PDA

View Full Version : Romney ahead in FL


GBMelBlount
01-24-2008, 09:38 PM
In the Rasmussen poll and another poll, Romney is ahead of McCain by 4 points in Fl. Although Romneys resume is the best overall imo, I think McCain, being more liberal, may have a better shot of beating the democratic candidate....

HometownGal
01-24-2008, 10:03 PM
I'm not much for believing in polls, Tom, as a lot of the time, they're wrong. I worked for the woman who is now our Lt. Governor in PA and when she was running for State Treasurer in the late 80's and on the eve before election day, she was behind in most polls anywhere from 20-30 points and ended up obliterating her opponent (G. Davis Greene, who was former Governor Casey's hand-picked choice) and was elected as our State Treasurer for two successive terms. Remember the straw polls in the 2004 Presidential election? They were as wrong as wrong could be.

If Rudy doesn't make it, I am going to support Romney as I do not trust McCain at all after his fence-riding between W and Kerry during their 2004 campaigns which totally turned me off. However - if Bitchary wins the Demo nomination, I will support whoever wins the GOP nomination.

SteelCityMan786
01-24-2008, 10:06 PM
I'm not much for believing in polls, Tom, as a lot of the time, they're wrong. I worked for the woman who is now our Lt. Governor in PA and when she was running for State Treasurer in the late 80's and on the eve before election day, she was behind in most polls anywhere from 20-30 points and ended up obliterating her opponent (G. Davis Greene, who was former Governor Casey's hand-picked choice) and was elected as our State Treasurer for two successive terms. Remember the straw polls in the 2004 Presidential election? They were as wrong as wrong could be.

If Rudy doesn't make it, I am going to support Romney as I do not trust McCain at all after his fence-riding between W and Kerry during their 2004 campaigns which totally turned me off. However - if Bitchary wins the Demo nomination, I will support whoever wins the GOP nomination.

At this rate, Billary will end up there. I hope brack gets the Demys. John or Rudy(in a comeback fashion) win the GOP.

Borski
01-24-2008, 10:35 PM
I don't trust polls, but Romney gets my vote. Although, (imo) I don't think either Rudy or McCain would make a good president, I do hope one of them would be willing to settle for VP, I think the best ticket against the Democrats would be either Romney/Guliani or Romney/McCain.

Although if I had to chose a democrat to be president it would be Barack, I actually think he would be harder to beat then Clinton...

GBMelBlount
01-24-2008, 10:43 PM
At this rate, Billary will end up there. I hope brack gets the Demys.

I completely agree, No matter what though, I will never count Hillary out until the house falls on her and her socks roll up.

Jeremy
01-25-2008, 08:32 AM
See my signature to see why I won't vote for Mitt Romney.

GBMelBlount
01-25-2008, 09:03 AM
See my signature to see why I won't vote for Mitt Romney.

There are alot of "smart" direlects out there. Romney has results. Romney graduated from both Harvard law school AND Harvard business school plus has a good track record in both the public AND private sector. Perhaps you are smarter than Romney though I highly doubt it, but I highly doubt your resume of achievements will compare it to MItt's.

Also, you may want to correct your signature, it is grammatically incorrect.

Finally, as always, thank you for your service!

Jeremy
01-25-2008, 09:15 AM
There are alot of "smart" direlects out there. Romney has results. Romney graduated from both Harvard law school AND Harvard business school plus has a good track record in both the public AND private sector. Perhaps you are smarter than Romney though I highly doubt it, but I highly doubt your resume of achievements will compare it to MItt's.

Also, you may want to correct your signature, it is grammatically incorrect.

Finally, as always, thank you for your service!

Well then you got the joke.

TroysBadDawg
01-25-2008, 10:31 AM
I completely agree, No matter what though, I will never count Hillary out until the house falls on her and her socks roll up.

Awww we should just throw a bucket of water on her and watch her fizzle away, hopefully.

Then we can sing:

Ding dong, the bitch been bed, the wicked bitch. What?.... it is supposed to be witch? Ooops sorry.

revefsreleets
01-26-2008, 06:20 PM
Old Hill knows how to win now: Just whip up a few croc tears and the voters will turn out in droves.

I still have McCain. Yeah, yeah, he's had some strange bedfellows, but I want a guy who can reach across the aisle to get things done. He is also kicking ass in the mid-moderate to moderate conservative demo. SC is about as conservative as it gets, and he polled well across all the demo's except the extreme right ditto-head vote.

Preacher
01-26-2008, 06:29 PM
Old Hill knows how to win now: Just whip up a few croc tears and the voters will turn out in droves.

