Please discuss.
UPDATE: Doug Parris raises an important topic in the comments, despite the usual charm with which he presents his argument: immigration is a base-killer for McCain. Just so happens it will be in the news for a while too.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 22, 2007 10:27 PM | Email ThisVisit my McCain Space for more.
McCain is also popular on Facebook and MySpace.
So yeah, I'd say this is a good development for McCain -- he'll get a strong showing in Washington. And if chosen as the nominee, he will be a boon to Republican's state and local electoral chances as well.
Posted by: Patrick on February 22, 2007 10:47 PMThe WSRP is out of touch with its base and out of touch with reality.
Posted by: Michelle on February 22, 2007 11:23 PMI never thought politicians should endorse anyone, I guess I don't mind them saying who they will vote for if asked, but to actively endorse someone, should be criminal for a paid government employee.
I think one of the CA senators holds that stance as well, I respect her for that...only.
Posted by: Doug on February 22, 2007 11:32 PMAnd that's not counting the Gang of 14 crap that helped de-focus the GOP in the Senate, leading to today's democrat majority. Way to go.
Hugh Hewitt sums it up perfectly: McCain the man is a figure of tremendous respect and a great American. McCain the Senator is horrible. McCain the President would be even worse.
The only way he gets my vote is if Hillary is his opponent.
Posted by: Steve (was steve_dog) on February 22, 2007 11:37 PMMcCain/Feingold is one. As has been mentioned, here and elsewhere, it is Unconstitutional on its face. John McCain, despite that, and despite the ample demonstration, in the wake of its passage, of its utter worthlessness as law in any practical sense, would not leave it there, even. He would not cut his losses. He wanted to strengthen the law's bold and totalitarian encroachment on free elections.
McAmnesty/Kennedy is another; the Senate's "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act." It literally amounts to, not just an amnesty for millions of habitual criminals, guilty of both federal crimes and multiple cases of document fraud, but additional financial rewards and benefits to them based on racial preferences for which law abiding Americans are not eligible and for which, nevertheless, those same law abiding Americans must pay dearly. Simply put, the bill is treasonous. A full treatment of it is here: OUTRIGHT TREASON
The only way a legislator could support it without endangering his immortal soul is if he were mentally impaired. That will probably be John McCain's excuse. But what is Rob McKenna's?
Pardon my French, but Americans don't want this crap.
How do we account for Rob's lemming-like leaping into the quicksand of doom whose depths were previously plumbed by ¡Mike! McGavick? It only remains for the Republican grassroots to begin to slowly apply to Mr. McKenna that conclusion which flows inexorably from the original thesis: "There are some political positions at which you just can't arrive if any conservative blood at all flows through your veins."
McCain is a RINO and will always be a RINO. I can not and will not support him.
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on February 23, 2007 03:57 AMI supported McCain in 2000, but I feel differently today. McCain has an additional record in the last 7 years, and I have had more time to reflect on his record that already existed as of 2000.
I think successful executive experience is important to be President. McCain has never had any of this at a major level, although being a superior officer to others in the Navy cannot be ignored. Mitt Romney has been a successful business executive and Governor of Massachusetts. Rudy Giuliani has run a U.S. Attorney Office in New York City and served two terms as Mayor of New York City.
Giuliana is far too liberal for the GOP to have to nominate for President -- but at least he is consistent. Romney was a moderate in the past and has become more conservative -- largely a matter of gradual evolution while he was serving as Massachusetts Governor and actually implementing policy while in office. McCain has apparently made a similar change in his politics, but it seems much less sincere than Romney -- a matter of "intelligent design" instead of evolution.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 23, 2007 04:38 AMThin skinned, cant handle criticism, tempers barley under conrtol, not overly fast on their feet oratorically, beyond egotistical, unprincipled..........why one can just keep going on and on with the eery similariities.....
In summation, dangerous loose cannons whose popularity has nowhere to go but down.....
Posted by: Hank on February 23, 2007 06:51 AMSorry Richard. As a person who has met some of the officers who flew with McCain, he was anything but a superior officer. McCain used his fathers name to get into flight school and his record was down right joke. He should have been flushed, but daddy saved him. Plus he had no respect from the other pilots.
McCain is looking out for himself and not the country.
I could go with McCain- at times I am impressed and others, not so much. He isn't in my top five this year, though.
And for above, he isn't the press darling so much anymore. They are starting to tear after him.
Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2007 07:01 AMAnd tear at him they will. His record is open and if he is picked, you can be sure his life will become one BIG open book.
