so I have nothing to offer here.

[KG4JYD]

The GOP has a long record of holding their nose and voting when necessary and Ron Paul is not electable.Yes but things are VERY different this time. The GOP has "messed in their nest"

[K3XR]

...."Commander-in-Chief.....mirage"

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/04/andy-mccarthy-mccains-credibility-as-commander-in-chief-is-a-mirage/?print=1

[nx6d]

[QUOTE=n1ohx;1125044]Yeah, internet News sites are real credible. Some
suggested names would be "FiredNewspapercolumnists.com"
And shady ones like "newsexpress.com". Better yet,
for an "Accurate" take on the election, why not just
go to rushlimbaugh.com? I love how the Right
is always claiming Liberal bias when the media
reports on what the Majority of America is feeling at
a particular time. And then dare to come up with
Phrases like "Fair and Balanced" and "No-Spin" zone.

LOL at both of those.

Steven - N1OHX[/QUOT

I’m looking for web sites whose writers are a little more insightful than the average journalist who maybe has degree in journalism and no practical experience in government or the law. Several of the larger well known sites that I do frequent include Real Clear Politics and Townhall. I also read the Drudge Report, National Review and the New Republic when time allows. As for Rush Limbaugh, I don’t listen to his program and I have never been to his web site so I have nothing to offer here.

Getting your "news" from Drudge and Townhall explains a lot about some of your comments.

Explain how a "degree in journalism and no practical experience in government or the law" makes for a more informed read. Someone with that sort of pedrigree is usually "reporting" from a position of ignorance and relies on andectodal evidence (what SOUNDS "good") rather than "fact". Drudge is classic for this type of uninformed drivel.

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

[nx6d]

Dick Morris summed up the situation the best -- McCain's likely nomination is, of course, very bad news for the Democrats. He is, by far, the candidate most likely to beat Hillary in November. The very immigration bill that made him anathema to many conservatives can help him attract significant Hispanic support, while the bitterness of the Clinton-Obama contest is likely to drive many anti-Hillary Independents and Democrats to support the moderate maverick from Arizona.

I agree that McCain's immigration stance won't really hurt him in November. Your analysis of possibly attracting Hispanic votes is correct. The same position worked for W in Texas when he ran for governor.

A better barometer of McCain's success will be the reaction to his continued cheerleading for the wildly unpopular war in Iraq. That will be the issue that kills him if the Democrats keep his stance on the war continuously on the radar.

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

[W3MIV]

...the wildly unpopular war in Iraq. That will be the issue that kills him if the Democrats keep his stance on the war continuously on the radar.

I tend to think that issue will hurt him if Obama is the candidate, but it may not be so damaging as you imagine should Billary receive the nod.

While he is in the lead at present, there is also no guarantee that it will not be Romney who gets the nomination, though I personally doubt it.

[K6WAC]

Another proud McCain supporter!!!!!!!! Semper Fi

[KG4JYD]

Another proud McCain supporter!!!!!!!! Semper FiWhy would you want a CiC who is going to send the troops into another meet grinder such as Iran? Or who is going to keep the troops in Iraq to be killed? There is even some speculation that McCain might even take us back into Vietnam to finish it off :rolleyes:

If you support the troops, wouldn't you want to move them OUT of harm's way?

[K3XR]

Illegals for McCain.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/its-all-about-getting-amnesty-for-illegals

[n0ov]

Why would you want a CiC who is going to send the troops into another meet grinder such as Iran? Or who is going to keep the troops in Iraq to be killed? There is even some speculation that McCain might even take us back into Vietnam to finish it off :rolleyes:

If you support the troops, wouldn't you want to move them OUT of harm's way?

Actually this is where McCain is 100% on target.

You need to remember McCain was in a meat grinder, knows what it's like and will not likely send our forces into a situation (like Rumsfield ala Bush). But the cold hard fact is McCain also understands we do not live in a Utopia and there are times this may be needed. I can see folks drawing down . but not the massive pull out that folks want (especially our enemies)

Frankly, because of his experience, I don't think he will be as fast to pull the trigger, as least as fast as Hillary would.

