Posted on 05/30/2005 10:28:41 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Having helped broker the Great Senate Compromise last week, Sen. John McCain is back in the media limelight, winning the usual accolades for bucking his party. But the deal by 14 "moderates" doesn't just preserve the judicial filibuster and allow confirmation of a few of President Bush's "extremist" nominees. It also reveals that the myth the McCainiacs hoped would propel their man into the Oval Office in 2000 still endures, despite evidence of successive elections to the contrary.
The myth is simply that the only way to win elections is to draw voters from the other party by bucking a few of your own party's principles. Call it "maverick moderatism," but this belief has been the foundation for Mr. McCain's strategy for achieving national office and has given us great ideas like the recent iteration of campaign finance reform, opposition to some tax cuts and dogged attacks by Mr. McCain on some military expenditures. It's also the foundation of many pundits' advice to the president that he pick more "moderate" judges, give up on using payroll taxes to create private Social Security accounts, and trim his sails on fighting terrorism by spreading freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Oh I sure like that "Maverick John McCain" tune Rush's been playing on his show. It's priceless!
I remember my pastor saying back in the 2000 election primaries that he might vote for McCain. He was an old military man, and McCain's war record appealed to him. He was from NC.
That week McCain called members of the Christian right "evil". Everyone in the church immediately turned against him. He lost the primary, and the momentum.
Every so often I hear the left talking about how Bush's "dirty tricks" cost McCain the election. Hogwash. McCain viciously attacked the base on the eve of a major primary. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
McCain will not win the Presidency in 2008 because:
1. He will be too old in 2008.
2. He is a senator and being a govenor not a senator is the path to the White House, ie GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter etal.
3. He is from a state with 10 electoral votes. GOP presidents seem to come from CA, Tx, MI etc., ie bigger states. Even Dim presidents, Clinton aside seem to come from pretty big states, GA, MA, etc. [MA was a more important state in the Electoral College in 1960 than it is now.]
I'm convinced McInsane, the pitiful bastard, is a few cans short of a 6-pack.
NOTHING means as much to him,......as him.
His "closeness" to Kerry "the traitor" and his behavior at the MIA/POW hearing, confirmed his untrustworthiness for me...
Semper Fi
McCain reminds me of Dean.
'nuff sed.
McCain is a corrupt, coniving, treacherous, little weasel. He is ethically challenged, (censured by the House Ethics committee) consorts with crooks and gansters on a regular basis, and will sell anyone down the river to advance his agenda.
He might not ever be President, but with an inflated ego such as he has, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to run as a third party candidate, and do what Ross Perot did in the '90s.
Only by going up against Hitlery could McCain possibly convince me to vote for him. And even then, I'd be seriously conflicted. With his most recent betrayal, I'd probably vote third party (probably libertarian). So McCain loses.
It's all about voter turnout. The GOP persisting in making it so difficult for me to determine the lesser of two evils does not incline me to vote. And there are MANY MANY conservative voters out there just like me.
That said I would vote for absolutely anyone who would/could be Hitlery.
Two words: "Luke Skywalker".
Agreed.
McCain has no chance of becoming the Republican nominee, but I wouldn't be surprised if he played the "spoiler" role, running as an Independent or Reform candidate, siphoning off enough votes from the real Republican nominee to put Hillary in office.
The only chance McCain has to even run for President is to cast a YES vote to the eventual "nuclear" option. If the Dems filibuster and McCain falls in for this option, he can claim an attempt at moderation while pretending to stick to an up or down principle. The only, and very slim, chance would be to lead on a conservative victory.
<< I'm convinced McInsane, the pitiful bastard, is a few cans short of a 6-pack.
NOTHING means as much to him,......as him.
His "closeness" to Kerry "the traitor" and his behavior at the MIA/POW hearing, confirmed his untrustworthiness for me...
Semper Fi >>
Spot on!
Even his actual Military Record, as seperate and different from his admiral's-son JFKerry-esque politicized "military record" seems to pose more questions than answers.
Got your sixes, 'rat.
Per Ardua ad Astra -- B A
You are a fool if you do not vote. Pure and simple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
McPoopStain will soon be out of politics for good.
