There can be no doubt now, even with the ever-present anti-McCain mood in significant corners of the conservative base: John McCain is the man to beat for the GOP nod.
Even with Mitt Romney emerging as the clear alternative to McCain - Huckabee's niche candidacy aside - the delegate math in upcoming states clearly favors McCain.
Having now fully subsumed the moderate, national security leader mantle that Rudy held nationally until last fall, McCain will chalk up delegates in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. He'll likewise scoop up a goodly number via California's proportional system of awarding delegates by Congressional District victor. In addition, Mike Huckabee will do well in the South in the absence of Fred Thompson, thus not allowing the non-McCain delegates to concentrate. Finalize all that with the inevitable bump of the next few days in other February 5th states with proportional delegate allocations and McCain is in all probability going to hold a firm delegate lead after Tsunami Tuesday, even if the margin isn't enough to make him the presumptive nominee.
Some other thoughts on the Florida results based on the exit poll:
Though McCain won a closed Republican primary he still has problems with conservatives. He lost them to Romney 37% - 27%, but beat Romney among moderates and liberals 40% - 22% and 26 - 25% respectively. Even though McCain looks look with delegate math, thanks in large part to more moderate voting centers, McCain still has a problem with conservative activists. These are the grassroots people that served as the foot soldiers of the immense and successful Bush/RNC operation in 2004. Many of them will not do the same for McCain unless he finds a way to soothe their well-documented concerns.
Aside from again winning big among non-conservatives, McCain also ran strong in two other key demographics. First, he won the 65 and over crowd who made up a third of Florida's electorate by a 38% - 31% margin. Second, though Latinos made up only 10% of voters he secured support from 51% of them in a crowded field. In short, white conservatives, under 65 are who the McCain campaign needs to be thinking about reaching out to. Quickly.
McCain could make a number of clear, public commitments on issues like judges, taxes, and immigration - though it's unclear how many conservatives who don't trust McCain would be soothed by mere words. More importantly perhaps will be indications of his potential VP choice, should he secure the nomination.
A pick like Mike Huckabee would only exacerbate many of McCain's problems with the base since it would amount to a direct poke in the eye to the economic conservatives with whom he already has real problems - and it's not like Huckabee's 4% showing among non-Evangelicals in Florida demonstrates much in the way of broad appeal. A selection like popular Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has much more upside with conservatives, plus would give the GOP a stronger general election hand in not only Minnesota, but Iowa and Wisconsin as well.
Most importantly, McCain and his campaign actually have to get their arms around the idea of being a unifying party leader. Much of the conservative establishment has rallied to Romney in the last several weeks (and opposed McCain so vigorously in 2000) because he doesn't exactly have a history of being that inclusive party leader, to put things mildly. McCain's campaign would do well to ditch his condescension toward Romney in the last few days of the Florida campaign. Continuing such personal animus will only further lay open the very wounds with conservatives that McCain needs to heal.
For now, the campaign goes on, with McCain leading, Romney hoping for a serious McCain stumble, and Huckabee continuing his wingman role for the Arizona Senator. This election cycle has been so unpredictable it would be unwise to call a McCain nomination a foregone conclusion. But it looks increasingly probable.
UPDATE: where were these guys a week ago?
I jest...well, not really. But it illustrates the point that there is a serious anti-McCain constituency out there that isn't going to go down quietly. Moreover, it's not like the overwhelmingly majority of talk radio hosts are going to suddenly warm up to him either. With Giuliani giving the inevitable endorsement to McCain, the odds of a moderates v. conservatives clash are increasing.
On a relate note, Patrick Ruffini has switched allegiances from Giuliani to Romney. This is a process of many key supporters finding new homes that will finalize in the next few days as all candidates not named Romney are now clearly out of the money to topple McCain.
Thus is the lay of the land for the fight through February 5th and perhaps beyond. The only question is when it ends and what the winner does to at least attempt to unify what might end up being a fairly fractured Republican coalition.
UPDATE II: I should highlight this mention from Ruffini's post referenced above, which contains several smart observations:
There will be no pale pastels on the Democratic ticket this fall -- and I would not want to go up against them with the sense that we somehow had to trim our sails, to elevate our party's most ardent internal critic, in order to remain in office but not in power. At best, this is a reprise of how Clinton hollowed out the Democratic Party (see how their hearts are with Obama), and what Bush and the Republican Congress did with respect to spending. McCain would reclaim the spending mantle, but would surrender on all other aspects of domestic policy.
I concur with Ruffini and share his ultimate view on how to proceed should McCain become the nominee. But I still get the feeling many McCain backers (and even McCain's campaign itself) don't quite have a full grasp for the true problems their guy has with the conservative base.
UPDATE III: exit poll link fixed. Note the exit poll ends up being updated throughout the election evening so some of the currently listed numbers may differ slightly from my original typing.
UPDATE IV: Jay Cost has a worthwhile analysis of McCain's win, including an over-arching look at some potentially counterintuitive exit poll numbers. Lesson: it is rather tough to change the ingrained impression voters develop of long-time, prominent figures on the nation stage, even when the current facts on the ground don't necessarily support that impression.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 29, 2008 08:19 PM | Email ThisHe is going to go down in flames against either Clinton or Obama.
Change is not the only thing that is needed in this country, we need directed change. That change needs to be one towards responsibility and individual accountability. I fear that most in the country are more interested in what panties Paris Hilton is wearing than who is going to be the next leader of the country and how that is going to impact the well being of this nation.
Posted by: bummed on January 29, 2008 09:00 PMReagan's ignorant amnesty package in the '80's is the reason he must be judged a mediocrity as President instead of a success.
I will NOT support McCain, no matter what. The GOP (and Americans everywhere) better pull their heads out or we won't have a country to defend. Period.
Posted by: cmiklich on January 29, 2008 09:00 PMThat's one big reason why McCain is winning Republican primaries.
Far too often people like Rush Limbaugh and George Will carry banners Ronald Reagan did not embrace and define Conservatives in terms Ronald Reagan never did.
They need to get over it, and unify the GOP around a strong Conservative candidate who can give the party its best shot at the White House. That candidate is John McCain.
John McCain is a true Conservative, a man of the American West, a true American Hero, and the one candidate, who, like Ronald Reagan, can win Democrats and Independents and bring votes to the GOP well down the ballot in a very important election.
Posted by: redflag on January 29, 2008 09:05 PMExit Poll observances that Eric failed to mention:
45% of the voters thought the Economy was the most important issue and while everyone was pitching the idea that that would benefit Romney, the polls showed McCain beating him with these voters 40 to 32.
In fact, it was those voters that thought illegal immigration was the most important issue that gave Romney his biggest issue win - 43 to 25. However, like I've been saying, this issue isn't as big as the anti-immigrant people want you to believe it is. Florida surprised me in that only 16% of the voters considered it the most important issue (previous states it's been around 23%) with 48% of those backing the three candidates who could have been considered hard-line, the rest backing the Huckabee's, Rudy's and McCain's.