I still have McCain. Yeah, yeah, he's had some strange bedfellows, but I want a guy who can reach across the aisle to get things done. He is also kicking ass in the mid-moderate to moderate conservative demo. SC is about as conservative as it gets, and he polled well across all the demo's except the extreme right ditto-head vote.

Whats funny, is the Rush Limbaugh isn't extreme right.... He would accept a candidate that is somewhat weak on abortion and other social issues.

Rush is a Military/economic/judicial conservative...

And I would say not even a full economic conservative. Huckabee I think provides the best tax plan, most conservative tax plan...

revefsreleets
01-26-2008, 07:29 PM
Oh, but Rush HATES McCain almost as much as he hates Huck. He has stated that either would "destroy the Republican party".

Fact is, Rush has jumped the shark. He shook things up when he became popular, and now time has passed and he's become the status quo. Happens to everyone eventually, I guess...

McCain's tent may be just large enough

Published on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008


WASHINGTON: The Reagan administration had its pragmatists and its so-called ideologues. It had James Baker as well as Ed Meese.

Reagan carried moderate states such as Connecticut, Wisconsin and Washington, as well as conservative ones such as Wyoming and South Carolina.

But then a great tightening occurred. Conservative institutions and interest groups proliferated in Washington. The definition of who was a true conservative narrowed. It became necessary to pass certain purity tests — on immigration, abortion, taxes and Terri Schiavo.

An oppositional mentality set in: If the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax. If the New York Times editorial page worried about waterboarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it OK.

Apostates and deviationists were expelled or found wanting, and the boundaries of acceptable thought narrowed. Moderate Republicans were expelled for squishiness.

Millions of coastal suburbanites left the party in disgust.

And still the corset tightened. Many professional conservatives do not regard Mike Huckabee or John McCain as true conservatives.

''I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party,'' Rush Limbaugh said recently on his radio show. ''It's going to change it forever, be the end of it.''

Some of the contributors to the National Review's highly influential blog, The Corner, look to Mitt Romney to save the conservative movement. Their hatred of McCain is so strong that it has earned its own name: McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Yet a funny thing has happened this primary season. Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders.

Conservative voters are much more diverse than the image you'd get from conservative officialdom.

In South Carolina, 34 percent of the Republican voters called themselves ''very conservative,'' but another 34 percent called themselves only ''somewhat conservative'' and 24 percent called themselves ''moderate.''

Only 28 percent of the primary voters there said abortion should be ''always illegal.''

This, I repeat, was in South Carolina, one of the most right-wing places in the country.

While various conservative poobahs threaten to move to Idaho if Huckabee or McCain gets the nomination, the silent majority of conservative voters seems to like these candidates.

Huckabee has done well among evangelical voters while loudly deviating from conservative economic orthodoxy. John McCain leads among Republicans nationally. He has a 71 percent favorable rating and a 23 percent unfavorable rating. He has a 63 percent favorability rating among Huckabee supporters, 66 percent favorability among Romney supporters and 81 percent favorability among supporters of Rudy Giuliani. These are much higher second-choice ratings than any other candidate.

McCain's winning coalition in South Carolina was pretty broad. He lost among the extremely conservative but won among the somewhat conservative and the moderates. He lost among those who go to church more than once a week, but won among weekly churchgoers. He won among those who strongly support the Bush administration and among those who are angry at the Bush administration, among those who strongly support the war and among those who strongly oppose it. He won every income group over $30,000.

Even among people who want to deport every immigrant, McCain only lost to Huckabee by 34 percent to 26 percent.

The fact is, this has been a bad year for the conservative establishment.

Fred Thompson was supposed to embody the party line, but he has fizzled (despite being a good campaigner the past month). Rudy Giuliani proposes deep tax cuts that do not seem to excite. Mitt Romney ran as the movement candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire and grossly underperformed. Now he's running as a nonideological business pragmatist for the exurban office parks, and his campaign has possibilities.

The lesson is not that the conservative establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Republican Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse. Regular Republican voters don't seem to mind independent thinking. There's room for moderates as well as orthodox conservatives.

Limbaugh, Grover Norquist and James Dobson have influence, but they are not arbiters of conservative doctrine.

In his South Carolina victory speech, McCain defined a more inclusive conservatism: ''We want government to do its job, not your job; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation's security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes to us and not make promises it will not keep.''

And McCain's success has raised an astonishing specter: Republicans may actually have a shot at winning this year.
Brooks is a New York Times columnist.


WASHINGTON: The Reagan administration had its pragmatists and its so-called ideologues. It had James Baker as well as Ed Meese.

Reagan carried moderate states such as Connecticut, Wisconsin and Washington, as well as conservative ones such as Wyoming and South Carolina.

