McCain is leading in delegates because he is a solid republican with a proven track record. Unlike Romney, McCain has been saying the same thing since his first bid for president back in 2000.
I think it is fascinating that so many of the mainstream republicans are backing Romney over McCain. Romney is a fair weather sycophant at best, and a flip floppy John Kerry esq conservative at worst.. The latter in my book. If the republicans nominate Romney as our front runner we will be blasted with the same flip-flopping mantra that we smeared Kerry with in '04.
Check out the facts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGur36uVWxA
McCain is the true hope for the republicans to hold the oval office. I can't bring myself to vote for Romney out of pure principle; unless of course Hillary is the democratic nominee.
I like McCain, but I do disagree with him on some big things--e.g. campaign finance reform.
Huckabee's not done yet, either!
Posted by: Cydney on January 31, 2008 06:47 PMThe latest is caused by a better understanding of his economic policies. I remember him saying he doesn't know much about the economy, he believes the pharmaceutical industry is evil (i.e. corporate America) and he believes and is sponsoring legislation regarding energy credits to stop global warming (as if man can stop it).
Hey, this guy is really a Democrat. As Romney says, sure some of the people are bad, but the pharmaceutical industry has saved millions of lives, including John McCain's.
This carbon credit fiasco is going to bring the USA to its knees even without the jihadists. It will bring the USA down to third world level (no, I don't mean the USA is going third world) instead of bringing the third world to our level, or close to it.
He says his solution is nuclear energy, but first, he is following the Democrats lead in no ANWAR, no new refineries, no offshore drilling by US interests (but Chinese interests are okay); and then after that, he will try to get nuclear energy in the spotlight. In other words, he is following the Democrats in the hopes they will let more nukes be built. He is very naive.
Horrible, horrible choice for president.
Posted by: swatter on February 1, 2008 07:17 AMAmnesty is more likely to pass with McCain as president that Hillary. Why because with McCain as president many Republicans senators will feel obligated to support his insane positions, wreaking any chance of a filibuster. With Hillary they won't. This logic can be applied to environmental issues, freedom of speech issues, judges, etc.
McCain is a liar, Hillary is a liar. McCain has such a bad memory he doesn't even know when he is lying, Hillary at least can remember.
Do I agree with McCain 90% of the time. NO! His recent conservative ratings are ~50% which is lower than many Democrats.
Finally, conservatives will be blamed for McCain's failures and we will lose big in 2008 and beyond as this buffoon wreaks the economy with his socialism.
I wish Ann Coulter had more time last night to lay out the case of Clinton over McCain.
I'm just now seeing some of the supposed minor positions McCain has taken.
It reminds me that in early '01 of the Butthead McCain almost turning (officially that is) Democrat but Jumpin' Jim beat him to the punch.
Posted by: swatter on February 1, 2008 09:24 AMHere's the link discussing Butthead McCain becoming a Democrat. The hill is one of the more respected news sources.
Posted by: swatter on February 1, 2008 09:34 AM"Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.
Going to the candidate's debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose."
That is also why Romney is getting more and more comfortable in this debate format- he is learning.
If you would just listen to the guy talk for a few minutes you will get a differnet understanding. There is a brilliant mind and an intelligent leader there. And I must admit, in March of last year, I was skeptical of Romney, too, but came to a better understanding.
I might even contribute to his campaign (cough, cough) against McCain, the Democrat.
Posted by: swatter on February 1, 2008 02:39 PMBut then he went off on a riff about how he had no current national proposal, had no plans for any such proposal, and had no plans to support any such proposal proposed by someone else. And furthermore he staunchly supported the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 1, 2008 09:22 PMHow many votes does it take to break a filibuster?
Hint: The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority of three-fifths of the Senate (60 Senators, if all 100 seats are filled) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.[2]
Yes, the democrats control both houses. However, the Senate has a filibuster rule so 41 senators can effectively block legislation. If McCain is president we won't get 41 to block anything, with Hillary we will.
Finally Commie John and his not for profit and full employment ideas are not what I will ever vote for. Hillary is a socialist not a communist. John is a communist on economics.
Posted by: John McDonald on February 2, 2008 05:32 AMMcCain is not everything I had hoped for, but whining and crying about it won't help change it. Romney has his flaws and seems to alienate more moderates and liberals than McCain does.