That is in alignment with the other states that have voted so far. The point being that in the voters' minds, the illegal immigration problem is only paramount in the minds of 16-23% of Republican primary voters, and of those they are split on how to handle it. This state shows, like the others, that the immigration issue is not one based on party lines and within Republican voters they are split on how to deal with it.
If Romney is to have a chance he would have to use his dollars to make the voters believe it is the most important issue - it doesn't look like he can win on the economy.
Huckabee note:
If Rudy quits before the debate, Huckabee will have more face time - and he really excels in the debates. If Romney quits at some time and Huckabee hangs on by a thread, that would be an interesting development in the delegate race. Huck's going to have delegates after super tuesday, if Romney holds on and grabs a few, then quits - there still is an outside chance Huckabee would be the nominee.
Posted by: Doug on January 29, 2008 09:59 PMAnti First Amendment? Check.
Won't protect our borders? Check.
Will eviscerate the military? Check.
Convicted of Bribery? Check.
Hillary? Obama?
John McCain.
Conservative? No.
Middle-of-the-road? No.
FLAMING LIBERAL? Check!!!
Anyone who can look at John McCain's record regarding the so called, Climate Change, and still call him a conservative, is an eco fool.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 29, 2008 10:02 PMNow there are four.
Ron Paul is one of them.
He'll be in the race all the way to the convention.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 29, 2008 10:26 PMI am (was) a Fred supporter because of how his positions aligned with mine. My fear of McCain is based on this same evaluation. This is not based on whatever talk radio or media hype exists.
I would rather vote and loose than vote for a looser.
I have a hard time believing anyone after the bait and switch that GW pulled. But someone who starts out in the middle, probably won't end up on the right side of things when it is all said and done.
Posted by: bummed on January 29, 2008 10:26 PMLet Mitt go back to investing and let's get on with the business of beating the Clintons.
Posted by: No Romnicide on January 29, 2008 10:38 PMyou want to clarify and give some details on those statements you made? I'd like some citations. The first three don't need any, since they are your opinion, but #4?
Posted by: Aaron on January 29, 2008 10:40 PMRush Limbaugh and others think John McCain won't protect our borders because he supported the same immigration law George W. Bush did. Rush is wrong. McCain knows more about protecting borders than Rush has face time with microphones. McCain has been strong on an important subject while most of the rest of the field has folded in out pandering each other.
The idea that John McCain would evicerate the military is obviously total science fiction. John McCain is the only leading candidate for President who is a military veteran and has consistently supported the military through thick and thin.
John McCain has never been convicted of anything. He's as real as any true Conservative and a true American Hero.
@ 9 is off his rocker and is telling lies.
@ 5 I was not refering to Ronald Reagan's immigration policies in comparing John McCain to Ronald Reagan. I was comparing John McCain to the policies Ronald Reagan consistently embodied throughout his polical career, which are largely identical to John McCain's.
Some on the right are trying to take the GOP to places Ronald Reagan would never go. That's why they don't like McCain, yet.
Posted by: redflag on January 29, 2008 11:07 PMOh, and why is it only now that we're getting McCain supporters defending him?
Posted by: Don Ward on January 29, 2008 11:13 PM1. It put contribution limits in place. This is great if you don't want to have a huge incumbant advantage, and incumbants have enough of an advantage as it is. By allowing unlimited contributions, or, on the other extreme, public financing of compaigns, then the incumbants have all the advantage because they can outraise (in the case of the former) or out name-id (in the case of the latter) any challengers. With limits, it forces candidates, both challengers and incumbants, to appeal to a large number of absolute voters in order to finance their campaign. In the past, people like Huckabee would never even have been heard, without contribution limits.
2. In terms of free-speech, and I still have a tough time believing that donating money to a candidate is considered free speech, if an individual or corporation really wants to donate a lot of money so that they can have 'free-speech' then there are methods of doing that...Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org come to mind. Unlimited contributions and you can say whatever you want with practically no oversight!
These two points to me both seem to make the McCain-Feingold bill a positive development. However, I do agree with Former Senator Thompson (who also supported the bill) that it needs to be fine tuned a bit, as the public disclosure requirements for groups such as Swift Boat are a bit lacking.
Posted by: Gary on January 29, 2008 11:45 PMIf our leadership is going to make the pilot error of consigning our economy to carbon offsets, it will be better for candidates in 2012 to be able to point out that it was Dems who were at the controls.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 29, 2008 11:51 PMKeep your eyes on the prize - this could be the first time ever in anyone's lifetime (who is currently alive) that the Supreme Court could switch to 5-4 or even 6-3 solid conservative / constructionist viewpoint.
This election is about 2 Supreme Court justices, that is what's most important this time.
Posted by: Doug on January 30, 2008 12:33 AMLets see... 1st amendment? Mccain put out that god awful campaign finance reform. Paul opposed it.
Immigration, McCain favored the amnesty bill. Paul opposed it.
Finance? Mccain does not understand it, Paul has been on the finance committee for 20 years and is the only one to ask the fed chairman tough questions.
Taxes? McCain ruitenly votes for tax increases,. Paul has the best anti tax voting record in congress. (never voted for a spending increase)
Gun rights? Paul again has an impeccible record... McCain not so much.
Iraq? McCain wants to be there for 100 years. The american people are much more in tune with Pauls plan to get out. McCains statement about staying there for 100 years is enough to gauratnee Obama or Clinton a victory in November.
Posted by: Lysander on January 30, 2008 05:09 AMDoug has it right, this is ALL about a lot of Supreme court decisions in our lifetimes.
If you wonder, have you watched what has come out of the Liberal supreme court in this state?
Protect their golden pie and overturn everything financial that the citizens vote in through initiative. Everything!
Want this in Washington, then sit out the presidential vote.
Your pockets will be further emptied.
1) My friends and I ARE NOT ALLOWED BY McCain-Feingold to buy airtime 60 days before an election to refute LIES BY MCCAIN (or anyone else). That's certainly ANTI-1st Amendment. And Un-American.
2) Doesn't want a fence. Doesn't want to deny federal benefits (MY TAX $$$) to illegals.
3) Thinks part for military aircraft can be bought at Lowe's and doesn't understand they are a little more complex and therefore a LOT MORE EXPENSIVE.
4) As one of the Keating FIVE, was proved to have acted "unethically" (out here in the REAL WORLD, he'd have been in Jail!!!) The S&L crisis was exascerbated by his immoral conduct.
My taxes as a middle-class American have gone DOWN under GWB. McCain voted against my tax cut.
Anyone who pals around with murdering, adulterating drunken slobs like Edward Kennedy is a P.O.S. And, judging by his conduct listed: Not fit to be in the Senate.
I am a Conservative. Not a neo-con, not a psuedo-con, not a con-man. I will NOT VOTE for John McCain.