But then a great tightening occurred. Conservative institutions and interest groups proliferated in Washington. The definition of who was a true conservative narrowed. It became necessary to pass certain purity tests — on immigration, abortion, taxes and Terri Schiavo.

revefsreleets
01-26-2008, 07:30 PM
An oppositional mentality set in: If the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax. If the New York Times editorial page worried about waterboarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it OK.

Apostates and deviationists were expelled or found wanting, and the boundaries of acceptable thought narrowed. Moderate Republicans were expelled for squishiness.

Millions of coastal suburbanites left the party in disgust.

And still the corset tightened. Many professional conservatives do not regard Mike Huckabee or John McCain as true conservatives.

''I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party,'' Rush Limbaugh said recently on his radio show. ''It's going to change it forever, be the end of it.''

Some of the contributors to the National Review's highly influential blog, The Corner, look to Mitt Romney to save the conservative movement. Their hatred of McCain is so strong that it has earned its own name: McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Yet a funny thing has happened this primary season. Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders.

Conservative voters are much more diverse than the image you'd get from conservative officialdom.

In South Carolina, 34 percent of the Republican voters called themselves ''very conservative,'' but another 34 percent called themselves only ''somewhat conservative'' and 24 percent called themselves ''moderate.''

Only 28 percent of the primary voters there said abortion should be ''always illegal.''

This, I repeat, was in South Carolina, one of the most right-wing places in the country.

While various conservative poobahs threaten to move to Idaho if Huckabee or McCain gets the nomination, the silent majority of conservative voters seems to like these candidates.

Huckabee has done well among evangelical voters while loudly deviating from conservative economic orthodoxy. John McCain leads among Republicans nationally. He has a 71 percent favorable rating and a 23 percent unfavorable rating. He has a 63 percent favorability rating among Huckabee supporters, 66 percent favorability among Romney supporters and 81 percent favorability among supporters of Rudy Giuliani. These are much higher second-choice ratings than any other candidate.

McCain's winning coalition in South Carolina was pretty broad. He lost among the extremely conservative but won among the somewhat conservative and the moderates. He lost among those who go to church more than once a week, but won among weekly churchgoers. He won among those who strongly support the Bush administration and among those who are angry at the Bush administration, among those who strongly support the war and among those who strongly oppose it. He won every income group over $30,000.

Even among people who want to deport every immigrant, McCain only lost to Huckabee by 34 percent to 26 percent.

The fact is, this has been a bad year for the conservative establishment.

Fred Thompson was supposed to embody the party line, but he has fizzled (despite being a good campaigner the past month). Rudy Giuliani proposes deep tax cuts that do not seem to excite. Mitt Romney ran as the movement candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire and grossly underperformed. Now he's running as a nonideological business pragmatist for the exurban office parks, and his campaign has possibilities.

The lesson is not that the conservative establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Republican Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse. Regular Republican voters don't seem to mind independent thinking. There's room for moderates as well as orthodox conservatives.

Limbaugh, Grover Norquist and James Dobson have influence, but they are not arbiters of conservative doctrine.

In his South Carolina victory speech, McCain defined a more inclusive conservatism: ''We want government to do its job, not your job; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation's security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes to us and not make promises it will not keep.''

And McCain's success has raised an astonishing specter: Republicans may actually have a shot at winning this year.
Brooks is a New York Times columnist.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/14019592.html?page=all&c=y

GBMelBlount
01-26-2008, 10:07 PM
Yet a funny thing has happened this primary season. Conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders.

I'm not so sure, from what I understand, registered republicans in some states are voting for Romney as much as almost 2-1 over McCain. However, McCain tends to do much better among "independents" the majority of which are supposedly "non-commited" but usually vote democrat in the election.

revefsreleets
01-27-2008, 06:59 PM
We shall see, of course...

GBMelBlount
01-27-2008, 08:19 PM
We shall see, of course...

Agreed. I think McCain just getting the endorsement from Crist may be huge for him.

revefsreleets
01-30-2008, 07:37 PM
Now we know. And I'm very proud to say that the extreme right and the neocons ARE NOT the voice of my party any more. The moderate conservatives are coming out in droves, and it damn well may carry the GOP back into the White House again when there was next to no chance of that happening as recent as a year ago.

GBMelBlount
02-04-2008, 09:31 PM
Now we know. And I'm very proud to say that the extreme right and the neocons ARE NOT the voice of my party any more. The moderate conservatives are coming out in droves, and it damn well may carry the GOP back into the White House again when there was next to no chance of that happening as recent as a year ago.