He couldn't handle the pressure in 2000, think he can in 2008 when the press is no longer his friend.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 23, 2007 07:06 AMDon't forget the McCain Lieberman Bill.
In it they pander to the global warming alarmists.
And don't forget his position on NAGRPA. He wants to re-word that act to give the tribes even greater ability to take ANY pre-columbian artifact. If that bill passed Kennewick Man's bones go straight into the ground at a hidden location on the Umatilla or Colville Reservations.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 23, 2007 07:07 AMI wasn't commenting on whether John McCain was "superior", "inferior" or "average" as an officer. What I was talking about was that his rank was superior (i.e. O-6, O-5, etc.) to some other officers, and that he must have had a command of his own, or at least superior rank within a command over sailors and other officers.
McCain did make it to O-6 in the Navy, i.e. Captain. What commands did he have? And what staff officer positions did he hold?
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 23, 2007 07:28 AMEarly indications are that the Democrats are going to fumble this one. With that in mind, I think any of the above could walk into the White House.
Posted by: Organization Man on February 23, 2007 07:45 AMNot a penny for the GOP from me. Never again until they find themselves. As much as it pains me to say, it is almost worth allowing the DEMS to win the whitehouse in order to show their true colors and cause the GOP to return to the concepts that made this country great.
My only reservation at this point is simply the country cost in allowing this to happen. I'm not sure it's worth a city like NY, Chicago or LA to prove a point.
Posted by: Cardio on February 23, 2007 07:47 AMAs for McCain, I think the posts above have pretty well stated it. McCain/Feingold, McAmnesty(I like that one)/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman are we not seeing a trend here?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 23, 2007 08:21 AMI think, but am not sure, that Lieberman would be a possibility.
Anyone notice that Cheney is acting up recently in chiding both McCain and Pelosi on their dumb statements regarding the War on Terrorism? Short-time disease or working up to being the next VP?
Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2007 08:49 AMI know you and Doug and Michell think anything and everything that has ever happened which you don't approve of somehow has to be my fault, but you're going to have to rethink this one.
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 08:52 AMChris V
We need you to act like a REP/CON.
Not a wishy-washie.
Look what has been happening. Not hard to see.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 23, 2007 09:04 AMRichard were you ever in the MIL?
During a time of war your rank can go up in a hurry. I know because I've been there.
Also some of McCain rank was raised during his POW time.
But his rank or time in service still doesn't change my mind on him.
As I've said before, the press will turn on him and his past will come back to bite him in the ass.
And yet, if any politician doesn't repeat Tom Tancredo's worthless views, all you hear declare him to be a liberal in disguise.
I'd like to see a discussion on what is a "conservative" view of immigration, so that an agreement could be come to. Not everyone would be 100% for it, but it would be better than the sniping that currently takes place.
Posted by: janet s on February 23, 2007 09:41 AMI sincerely hope McCain tanks badly and quickly in the primaries. While he may call himself a Republican and it might be argued that occasionally he even acts like a Republican, I simply don't trust him to BE a Republican when it runs counter to his own interests.
I can't (and won't) vote for a guy I don't trust.
I don't think Rudy is the ideal candidate (I've said before that Newt is my guy) but I do trust Rudy in the big areas.
I can't (and won't) vote for a guy I don't trust.... has anyone beside me noticed that McCain shares that secretive, furtive, "I'm up to something and you ain't gonna like it but too damn bad" look that Gregoire has?
Scary.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 23, 2007 09:47 AMFigures.
Every R the last 6 years has used the American base for their power grab and knifing us at every turn. COWRDS No Leadership. What good is a constitution?
150 years ago McCain would have been tarred and feathered for that BS M-F bill that GW signed hoping the Commie Supremes would overturn it, come again!
Wait until they shut this blog down with M-F you wait!
Frankly maybe going off topic I really wonder if we'd be in any different position under Rossi. Certainly not with GW. Rob get out of my life.
Quit trading My liberty for your security.
What do you want Rob; a low level justice department post where you can run border patrol agents to the firing squad?
A very critical component of one's character is temperament - on this, he fails if you've followed his life and career even cursorily. Yes, we can call him a "war hero" and we sincerely thank him for his service. But that, by no means, guarantees us a good President who is looking out for the interests of the American People as his top priority.
Look at all of the bills of which he's been a sponsor in his Senate career - ill-considered, unconstitutional, treasonous - disastrous.