Posted by: cmiklich on January 30, 2008 05:55 AMUnlike YOUR party. We expect our people to follow the rules set forth by the party of less Government, less Taxes and so on.
GW didn't follow it and you what happened saw in 2006.
McLame is just like your babe Billary and we don't want him.
Maybe if you've read this site a little more you will see that most people here are not happpy with anyone running. Well except the RP fools.
Last night, the Good McCain gave the speech. Frankly, I like the Good McCain, but I am terrified of the Butthead McCain. It's okay the way he lied and embellished opponent's record, but the temper. My word, I can just see him trying to be diplomatic with the world leaders- NOT.
Or, how about the first week as President when he is talking to the Senators or Reps? Or how long do you think his staff would last?
The only thing that I felt would save the country would be if he had someone who would call BS when he got nutso and McCain listened to him. Giuliani is the only one I know that would have that effect.
Hey, I have BUYERS' REMORSE already. This was too big a field and the time frames were so concentrated that McCain didn't get a good vetting.
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 07:08 AMOrdered a McCain one.
Posted by: John Bailo on January 30, 2008 07:33 AMMcCain supporters are missing the deep level of mistrust there is of this man from those on the conservative side. They think--oh well, they'll get over it. Sure, some of them will, but the Republican candidate needs to bring along all of the base to win in November.
On SCOTUS, people keep mentioning the next president getting two nominations. I think that is correct if a Dem wins, but not necessarily if a Rep wins. The "two replacements" are likely to be Stevens and Ginsberg. However, unless they die (Stevens IS in his 80's) or have health problems, I'm not sure you can count on them to step down if a Republican is in the White House. I think they will both be out pretty quickly if a Dem is in there, however.
Posted by: Bill H on January 30, 2008 07:39 AMAnyone say Buyers' Remorse?
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 07:42 AMIt will be nice for the Republicans to get this election behind them. If the conservatives won't support John McCain, so be it. They aren't going to support Hillary, therefore, it won't hurt McCain.
You see McCain has the upper hand against Hillary and what she has been running on. Let's look at the issues:
Hillary has been running on the "experience" card. Well John McCain trumps her here.
Hillary is now anti-War. Well her problem is she isn't really. She has been trying to have it both ways. McCain trumps her here also. McCain has been consistent on the War, whether one likes the War or not. He has been more consistent than Bush/Rumsfield themselves. He knows you need to fight the battle to win and if you go into battle you need to go in with the necessary forces to win. None of this pseudo support for the troops. The decision on Iraq is clear. We do need to get out, but we need to get out right.
On the economy, Hillary wants to tinker. McCain is more free market. Let's face it the best move for the economy is the Fed lowering interest rates. Lowering of rates help business invest in equipment, it helps people with ARMs, and it helps people with Credit Card debt with rates tied to Prime Rate. It does a lot more than any tax rebate, depreciation speed up, and other psuedo tinkering that has been thrown around. The problem with the supply siders is it doesn't address the demand side of the equation. The rich may put the money in investments, but it won't be in areas to improve the economy. Businesses won't expand unless there is demand for their product. Demand can only be generated by easing the debt payments on the middle class. A tax rebate will go to pay debt not buy new items.
On Immigration, McCain is for securing the border, but this would be a wash between both candidates. Personally, as long as everyone agrees that comprehensive immigration reform and securing the border is the first priority, which McCain, Hillary, and Obama all agree, then it will get us somewhere. The anti-immigration crowd is getting the country no where.
On Social Issues, McCain is in line with the Republican base. This however, is also a wash nationwide, since the country is split on these issue.
On the role of Government, McCain has fought consistently for his whole life for smaller government and getting rid of pork. Hillary asks for money for a Woodstock memorial. McCain triumphs here.
One final note: I do believe that VP choice will come into play, especially with McCain given his age. I have heard some rumors that he might decide to be a one term President, which would make his VP Choice interesting. Of course, I have also heard that if Republicans lose this election, the 2012 candidate of choice may be General Petraous (sp?).
Also: I didn't compare to Barack Obama right now, because Hillary still has an inside track. A McCain-Obama race will come soley down to issue differences vice inspirational differences. Both have interesting stories and the race would be too close to call at this point. Barack would hands down, however, "kill" Romney in a general election. Romney's only hope at winning it all would be if Hillary was the Democratic Candidate.
Posted by: tc on January 30, 2008 08:05 AMYeah, one day his handlers will slip up with the senator's meds and he'll pop his top and tell the whole country to F*** OFF on live TV. Then, come inaugeration day, we'll either be watching Billdo sizing up a new flock of interns or Obama placing his hand on the Koran.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 30, 2008 08:07 AMBill H., there will always be McCainiacs; however, his newfound "friends" will, when it is too late, remember why he was on the trash heap last summer and why he wasn't nominated in 2000.
And why all the Romney hate? Because he is the anti-establishment candidate? He doesn't play by the old rules? He is too good-looking? The Mormon thing?
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 08:18 AMNot supporting Hillary is not the same as not hurting McCain. You're dreaming if you think this will NOT hurt McCain. Sure, they won't vote for Hillary, but if they sit on their hands and don't vote at all (or vote for a 3rd party) you think that won't hurt McCain? He will need a lot of money to run in the General--you think a lot of Conservatives are going to send him money? Do you think a lot of Conservatives are going to work on a grassroots effort to get him elected?
There are a lot of other ways that McCain can be "hurt" by Conservatives than just not voting for Hillary.
Have a little belief in your convictions and vote for the right people, not just some Jerk with an R behind his name. How pathetic. The Democrats will do the right thing if either Hillary or Obama win. There is no bigot like a liberal bigot. Any Republican that goes up against either one of them will win; not because Democrats will vote for them, but because many of them will stay at home or vote for some nutball third party candidate. Not enough of them will support a (N-----, their word for Obama not mine) or a woman.
If McCain wins the presidency we are in for more of the same Washington insider, or kissing the liberal lefts ass that we've had for the last 16 years. Hooray for the status quo.
Posted by: REBEL on January 30, 2008 08:48 AMMcCain will still favor tax cuts and more importantly, spending cuts. And he's qualified to lead us in the fight against terrorism. I'm willing to accept his warts for those two issues.
Posted by: Palouse on January 30, 2008 09:00 AMHis past will come back to get him real quick!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 30, 2008 09:04 AMThis is the case if Hillary is the Democratic candidate and McCain is Republican Candidate. If it was Hillary versus Romney, then the independants would hold their nose and vote for Hillary. Romney has not demonstrated any strength among independant voters and given his flop to the right in the primaries, he won't win over any of them (w/o also ticking off the conservative base he is attempting to appeal to).
If Barack is the Democratic Candidate, then the Republican Candidate will need more of the conservative vote. An Obama-McCain matchup would probably split the independant vote (young going with Obama, older independants going with McCain). An Obama-Romney matchup would have a significant number of independants going to Obama.