I hope so Reve. I hope he isn't just the lesser of democrats. What scares me is someone fairly moderate IMO always compromising with the Dem's. You mix the two and what comes out the other end may not be what the conservatves were expecting.

revefsreleets
02-04-2008, 10:08 PM
I hope so Reve. I hope he isn't just the lesser of democrats. What scares me is someone fairly moderate IMO always compromising with the Dem's. You mix the two and what comes out the other end may not be what the conservatves were expecting.

I welcome that. I'm not a conservative. Not quite sure why it always has to be one of the two camps. I'm a moderate. Let me break it down:

-Abortion? Should be legal, but rare.
-Gay Marriage? Who cares? Let em get married.
-Drugs? Legalize them all now. As soon as you remove the stigma and mystique, nobody cares. And the gov't can charge a shitload of tax on legalized drugs. Drug use will drop, and revenues will rise.
-Ilegal immigrants? They are here. It would cost 10X what the Iraq War will cost to try and get rid of them. Seriously, does anyone think that the US government could cost effectively evict 12 million people from it's borders? Silly.
Health Care? Compromise.

See? Conservatism is common sense, and liberalism is a fantasy. But somewhere in between there is a workable solution.

83-Steelers-43
02-07-2008, 12:42 PM
Romney is out: http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/07/time-magazine-blog-romney-to-quit-today/

revefsreleets
02-07-2008, 12:47 PM
And that is, as they say, pretty much that for the GOP. I think Romney is actually calling it a "suspension", but that just means he hopes to be VP. That would appease the base some.

Conservatives need to get on board. McCain talked about finding common ground. If you are a true conservative, which would you rather have?

-Hillary Clinton (More moderate when you scratch the surface than she initially appears, but she's a Clinton, so, deeply hated by the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracists")

Barrack Obama- The most liberal of liberals

John McCain- A guy who has a past of being a little bit of a maverick, but still has a pretty conservative pedigree.

That's it. Those are your choices.

Borski
02-07-2008, 06:49 PM
And that is, as they say, pretty much that for the GOP. I think Romney is actually calling it a "suspension", but that just means he hopes to be VP. That would appease the base some.

Conservatives need to get on board. McCain talked about finding common ground. If you are a true conservative, which would you rather have?

-Hillary Clinton (More moderate when you scratch the surface than she initially appears, but she's a Clinton, so, deeply hated by the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracists")

Barrack Obama- The most liberal of liberals

John McCain- A guy who has a past of being a little bit of a maverick, but still has a pretty conservative pedigree.

That's it. Those are your choices.

Well it was the best for Romney to exit, even though I supported it, it is pointless to continue after what happened super Tuesday, it would just waste more money.

When it comes down to it the majority of republicans will vote for the republican candidate and the majority of democrats will vote for the democrat candidate.

At least with a moderate like McCain we can draw alot of independents and moderate democrats...even though I disagree with him on a decent number of issues, he is much, much better then Clinton or Barack.

revefsreleets
02-07-2008, 07:06 PM
Actually, truth be told, McCain represents a return to the actual majority of this country regaining control of the political process. I hope it's a trend that continues.

GBMelBlount
02-07-2008, 08:18 PM
Actually, truth be told, McCain represents a return to the actual majority of this country regaining control of the political process. I hope it's a trend that continues.

As the country continues to move farther and farther right IMO, I believe a candidate must move farther and farther to the right to appeal to that majority you mentioned.

Godfather
02-07-2008, 09:01 PM
-Hillary Clinton (More moderate when you scratch the surface than she initially appears, but she's a Clinton, so, deeply hated by the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracists")

Barrack Obama- The most liberal of liberals

John McCain- A guy who has a past of being a little bit of a maverick, but still has a pretty conservative pedigree.

That's it. Those are your choices.

Dr. Paul and the Huckster are still running :smile:

revefsreleets
02-08-2008, 09:43 AM
Notice how when Mitt backed out, he didn't endore anyone? I guarantee the lines between his camp and McCain's are on fire right now...Romney for VP looks a lot more possible.

Borski
02-08-2008, 12:38 PM
Notice how when Mitt backed out, he didn't endore anyone? I guarantee the lines between his camp and McCain's are on fire right now...Romney for VP looks a lot more possible.

I would be happy with that, but I really doubt a Romney VP. my odds are on either Huckabee or Rudy as VP

revefsreleets
02-09-2008, 09:26 PM
I still think it's going to be something weird...like Thompson. We'll see.

Hey, GB, I disagree...I think the Country is moving right to where it's always been. Right into the middle. The two party system's overbearing domination and control has pushed the partisanship so far to the extremes that "Joe Q Public" is actually reinvigorated and getting back into politics on their own terms.