During debate on the CIRA bill abomination, I watched him give a stomach-turning speech from the Senate floor, imploring his colleagues to grant Social Security benefits to illegal insurgents among many other giveaways - all at the law-abiding American tax-payers' expense! But, the most sickening part of all was the rhetoric he used to browbeat those who disagreed with him, comparing them to forcing Illegals to "ride in the back of the bus".
Don't forget he was also caught up in the Keating Five scandal. If I had a choice between McCain and Mrs. Clinton, I'd have to vote for her (by not voting) because, at least she's a predictable, known quantity, and nothing would better galvanize a new Conservative movement on the Right than to see Slick Willy back in the White House operating as First Lady.
McCain would most certainly plunge us into a deep malaise of RINO mush and a continuation of Bush's debilitating Neo-Con (socialist) fantasies - if he could even win the Presidency.
Sorry, I just could not ever bring myself to support this guy - he's, in a word, dangerous. (Not to mention that, every time I see this guy, his overtly disingenuous and stiff gesticulations bring to mind an amalgam of Uncle Fester crossed with Dr. Strangelove - like a character straight out of a Stanley Kubrick masterpiece.)
-Jefferson Paine
I'm frankly amazed that McKenna jumped so early given how McCain's positions are so absolutely contrary to the GOP base. Not a smart move. No one can be surprised about the early Mainstream (ha!) R's (Munro et al) support but McKenna should know better. McGavicks pathetic campaign should teach everyone what compromising-neo-con-liberal-wishy-washy-me-too-posturing can bring in terms of votes against a Cantwell even with her 40+% high negatives. McCain will either lose in the primaries OR lose in the general but suffice it to say HE IS A LOSER.
The campaign has only begun and we'll see what develops in the next several months.
Haven't Republicans had enough of RINOs? If not, get ready for another election cycle of DemocRAT sweeps here and across the nation.
If you liked 2006 you'll really love 2008, 2010, 2012 and we'll soon be welcoming a new crop of US supreme court nominees.
As for McCain, go ahead jump in line with the lost WA state GOP Illuminati- put him front and center early on- that way we can assure Ms. Clinton's victory in 2008.
WA state will go blue regardless of what the RINO's here in WA ultimately do, but why give McCain the illusion of being able to win on a national basis? He won't.
An outsider will win the whitehouse 2008, be it Rudy or Mitt does it really matter? But- for crying out loud let's at least take steps that deliver the GOP a chance.
Some of you say "the base" will never support McCain (Or Guiliani or Romney). We'll see. The base will get to choose in caucuses and primaries begining less than one year from now. If John McCain emerges as the nominee it will be self-evident that the majority of Republicans are willing to support his views.
If McCain (Or Guiliani or Romney) is chosen by Republican voters no one should use the term RINO or traitor. Just because you lose doesn't mean the other guy cheated.
So, for now, forget unity. Let's have the contest; see where the majority of Republicans really stand; then come together behind our nominee.
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 10:55 AMI can't find my paper work that I did on McCain last year. I was researching a shirt-tale cousin of mine at the time that also was a guest at the Hanoi Hilton and decided to compare their records. McCains military record is alot more difficult to put together as compared to my relative. McCain did receive some medals, however my cousin received tons of medals and was higher ranking during those days and retired at the rank of Rear Admiral and went on to become a US Senator (Jeremiah Denton).
A friend of mine has a friend that use to work around McCain in recent years and says that he is not a very nice person to be around.
Do a Google search on John McCain Bios or John McCain Military. There is lots of info available about him and not all of it is very nice. It appears that he has problems.
Chris Vance as the former party chairman, will the money dry up the closer we get to November '08 or will it flow even more than past elections? I ask the question because this is an unprecedented early start to the campaign and all the candidates are spending money like it is going out of style.
I agree that this is exciting. For once, the Rs have attractive candidates in Romney and Giuliani who know how to speak to the public. And I go back to 1976.
And the Ds actually have a challenger to a Clinton. In '00 and '04 the Ds were boring and we all awaited this cycle. Clinton is being forced to show her hand a lot earlier than she wanted.
There is no Mondale, Dukkakis, Bush I, Bush II, Gore, Kerry or Dole. I see this as a real positive to the USA.
And notice how quiet it has been in Bagdad.
Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2007 11:09 AMAs for the general election, I would expect that both sides will have all the money they need. They certainly did in 2004.