This is my reasoning regarding my statement in regards to McCain not needing conservatives, as much (i.e., he doesn't have to pander to them like Romney has had, even though Romney's history has not been very conservative).
Posted by: tc on January 30, 2008 09:09 AMThe Libertarian Party would not get enough votes to win, but they might get enough to get noticed again. If McCain is the candidate, I'll be voting Libertarian. If there are a lot of others who cannot pull the lever for McCain, it would be better to vote Libertarian than to either not vote or to vote for the D candidate.
Posted by: Bill H on January 30, 2008 09:28 AMElectile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 09:32 AMWell the same with Hillary. The Rep will have a great time with her. OOOOOOO and what a past she has too.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 30, 2008 09:35 AMWell, he may appeal to the dead voter demographic.
Electile Dysfunction
Ragnar, that was EXCELLENT!
Posted by: Peggy U on January 30, 2008 09:42 AMIt's the RNC that will be footing the bill for the General. As for Malkin, I actually deleted her website from my favorites (at least until after the election). As it turns out for the last four months the only thing she cared about was the anti-immigration issue. All of her followers are of that 10% of the Republican voting block that votes specifically anti-immigration. When she starts talking about the issues the other 90% of Republicans care more about, I'll put her back on my favorites.
If Huckabee stays in and Romney leaves after super tuesday, the Huckster's going to be getting lots of votes.
Keep your eyes on the prize - two Supreme Court nominees. And Bill, it is two - if the democrat wins, they replace those two with young liberals that will be there 25 years.
Posted by: Doug on January 30, 2008 09:51 AMThe same thing goes for these phony polls showing McCain over Clinton in JANUARY. They are totally not valid for November when push comes to shove. Anyone believing them should review the history of these matchup polls. In 2000, Bush had garnered 65% of these non-existent votes over Gore in February/March. In the end, he was lucky to win.
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 09:52 AM"The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Republican frontrunner Senator John McCain with single-digit leads over Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.
McCain has led Clinton in four of the last five polling match-ups conducted by Rasmussen Reports. He has had the edge over Obama in three of the last four polls. (see history and trends).
In the new survey McCain enjoys an 22-point advantage among male voters with Clinton as his opponent. He lags by only three points among female voters. There isn't much gender discrepancy in the McCain-Obama match-up. Here McCain leads by eight points among men, five points among women.
McCain does better than either Democrat with unaffiliated voters in the new survey, but especially when Clinton is his opponent. Against the former First Lady, he leads 52% to 31% with unaffiliateds.
John McCain is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by just 43%. His favorables have been in the 50%+ range since late November.
Hillary Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 47%, unfavorably by 51%. Barack Obama is viewed favorably by 51%, unfavorably by 45%."
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 30, 2008 10:09 AMBush, never met a spending bill he didn't like (until 2006). Now Bush is cutting back on Congressional earmarks...maybe he should have thought about that 7 years ago. What a hypocrite.
I agree with that, but if McCain wins the Dems may just get to appoint them in 2013 after McCain gets thrown out after 4 years and is replaced with a Dem.
Also, your pro-illegal alien grandstanding, not-withstanding, you are wrong about the percentage of the Republican base that is against illegal immigration. But even if it was ONLY 10% (which would also translate to a greater percentage of those that will actually VOTE in the General)--McCain will need that 10% to win in November. As of now he is not getting it. He will need to do something bring them in--we'll see if he does it.
Continually discounting this issue as you have attempted to do will not make it go away. There is a reason that the Immigration bill was defeated last summer and it was NOT because "this is only an issue for an insignificant percentage of the Republican Party". And referring to people that want the border enforced and the laws enforced as "racists", "bigots" and "anti-immigrant" as McCain, Lindsey Graham and their cohorts on the left have done is not going to bring these active voters to his camp.
No way man. I work for a city as a fire fighter. No big bucks for me. LOL
Duncan Hunter is backing Mike Huckabee. Gee. I wonder why?
Posted by: Don Ward on January 30, 2008 10:25 AMMcCain has kissed up to Kennedy & other libs so many times, does anyone really know that he will put a CON judge on the bench.
NONE of us know.
Do we really have to name how many libs things he is following right now!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 30, 2008 10:31 AMMcCain supported Bork, and all of Bush's nominees. His objective with the "Gang of 14" was to break the logjam and get Bush's judge's approved.
I fully understand why conservatives don't like McCain, but some of this stuff is inaccurate and over the top.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 30, 2008 10:35 AMOver the top? Are you kidding? Give me a break. McCain colludes with liberals all of the time. Support him if you will, but I believe many R's only support him because they think he will win not because they believe in him as a conservative or even a limited government type. The are probably right, he may win, but that is no reason to support him. Where are your convictions, or do you have any? I beleive there are other candidates who can win that are much better and more trustworthy than McCain. See my post @ #50. Let's not be so paranoid about Hillary or Obama that we can't do the right thing.
Posted by: REBEL on January 30, 2008 10:49 AMWell, he voted to confirm both Roberts AND Alito, not to mention William Pryor. That's a good record.
I hope anyone sitting out voting just because they hate McCain enjoys a couple more Ruth Ginsburgs on the court.
Posted by: Palouse on January 30, 2008 10:49 AMA bit less than half of those voted are for deporting the illegals and a bit more than half that voted are for some type of 'amnesty' in the sense that McCain and Bush sought.
Also, about 20% of those who voted in the Republican primaries indicate that the illegal immigration issue is the most important issue facing the country. Of those, slightly more than half voted for candidates who for the duration of the campaign were thought of as the tough on immigration candidates - while slightly less than half voted for the others.
Numbers seldom lie, while it's true that almost half of the Republican voters are currently against the comprehensive approach, only a small percentage are voting specifically on that issue. Like I said, this issue should be Romney's last stand as we should say, I think it's the only one he could be McCain on, but he would have to make the rest of the voters believe it's their number 1 issue.
"It shows one thing: I'm the conservative leader who can unite the party!"
He has to be joking. Are his ears full of wax? Find this thread or any of the previous showing any UNITY? Sure, unites the Reagan conservatives to fight the guy and make him re-evaluate his left turns. He will be the death of the party otherwise.
The man is delusional. He also needs a global warming exorcism. However like I said before, at least he will make the Iranians nervous.
Posted by: pbs7mm on January 30, 2008 10:55 AMLiberals will hate him because he's not a Democrap.
Republicans will hate him because he's not a conservative.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 10:55 AMThe right choice could make all the difference...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 11:07 AMThe rest of you McCainiacs: Touting McCain's qualifications to be president is like touting Hillary's or Obama's. None of them have ever done anything to qualify them for the job. Having good ideas isn't enough. (Heck, I've got some good ideas! Vote for me!) None of them have ever run anything successfully. Being a senator or other legislator in no way qualifies as being a leader (listen up, Paulbearers).