GBMelBlount
02-10-2008, 07:43 PM
I still think it's going to be something weird...like Thompson. We'll see.

Hey, GB, I disagree...I think the Country is moving right to where it's always been. Right into the middle. The two party system's overbearing domination and control has pushed the partisanship so far to the extremes that "Joe Q Public" is actually reinvigorated and getting back into politics on their own terms.

To me it's not right vs. left, it's right vs. wrong. For example, most want to give the 10,000,000+- illegals amnesty because they are already here and they say it is too costly and impractical to boot them out. I disagree. If you give them amnesty, all the rest of them will come flooding in illegaly IMO knowing in 10 years they will be given amnesty as well. I do not think that is what is best for our country. As far as getting them out of here, they are not slabs of beef. They walked in, they can walk out. If there is no incentive to be here many will leave and far fewer will come. So what would the "right in the middle" solution be here? I just don't see it.

revefsreleets
02-11-2008, 09:05 AM
I don't have a specific answer to a question that complex. You can't "quick fix" problems that evolved over years due to mismanagement and basic neglect.

I thought this op/ed piece was excellent. I'm really starting to appreciate Kathleen Parker's stuff more and more...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/15501006.html?page=all&c=y

An irrational reaction to McCain
Published on Monday, Feb 11, 2008





WASHINGTON: Kamikaze Republicans — those who say they'll never vote for John McCain because he isn't conservative enough — may get what they deserve.

The Clintons.

Many on the right, including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, James Dobson and others, have declared they'd rather vote for Hillary Clinton — or not vote at all — than cast a ballot for McCain. These self-appointed spokesmen for conservatism insist that voting for Clinton is a matter of principle: Better to go down on the strength of one's convictions than to be a morally compromised placeholder, they say.

To be sure, political cannibalism makes for interesting dinner conversation, but the winner eventually starves to death.

It isn't necessary to love everything McCain has done to vote for him should he be the nominee.

But it isn't possible to argue that there's no difference between McCain and Clinton (or Barack Obama), as some Republicans insist.

A form of irrational conservatism has taken hold when being true to oneself or to the party is viewed as more important than, say, turning over the country to people who want to raise taxes and impose socialized health care.

Principles shouldn't be so inflexible that strict adherence elevates a worse alternative.

Exactly which core principle facilitates the garnisheeing of wages to pay for mandatory insurance coverage, as Clinton has proposed? In a recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Clinton said her government-ordered insurance program would require an enforcement mechanism that might include ''you know, going after people's wages.''

Where are those core principles when a Democratic president is appointing judges to the Supreme Court? Given that five of the nine justices will be 70 or older come November, it's a near certainty that one or more will be replaced in the next four to eight years. Justice John Paul Stevens will be 88 in April.

The principles that Republicans rail about are not inconsequential. Small government and free-market economics were once ideas that most Americans embraced. They went hand-in-hand with strong families and moral values that didn't need redefining every four years.

McCain's enemies see him as having abandoned those principles with the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill limiting political speech, and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that would allow for gradual citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria.

McCain also has suggested that Americans be allowed to buy Canadian drugs that are cheaper because Canada's socialized health system imposes price controls. And he's on board with environmentalist initiatives to reduce global warming.

These are positions with which conservatives would naturally argue. And perhaps they are right that McCain is more moderate than conservative, but so is the nation. Alternatively, McCain's maverick lawmaking might be viewed as principled compromise — or at least an earnest attempt to inject humane ethics into the mix.

Serious people don't really believe that the U.S. government is going to round up 11 million or 12 million people and ship them back to wherever they came from. It isn't going to happen.

Government parceling of free speech via McCain-Feingold, a portion of which has been found unconstitutional, can't otherwise be justified unless you figure, as McCain does, that purchased speech isn't free. When some people have greater access to ''free speech'' by virtue of their deeper pockets, then one could fairly argue that less prosperous people are denied free speech.

McCain's fire-breathing opponents, meanwhile, disregard his support of other positions Republicans hold dear. He has a strong pro-life voting record (except for supporting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), has opposed wasteful spending, and has been steadfast in supporting the war. But, stepping outside the GOP box, he opposes torture, including waterboarding.

How dare a man who was tortured for five years in a Vietnamese prison depart from the party line?

Anti-McCain rage for many comes down to personality. He doesn't play nice and his independence annoys those who prefer the team player mentality.

But Republicans' obstinance in claiming to prefer Clinton to McCain is arrogance of a Clintonian order. To wit: Hillary Clinton has said that as president she would not listen to generals in Iraq and would withdraw troops no matter what.

Because? Any progress that may now be occurring in Iraq, she said, is owing to the current presidential race. The Iraqi government knows that when Clinton becomes president, the free ride is over. It's all because of her, in other words.