If it came down to voting for the hildabeast or Mcpain, I think i'd go fishing.
mcpain (media) AZ will not be the president simply because he has no support. In 2000 he got just 19% in the show down South Carolina primary, the first one where there was no cross over voting allowed. His party The Media does not have enough members to elect him president.
He'll certainly never win as a Republican, as there's about a zero percent chance he'll make it through the primaries.
Still, he goes too easy on McManic.
I know few actual facts about McCain but for some reason I don't trust him. I get the feeling that he is emotionally unstable and could "blow" at any moment.
back up to the good ol' top...
mccain is a loser
McCain will be 72 in 2008. Reagan was 73 when he was reelected in 1984. Of note, McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
2. He is a senator and being a govenor not a senator is the path to the White House, ie GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter etal.
Certainly the case in the 20th Century except for Kennedy and Harding. Hoover and Eisenhower never held elective office.
3. He is from a state with 10 electoral votes. GOP presidents seem to come from CA, Tx, MI etc., ie bigger states. Even Dim presidents, Clinton aside seem to come from pretty big states, GA, MA, etc. [MA was a more important state in the Electoral College in 1960 than it is now.
Reps: Eisenhower came from Kansas, a small state. Coolidge was from Vermont. Hoover was born in Iowa and grew up in Oregon. Dems: The last two Dem Presidents, Clinton and Carter came from relative small states, Arkansas and Georgia. Arkansas had 6 electoral votes and Georgia had only 10 electoral votes in 1976. Truman came from Missouri, which had 15 electoral votes.
If you look at nominees for President by the major parties, there are plenty of exceptions to the reasons you cite. McGovern, Mondale, etc.
Although the factors you listed are influential, they don't decide elections per se. The reason why McCain won't win the Presidency is because he won't get the GOP nomination. He doesn't have the required support from the GOP base. Simple as that.
Thursday, August 5, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL
"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
As a Nam Vet who worked diligently to help expose John (THE SNAKE) Kerry for who and what he was and did when he returned from Vietnam, McCain--in his "defending" his "bud" Kerry as well as "advising" ALL to refrain from speaking out on Vietnam (after giving his friend Kerry a free pass for a year while Kerry was making his Vietnam service the focal point of his primary campaign)once the Swifties and others began having an impact on Kerry, as well as McCain "condemning" the Swifties, their ads, Unfit for Command (before it was even released)--lost me FOREVER.
Moreover, I won't even begin to rant as to McCain (and Kerry's) sham POW/MIA coverup as well as "their" rush to normalize relations with Vietnam, all the while, blocking ANY attempts at holding Vietnam responsible for the accounting of ALL POW's/MIA's or their horrible human rights record.
As a full-fledged RINO (second ONLY to the "all-time" worst ever, RINO, Jumpin Jim Jeffords) McCain must be delusional if he thinks he could EVEN get through the primaries.
I know many, many, Vets who would vote against him and/or (myself included) would look for another party or sit the next one out, should he somehow, prevail in the primaries and get the nomination.
Thursday, August 5, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/05/politics1020EDT0544.DTL
"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
As a Nam Vet who worked diligently to help expose John (THE SNAKE) Kerry for who and what he was and did when he returned from Vietnam, McCain--in his "defending" his "bud" Kerry as well as "advising" ALL to refrain from speaking out on Vietnam (after giving his friend Kerry a free pass for a year while Kerry was making his Vietnam service the focal point of his primary campaign)once the Swifties and others began having an impact on Kerry, as well as McCain "condemning" the Swifties, their ads, Unfit for Command (before it was even released)--lost me FOREVER.
Moreover, I won't even begin to rant as to McCain (and Kerry's) sham POW/MIA coverup as well as "their" rush to normalize relations with Vietnam, all the while, blocking ANY attempts at holding Vietnam responsible for the accounting of ALL POW's/MIA's or their horrible human rights record.
As a full-fledged RINO (second ONLY to the "all-time" worst ever, RINO, Jumpin Jim Jeffords) McCain must be delusional if he thinks he could EVEN get through the primaries.
I know many, many, Vets who would vote against him and/or (myself included) would look for another party or sit the next one out, should he somehow, prevail in the primaries and get the nomination.