Most of you are probably too young to remember the last time we elected a senator as president. It was nearly 50 years ago and, despite the rewritten history most of you have been indoctrinated with, it was a disaster. JFK was universally regarded as a weak, inept and ineffective president. In office only three years, he was responsible for getting us into Viet Nam and setting the stage for our eventual disgrace there. He showed the world that the US could no longer be relied on to keep its word with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He gets a lot of credit for his handling of the Cuban missile crisis, but the truth is, if anyone else had been president, the Russians would not have dared try to put missiles in Cuba in the first place. And that's just the short list.
JFK was assassinated in Dallas on a campaign trip. I remember watching the 24/7 commercial-free coverage by the networks that ran from the shooting through the funeral. Then, like now, the commentators would run out of things to say, so they would repeat themselves over and over until something new happened. One of the things they repeated was that he was in serious jeopardy of not being reelected in '64 because the country was generally disillusioned with his lack of ability to lead, despite his charisma and skills as an orator. This was why he was blatantly campaigning nearly a year before the election, something that is nearly unheard of for a sitting president. After that weekend, the memo went around to the news media that history was to be rewritten and Kennedy was to be elevated to the status of Washington and Lincoln or at least FDR and this was never mentioned again.
I guess the majority of the electorate in '08 is too young to remember this lesson, so we appear doomed to repeat the mistake. McCain is no more qualified than any of the Dems to run this country. Which is to say, not at all.
As for his conservative credentials, McCain is right on Iraq, but wrong on nearly everything else. The only resemblence to Reagan I see is his support for amnesty for illegals. Reagan was one of the stronger presidents in my lifetime (going back to Eisenhower) but made too many mistakes to be considered great. His amnesty was one of those.
Someone on another thread made the point that electing McCain would be worse than either Hillary or Obama because he would be making backroom deals with the Democrats day and night as he has always done. Thus, there would be no organized opposition to him. This would do far more damage in the long run than electing a Dem.
With the possible exception of judges (we know what we'll get with a Dem; we might get lucky with McCain), this theory makes a lot of sense. The problem with Washington, as I see it, is that the Democrats need brains and the Republicans need balls. If the Dems take the white house, perhaps the Republicans will grow a pair, find another Newt and take back power in 2010.
But maybe I'm being too hopeful.
Posted by: deedub on January 30, 2008 11:14 AMHillary's word: It's worth nothing
DUH!
NH voters aren't the only ones she played for suckers
Mitt Romney, 6/28/07:
source: http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Immigration_Vote
"The immigration bill failed because the politicians in Washington are out of touch with the American people. The voice of the people is loud and clear - secure the border, enforce the law and no special deal for permanent residency or citizenship for illegals. America will always welcome legal immigration, but as a nation we also insist on the rule of law."
Mike Huckabee, 6/28/07:
source: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=141"I was pleased to see Congress recognize the will of the American people against this amnesty bill. Illegal immigration is a serious problem. Unfortunately, now we're hearing the excuse that politics will make immigration a dead issue until after the '08 election. Instead of shirking their responsibility, I urge the Administration and Congress to roll up their sleeves and spend the next year-and-a-half productively doing what the American people expect them to do - seal the border. It's not a political issue - it's a national security issue. If our government could just show competence on this threshold issue, the American people would feel more confident about moving forward on a national immigration policy."
Get off your butts and fight McCain. All you need to do is Listen to Rush for half an hour to find out all you need -- he's not a real conservative. He's a liberal in republican clothing. He's awful on immigration. He'll tax us to death...he works with Kennedy (KENNEDY) and other BIG L liberals.
Rush knows what he's talking about. Let's work to get a REAL conservative in.
Rush knows tons more than anyone here. He's done all the research and has lots of people paid to do all the studying.
Rush says that the liberal press wants McCain to win the republicans...isn't that enough?
C'mon...is this a conservative blog or not???
Let's do what Rush says. Now.
Posted by: Jim Thompson on January 30, 2008 11:22 AMGet off your butts and fight McCain. All you need to do is Listen to Rush for half an hour to find out all you need -- he's not a real conservative. He's a liberal in republican clothing. He's awful on immigration. He'll tax us to death...he works with Kennedy (KENNEDY) and other BIG L liberals.
Rush knows what he's talking about. Let's work to get a REAL conservative in.
Rush knows tons more than anyone here. He's done all the research and has lots of people paid to do all the studying.
Rush says that the liberal press wants McCain to win the republicans...isn't that enough?
C'mon...is this a conservative blog or not???
Let's do what Rush says. Now.
Posted by: Jim Thompson on January 30, 2008 11:22 AMIt has long been established in the US that spending ones own money to promote and disseminate ones ideas, particularly political opinions, is the essence of freedom of speech and the press. A fat lot of good it does you in the 21st century to write letters to the editor or shout from a soapbox in Pike Place Market in order to support or criticize a candidate for national office. Yet that is precisely what McCain/Feingold does - forbids you from spending your own money to buy media to express your opinion in the months leading up to an election. Notice there is no prohibition on members of Congress from doing the same - at taxpayer expense (free franking privilege).
John McCain ought to be impeached and imprisoned for this act of treason. I will not vote for him, no matter who his opponent is. Four years of Hillary or Obama will not destroy this country. A president who shreds the first amendment might.
Posted by: Steve on January 30, 2008 11:23 AMThis is far, FAR higher than any Democrat in the Senate, and higher than many other current or former GOP Senators including: Shelby, Stevens, Murkowski, Lugar,Coleman, Gregg, Domenici, DeWine, Voinovich, Smith, or Chaffee.
Compare McCain's 82.3% with Susan Collins' 53.9%, Olympia Snowe's 49.9%, or Arlen Spector at 44.7%
Yes, much of the conservative criticism of McCain is way, WAY over the top.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 30, 2008 11:23 AMThat is an OLD ACU polling.
Let's see.
Stem cells
Close Gitmo
feingold
Kennedy
hate big biz
Maybe McCain can unite both parties because he can work together to solve the problems facing the country. He's sure got a lot more military and foriegn policy experience than Romney does. He's got a serious amount of domestic experience too. Also McCain was cleared of all charges related to the Keating Five, he admitted it was a mistake and has moved on.
McCain was working hard all last year to get with Dubya to become the heir apparent. Looks like that strategy is paying off.
We debunked that yesterday, Chris.
First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high. It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. ... What this means is that McCain's ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona's other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.) How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?
" Not much the cheer about here. "
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 11:47 AMLet me translate that for you: I DO NOT SUPPORT HUCKABEE
Christian nut job websites Oh really? The NH Union Leader is a Christian nut job website.
I'm not sure if you are over-medicated or under-medicated.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 11:51 AMOh really? The NH Union Leader is a Christian nut job website.
One link does not exonerate you from my accusations Ragnar. You consistently link to religious nut job sites.
