I never would have figured that McCain would have won the nomination. A year ago I thought it would be Rudy by a wide margin, when Fred Thompson started showing interest I thought he and Rudy would battle it out. I thought Romney's mormon faith would be too much for him to overcome, and I thought that Huckabee being a fundamentalist christian would be too much as well. Thompson was a big disappointment, I wanted him to come on with some fire and passion. Instead it's like he was never committed to the campaign, we he got out I wondered if he'd ever been in. I think Rudy underestimated the ability of the Press to dig up stuff and he clearly miscalculated his need to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire. It was a poor effort on his part. I though McCain would be viewed as too old, too grumpy, too liberal, etc. Clearly the talk radio people are just beside themselves that he is going to be the nominee. I think that Romney maybe would have stayed but the fact that Huckabee stayed and continued to split the conservative votes with him and was committed to staying through the end of the primaries was why he decided to quit. He didn't get enough on Super Tues and if he had to continue to split with Huckabee it was just throwing good money after bad to continue. I would have prefered Romney after Thompson quit. But I'll back McCain over Hillary that's for sure. If it's Obama even though I probably don't agree with anything he proposes, I do like the fact that maybe he can change the tone of things in Washington. So I'll actually give him a look, whereas I don't care if Hillary proposes all sorts of pro-dentist legislation I wouldn't vote for her and slick willy to have another go at the White House.
Not even if her new health plan includes mandatory monthly checkups and cleanings?? :twisted: Seriously, as a moderate, although my favorite Republican was Romney, I see McCain as the Republican Party's only hope to win the election. As entertaining as the conservative anti-McCain bombast is, these folks need to have it driven into their thick skulls that the conservatives will not have significant input in this election, thanks to the country's mood following the past 8 (almost) years. By "country's mood" I mean the middle of the voting spectrum, which normally decides presidential elections. When Reagan was elected he was seen as a savior after the wretched Carter years, and indeed he was. He was a welcomed conservative voice who got the country back on its feet and re-instilled the pride that was shattered by the runaway economy and the hostage crisis. IMO, he was one of the greatest presidents in our country's history. He certainly had a lasting impact on my view of the presidency. That's not the case in 2008. Like it or not, either Hillary or Obama will be very tough to beat by anyone other than a McCain type of candidate. If the conservative loudmouths torpedo his chances, they will deserve the wrath that will come down on them.
Sid, I never considered myself a right wing idealogue, but I have serious issues with McCain: Biggest one was the disdain for the first amendment in the McCain-Feingold Law...this after feeding at the trough of the Keating Five. He was one of only two Republican Senators voting against the Bush tax cuts...he now says it was because the bill had too much spending, but at the time he used "Tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric. He voted against drilling in ANWR...here's a different perspective on that; http://www.newsweek.com/id/107575 And I was disgusted last week when the "Straight Talk Express" transparently and deliberately distorted Mitt Romney's words and stance on the evening of the Fla. primary regarding timetables. I will do as his mother suggests; hold my nose and support him...but I don't blame the "loudmouths" for telling it like they think it is...their job is not to work for a certain party or candidate (despite what the Dems believe) but rather to stand up for their principles. I think it's all in your perspective of conservatism; I believe that conservatism (even MODERATE CONSERVATISM) embodies the concepts of individual liberty, capitalism, and promoting prosperity for all by keeping taxes to a minimum and keeping the government out of peoples lives except where necessary. If winning the election means foregoing those principles, then what have we won? I am all in favor of trying to work things out with the other party, but it bugs me that only Republicans are expected to "reach across the aisle." When is the last time that you saw that quality listed as a positive or an expectation for a Democrat?
You make excellent points, Stu. You are much better informed than I on the details of the candidates' records. Having read your post, I have a different perspective on the conservative talkers' comments, except for Ann Coulter, who is a just plain despicable human being, but that's another conversation for another time. I read about the McCain ambush of Romney, and that was unfortunate, but I don't think it was the reason Romney lost Florida. Romney was my favorite among the Republicans, but he just didn't seem grounded enough via a consistent track record to convince Republican voters that he is a true Reagan conservative. That's just my impression. I'm guessing that the Mormon angle played heavily and if so that's too bad. Don't mistake me for a draw-the-line Democrat. I'd like to think that I've tended to exercise common sense in my voting over the past 30 or so years. Take from that comment what you will. :wink: I guess I tend to look globally at the situation. I'm not well-read on the details of each candidate's voting record, but I have a pretty good perspective on where each one stands relative to the others both within his/her own party and in the other party. I am a big fan of President Bush, but I'm afraid he is taking the blame for many of the current issues in our nation, although outside of the Iraq war, he is not responsible for much of them. I guess it comes with the territory. For this reason, I believe the Republicans are going into this election with one hand tied behind their backs. All this being said, I stand by my opinion that McCain is the best hope of the Republican party to stop a Democratic win in November. Like I said, it's just my opinion.