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 11:17 AMI know you and Doug and Michell think anything and everything that has ever happened which you don't approve of somehow has to be my fault, but you're going to have to rethink this one.(SIC)
It's so nice to hear from you, Chris. But please, don't flatter yourself too much. We don't blame you for everything. You are however, a great icon of how the GOP establishment is totally out of touch with not only the GOP base, but with reality. Evidence in #37
Best Regards!
Posted by: Michelle on February 23, 2007 12:00 PMHow is my post (#37) out of touch? Wouldn't you agree that the Republican nominee will de facto be representative of the Republican base?
If you and Doug are correct, and Tancredo represents what the majority of Republicans want, he should win the nomination, right?
Do you view "the base" as the majority, or just a fringe protest movement?
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 12:17 PMAfter McCain-Feingold and now the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigration amnesty bill, why would anyone support someone who authored such despicable legislation ? The wheels are coming off of the Republican bus.
Posted by: KS on February 23, 2007 12:21 PMArmy Medic's attempted "swift boating
Sorry DJ believe what you want. As someone who served just like he did I have ZERO complaints with him. (POW) Not as a pilot.
But his past and what he has been doing now. (GW)
McCain/Fingold. Ask yourself why was he taking money while he was pushing this bill?
Not including his banking troubles.
Don't worry DJ, if McCain begins to move up and is a threat to the Dems the NYT, LA, etc will bring up his past and then you can judge for yourself.
By the way DJ. Were the Swiftboaters wrong?
NO!
I think everyone is pushing the idea we don't want another RINO.
Reagan type would be much better please
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 23, 2007 12:35 PMFor his part, McCain (unlike Kerry) has hardly claimed that he was an exemplary sailor. If you read his books, he's pretty self-effacing about that period in his life. What can't be denied is the heroism he displayed in the Hanoi Hilton. Sure, some may carp that he got special treatment there as the admiral's son. I think the torture he experienced would mitigate those claims. And don't forget that, despite the torture, McCain refused to be released during his captivity.
McCain was a war hero. If anybody tries to slime him to undercut this fact, the popular backlash against the accusers will be thunderous. Don't go there.
Posted by: DJ on February 23, 2007 01:05 PMThe Swift Boat Vets did an admirable job laying out the military record of the person who was "Reporting for Duty". What appears on the surface to be an admirable record turns out to be an embellishment and rewrite of a military stint. It was true, factual and on-line.
Don't stoop to the D tactics, please.
McCain, contrary to John Kerry, had an admirable career. We should leave it at that.
Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2007 01:08 PMLet me try this again. I too am a pilot and have met and know the other pilots who flew with and know John McCain.(San Diego) He was not well liked, plus sir it's not unknown that he used his fathers name to get where he was. As a POW I have nothing but RESPECT for him. But as a pilot and as a senator he's not that good. Sorry, McCain has a very checkered pass and I damn will bring it up. If he does by chance make to the election day. The news services will cream him. Then we will have no chance in 2008.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 23, 2007 01:39 PMAccording to the latest Quinnipiac University poll, McCain has a 67% favorability rating among Republicans, compared to 81% for Giuliani and only 35% for Romney (his numbers are so low because nobody knows him yet - 58% haven't heard enough about him to form an opinion).
Going the other way, 14% of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of McCain compared to 10% for Giuliani, and just 7% for Romney.
All of those numbers are sure to change. Republican voters are going to become less likely to vote for Giuliani once they learn more about his social views (there's some interesting polling on that), Romney's going to become more popular if he can stake out a conservative agenda without being tied down by his past stances on abortion and other issues (him being Mormon will have a far less stake than many seem to believe), while McCain is going to have to convince conservatives that he's with them. He's making far better inroads than I thought possible a year ago.
Chris is right on about the race being frontloaded, which means that one of the three top-tier candidates will get the nomination.
Posted by: Joseph on February 23, 2007 02:01 PMMcCain is going to have to convince conservatives that he's with them. He's making far better inroads than I thought possible a year ago.
Really, what makes you think this?
McCain has already jumped on the GW band wagon and claming the WH is doing nothing about it.
If this is what inroads you talk about. Seems rocky to me. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 23, 2007 02:09 PMI think you and I had a similiar debate about your being out of touch during the debacle over Harriet Miers. You seem to have a crystal ball into the future. But you'd think you'd have learned your lesson on its reliability.
Posted by: Michelle on February 23, 2007 02:11 PMWhy change the subject? During the Miers nomination I was the Chairman, and it was my job to support the President. What does that have to do with this discussion?