On exactly what principle would Republicans reward that kind of grandiosity and make Hillary Clinton — but not John McCain — commander in chief of America's armed forces?

Do tell.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parker is a Washington Post Writers Group syndicated columnist.





WASHINGTON: Kamikaze Republicans — those who say they'll never vote for John McCain because he isn't conservative enough — may get what they deserve.

The Clintons.

Many on the right, including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, James Dobson and others, have declared they'd rather vote for Hillary Clinton — or not vote at all — than cast a ballot for McCain. These self-appointed spokesmen for conservatism insist that voting for Clinton is a matter of principle: Better to go down on the strength of one's convictions than to be a morally compromised placeholder, they say.

To be sure, political cannibalism makes for interesting dinner conversation, but the winner eventually starves to death.

It isn't necessary to love everything McCain has done to vote for him should he be the nominee.

But it isn't possible to argue that there's no difference between McCain and Clinton (or Barack Obama), as some Republicans insist.

A form of irrational conservatism has taken hold when being true to oneself or to the party is viewed as more important than, say, turning over the country to people who want to raise taxes and impose socialized health care.

Principles shouldn't be so inflexible that strict adherence elevates a worse alternative.

Exactly which core principle facilitates the garnisheeing of wages to pay for mandatory insurance coverage, as Clinton has proposed? In a recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Clinton said her government-ordered insurance program would require an enforcement mechanism that might include ''you know, going after people's wages.''

Where are those core principles when a Democratic president is appointing judges to the Supreme Court? Given that five of the nine justices will be 70 or older come November, it's a near certainty that one or more will be replaced in the next four to eight years. Justice John Paul Stevens will be 88 in April.

The principles that Republicans rail about are not inconsequential. Small government and free-market economics were once ideas that most Americans embraced. They went hand-in-hand with strong families and moral values that didn't need redefining every four years.

McCain's enemies see him as having abandoned those principles with the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill limiting political speech, and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that would allow for gradual citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria.

McCain also has suggested that Americans be allowed to buy Canadian drugs that are cheaper because Canada's socialized health system imposes price controls. And he's on board with environmentalist initiatives to reduce global warming.

These are positions with which conservatives would naturally argue. And perhaps they are right that McCain is more moderate than conservative, but so is the nation. Alternatively, McCain's maverick lawmaking might be viewed as principled compromise — or at least an earnest attempt to inject humane ethics into the mix.

Serious people don't really believe that the U.S. government is going to round up 11 million or 12 million people and ship them back to wherever they came from. It isn't going to happen.

Government parceling of free speech via McCain-Feingold, a portion of which has been found unconstitutional, can't otherwise be justified unless you figure, as McCain does, that purchased speech isn't free. When some people have greater access to ''free speech'' by virtue of their deeper pockets, then one could fairly argue that less prosperous people are denied free speech.

McCain's fire-breathing opponents, meanwhile, disregard his support of other positions Republicans hold dear. He has a strong pro-life voting record (except for supporting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), has opposed wasteful spending, and has been steadfast in supporting the war. But, stepping outside the GOP box, he opposes torture, including waterboarding.

revefsreleets
02-11-2008, 09:06 AM
How dare a man who was tortured for five years in a Vietnamese prison depart from the party line?

Anti-McCain rage for many comes down to personality. He doesn't play nice and his independence annoys those who prefer the team player mentality.

But Republicans' obstinance in claiming to prefer Clinton to McCain is arrogance of a Clintonian order. To wit: Hillary Clinton has said that as president she would not listen to generals in Iraq and would withdraw troops no matter what.

Because? Any progress that may now be occurring in Iraq, she said, is owing to the current presidential race. The Iraqi government knows that when Clinton becomes president, the free ride is over. It's all because of her, in other words.

On exactly what principle would Republicans reward that kind of grandiosity and make Hillary Clinton — but not John McCain — commander in chief of America's armed forces?

Do tell.

GBMelBlount
02-11-2008, 10:55 PM
I'm not a McCain fan, but I am voting for him if he is the republican candidate. I don't particularly like him but if I look at him issue by issue, especially with respect to the war, if his most liberal side came out as president (which I fear), it is still better than either democrat alternative, at least based on my beliefs.

revefsreleets
02-13-2008, 09:26 PM
His liberal side? What liberal side?

You know what scares me more than anything in this world? Not the people who actually really and truly believe that their parties entire platform, plank by plank, is the unequivocal and unquestionable "way it should be". Although there are plenty of those out there, and they are scary enough, they only do minor damage in their own little sphere of influence.

