Page 5 of 7
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:38 am
by OscarGuy
I don't know that that's a good thing...
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:43 am
by Johnny Guitar
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:16 am
by Sabin
I liked McCain a long time ago, but his actions and votes in the Bush Years have been atrocious. I wouldn't want him in the Oval office.
His actions under the Bush regime have branded him a suit, nothing more or less. That's not why I fear John McCain. A vote for John McCain is a vote for the man's vice president. Huckabee. Romney. Giuliani. It may be ageist to say this but the man does not look well and he does not look like he has four or eight years left in him.
I will edit my post to ask additionally, at this point can Romney run with McCain?
Edited By Sabin on 1201785404
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:45 pm
by OscarGuy
Mister Tee wrote:To be more specific: McCain -- actually a quite conservative man over most of his voting career -- angered the far right by, first, championing campaign finance reform (most of those groups rely on heavy cash flow); then by openly criticizing the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson wing of the party in the 2000 primaries; and finally, after the election, abandoning the GOP on such key issues as the Bush tax cuts. He also tended to make compromises with prominent Democrats (Feingold on campaign finance, Kennedy on immigration), and to offer juicy negative quotes about his own party, which the press loved (the same way they love Joe Lieberman pissing on his party). None of these acts fit into the monolithic/scorched earth policy of the modern Republican party.
The sad thing is, McCain has, over the past five years, done everything he could to win the love of these absolutist right-wingers -- hugging Bush on the war, suddenly wanting infinite extension of those tax cuts he was against -- but to no avail. All it's done is sully what was a reputation for being a reasonable man; he'll never be the darling of the right the way Reagan or Bush II were.
And let's also add the fact that he opposes a federal marriage amendment, though opposes same-sex marriage, but then again, who on the Democrat side doesn't say virtually the same thing?
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:14 pm
by Mister Tee
To be more specific: McCain -- actually a quite conservative man over most of his voting career -- angered the far right by, first, championing campaign finance reform (most of those groups rely on heavy cash flow); then by openly criticizing the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson wing of the party in the 2000 primaries; and finally, after the election, abandoning the GOP on such key issues as the Bush tax cuts. He also tended to make compromises with prominent Democrats (Feingold on campaign finance, Kennedy on immigration), and to offer juicy negative quotes about his own party, which the press loved (the same way they love Joe Lieberman pissing on his party). None of these acts fit into the monolithic/scorched earth policy of the modern Republican party.
The sad thing is, McCain has, over the past five years, done everything he could to win the love of these absolutist right-wingers -- hugging Bush on the war, suddenly wanting infinite extension of those tax cuts he was against -- but to no avail. All it's done is sully what was a reputation for being a reasonable man; he'll never be the darling of the right the way Reagan or Bush II were.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:24 pm
by Heksagon
That doesn't really tell me anything. What is that centrist thing that he's done?
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:28 am
by OscarGuy
Heksagon wrote:Here's another one my naïve questions concerning issues I don't know about the U.S. politics: why do the extremists of the Republican Party hate McCain so much?
McCain is significantly more centrist than most of the right wing nutjobs that got Bush elected.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:24 am
by Heksagon
Here's another one my naïve questions concerning issues I don't know about the U.S. politics: why do the extremists of the Republican Party hate McCain so much?
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:01 am
by OscarGuy
In our defense, Tee, in 2004, we all thought opposition to the war (which was high even then) would have carried Bush to defeat, but it didn't. We just don't want to get our hopes up that things will finally shift back where it belongs.
Of course, 2004 would have gone Dem if the Ohio Sec of State didn't swear he would deliver Ohio to Bush, which he did through disenfranchisement, miscounts and use of Diebold voting machines only in poor, democrat-heavy areas.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:39 am
by Mister Tee
Sorry if it's tiresome to hear me repeat this over and over, but, really, everybody, look at history: no incumbent party has EVER held onto the White House during a recession. And the recession is far from all that the GOP has to deal with this year. The war, despite media propaganda, remains as deeply unpopular as it was a year ago. The public sides with the Democrats on virtually every issue (more, sadly, than too many centrist Democrats do). Alan Lichtman, whose book The Keys to the Presidency has analyzed every election back to 1860 (and predicted every one since he formulated his system) says the environment this year is the worst for incumbents he has ever documented. There's a reason why vastly far more voters are turning out for Democratic primaries this year: it's where the action is.
Yet Democrats, worry-warts, think this will be all offset because the press will fellate McCain (and they will) or because "everyone hates Hillary". This again ignores history. Democrats were gleeful Reagan got nominated in 1980 -- they knew he was another Goldwater and couldn't win. The GOP was equally thrilled in '92 to face off against the scandal-ridden Clinton -- no one with his negatives could possibly become president. In each case, however, voters did what they always do when they view the country as headed in the wrong direction: they voted for the opposition party, regardless of candidate. I don't care if it's "universally-hated" Hillary against St. John -- she'll win if she's the Democratic nominee. (As Scarbourough and Buchanan laughed last night, what's McCain's slogan going to be? -- "The jobs aren't coming back, and we'll have lots of wars"?) Presidential elections are not jump-balls based on personality; they're considered votes based on circumstance.