As for Obama -- my only fear with him is he will do what he believes is right, pull the troops prematurely, and put us in a situation where they will ultimately have to go in again (or fight a battle on our home soil/another location)

[N8UZE]

The problem with McCain is I might just as well vote for a real Democrat, which I have promised to do even if it is Senator Clinton.

Actually my OM is so disenchanted with the Democrats and their candidates (especially the candidates) that if McCain is the Republican nominee, he will vote for McCain. My OM is a died in the wool Democrat. He honestly believes that it is the government's role not the individuals to guarantee our jobs, health care and overall quality of life.

Also don't forget that whoever wins may bring some Congressmen on his coattails. So some of the Republicans who benefit from that could be more conservative.

[N8UZE]

The LIBS just love McCain.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201523795019&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

What a bunch of prejudiced, divisive nonsense.

[N8UZE]

Absolutely not.

If a Hillary/Obama ticket exists vs McCain then you'll see many conservatives sitting out or voting for a 3rd party, independent, write-in etc.

The GOP is fractured and if McCain gets the nomination they are finished. In the mind of a conservative there really is zero policy difference between McCain and Hilary.

Not that Romney is any better either.

I do not agree that they will sit out or vote for a 3rd party. They learned their lesson when they voted for Ross Perot in 1992.

[k0ews]

I find it absolutely hillarious that the average dyed in the wool Republican has this love affair with Joe Leiberman for being a Democrat (now former Democrat) that they would and could deal with on issues, yet when John McCain does the same thing in hopes of dealing with the other side, he's branded a traitor to his party. Odd.
I also find it funny that Rush Limbaugh declares McCain and Huckabee will "destroy the party" if they are nominated. However, isn't staying home on election day, or "suicide voting" (a.k.a. voting for the Democrats to help McCain lose) help destroy the party from within?
Not that I care; I'm an Independent. I'm still making up my mind. Iraq won't be the key issue for me, but the economy will be at the top of the list.

[N3RQ]

Yes but things are VERY different this time. The GOP has "messed in their nest"

How old are you? The moderate wing of the GOP has been holding its nose since the seventies. Conservatives have no where to go! If they sit out the election, they are finished in politics because the Democratic Party does not want them back.

[N2RJ]

Another proud McCain supporter!!!!!!!! Semper Fi

John Kerry was a veteran too, I'm sure you wanted him as President!

[W5GA]

The reason McCain is being wooed by the MSM, and a host of others, along with Hillary/Obama is because the Dems win with EITHER CHOICE! With McCain, they'll get most of the nanny state items they want. With Hillary/Obama, they get all of them. From their perspective, any of the 3 will do just fine.

The fact that McCain is a war hero in absolutely no way qualifies him for dog catcher, much less president. Tenure in the Senate doesn't mean you know how to lead. Being a POW doesn't mean you know how to lead. The fact that you proposed a national health care system and were told to shut up doesn't mean you know how to lead. I don't like Romney particularly either, but at least has led something that was successful! And I don't mean Libachussetts. And the fact that McCain co-authored with (Chappaquiddick Ted) Kennedy the dead, lib lamented amnesty bill last year will keep him from my vote. I'd sooner vote for Hillary, at least then I'd know what I'm getting and won't be disappointed by her stupidity. I'd expect it.

Some of you won't understand this, but I think the best choice may have been Pat Paulsen.

God, I hate having to go into the voting booth wearing a forced air fed BioHazard suite because of the choices we have!!!!!!

[KG4JYD]

You need to remember McCain was in a meat grinder, knows what it's like and will not likely send our forces into a situation (like Rumsfield ala Bush).McCain has said we need to go into Iran. McCain has also said the troops will be in Iraq for 100+ years.

[KG4JYD]

How old are you? 26


The moderate wing of the GOP has been holding its nose since the seventies. Conservatives have no where to go! If they sit out the election, they are finished in politics because the Democratic Party does not want them back.There is no difference between a liberal Democrat and a moderate Republican. The conservatives will not vote for someone who is not conservative.