My point is simply this: the Republican base will choose the nominee via the caucuses and primaries. Therefore, we will all soon see who is out of touch and who isn't.
How can you argue with that?
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 02:29 PMMcKenna has done nothing to eliminate it. In fact, he is part of it.
McKenna's never raised a constitutional argument argument at the USSC in the WEA case. He went out of his way to avoid such an argument. Hw wanted to only argue the statute. Maybe he knew that the legislature was going to change the law regarding the use of nonunion members dues for political purposes which will be a violation of the First Amendment.
Whatever independence McKenna had at some point has been so compromised he can no longer prosecute any public corruption case without being dragged into it himself.
Posted by: Don on February 23, 2007 02:30 PMMcCain is running on three things to prove that hee's a conservative: he's pro-life, he's for fiscal discipline, and he's strong on national defense. And while it's not convincing everyone, it's enough to get people behind him. Right now, McCain arguably has the best pro-life credentials among the top three.
He's picked up some of the best bricklayers in the country, including Terry Nelson, perhaps the best of the best.
He's picking up support from conservative southerners like Mark Sanford, Chip Pickering, Hailey Barbour, at least six U.S. Senators (compared to one in 2000)
He's lined up the support of Jerry Falwell. Got the support of some of Iowa's top conservative leaders. Has a tremendous amount of support within the RNC.
McCain is positioning himself well given his past.
Posted by: Joseph on February 23, 2007 03:03 PMAt least McCain went to Vietnam rather than using his fathers name/position to keep him stateside. He served, got shot down, and spent a very unhappy couple of years in the Hanoi Hilton. Guy's a freakin hero compared to the current draft dodgers we have in office. To "swift boat" him for being disagreable is an insult to him and his service record.
The fact that you caution against the use of the "term" RINO somehow suggesting that it has something to do with winning or not, fair or otherwise confirms your plight.
Dave RINO-Richert(sp?) is a perfect example of being a Republican in Name Only. Many of his positions and decisions to go against traditional values are based on feeble progressive ideas hoping to insure re-election. Those who encourage him now will surely turn on him at first chance. The last election should have been a wake-up call for all of you. Can you fathom an absolute no name Darcy whatever coming so close to seizure of Jennifer Dunn's congressional seat?
What is really sad- and should be an eye-opener for you is that most people posting here today seem to be cut and dried-take it to the bank Republicans. They, like me are not happy!
I haven't voted for a democratic candidate in 30 years or more and likely never will. But, I will tell you that I'm considering a move to Idaho.
There at least my vote will actually count. (yes that does have double meaning)
Honestly, I wish you a rapid enlightenment and success in returning the WA state contingent of the Republican party to a foundation rooted in traditional values.
Posted by: cardio on February 23, 2007 03:37 PM
Democracy is competition. If you don't like McCain, support someone else. You - the voters - are going to determine the next leader of the Republican Party.
With that in mind, if the Republican voters choose McCain next year how can you or anyone else call him a RINO?
That's the point I'm trying to make.
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 03:47 PM
At some point we conservatives have to stand up and say "ENOUGH"! I draw the line at McCain. He has done too much that is against what I believe in as a Conservative.
So I will be voting for someone other than Sen. McCain.
Posted by: David on February 23, 2007 03:53 PMI haven't changed the subject. I was pointing out another example of how you're out of touch with the base. Is it that unclear to you that the base (even those on this thread, with whom I often disagree) finds McCain unacceptable? He's unacceptable to anyone who is concerned with life, marriage, borders, soverenty, judges, the constitution.
You wrote in #37:
Some of you say "the base" will never support McCain (Or Guiliani or Romney). We'll see. The base will get to choose in caucuses and primaries begining less than one year from now. If John McCain emerges as the nominee it will be self-evident that the majority of Republicans are willing to support his views.
Let's leave Romney and Giuliani out of this discussion and remain on topic. "Why change the subject?" (We can spend two more individual threads on them later.) So we are left with you trying to convince all of us on here who find McCain that you have some inside knowledge that we'll be proven wrong.
And the fact that you thought your job as state chairman was to support President Bush tells us even more how out of touch you are. Your job was to represent the interests of the grassroots of the party. Yes, we voted for Bush, but for President, not King. Which means that he needs to represent us, and mainly, defend the Constitution. So when he doesn't, that's when you should have stepped in and represented us and called on President Bush to do his duty, rather than circle the wagons for him. We know how that story ended. Like I said, you should have learned your lesson on the reliability of your crystal ball.