Let me translate that for you: I DO NOT SUPPORT HUCKABEE
Why deny your love of Huckabee? You Judas!!
I'm not sure if you are over-medicated or under-medicated.
You clearly must be nuttier in person than you appear to be on here.
Let me help you: her investigative team.
And so, like one of her typical useful idiots, you inadvertantly revealed much.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 11:59 AMTo quote your queen: "So Sad"
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 12:00 PMA vagina name? Ragnar, I didn't know you we such a pussy.
Oh really. Proof? Or more delusioned moonbattery?
Put up or shut up, DMB
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 12:04 PMI didn't know you we such a pussy.
What fun! Can we play again another day? Have mommy call for a date! Kisses.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 12:06 PMOuch, I think that left a mark. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 30, 2008 12:06 PMWith the way you keep defending the RINO John McCain, it is no wonder the Republican party is in such a poor position in Washington State.
Posted by: REBEL on January 30, 2008 12:13 PMSometimes a shoe fits too perfectly, a la the Whorabillary, and I've noticed that you have not refuted any of the definitions and in many ways, over many posts, confirmed them. I'm glad we can agree on something!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 12:16 PMYear McCain Rating
2006 65
2005 80
2004 72
2003 80
2002 78
2001 68
2000 81
1999 77
1998 68
1997 80
1996 95
1995 91
1994 96
1993 83
1992 85
1991 86
1990 87
1989 93
1988 80
1987 91
1986 73
1985 81
1984 86
1983 96
Yes, he was pretty conservative for the first 15 years, but as he has turned to presidential politics and cozied up to the MSM he had gotten decidedly LESS conservative. He hasn't had a rating above his "lifetime average" since 1996. His latest rating for 2006 is 65--almost exactly the same as Ben Nelson, a conservative...Democrat.
Posted by: Bill H on January 30, 2008 12:19 PMLet me translate that for you: I DO NOT SUPPORT HUCKABEE
Ahhh, your a Ron Paul supporter. How silly of me to think you were a Huckabee guy.
Hmm, this site seems to be propagating conspiracy theories that "REAL" conservatives are not voting for McCain. I would have trouble believing that a site called Crushliberalism.com is not a right-wing nut job site.
Your babblings won't hold water here, mister. You and people like you are what has driven people and $$$$ from the Washington State Republican Party. Dino Rossi proved that conservative ideas and candidates can win in Washington, yet you persisted, as Republican State Chairman, in recruiting and promoting milquetoast Rinos like yourself. Now we are stuck with a limpwristed, feminist matriarchy rather than strong, conservative leadership. We want real Republicans, people who stand for conservative principles, not Democrat collaborators.
Maybe Chris needs a refresher on what Conservative Principles are. They seem to have become a bit diluted in the past eight or so years.
Duffer = Delusion. And how far away can that be from "tremen?" So.... DT it is!
Posted by: Hinton on January 30, 2008 12:43 PMIn partial defense of McCain's rating from the ACU:
When McCain gets bad marks it's because of interesting circumstances. For example in 2003 he differed on the ACU position on 4 bills. Three of those bills were taxes so in essence half of his negative rating was redundant.
Similarily, with his low 60's rating, he voted differently than the ACU wanted him to on 8 bills. Three of those bills were immigration, so a quarter of his negativeness was redundant.
Remember folks, Obama 8.0 and Clinton 9.0, that's a far cry from even your liberal view of McCain.
Now that Rudy's out, my favorite picks are in this order: Huckabee, McCain and Romney. If I thought Romney had a decent chance at an electoral college victory, he would be above McCain for me. But that's not happening.
NEWT FOR VP - at least that's what I'd like to see, but a Condi sure would look good in that spot right about now.
Posted by: Doug on January 30, 2008 12:43 PMAs for the judges, you can discount the story of Alito wearing his conservatism on his sleeve. The worry there is McCain wouldn't nominate a real conservative to the Supremes unless he hid his conservatism in order to fool the Democrats. We all know how it plays.
And I object to these polls in January stating how people are going to vote in November.
Thank you Chris Vance for posting.
As for the R party, in the late 60s it was a Republican governor who stopped the completion of I-90 due to environmental concerns, oversaw the passage of the State Environmental Policy Act, the Shoreline Act and the formation of Ecology.
So, I don't think you can say the R party in Washington has changed.
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 12:43 PMRossi is a conservative but appealed to fiscal conservatism and didn't play up any bit of social conservatism, that is why he was and is electable in this state.
You boneheads who think the republicans in this state need to run on anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-public school, anti-immigration platforms are just, well, miserably wrong. Until enough of you admit that, we Republicans won't have a chance in this state.
If McCain is nominated, this will be super for Dino Rossi and the rest of the state - it would assure Rossi and his comparable fiscal conservatism, would be rushed into office - maybe if we get the right candidates for state senate offices we can make a bit of a move in the legislature as well.
Posted by: Doug on January 30, 2008 01:08 PMBrian Maloney had an interesting take on the McCain v. rest of world scuffle at http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/
Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2008 01:14 PM"If electability is your primary concern Republicans are incredibly lucky that McCain is emerging as the nominee. "
If standing by your princples, such as national sovereignty from illegal invasion from the south, is your primary concern, Republicans are incredibly cursed that McCain is emerging as the nominee.
Right now it looks as though we are going to get liberal policies such as open borders for illegal invasion and confiscation of earnings via increased tax burdens. Obama, Clinton or MCain there is not much difference. Either way, we are going to revisit the halcyon days of the 70's with high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. Probably there will be another AQ attack as well, most likely a WMD hauled accross the border nobody wants to defend.
Either way, the US Titanic is going down. The question is, will the captain be a Republican or Democrat?
I'd rather have history write that the second great depression was caused at the hands of Democrats.
Posted by: pbj on January 30, 2008 01:24 PMOh boo hoo, I made a spelling mistake.
I didn't know you we such a pussy.
Spelling?
Try again.
I'm not the one calling Presidential candidates whores. Can you prove Hillary is a physical whore? Whore for Power, sure but this is politics, who isn't?
Is English your native language?
ME @ 97
once again that she lives up (down?) to the Whorabillary moniker: whore for power, horrible to contemplate, Bill with the gender baiting convenience of a vagina named Hillary.
Try again.
Ahhh, your a Ron Paul supporter. How silly of me to think you were a Huckabee guy.
No I guess English isn't... or you truly ARE attention deficit:
ME @ 107 I will admit to calling RP a liar.
Try again.
AND, I have been exceptionally careful NOT to choose a candidate. Why? you might ask... BECAUSE I HAVEN'T CHOSEN.
So, unless you are secretly channeling my inner Republican, once again you showcased your utter and complete foolishness.
Try again.
Hmm, this site seems to be propagating conspiracy theories that "REAL" conservatives are not voting for McCain. I would have trouble believing that a site called Crushliberalism.com is not a right-wing nut job site.