[AE6IP]

There is no difference between a liberal Democrat and a moderate Republican.

Right. Just like there's no difference between a volvo and a ferrarri.

The conservatives will not vote for someone who is not conservative.

explain something to me Matt. You say Ron Paul is the only conservative running now. Yet conservatives are turning out in record numbers for a primary and they're voting for the other candidates.

So how can it be that you can keep deluding yourself into believing nonsense like your statement?

[KG4JYD]

Right. Just like there's no difference between a volvo and a ferrarri.From the perspective of foreign vs domestic, you are correct there isn't a difference; they are both foreign.


Similarly from the prospective of small government, states rights, fiscal and Constitutional conservatism, there is no difference between McCain and Hillary; they are both big government big spenders.


You say Ron Paul is the only conservative running now. Yet conservatives are turning out in record numbers for a primary and they're voting for the other candidates.Notice the amount of votes for the GOP vs the amounts for the Republicans this primary season; it's very lopsided.

MANY Republicans/conservatives are sitting out the primary out because they don't feel good about voting for ANY of the candidates.

To see more about how I came to the conclusion I was discussing previously please see this post:
http://forums.qrz.com/showpost.php?p=1127874&postcount=6

[K3XR]

Just wait.....

http://newsbusters.org/node/19057/print

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F78248CC-3048-5C12-000202F3D81B2324

[K3XR]

Choice between a DEM and a DEM.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=24882

[n0ov]

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=2517da76a4e664ff0c9b76e48df9800a

[N3RQ]

MANY Republicans/conservatives are sitting out the primary out because they don't feel good about voting for ANY of the candidates.


I was a Republican before you were born. The crap that you believe is Republicanism is merely the warmed-over remnants of the former southern wing of the Democratic Party. One has to go back to before Reagan was president to see the true face of Republicanism. Southern Republicanism has more in common with the politics of William Colmer and Absalom Robertson than it does with the politics of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or Richard Nixon.

What you need to get your head wrapped around is that the majority of Republicans are social moderates. Social conservatives have been able to control the agenda up until this election because they were better organized.

[K0RGR]

McCain is a threat to Limbaugh and his many copycats. McCain is a true conservative, not an ultra-right wing lunatic that would sooner blow up the country than betray some imagined principle.

In reality, McCain is about as conservative as Barry Goldwater - his mentor.
Indeed, he's too conservative for my taste in many areas, including the war.
If McCain is elected, we'll have permanent bases in Iraq, and the war will most likely expand. McCain passes out the KoolAid that America would have won in Vietnam if we hadn't lost "our will". He apparently has no trouble buying into the neocon propaganda that America should rule the world through military might.

I have to respect him, though, for his initial opposition to this war, and his willingness to criticize it when it mattered.

Yes, he might return the Republican Party to the center, and people like Lush Blowhard might have to walk the plank.

[K4GUN]

I am a conservative. Note that I didn't say I am a Republican. The Republican party more often represents my principles, but not always. My big problem with McCain is that I think he's devoid of principles. One can not be a conservative and back the things he has. Its not even like he just voted for a liberal immigration plan, moronic attempts to control the weather by crippling industry, a huge hit against freedom of speech and voted against tax cuts and a responsible energy policy. He actually led these efforts. He can't claim political arm twisting and compromise on these matters.

All of this makes me question what his principles actually are. I would really rather have a principled liberal for 4 years than an unprincipled "conservative" at this point. I don't like anything that Obama has to offer, but I at least respect him. I'd consider voting for him which is a stunning thing for me to say. I could still be persuaded by McCain, but its going to be an uphill battle.

[KG4JYD]

I was a Republican before you were born. I consider myself more of a Goldwater conservative (libertarian).

[W3MIV]

I have a hard time putting "principled" and "politician" in the same sentence -- unless, of course, my topic is satire.