As ususal this discussion has spun out of control. Let me try again.
I am not defending or endorsing McCain. All I am trying to say is that the Republican base, the Republican grassroots, the Republican VOTERS, will, 12 months from now, decide this issue.
If they choose Tom Tancredo, then you will proven right. If they choose John McCain (or someone else characterize as a RINO/liberal) then you will be proven wrong. The members of the Republican Party will choose a new leader and a new direction. When they do, we will see who is "out of touch."
This is self-evident. What are we arguing about?
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 04:28 PMRob's move to support him so early in the cycle is the perfect example in making the point. Why would he make such a move unless this were true? As previously stated and 99 44/100 percent likely, WA will deliver no votes in favor of the GOP candidate in the electorial college in 2008.
However, Rob's early move lends possible false momentum to the notion that McCain could actually win. Should actions like this be repeated time over time on a national basis- the voters will be guided through the primary process to favor the candidate chosen by national party leadership.
You ask, how could I or anyone else claim McCain is a RINO? Here are just a couple of examples presented without researching a thing.
His key role in the gang of 14 and the roadblocks that his positions have fostered within the administration and party itself.
His stated position on immigration in general.
His desire to allow individuals who broke the law to enter this country and then broke the law again to secure a fake social security number in some way should have access to the SS system.
Note- I am not rendering a position on these examples, however, It would be tough sledding to convince me that they are congruant with the founder's intent of the constitution, small government, low taxes and personal responsibility.
Vance was out of touch then, and now. Defending Bush on Harriet Myers was wrong at the time and proven wrong when she withdrew her nomination -- under pressure by the way, but not from Vance or other beltway sycophants. We need Republicans to be Republicans, not Republicans who act (and vote) like DemocRATS. No, we won't coalesce around a nominee if he, or she, doesn't represent our points of view, our values, our US Constitution. McCain does not, Rudy ... ha.
It is early in the POTUS sweepstakes and yes we will have our voices heard. Vance can yak yak yak all he wants including bringing up Tancredo's lack of viability but he doesn't represent me or --insofar as I can tell -- anyone but himself. Lastly, I'd rather lose with someone I can support than lose with a RINO or win with a RINO.
If you think it is a foregone conclusion that some liberal elite within the Party will choose a liberal Republican as the nominee and force that choice on the conservative majority, I have one question for you: Why are we wasting our time with this conversation?
Elections are won through competition, not conspiracy.
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 04:57 PMTo Michelle, Doug Parris, and the rest: Using the term RINO is wrong-headed because it presumes that YOU are uniquely qualified to assess who a Republican is--or, indeed, WHAT a Republican is. From where I come from, pride is a cardinal sin, and I'm sorry to say that pride and selfishness is what appears to be driving your rhetoric. If you want to make friends and influence people, you need to knock it off.
Listen to Vance: Let the people of the Republican party decide who Republicans are or should be. It's a marketplace, not a dictatorship. The way to win, people, is to make persuasive arguments, not to call names and exclude people you don't agree with. Didn't you learn that in grade school?
(Look at me. Now I'M trying to argue with these guys. Sheesh.)
Posted by: DJ on February 23, 2007 04:57 PMThen the losers (whether they be "conservatives" or "moderates") will claim that the winners are "out of touch," and RINOs.
Hopefully the overwhelming majority of Republicans will unite behind whoever emerges as the nominee.
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 05:02 PMYou have my e-mail address write me in Nov. and share the light on just how wrong I was.
However, in the mean time please consider- If you like what you are getting, continue doing what you are doing.
I too will follow that suggestion and will not vote for McCain under any circumstance.
Posted by: cardio on February 23, 2007 05:14 PMIf the majority of Republicans feel as you do McCain will not be our nominee. If, however, McCain becomes our nominee that would seem to indicate that you are not in the majority.
Time will tell, and it will be fascinating to watch.
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 23, 2007 05:18 PMBut, you in particular should not have to be reminded that the voting majority does not always prevail. There's a certain stadium in town that is proof positive of that.
My attempt today in engaging you is and was not to attack you or the GOP. Very much the opposite is true. You are skilled at claiming high ground to end a debate, however, I doubt you are listening. Many of the faithful are less than happy.
Posted by: cardio on February 23, 2007 06:22 PM"...you and Doug and Michelle think anything and everything that has ever happened which you don't approve of somehow has to be my fault..." Here, I have to agree. Everything is always about you, Chris.