What scares the living shit out of me is that one day one of these totally sold out ideologues is going to attain a position of ultimate power, and actually start implementing the insanity. Like Hitler did.

What makes this Country (still) great is the fact that it sits in the middle. The middle works. We are a progressive society, but kept in just the right check by our conservative side. We are pioneers who take risks, but calculated risks. I'm off on a tangent, now, but the point remains. We are NOT moving right, and we are NOT moving left, we are actually discovering that the political will and feel of this Country is right where it has always been, right in the middle, and we finally have a candidate or two who are willing to take the risk of appealing to them.

GBMelBlount
02-13-2008, 10:22 PM
What liberal side? The side that he often vacillates towards:

1. He just said he wouldn't vote for the immigration bill he co-sponsorded with a democrat.

2. He has both opposed and favored the Bush tax cuts

3. He co-sponsored a campaign finance reform then abandoned it (I think)

4. both against and for torture

5. for and against ethanol

6. for & against overturning roe v. wade.

One thing I like about him is he has consistently shown concern for deficits & government spending. So perhaps he would be fiscally responsible which I think is vital.

These are just a few important issues he has changed positions on so I am sure you can understand my concern. However, I would still vote for him over Obama or Hillary. BTW, if you look at where our country has gone in the last 50 years, we have gone far to the right IMO.

Borski
02-13-2008, 11:33 PM
What scares the living shit out of me is that one day one of these totally sold out ideologues is going to attain a position of ultimate power, and actually start implementing the insanity. Like Hitler did.


Just because you are moderate doesn't mean everyone is, nor does it mean everyone is liberal or conservative. I don't agree 100% of the republican platform but I am conservative and agree with a good 90% of it.

Although with Russia acting up recently, I really don't trust a Democrat in the white house, so McCain it is.

83-Steelers-43
02-14-2008, 01:43 PM
Romney to endorse McCain: http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/14/ap-romney-to-endorse-mccain/

revefsreleets
02-15-2008, 06:33 PM
MOST of this country sits in the middle. If there is a silent majority, it's the moderate contingent. It's the far left and far right who are most vocal (and who are also the kookiest) that have really defined the parties over the last few years. Their voice carries a ton of weight simply because they yell the loudest.

Don't believe me? Read this:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/15536057.html?page=all&c=y

Polarized nation? No, purple is the word

By Steve Chapman
CHICAGO:

Published on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008

In his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, Barack Obama rejected the notion that Americans were entrenched in hostile camps of red states and blue states, insisting that we are ''the United States of America.'' But in the ensuing presidential election, the country was a picture of polarization, with the South and the heartland voting Republican as usual and the West Coast and Northeast remaining Democratic.

So Obama was obviously living in a fool's paradise.

Or maybe not. In this election, the country looks eerily like a game between the Minnesota Vikings and the Baltimore Ravens — a riot of purple.

Instead of turning to candidates like George W. Bush and John Kerry, who had limited appeal beyond their party faithful, both Democrats and Republicans have shown an openness to leaders whose appeal blurs the usual lines of ideology.

On the one side you have Obama, who has gotten gentle treatment from some conservative thinkers despite his embrace by Ted Kennedy and MoveOn.org. Columnist and TV commentator George Will describes him as ''an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic 'fights' against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.''

New York Times columnist David Brooks says, ''Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism.''

On the other side you have John McCain, the staunchest supporter of Bush's unpopular war, who nonetheless manages to be what conservatives call the ''darling of the liberal media.'' His appeal is broad enough that in 2004, John Kerry considered asking him to be his running mate.

Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg hails McCain as ''a Teddy Roosevelt progressive — militant, crusading, reformist, and hostile to concentrated power.''

McCain may alienate disciples of Rush Limbaugh, and Obama stirs tepid enthusiasm among liberals who would prefer a rabid pit bull. But the two confirm that Americans have never really been all that divided. Most Americans are not red or blue but a bit of both.

In his 2006 book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, Morris Fiorina of the Hoover Institution and Stanford University noted that on the bulk of issues, there is substantial agreement across the country.

In 2000, 44 percent of voters in red states said the government is almost always inefficient — but so did 39 percent of those in blue states. Fully 70 percent of blue staters said we should ''do whatever it takes to protect the environment,'' a view shared by 64 percent of red staters.

Majorities in both red and blue states were very glad that Bill Clinton was not eligible for a third term, and majorities opposed higher defense spending. In red areas, oddly, most people have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party — just as in blue locales, most take a positive view of the GOP. In both, the largest ideological category consists of moderates.

In recent decades, though, the two parties have moved away from each other, defining themselves more and more in strictly ideological terms. As a result, the electorate appears polarized when it isn't.