I feel your pain. In any given election, we are forced to vote for a candidate who is usually the lesser of evils; we pray for shepherds and receive goats in response.

I still vote for one or the other, no matter how obnoxious or misguided or simply crooked they are. One is always a cut above the other, however miniscule the division, and I will not let a distorted system deprive me of the last most precious right we have.

If you don't vote, the bastards win by default. That, to me, is the mortal sin.

[K4GUN]

Oh, I'll vote. If I don't get persuaded by McCain by November, the question will be if I write in as a protest vote or actaully put a mark next to Obama's name.

[N3RQ]

One can not be a conservative and back the things he has. Its not even like he just voted for a liberal immigration plan, moronic attempts to control the weather by crippling industry, a huge hit against freedom of speech and voted against tax cuts and a responsible energy policy. He actually led these efforts. He can't claim political arm twisting and compromise on these matters.

I applaud McCain for attempting to make it hard for corporations to buy the presidency. The founding fathers never intended for corporations to have free political speech. Corporate political speech is a side effect of the 14th amendment.

IMHO, tax cuts without reductions in spending are idiotic. The deep reduction in the capital gains rate was even more idiotic. The rationalization behind the supply-side stimulus is that it promotes investment in business, which, in turn, creates new jobs and industries that lift all boats; thus, increasing the tax base. However, without restrictions on where those gains were made, investors were free to make their gains anywhere in the world. The supply-side stimulus did work, but the new jobs and industries were created in Asia.

[K4GUN]

I applaud McCain for attempting to make it hard for corporations to buy the presidency. The founding fathers never intended for corporations to have free political speech. Corporate political speech is a side effect of the 14th amendment.

IMHO, tax cuts without reductions in spending are idiotic. The deep reduction in the capital gains rate was even more idiotic. The rationalization behind the supply-side stimulus is that it promotes investment in business, which, in turn, creates new jobs and industries that lift all boats; thus, increasing the tax base. However, without restrictions on where those gains were made, investors were free to make their gains anywhere in the world. The supply-side stimulus did work, but the new jobs and industries were created in Asia.

Corporate political free speech? What is a corporation? Better yet, tell me about the ability of a small group of people with a common interests ability to exercise free speech shortly before an election. Can they get together and run an ad in favor of a person they would like to see in office? Can they try and get the word out to others with similar interests via the public ariwaves? Nope. They can't. Now tell me what a political association is and explain why they are prohibited from exercising the free speech rights of on behalf of their members.

[KG4JYD]

I applaud McCain for attempting to make it hard for corporations to buy the presidency. First off no where in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate campaigns. So it's prima facia unconstitutional.

The founding fathers never intended for corporations to have free political speech.You must be a Positivist.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone; it only secures rights (with the exception of copyright and maybe a few other minor items).

Last time I checked Congress is not allowed to regulate free speech or the ability for people to assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances.

[N3RQ]

Corporate political free speech? What is a corporation? Better yet, tell me about the ability of a small group of people with a common interests ability to exercise free speech shortly before an election. Can they get together and run an ad in favor of a person they would like to see in office? Can they try and get the word out to others with similar interests via the public ariwaves? Nope. They can't. Now tell me what a political association is and explain why they are prohibited from exercising the free speech rights of on behalf of their members.

McCain-Feingold, while not perfect, was an attempt to give all Americans an equal voice in the campaign process. It placed limits on contributions and soft money, which was a good thing. Well-heeled partisans, like Richard Mellon Scaife (who I believe is behind the 527 known as the "Club for Growth"), do not like the statute because it limits their ability to buy an election. IMHO, the damage the statute did to the campaign process is more than offset by the good that it produced. Other than the 527 loophole, McCain-Feingold has achieved its goal of removing soft money from politics. It also made it significantly harder for well-heeled Americans to buy an election.

[N3RQ]

First off no where in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate campaigns. So it's prima facia unconstitutional.

You must be a Positivist.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone; it only secures rights (with the exception of copyright and maybe a few other minor items).