"Just because you lose doesn't mean the other guy cheated." Here, I agree again. You guys aren't cheaters because we lose. Not at all. We lose because you cheat. I could take up the next 20,000 words just talking about Republican Left parliamentary cheating and ballot fraud in the convention and Party election process. But during your administration of the WSRP the best tool was the Candidate Censorship Agreement, a masterpiece of Party outcome manipulation .
You controlled the outcome of primaries by controlling the campaigns of conservative challengers you didn't favor. You demanded that candidates sign a CONTRACT giving you full censorship authority over anything they said, backed up with $5000 fines. If they didn't agree they were kicked out of any Republican function. They couldn't speak at conventions. You gave the use of Party facilities and lists to candidates you favored and refused them to those you didn't.
You backed this up with repeated LIES .
You liked candidates that agreed with your opposition to the Constitution , your support for higher taxes,
your landmark work for the "Outcome Based" assault on public education , your edict against campaigning for the Right to Life and (as one of the architects of the heinous Growth Management Act), your work against Property Rights.
When Republicans are only given choices that have been narrowed by the cheating of corrupt leaders like you, and one of the remaining RINOs is a better liar than the other, the grassroots will vote for the one who seems to be a Republican.. And you claim that proves they represent the grassroots.
This December the RINO-led King County Republican Party put a rule in their Bylaws that gives them the right to ban anyone they want from the 2008 Convention by a vote of 4 to six insiders of the Young/Sotelo administration.
Think about that.
Liberal King County Party insiders have given themselves the absolute power (barring intervention of the Courts (because it is a blatant violation of Law)) to control who gets to be a delegate to the convention. This is the same crew that seizes literature if they disagree with it.
Even if conservatives get through that dictatorial and illegal maze to become voting delegates to the State Convention, they could be thwarted by manifold stratagems of parliamentary cheating the GOP Left has used for decades. And you say that winning such a skewed process proves the support of the grassroots?
Only to the ignorant or hopelessly gullible.
McCain is the one candidate who has made the republican base mad and they won't forget it. They'll vote for someone they can trust, that's just how we do it. If McCain makes it to the General and is up against Hillary, Obama or Edwards, he will lose, very simple, it will be Dole all over again.
Posted by: Doug on February 23, 2007 07:55 PMLet's keep the conversation factually correct, please. All three of the top 3 R's have hired a solid collection of staffers and consultants. Meanwhile, Sanford has not endorsed for '08. Likewise, Falwell put his name on a reception for McCain but didn't actually attend the event, or endorse. Lastly, McCain and Romney are having a pretty robust contest for conservative endorsements, with Giuliani trailing in that department.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 23, 2007 10:06 PMMethinks there are many varieties of conservatives and we evangelical Christians are just a relatively new breed of conservatism.
Posted by: Doug on February 23, 2007 11:03 PMAs a conservative in every sense, I would look to the Federalist Society members in good standing as more of a beacon of true conservatism.
Posted by: Doug on February 23, 2007 11:12 PMI don't like to go off of one stereotype of a conservative if that's what you mean. There are certainly differences between economic conservatives, social conservatives, Burkean conservatives, etc. Evangelicals are a relatively new twist to the collection as you note.
I consider Giuliani a conservative based on the totality of his positions, though obviously a number of his positions don't fit the conservative mold. As such, a notable number of self-described conservatives have real problems with him.
As to Ted Olson, he is a nice "get." But he's also been a close friend of Giuliani's going back to the early stages of both of their careers so his endorsement really should be expected. I would also disagree there is anyone who qualifies as the "most intellectually important conservative endorsement." Endorsements are interesting and all, but no one individual's backing should be worth that much.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 24, 2007 10:17 AMNope. Not if that nominee is McCain. I won't vote for prez if that's the case.
Didn't vote Locke/Craswell. Didn't vote Gregoire/Pope. Won't vote McCain/Any Dem. Simple as that.
Posted by: jimg on February 24, 2007 01:02 PMJust like we saw who was out of touch in choosing our last U.S. Senate candidate?
Posted by: Michelle on February 25, 2007 12:36 AMWe are talking here about who is in touch with the Republican base, right? You and Doug supported a different candidate, but Mike McGavick was endorsed by the State Committee and won the primary overwhelmingly. Obviously he was the choice of most Republicans.
You and Doug routinely back candidates for public and party office who don't win. How can you claim to speak for the majority when you never win the election?