Did you happen to notice they were QUOTING that right-wing bastion of conservatism... CNN?
No, I thought not.
Try again.
Come back to play after your much needed nap, yucky ... or after you learn to read AND comprehend.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 01:27 PMHowever, I am very upset with what the Republicans have been doing in this state, it has cost me and the state, and the state's children dearly. Run the Dino Rossi's and the Joe Zarelli's, let them run on fiscal conservatism, they can deal with these other issues in a slow, methodical way over time. All you really have to do is look at Rossi, that's the type of candidate the R's can run to win back the legislature...and I didn't hear him harping on anything but practical solutions and fiscal conservativness.
Posted by: Doug on January 30, 2008 01:30 PMYou said:
"The Republican party in this state changed in about 1988 when people like me, right wing social conservatives, took the party over for Pat Robertson. Though I was a delegate at the state convention for Bush Sr. - I'm just saying evangelicals like me."
And then you say:
"You boneheads who think the republicans in this state need to run on anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-public school, anti-immigration platforms are just, well, miserably wrong. Until enough of you admit that, we Republicans won't have a chance in this state."
So you ADMIT, according to your own theory, it is people like you that are causing the problem.
And to correct another error in your post, no one is against immigration - LEGAL immigration. That is the dishonest thing about your pro-invasion advocates, you lie about the position of your opponents. There is no such thing as an "undocmented immigrant" just as there is no such thing an "undocumented bank withdrawer". We call both criminals.
I welcome and encourage any and all to come here LEGALLY. The process begins with applying for citizenship - NOT with hopping over the border.
All you pro-invasion folks talk about providing a so called "path to citizenship" for the 12 million illegal aliens. There is already a path to citizenship you boneheads and it doesn't start with hopping over the border!!!
Posted by: pbj on January 30, 2008 01:33 PMClearly it's not. I'm actually an illegal immigrant posting from the computer terminals in Casa Latina while I wait for my next job from some fat white republican who's too cheap to hire a gringo to do the job.
So which are you more opposed to Ragnar? Eminent Domain or the Govt. taking innocent Americans land to build a misguided border fence to keep people like me out? Seems rather hypocritical to me, much like your stupid President.
Show me the WMD buddy!! HAHAH!!
I do NOT know if this is true, but if it is even a remote possibility, count on whoever is left at the debate to pound McCain with this.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 01:37 PMWhat a good little sheep.
Baaaah, baaah.
Try again.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 01:39 PMHe says McCain is bad for the US. We don't need any more information than that. Do not vote for McCain.
Posted by: Jim Thompson on January 30, 2008 01:43 PMMcCain's defining moment for me came when he stood up on the senate floor and said Americans were too lazy to pick lettuce for $50.hr. Illegals taking jobs American's don't want is the biggest lie of our lifetime. All one need do to see this is look at the case of the Swift meat packing plant that was raided by ICE. Day later AMERICANS lined up around the block for those jobs.
Posted by: pbj on January 30, 2008 01:53 PMThat fat pill popping fool? He's all drugged out, you can't trust him for a second.
Someone please help me up off the floor. LOL(Ragnar?)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 30, 2008 02:10 PMThis applies not only to politicians, but to voters as well.
Republican voters and party leaders, in their desire for power, have chosen to back a candidate (McCain) who is perceived to be "electable" instead of one with true conservative principles. I am not surprised.
McCain is a centrists, and not a conservative. He certainly is no fiscal conservative, at least not in any kind of principled way. He'll give us a carbon tax, and may even let the UN control it. He'll expand the government's intrusion into health care, and do nothing to restrain government spending. The dollar will continue to tank because of this unsupported deficit spending. We'll expand our military operations in many more countries, and as a result, more and more foreigners will hate us, and want to attack us, and fewer will want to copy our free economic model.
Ron Paul is still in the race, and will be in it at least to the convention. If, as is likely, he does not get the nomination, I will happily vote Libertarian.
Why? Because the point is not to vote to attempt to gain power. The point is to vote your conscience, and to defend your principles.
The eventual Libertarian candidate...
(who will almost certainly NOT be Ron Paul, because Ron Paul will be running for his congressional seat, and because the Libertarian nominating convention happens BEFORE the Republican convention...)
...will draw some of his or her support from Democrats who are opposed to the war and realize that neither Hillary nor Obama really oppose the war, and will draw some of his or her support from fiscal conservatives alienated by McCain or Romney. So the Libertarian candidate won't change the outcome of the race, but WILL give about a million voters a choice that they can feel good about.
The lousy choice of the lesser of two evils, who are both really bad candidates (Hillary or McCain) will strengthen the Libertarian Party.
And that is what freedom is all about: YOU get to choose, not the government.
I think that Ron Paul represents the conscience of the Republican Party. He is a true Reagan/Goldwater conservative. He stands for limited government and the Constitution. He realizes that national defense is not policing the world on the US taxpayers' dime.
I wish more Republicans would return to the principles of the Republican Party, and of the US Constitution, and of the founders of this great nation. Until then, the Republicans are just helping in our gradual slide towards more and more complete socialism.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 30, 2008 02:12 PMNo, it's not. Global warming caused by human activity is.
Oh, that's right. He bought into that one, too.
Posted by: deedub on January 30, 2008 02:14 PMI almost feel sorry for little yucky... he's clearly a good little sheep... but evidently not good enough to merit a new playbook.
Run along now, yucky. Mommy has some bright blue imitation flavored Koolaid for you and we grown-ups are talking here.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 02:15 PMMccain has the momentum coming out of FL, but has limited cash.
Romney has plenty of cash, but needs some momentum.
I don't think we have a presumptive candidate yet. Tuesday is the wild card.
Dick Morris (yes, yes, I know, in my minds eye, I too can see the heads of cato, duffer and yucky exploding... I can live with that) has some interesting comments. OUT OF FLORIDA: THE FRONT-RUNNER
I'm still hoping for a brokered convention.
oh gosh, you DO know the definition and understand the concept of parody, don't you?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 02:40 PMCall me a sheep, but I saw you change topics with Freakin Liberal yesterday. You be the Sheepie with your anti-abortion crusade. Face the facts, US does not have the resources to support your silly aborted fetuses. They will not replace me. I build your house, I clean your pool, I babysit your kids. I don't see you hiring gringos to do those jobs. In fact, some of my amigos were mowing Mitt Romney's lawn the other day.
We are everywhere and your just a fat lazy gringo xenophobe. Why don't you come down and fix the economy in my country and I'll stop coming up and supporting yours. I worked hard to get here and I'm staying put.
Posted by: Mr. Yuck on January 30, 2008 02:43 PM1. Traditional Liberatarian Party members would vote their party anyway, so it wouldn't necessarily increase votes. My feeling is Liberatarians are proud of their party, which is why they stick by it as a principle stand. Most likely they would turn out in the same numbers, no matter the candidate.