Last time I checked Congress is not allowed to regulate free speech or the ability for people to assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances.

You need to review the history of corporate personhood and get back to me. Clearly, your understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the original U.S. Bill of Rights that you seem to cherish so much is flawed. Specially, review corporate personhood before and after the 14th amendment. Without corporate personhood, it would be unlawful for corporations to lobby congress and contribute to political campaigns.

One last thing: as one trained in formal logic and the scientific method, one could say that I am a positivist. However, that orientation does not detract from the fact that corporate personhood is an 1886 misinterpretation (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company) of the 14th amendment.

[W3MIV]

Clearly, your understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the original U.S. Bill of Rights that you seem to cherish so much is flawed.

Many, many attempts have been made to lift Matt's understanding a bit above that of the bloggers he looks up to as Obi Wan.

[nx6d]

I am a conservative. Note that I didn't say I am a Republican. The Republican party more often represents my principles, but not always. My big problem with McCain is that I think he's devoid of principles. One can not be a conservative and back the things he has. Its not even like he just voted for a liberal immigration plan, moronic attempts to control the weather by crippling industry, a huge hit against freedom of speech and voted against tax cuts and a responsible energy policy. He actually led these efforts. He can't claim political arm twisting and compromise on these matters.



Congatulations.

You win the talk radio soundbite of the day award. Did Limbaugh spoonfed you this nonsense?

Make no mistake, I'm no fan of McCain. If he makes the right wing non thinking, take direction from their AM radio types mad, that's ok with me.

Parrot the talk radio dogma all you want, but the bottom line is McCain's your boy. I think it would be great if you stay home in November. Please do. Have fun polishing your guns while you wait for the black helicopters to start circling your compound.

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

[n2ize]

First off no where in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate campaigns. So it's prima facia unconstitutional.

You must be a Positivist.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone; it only secures rights (with the exception of copyright and maybe a few other minor items).

Last time I checked Congress is not allowed to regulate free speech or the ability for people to assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Right... which is one of the reasons why Ron Paul can't get elected and why corporations have a vested interests in certain candidates.

[n2ize]

Yeah, internet News sites are real credible. Some
suggested names would be "FiredNewspapercolumnists.com"
And shady ones like "newsexpress.com". Better yet,
for an "Accurate" take on the election, why not just
go to rushlimbaugh.com? I love how the Right
is always claiming Liberal bias when the media
reports on what the Majority of America is feeling at
a particular time. And then dare to come up with
Phrases like "Fair and Balanced" and "No-Spin" zone.

LOL at both of those.

Steven - N1OHX

Don't forget the favorites of one of our mostnoted linkbots... newsbusters, newsmax, and realclearpolitics.

[n2ize]

I have a hard time putting "principled" and "politician" in the same sentence -- unless, of course, my topic is satire.

I feel your pain. In any given election, we are forced to vote for a candidate who is usually the lesser of evils; we pray for shepherds and receive goats in response.

I still vote for one or the other, no matter how obnoxious or misguided or simply crooked they are. One is always a cut above the other, however miniscule the division, and I will not let a distorted system deprive me of the last most precious right we have.

If you don't vote, the bastards win by default. That, to me, is the mortal sin.

You don't vote for the "lesser of evil" you vote for the "evil of lessers" while silently imagining the system will someday change and that your vote will actually mean something.

[KI4PEQ]

Wrong again.

Seeing as Ron Paul has raised the MOST funds of any other Republican candidate from active military servicemen, it is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60 that is who the Republican troops want. Of course your IQ may not be over 60 so I can see why you might have a hard time grasping this concept.


As Sgt. Hulka would say, "Lighten up, Francis!":D

[K3XR]

"Straight Talk Express" aka Lib Soul Train.

http://newsbusters.org/node/19078/print

[K4GUN]

McCain-Feingold, while not perfect, was an attempt to give all Americans an equal voice in the campaign process. It placed limits on contributions and soft money, which was a good thing. Well-heeled partisans, like Richard Mellon Scaife (who I believe is behind the 527 known as the "Club for Growth"), do not like the statute because it limits their ability to buy an election. IMHO, the damage the statute did to the campaign process is more than offset by the good that it produced. Other than the 527 loophole, McCain-Feingold has achieved its goal of removing soft money from politics. It also made it significantly harder for well-heeled Americans to buy an election.