I'm a conservative republican who cringes at the sight of John McCain. I've never liked him nor did I think he had a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination that now seems like a forgone conclusion. First of all, Hillary is more moderate than McCain. This is a guy who was approached by John Kerry four years ago to be his running mate; who, in 2001, almost declared a party switch. He is always willing to cross the aisle and vote with the democrats. He is an open border, amnesty guy. He has dabbled in the class warfare hysteria as far as taxes go. He is too damn old. He looks worse than most presidents AFTER a two term run. If I hear him say one more time that he was a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" I'll spew. He wouldn't make a pimple on Reagn's ass. He gives me the impression of a little man with a Napoleon complex. I could NEVER vote for Hillary but I would vote for Obama before McCain and I suspect a lot of Republicans would. If things are so bad that we have to rely on this fossilized old fart as a our candidate then why not roll the dice on Obama and see if we get lucky? :evil:
This is interesting to me to see George's and Stu's comments. I'm beginning to get the picture. I have not paid as close attention to the candidates' specific positions on issues as you guys have, and that's why I have been perplexed at the conservatives' wrath toward McCain. Now I'm beginning to understand what's happening here. From this point forward, I am going to dig in and find out all I can about the three remaining frontrunners. Like I said before, I was hoping Romney would get the nod. I did not think there was as much difference between him and McCain as there is. Guess I have a lot to learn. I intend to. Thanks, guys.
I can accept McCain as a conservative...he, after all, has an 82% conservative voting record... I think that he's just one of those guys (happens to me sometimes, too) where something sounds like a good and practical solution and you support it, forgetting that there are aspects of it that go against other princlples that you believe or should believe. In his speech yesterday, he mentioned the quote from Reagan that our liberties aren't going to be taken away all at once, they will be eroded and chipped at one after another in ways that may seem benign. I'm glad that he is aware of that...because he has been a part of it (McCain-Feingold). I disagree with the immigration plan that he came up with, but I don't think there was any "betrayal" of Republican principles in it...the true conservative stance of "they all go back" is fine...but not very implementable. I don't care about the vote against the tax cuts if he really was voting against the lack of spending cuts...but if he really complained about "tax cuts for the rich" then I consider that a serious betrayal of conservative values...I consider them "tax cuts for the tax-payers"...that will benefit the entire country. Conservatives should consider taxes a necessary evil...not as an instrument for implementing policy. His attack on Romney was just politics...but irked me because of the "Straight Talk" thing and how mad he got when his positions were distorted previously...and then he kept it up even after everybody called him on it. Oh well...now I'm rambling and repeating my last post. :roll:
Nobody can talk out of both sides of their mouth like McCain. Wait for the attacks on him that the Democrats will launch. McCain has provided them with a treasure trove of stupid and contradictory sound bites over the years. Add those to the batches of uncomplimemtary photos that make him look even older than he is and we may get a chance to see that famous hair trigger temper.
Doesn't Romney remind you guys of a past Vice President? LOL. Here's a hint, Unjumble this word and you will understand who I speak of. eopatot
Stu, I share your feelings about McCain except for your views of McCain-Feingold. While some look at it as an infringement on Freedom of Speech, I look at it as a curb on those that speak with loud megaphones. It's a weak attempt to try to put some limits on the unchecked influence monied interests have in Washington Our campaigns are just too damn long. We lose candidates for money reasons. Hillary just lent her campaign 5 MILLION dollars. It was once said "anyone can grow up and be president" sure, if they have 5 Million to toss into their campaigns. McCain has gone liberal too many times. He won't mobilize the Republican base and they are "likely" voters. As soon as she has the nomination, Hillary will be driving in the middle of the road. She's gonna run over Juan McCain. One really interesting thing about this election is the reasons folks for picking their candidate. When I see Democratic voters more often than not their voting for Clinton "because she's a woman" or Obama because "he's African-American." Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the reasons are almost always philosophical. People chose conservative, middle of the road or fundamentalist candidates. It's issue driven. The one exception is Romney's religion. Ever since my wife read Under the Banner of Heaven, she's been distrustful of Mormons. It's ironic that of the Republican candidates Rudy, Juan McCain and Romney, only the Mormon has had ONE wife.