Posted by: Chris Vance on February 25, 2007 10:11 AMWhile McCain entertained midstreamer type Republicans on Friday, I attended a sold out event, with standing room only to hear one of the most conservative Catholic priests in the country on Friday night in WEST SEATTLE (and I'll just take a lucky guess, that you, though you are Catholic, have never even heard of Fr. Corapi). They could have atleast doubled the capacity at that event, just with those who wanted to attend. Yet, I didn't see even one of our Catholic Republican Establishment types in that place. Not Luke Esser, not Rob McKenna, not Mike McGavick, not Chris Vance. That was Dino Rossi's base in their, including myself. Those people are looking for candidates who take their duty of protecting innocent human life seriously--among many other issues important to them. They were in a quandry with the candidate you shoved down their throats with the tactics that Doug previously mentioned. Come on! The guy did worse in a state wide race than Ellen Craswell, who you constantly deride.
The problem is, the candidates I've supported in the past, don't get access to party lists and don't get the media attention that party leaders like yourself send to your favored candidates. They are at a huge disadvantage at getting their message out to the base. Your people have gone around telling them that they had to support "the lesser of two evils" and a few of them fell for it. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And the day is coming when you and your friends won't be able to fool anyone.
Posted by: Michelle on February 25, 2007 06:07 PMCould you expand a bit on this:
"Largely, Washington is a conservative state, with the exception of the Puget Sound area (but there are very conservative pockets even here--not limited to any small geographic portion of the Puget Sound)."
How specifically would you define the "Puget Sound area"? Moreover, in your mind, can the vote totals within that liberal bastion you define be overcome by the vote totals from the rest of this conservative state you describe?
I'm curious how you define such things since the Rossi example you cited was predicated on him winning tens of thousands of votes from people who otherwise cast ballots for John Kerry, Patty Murray, and a Democratic member of Congress. Such voters don't strike me as the foundation of a new conservative majority...just people willing to vote for a conservative in the right circumstances.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 25, 2007 07:20 PMI think most Washingtonians have a rough sketch of what is considered the Puget Sound area. I wasn't speaking of its specific definition, but generally. That being the counties that surround the body of water we call the Puget Sound. When you look at the Washington map, red vs. blue, shown by county, Republican vs. Democrat, based on the votes in the last presidential election, it is almost entirely divided between those counties that are on the Puget Sound vs. the rest of the state with only 2 or 3 exceptions.
But I'm not referring to vote totals when talking about conservatives.
I think it's fair to say that we have a significant portion of the Puget Sound area who are committed liberals. Those people didn't vote for Dino Rossi. Then you have Democrats who can be persuaded to vote for a Republican like Dino. Just like you had Democrats who were persuaded to vote for Ronald Reagan. I think it would be fair to say that, although he won many Democrats over, Rossi did not win all of the "Reagan Democrats" or else he too, would have won in a landslide. This could have been accomplished by using his great salesmanship to "sell" conservative ideas the way Reagan did, rather than shy away from them. The voter fraud wouldn't have been able to touch him.
But I'm not even talking about Reagan Democrats.
I'm talking about the base of the Republican party. I know we're not a majority in the Puget Sound area, but when a candidate can satisfy us with his positions on the issues we care about, and the Republican Party leaders don't make it near impossible for that candidate to reach large portions of the base, we become like soldiers on a mission to persuade our friends, families and neighbors to vote for the candidate. That doesn't happen when the party leaders work to keep the base from ever hearing of the candidate. And it certainly doesn't work when the state committee gives early endorsemtns to candidates like Mike McGavick. And it won't work if the party leaders try to shove John McCain down our throats. (Ditto that for Giuliani and Romney)
Posted by: Michelle on February 26, 2007 10:43 AM
I'd refute his arguments, but whenever you start winning, he just says "You're a liar" and stops debating, so it's hardly worth it.
Posted by: Cliff on February 26, 2007 10:01 PM
Oh, that's easy! Because most people are 'stupid dupes' who are 'fooled' by the 'RINO Establishment'.
Didn't you know? /sarc
And the WSRP routinely backs candidates that the voters reject in the general. Where Doug and I have been in union with the WSRP, we frequently win (George W. Bush, Dino Rossi). You may say that we represent a minority of the Republican party, but IF that's true, it is a minority you need in order to win elections. The truth is, we represent the majority on the issues, and about half of that majority agrees with us on strategy to achieve our goals on those issues. That half is large enough to make or break it for the WSRP. You'd be wise to start taking us seriously.
Posted by: Michelle on February 27, 2007 01:40 PM