If I understand it correctly, the 527 loophole isn't the only one. Don't labor unions get a pass as well? I belong to a number of political associations. I belong to them because I believe my voice can be heard better when combined with the voices of others with similar points of view. We have been effectively silenced. I take it personally.

[K4GUN]

Congatulations.

You win the talk radio soundbite of the day award. Did Limbaugh spoonfed you this nonsense?

Make no mistake, I'm no fan of McCain. If he makes the right wing non thinking, take direction from their AM radio types mad, that's ok with me.

Parrot the talk radio dogma all you want, but the bottom line is McCain's your boy. I think it would be great if you stay home in November. Please do. Have fun polishing your guns while you wait for the black helicopters to start circling your compound.

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

Typical. Somebody comes up with a cogent argument that you have no way to discussing rationally so you throw up the talk radio defense. Don't think we can't see through that.

I may indeed sit out this election in November. In fact, I may even vote for Obama. As I've stated before, I'd rather have a liberal with principles than a "Republican" without them. At least we know what were getting and can fight against policy and illustrate the differences between liberals and conservatives instead of pretending the administration is actually conservative.

[k0ews]

Why is it that when Lieberman crosses the aisle and deals with Republicans, he's "putting his country before his party" and is viewed as a patriot. However, when McCain does it, he's viewed as a traitor to the party and as a political whore?

As for the election, I think it could go the way of 64, or the way of 68. If the Republicans totally bail on McCain, and the Independents go to Obama, and the base of the GOP stays home, you will see a landslide much like 1964.
However, I could also see this: Obama wins most of the primaries that are left and has more delagates going into the Convention. The convention is decided by superdelagates, and party insiders, and somehow, Michigan and Florida come into play. Clinton comes out as the nominee against McCain. Democrats, furious with the party and with Clinton stay home on election day. (I know a LOT of Dems that will vote for Obama but not Clinton, even in the general election) McCain carries most of the indpendents, and the Republican base decides that a McCain administration is better than Clinton 44. McCain picks Huckabee as his running mate, and this goes a ways into bringing the social conservatives back (they are both pro Life), so the base turns out, votes Republican, and McCain wins.

However, there will be a lot that can and will happen in the mean time. This is the part of the early primaries that hurts the process.
The end result, we don't know what will happen. The problem right now with the far right Conservatives is that they've lost touch with America. They're as out of touch with Main Street USA as the elite Ivory Tower Liberals that they despise. That's why they went down in 06, and why they will probably lose the next 3 general elections. Personally, I don't see any strong Conservative comeback until at least 2016.

[W3MIV]

... I'd rather have a liberal with principles than a "Republican" without them.

An interesting and enlightening bit of ego, that. Because McCain does not share your narrow-minded view, he lacks "principles," and, in a fit of childish pique, you will vote against all of your "principles" just for spite.

I don't often agree with NX6D, but I believe this time he has pinned the tail on your donkey.

[K4GUN]

An interesting and enlightening bit of ego, that. Because McCain does not share your narrow-minded view, he lacks "principles," and, in a fit of childish pique, you will vote against all of your "principles" just for spite.

I don't often agree with NX6D, but I believe this time he has pinned the tail on your donkey.

Ego? Narrow minded? You are way off base. I like the Republican party, but not a Republican party that spends the next 4 years further erasing the differences between us and the Democrats. We already lost the mantle of the party of responsible spending. If it takes 4 years of a liberal in the White House to force the GOP back to its principles, then so be it.