I think the chances of a train wreck at the Dem convention are very real. The establishment Super delegates lean toward Hillary. If Obama wins the popular vote, putting Hillary over the line with the Supers,there will be hell to pay. Also if theprimary count is close, Hillary may demand a new vote in Michigan and Florida, since these would add popular votes and delegates. It will be interesting to watch. McCain has all the flaws enmerated here. IMO would lose big to Obama, but might have a chance against Hilllary, since her negatives are in the 40s. Many Republicans and Moderates would crawl over crushed glass to vote for McCain if she is nominated. My own priorities are Supreme Court oppointments, since there will be openings in the next four years and contiuing to let Petreaus work the mission in Iraq which has drawn the support of Sunni insurgents now fighting with the Americans against Al Quida. Last week's issue of Time had a great article outlining the advances made in this regard. We deperately need a stable Iraq as a hedge against Iran and Syria. To leave precipitously would certainly threaten progress there. Both dems are in favor of a time line which Al Quaida would tout as a victory.
Among McCain quotes that will come back to haunt him is the one where he suggests US occupation of Iraq could last 100 years. Considering that some US troops have been over there 5-6 times already I don't know where we will find the manpower . Another McCain sound bite we will grow tired of hearing is the one where he claims that Hillary would make a fine president. Of course, at his advanced age, I'm not sure you can hold him accountable for everything that comes out of his mouth. :lol:
George, given that McCain is 71, I think he will probably not be able to implement this for 100 years. Since the Iraquis are now moving to our side, a combat role will be greatly reduced in years to come with a corresponding reduction of U.S. forces.
Actually, the McCain statement about being in Iraq 100 yrs. included the phrase "if no one is dying." We're still in Germany 63 yrs. after WWII ended. With all the radical anit-American whackos in the Middle East, we should have an advanced force there. As to his comment about Hillary, he's obviously entering dementia.
So-o-o-o........Gip........Are you like George, thinking about voting for Obama over McCain? :twisted:
Sid I'm afraid that in the upcoming election, I'm not going to be voting FOR any candidate. At best, I'll be voting against one. It seems to me that the people that think that in the end conservatives will suck it up and vote for McCain are not paying attention to history. They forget how conservatives never forgave George Bush for reneging on his "read my lips" promise. It's time for the political pendulum to swing left for a while. How far is usually determined by how badly the right has botched the job. It took a Nixon for someone an inept as Carter to get elected. Fortunately, it only took 4 years for Americans to wake up to how dangerous the world can be when we have a weak apologist in the White House. With Carter in charge, the Russians moved in to Afghanastan and the Iranians took our embassy. (one of the leaders of that is the head of Iran today.) Our "toughest" response was to boycott the Moscow Olympics. The minute Regan was in the charge our hostages were back. So what will be best in the long run? Probably putting Hillary in there to demonstrate how bad it can be. Maybe we'll wake up in 4 years like we did in the Carter years.
McCain is so phony I can't bear to look at him. I'm a conservative. McCain is not. At least Obama is up front about it. I don't think Hillary is going to make it. There are just too many people that do not like her and become physically ill at the thought of Bill Clinton back in the WH and on center stage again. That is a regressive move for the democratic party. Plus, Bill did a good job of alienating the black vote a few weeks ago. Without that, Hillary has no chance. Look at her now, he raudience is all Hispanic women. She be coming out wearing a serape and pulling a donkey behind her at her next appearance. Right now I'm torn between voting for Obama and not voting at all. And there are a lot of people out there just like me. Bush has gutted the party with his myopic fixation on "bringing freedom to fredom loving peoples". I laugh when I hear him sabre rattling with Iran... who is he going to send over there? The Boy Scouts? I just hope the next year goes by without him doing anytrhing really crazy. And coming off of this the best we can come up with is and old, tired John McCain?
Obama's speech last night in Madison was tremendous, that really is his strong suit. Hillary's speech was shrill and hollow by comparisson. The one thing that struck me was that one of the CNN people described Hispanics as one of Hillarys traditional core groups. I mean I know from watching West Side Story years ago that there are Puerto Ricans in NYC, but I have to wonder if looking out at the audience of mexicans in El Paso how could anybody describe them as her traditional supporters, this is the first time they've ever been able to vote for her.