''Elections are close, but voters are not deeply or bitterly divided,'' writes Fiorina. ''In both red and blue states, a solid majority of voters see themselves as positioned between two relatively extreme parties.''

It's not surprising that so many Democrats and independents prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton, who brags about the scars she carries from the partisan fights of the 1990s — neglecting to mention that she inflicted as many bite wounds as she suffered. That's why 42 percent of Americans view her unfavorably, compared to just 30 percent for Obama and 31 percent for McCain. While Clinton seems to relish stoking partisan fires, Obama comes across like Smokey Bear.

McCain's GOP supporters hope to persuade conservatives he is one of them. But part of his electoral appeal is that conservatives dislike him, suggesting he will not refight all the trench battles of the past 16 years.

One reason he attracts moderates and independents, as with Obama, is that he strikes a comparatively temperate tone. McCain's voting record is nearly as conservative as Obama's is liberal. But as Fiorina told me, both convey that they don't find compromise villainous and hateful.

''It's not just the positions you hold,'' he says, that are important to voters, ''but the positions you can accept.'' After eight years of obstinacy in the Oval Office, a little flexibility doesn't sound too bad.
Chapman is a Chicago Tribune columnist.

In his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, Barack Obama rejected the notion that Americans were entrenched in hostile camps of red states and blue states, insisting that we are ''the United States of America.'' But in the ensuing presidential election, the country was a picture of polarization, with the South and the heartland voting Republican as usual and the West Coast and Northeast remaining Democratic.

So Obama was obviously living in a fool's paradise.

Or maybe not. In this election, the country looks eerily like a game between the Minnesota Vikings and the Baltimore Ravens — a riot of purple.

Instead of turning to candidates like George W. Bush and John Kerry, who had limited appeal beyond their party faithful, both Democrats and Republicans have shown an openness to leaders whose appeal blurs the usual lines of ideology.

On the one side you have Obama, who has gotten gentle treatment from some conservative thinkers despite his embrace by Ted Kennedy and MoveOn.org. Columnist and TV commentator George Will describes him as ''an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic 'fights' against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.''

New York Times columnist David Brooks says, ''Obama is changing the tone of American liberalism.''

On the other side you have John McCain, the staunchest supporter of Bush's unpopular war, who nonetheless manages to be what conservatives call the ''darling of the liberal media.'' His appeal is broad enough that in 2004, John Kerry considered asking him to be his running mate.

Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg hails McCain as ''a Teddy Roosevelt progressive — militant, crusading, reformist, and hostile to concentrated power.''

McCain may alienate disciples of Rush Limbaugh, and Obama stirs tepid enthusiasm among liberals who would prefer a rabid pit bull. But the two confirm that Americans have never really been all that divided. Most Americans are not red or blue but a bit of both.

In his 2006 book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, Morris Fiorina of the Hoover Institution and Stanford University noted that on the bulk of issues, there is substantial agreement across the country.

In 2000, 44 percent of voters in red states said the government is almost always inefficient — but so did 39 percent of those in blue states. Fully 70 percent of blue staters said we should ''do whatever it takes to protect the environment,'' a view shared by 64 percent of red staters.

Majorities in both red and blue states were very glad that Bill Clinton was not eligible for a third term, and majorities opposed higher defense spending. In red areas, oddly, most people have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party — just as in blue locales, most take a positive view of the GOP. In both, the largest ideological category consists of moderates.

In recent decades, though, the two parties have moved away from each other, defining themselves more and more in strictly ideological terms. As a result, the electorate appears polarized when it isn't.

''Elections are close, but voters are not deeply or bitterly divided,'' writes Fiorina. ''In both red and blue states, a solid majority of voters see themselves as positioned between two relatively extreme parties.''

It's not surprising that so many Democrats and independents prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton, who brags about the scars she carries from the partisan fights of the 1990s — neglecting to mention that she inflicted as many bite wounds as she suffered. That's why 42 percent of Americans view her unfavorably, compared to just 30 percent for Obama and 31 percent for McCain. While Clinton seems to relish stoking partisan fires, Obama comes across like Smokey Bear.

McCain's GOP supporters hope to persuade conservatives he is one of them. But part of his electoral appeal is that conservatives dislike him, suggesting he will not refight all the trench battles of the past 16 years.

One reason he attracts moderates and independents, as with Obama, is that he strikes a comparatively temperate tone. McCain's voting record is nearly as conservative as Obama's is liberal. But as Fiorina told me, both convey that they don't find compromise villainous and hateful.

''It's not just the positions you hold,'' he says, that are important to voters, ''but the positions you can accept.'' After eight years of obstinacy in the Oval Office, a little flexibility doesn't sound too bad.