That gets to the issue of Obama and Clinton though. Clinton really bothers me. Not because I think her policies would be any worse than Obama's. Its because of the culture she brings with her. She would be coming into office with a built-in cadre of loyalists to be installed in all levels of bureaucracy. That is my biggest fear about her. The Clinton machine is still entrenched in DC and would only get worse.

Obama would be starting from scratch. I don't think he could do the long term damage Clinton could do. Combine that with the fact that he's a generally likable person, and I think the country could live with him at least for long enough for the GOP to correct its cranial/rectal inversion.

[W3MIV]

I do not challenge the decision to vote for Obama; I challenge the loyalty to the Republican Party. If you choose to vote for Obama, welcome. Many of us are doing so, but we are Democrats -- both blue and yellow. I have many, many, many issues and differences with the current state of the Democracy, but I shall continue to work for change from within.

What you espouse is a simple and somewhat shabby egoism -- you are raising your skirt and tip-toeing through the mud that the rest of your Party must work in if they wish to succeed. That means, in simplest if least likeable terms, that you are NOT a Republican.

Why not just step up like a man and admit it?

Ego? Narrow minded? You are way off base. I like the Republican party, but not a Republican party that spends the next 4 years further erasing the differences between us and the Democrats. We already lost the mantle of the party of responsible spending. If it takes 4 years of a liberal in the White House to force the GOP back to its principles, then so be it.

That gets to the issue of Obama and Clinton though. Clinton really bothers me. Not because I think her policies would be any worse than Obama's. Its because of the culture she brings with her. She would be coming into office with a built-in cadre of loyalists to be installed in all levels of bureaucracy. That is my biggest fear about her. The Clinton machine is still entrenched in DC and would only get worse.

Obama would be starting from scratch. I don't think he could do the long term damage Clinton could do. Combine that with the fact that he's a generally likable person, and I think the country could live with him at least for long enough for the GOP to correct its cranial/rectal inversion.

[K4GUN]

I do not challenge the decision to vote for Obama; I challenge the loyalty to the Republican Party. If you choose to vote for Obama, welcome. Many of us are doing so, but we are Democrats -- both blue and yellow. I have many, many, many issues and differences with the current state of the Democracy, but I shall continue to work for change from within.

What you espouse is a simple and somewhat shabby egoism -- you are raising your skirt and tip-toeing through the mud that the rest of your Party must work in if they wish to succeed. That means, in simplest if least likeable terms, that you are NOT a Republican.

Why not just step up like a man and admit it?

Did you even read my first post in this topic? I said quite clearly that I am a conservative, not a Republican. The Republican party most often represents my views and I vote with them in most cases. If forced to declare a party affiliation, I would say the GOP, but if they decide to be like Democrats, they will not get my vote.

Beyond that, even if I were a party loyalist, I would still be considering the same thing. At some point, the party needs to look at the long term. They have held the White House for 8 years. In those 8 years, fiscal responsibility has been thrown out the window. Because it happened under the watch of a GOP president, they haven't been able to really protest it. That issue is off the table for the moment. Now what happens if McCain is in office for the next 4 years? They loose standing on issues like man's impact (or lack there of) on global warming, free speech (campaign finance reform), tax cuts, environmental policy, energy policy and others. What does the GOP have left to persuade people that they are better than the Democrats after that? The answer is, not much.

Its a poison pill. I know that. I've argued against that in previous elections, but this time, I think they've gone too far and if its Obama they are facing, it could be a lot worse.

[N3RQ]

They loose standing on issues like man's impact (or lack there of) on global warming, free speech (campaign finance reform), tax cuts, environmental policy, energy policy and others. What does the GOP have left to persuade people that they are better than the Democrats after that? The answer is, not much.

The Bush tax cuts were little more than a scheme to shift more of the cost of government onto the backs of the middle class. The cuts that Bush made in the marginal rates on ordinary income were pathetic compared to those he made on capital gains and other forms of investment income. A person earning all of his/her income through work does not have to earn a fortune to reach a point where his/her average tax rate exceeds 15%, which is the maximum rate on capital gains. Warren Buffet has brought this gross inequity in taxation to light many times.