I believe that McCain would have been a smarter choice in 2000 than Bush, and because of that choice, who was reelected in 2004, there exists the conundrum that we are currently in - Bush's approval rating will probably not reach 40% before he leaves office and frankly he doesn't deserve it. Granted, John McCain has his flaws, but the Republicans need to come together and work with him, if he is the nominee - which appears to be the case, baring a miracle by Mitt Romney.
What all of this will do is add to the negative energy that the Republicans are throwing out there. The Democrats seem more unified and that is not a good sign going into November.
Posted by: KS on February 2, 2008 03:09 PMHowever, another way to look at it is to ask whether we would have been better off w/ Gore or Kerry than Bush. I just can't imagine that we would have.
McCain is a continuation of Bush, "a big-gov't conservative." If you would have liked Gore or Kerry, don't support McCain. I think I'll be holding my nose and voting McCain.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 2, 2008 05:10 PMMcCain in his own words, in the very last debate ripped Romney for doing things for profit, and for laying people off. I did not hear this on a talk show .. I heard this myself out of the mouth of John McCain.
My friend, that is COMMUNISM! It is the definition of COMMUNISM! There is no more basic COMMUNISTIC thought pattern then that. It is the essence of COMMUNISM. I know you want to believe different, but putting your head in the sand doesn't mean that John McCain didn't say it.
Patriots believe in the free market.
Posted by: John McDonald on February 3, 2008 04:49 PMIn light of the last debate; if you look at his record in comparison with Ronald Reagan, you will find that McCain is more conservative. Reagan raised taxes, expanded government spending, raised the deficit, signed a Blatent Amnesty Bill and withdrew from Lebanon. Besides McCain's lack of a hardline (KICK 'EM OUT) imigration bill; in terms of taxes, government spending and the military, he is a stronger Republican that Reagan was.
So, would you vote for Reagan if he were running today?
Posted by: Chris Case on February 3, 2008 09:36 PMIf there was no PROFIT, as there was in the USSR, then the government is controlling everything by definition. Communist also believe in 100% employment with no layoffs. Socialism as practiced by the Europeans is what the Democrats want for America. That type of socialism still wants profits and still allows layoffs. McCain's comments sounded like he was running in the USSR. You simply don't know history and are probably a young ignorant fellow. Igorance usually leads to communistic thoughts. Be the pinko you are and be happy with No Profit John.
Posted by: John McDonald on February 4, 2008 07:47 AMWith your shiny new MBA, how come you won't respond or defend McCain's comment about Profit and anti-layoffs in the last debate. That comment is what turned me against McCain from being generally grumpy about him to being dead set, close minded, anti-McCain -- Commies never change they can only be defeated.
So instead of "LOL" and a shiny new MBA as a defense how about defending his anti-profit comment with capitalistic free market reasoning. I'll be waiting ... Comrade Chris.
By the way Romney's Bain Capital has created ten of thousands of jobs across America at high Profit with their first big deal being the creation and growth of STAPLES.
Come now ... defend his comments. After that, we can start to discuss the rule of law, and exactly what illegal means to me, you, and McCain.
Posted by: John McDonald on February 4, 2008 02:04 PMFirst respond to my Ronald Reagan comment. Then I will think about justifying the use of my time to correct your twisted Michael Savage/Levin warped philosophies.
P.S. My MBA is not shiney...It has a matte finish with a small gold embossed PLU emblem. I have a BA in Comm/Mngt from WSU that is slightly shinier.
Posted by: Chris Case on February 4, 2008 08:35 PMI respond: All of that is true. I also say that Reagan had an agreement to cut spending when he raised taxes and had also cut taxes prior to raising them. The Democrats who were and had been in control of congress for generations did not follow through on there end of the budget bargin. Reagan raised military spending and thus the size of the government. Reagan did not raise regular spending above inflation less the entitlement programs. Reagan signed the amnesty bill with the idea that it would be the last one, this is a case of fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice like McCain is trying to do, then shame on me. And yes Reagan withdrew from Lebannon, I don't think many in the US understood what a threat Islamic terrorists posed as we were far more concern about the USSR at the time.
Okay I responded, your comments on McCain's Pinko statements please.
Posted by: John McDonald on February 4, 2008 11:48 PM