2. To nominate someone who would attract disenfranchised, liberatarian leaning Republicans, the candidate would also need to meet some of the other Republican principles, which may be at odds with Liberatarian Party platform. For instance, to attract social conservatives, the Liberatarian party would need to changes is Pro-choice stand, which I don't think will happen.
3. If Nadar runs again, then Liberatarians won't attract disenfrancised Democrats, Nadar will (i.e., Kuchinich oriented voters).
All that is to say, I don't think whoever Liberatarians nominate will have an impact on the race, just like I don't think Nadar will have much of an impact on the other end. The only third party candidate that may have an impact would be Bloomberg.
Posted by: tc on January 30, 2008 02:45 PMYour second paragraph is exactly the way state Republicans need to proceed, one legislative seat at a time, using issues a majority of Washington residents feel strongly about; namely taxation, education and transportation. And it doesn't hurt our cause that the Democrats have been miserable failures with all three issues. Go Dino!
Posted by: Saltherring on January 30, 2008 02:47 PMActually I haven't said anything in any of my posts about citizenship for legal or illegal immigrants. And I also would disagree that coming to the U.S. legally begins with applying for citizenship.
I have no stance on the citizenship argument, my stance is purely economics and legality. I only propose to make sure there are enough LEGAL immigrant workers to fill our immediate need. That means that the US has been anti-immigrant in not allowing enough immigrant workers into this country, hence so many illegal ones. I personally have no stance on whether any legal or illegal immigrant becomes a citizen - except that if they were born here, even an illegal, they have a bit of a leg up legally.
Posted by: Doug on January 30, 2008 03:30 PMActually no you don't. You may wish you did, but dude, I'd be the first to ask for your green card and to call INS.
Why don't you come down and fix the economy in my country
The truly sad thing is you haven't a flipping clue what's wrong with that statement. I'll give you a 2 word clue: YOUR COUNTRY.
Why don't you come down and fix the economy in my country and I'll stop coming up and supporting yours.
Blackmail and threats.
I worked hard to get here and I'm staying put.
I bet it was hard peeing your pants while crammed in the false bottom of a truck. And no, you most definitely are NOT staying put.
Even if we get stuck with your McAmigo-lover, the American people didn't allow the last illegal immigration bill to pass and we are sick of you sucking off the tit of the US.
Go home, get a job, learn to read and apply LEGALLY.... or better yet, stay home and solve the ills of your own corrupt country.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 03:45 PMMaybe not you personally, but the rest of the stupid fat gringos have no problem. I'm sure some of my Amigos will be mowing your lawn in your stupid looking McMansion this summer.
Blackmail and threats.
Why do you think I'm hear you stupid fool? I didn't ask for my country to go into civil war. I didn't ask for my relative to be whisked away in the middle of the night. I didn't front money to the dictators who ran my country. The US had no problems propping up people like Pinochet and others who ruined our countries.
You come down south and exploit our labor. I come up north and work for you now. Better pay and I can pass money along to my relatives via Western Union. They live a better life now no thanks to white sheeted fools like yourself.
I bet it was hard peeing your pants while crammed in the false bottom of a truck
You think just because your born here you enjoy some special privilege? I work harder than you do. I put up with your stupid insults. I pay sales tax like everyone else.
Go home, get a job, learn to read and apply LEGALLY.... or better yet, stay home and solve the ills of your own corrupt country.
You don't it do you Gringo. I work for you, you save money by hiring me. I work hard. I can try to come to this country legally but that would mean leaving my wife and child. I'm not some Cuban who gets a free ride the moment he steps on shore. I worked hard to get here, I have a better life now, I'm staying.
General LeMay upbraided a subordinate, once upon a time, for calling the USSR the 'enemy.' The USSR, said LeMay forcefully, was the adversary; the Navy was the enemy. Ditto Limbaugh who, for eight years, has treated damn Democrats with adversarial respect while treating Navy John McCain as worse than toxic bilge water.
It should be manifestly clear now that, whatever his faults, a President McCain in 2001 would have better for America than a President Dub-ya. Young Bush was Limbaugh's big baby, a baby posing as "compassionate" and "conservative." Except for tax cuts, Bush and big daddy Rush have destroyed the remnants of conservatism that survived Reagan and the alleged Republican Revolution of 1994.
McCain could not possibly have been more harmful to our cause. He would have been better for our country.
Limbaugh says that the nomination of McCain means the destruction of the Republican Party, which is already a reeking pile of rubble. McCain as our nominee, and maybe only McCain, will be able to pull something useful from the sewage.
Of course he'll be helped by the Democrat nominee, Hillary, a uniter-not-a-divider. If anybody can bring Republicans together and give us a reason to live and fight back, she can, but don't let Limbaugh talk you into letting her back into the White House. Another Clinton Administration might be good for Rush ratings, but screw him. Again he's trying to lead us over a cliff. We don't have to follow.
Posted by: AUH2O on January 30, 2008 04:14 PMWant to spark our economy - bring these hard workers out of the shadows and black markets. Provide them a road to legitimacy.
Right wing Extremists (some of whom are reading this) would rather try to trump everything with a "rule of law" arguements.(only when it's convenient & suits their purposes)
But they can't trump our need to survive as a nation . They can't trump devine humanitarian law.
Thanks for your hard work Mr.Yuck
GO John McCain !
Im4pedro
Posted by: im4pedro@hotmail.com on January 30, 2008 07:09 PMIf you are Mexican, which I doubt, why don't you grow a pair of cajones, step up to the plate, and address the problems yourself. Your country is your (collective) responsibility. Or aren't you up to the task?
Posted by: Peggy U on January 30, 2008 07:13 PMFace it, we won't get an econ conservative, immigration hawk or freedom hawk this time around.
McCain at least won't feel the urge to 'dialogue' with al Qaeda. If he selects a conservative VP who will probably replace him in 2012, I'll vote for him, NW@44 notwithstanding.
This is basically Nixon vs. McGovern, 1968, deja vu.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 30, 2008 07:42 PMBased on past actual records, Bill Clinton was more conservative than George Bush Sr. and George W. It wasn't Republicans that did welfare reform, it was Republicans that expanded the government at the fastest rate ever.
Vote conservative, vote for the democrats
Posted by: John McDonald on January 30, 2008 08:32 PMThe triple post was not to make a point, it was an accident because the connection was slow and I thought I didn't hit the send button. I'll be careful not to do it again.
I describe failure as the Republicans increasing the size of the government faster than any Democratic adminstration even when the military spending is subtracted. Even though the Democrats talk liberal, the Clintons govern conservative. McCain says he is a conservative and governs like a liberal ... your choice. My choice: vote actions not words.
Posted by: John McDonald on January 30, 2008 09:37 PMSorry, I got to agree with John McDonald on this one. If it is a choice between McCain, Hillary or Obama, I'd rather history record it was a Democrat that brought on the next great depression. Either way we are screwed. McCain advocates the failed poli