Anyway, let's not jump too hard too fast onto the Inevitable McCain bandwagon. The press will push for it, of course (they were pushing it when he finished fourth in Iowa). But the hard-core right of the party -- Rush Limbaugh, National Review, et al. -- HATE McCain. I expect them to give at least one more big push for Romney as alternative. Alot probably depends on how successful they are in persuading evangelicals to abandon Huckabee (who hasn't dropped out) in the cause of blocking McCain.
On the other side, let me say how sad I am to see Edwards drop out today. He's a good man with the vision that appeals to me, and he deserved better than the ignore-treatment he got from the press (if I hear one more person say, I like Edwards the best, but I know it's between Obama and Hillary...).
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:11 am
by Big Magilla
I smell a McCain/Giuliani ticket in the making.
Yes, a McCain presidency is scary, but not as scary as a Huckabee presidency would be or as scary as what we've been living through these last eight years. The man would bring civility back to the White House, but he has no understanding of economics and his ideas on the miliatry are rooted in his own service in another time. He will not get us out of Iraq.
I'm not sure Hillary couldn't beat him. The polls have been wrong in every state as to the turnout. Republicans are staying home while Democrats are voting in massive numbers. That could change, of course, but an Obama run would bring out the young and the disenfranshised who might otherwise sit out the election and could make it less of a nail-biter. If neither Hillary nor Obama has enough delegates going into the convention, Edwards could turn his delegates over to Obama - I don't see him turning them over to Hilalry - and that might make the difference.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:30 am
by Akash
Exactly OG, and that's exactly why the Dems should be afraid. Hell, *I* am!
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:22 am
by OscarGuy
According to National Polls, not necessarily the most reliable, the Dems beat all major contenders in head-to-head races except John McCain. Only Obama beats McCain in a head-to-head. Even Edwards who normally beats everyone would fail to best McCain.
I liked McCain a long time ago, but his actions and votes in the Bush Years have been atrocious. I wouldn't want him in the Oval office.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1201699337
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:04 am
by Akash
Sabin wrote:If John McCain runs, I think he could beat Hilary Clinton. I don't know about Obama, but I know that he's far less alienating than Hilary Clinton and can cross the board. I know people (moderates, apolitico's) who say they think that John McCain deserves to be President.
Exactly Sabin -- I pretty much share this fear. In the narrow world of American politics, John McCain is laughably seen as "moderate" and the sad fact is, a lot of Democrats are more moderate than liberal (I'm using those terms in a purer sense -- in that there's a very small REAL Left in the U.S.) and McCain allows moderates and independents to vote for a Republican without seeming too sexist or Clinton hating (which they probably are).
I'm stunned too (pleasantly) by how quickly and gracelessly Giuliani died in this race. He didn't go out fighting the Mormon to the end or with a huge smelly bang befitting America's Mayor, but rather his campaigned just exhaled with a slow, silent hiss -- like the futile fart he really is. Not very "nine eleven" you know?
Meanwhile McCain was all but written off by the media early on and now? Just another thing in the list of election realities that the NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES and other "prestigious" publications got wrong. The Dems should be afraid, they should be very afraid. He may be the answer to the Republican Party's prayers -- if conservatives can get over their dislike for him of course. Strangely enough, McCain is now in the position I thought Rudy would be in (but the nine eleven whore never even got that far) -- his toughest time will be getting past the conservative base to wrest that nomination away from the other Republican front-runners (who are they again?), but if he can manage it, he stands a better chance of winning the election than any of them (seriously, who are "they", I've already forgotten).
Edited By Akash on 1201698478
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:21 am
by Sabin
I'm going to play the hypothetical game with trepidation if only because I completely missed the mark in my gross overestimation of Rudy Giuiliani's chances earlier this year. I thought he was in. He couldn't be outer if he put the dress back on.
If John McCain runs, I think he could beat Hilary Clinton. I don't know about Obama, but I know that he's far less alienating than Hilary Clinton and can cross the board. I know people (moderates, apolitico's) who say they think that John McCain deserves to be President. He's got Daily Show cred. It's not far off. I think Huckabee is a stronger v.p. choice than Romney, if only because Huckabee's v.p. duties play to his stronger suits...such as playing bass guitar on Leno, not being a fat piece of shit anymore, and hiding his evil.
Hilary can't run with Obama. Maybe she can run with Edwards or Biden, but Richardson has positioned himself so strongly that I fear a Clinton/Richardson ticket has no chance against either a McCain/Huckabee or McCain/Romney ticket.
If Obama runs, I have no idea who could run as his v.p.. Again, it seems beneath Edwards, but Al Gore ran under Bill Clinton, so it's not too far off. Obama/Edwards is the ticket that puts up the fight against Republican domination. Maybe Obama/Biden, which would be almost too good to be true considering they're not going to switch positions.
Edited By Sabin on 1201695764