Too much caffeine this morning, coupled with even discussing McCain and Kerry, gets my blood boiling so much that its difficult to remain calm and hit "post" only once. LOL
So, how'd that work out for Joe Lieberman?
Which is fully what I expect will happen, and what I believe McCain is banking on. By aligning himself with the gang of 14, McCain has accomplished several things. He's increased his stature among moderates and independents as a "reasonable" politican. He's undercut Bill Frist, one of his top contenders for the 2008 nomination. And when the Democrats break the deal and filibuster Bush's first Supreme Court nominee, John McCain can ride in on his white horse and save the day for conservatives.
Wonder what the Navy found concerning CAIN when he was de-briefed? We'll never know since he made sure those docs were classified the rest of our lifetime.
I believe that he is going to run as a third party candidate.
He's got Joe-mentum. LOL
Bump for later.
Should the GOP insist on making Mc Cain their Party's candidate, look for the Republican turnout being lower than it was it was in the 1992 election.
If the Republican hierarchy insist on making Mc Cain their standard bearer they will have to make all their primaries open primaries. I believe that that requires legislative action in states that have closed primaries.
I personally do not believe that Mc Cain will be the GOP candidate, but power has done as it pleased before.
I will not vote for or support John Mc Cain and many others have said the same to me.
If that means electing hillary President. So be it.
Way too easy -- wish I could remember the name of the Freeper that did all the research on McCain with the links -- it was given to the Palmetto Journal in South Carolina during the campaign and they actually printed some of the information. It was very detailed.
They were riding high after the early contests. That statement was probably intended to get more favorable coverage by the reporters on the "Straight Talk Express".
It effectively ended his campaign. The "genius" political consultant guiding the McCain 2000 campaign has gone on to become a democrat.
A gun grabber at heart in addition to bashing the Religious Right? I don't think the cards are in your favor John.
The last two Dem Presidents, Clinton and Carter came from relative small states, Arkansas and Georgia.
__________________________________________________________
Actually I believe in 1976 as today GA was one of the minimum 11 or so states to elect as it is today. I would not call a state that was one of the minimum number of states it takes to get 270 electoral votes, relatively small.
I always vote. Even given the wretched choice between McCain and Hitlery, I'd still vote: Libertarian (or possibly Constitutional).
If it does come down to a competition between these two twits, I think we'll see a record number of Libertarian votes.
As a corrolary to my earlier post, I think the only opponent that could give Hitlery a chance of winning is McCain.
Personally, I don't fear a Hitlery presidency nearly as much as a lot of people here do. With the Klintons out of office for eight years, a lot more of their shenanigans are coming to light. Big Media no longer has its monopoly. I seriously think Hiltery will be "SwiftBoatVetted" (from many different directions) long before she gets withing sight of the Oval Office. Kerry will have gotten off easy by comparison.
A lot also depends on who Hitlery might choose as her running mate. Even if (God forbid) Hitlery wins, I personally don't highly rate her chances of surviving more than two weeks as president. Regardless of what the polls say (and the polls always say what Big Media wants them to say), I can't think of a possible presidential candidate as seriously hated as Hitlery (except possible Boxer or FineSwine).
Not that I am or would be personally planning or intending anything (for all you secret service personell now joining this thread). I am merely speaking from an actuarial position. I strongly suspect there are quite a number of less than level headed Hitlery haters out there who are or would be planning something.
What does that (one of the minimum 11 or so states to elect) mean? You define a state with 12 electoral votes as large or important?
In 1976, there were 12 states with more than 12 electoral votes and three with 12, i.e., GA, VA, and Missouri.
There are a varying number of states that would elect a president if all of them voted for the same candidate regardless of who what the rest of the country does. In the last election that number was 11 and the states were CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, and NJ. They total 271 electoral votes.
It turns out I was wrong about GA in 76. One of the two states with 13 Electoral Votes was in the minimum that elect. The 3 with 12 were not. Still a state that is that close, 1 EV away from the minimum that can elect is not a small state.
BTW, if my quick calculation is correct, the minimum number of states in 1976 was 12. By my count 35 states and DC had fewer EVs than GA in 76 and only 13 had more EVs than GA. That is not a small state in my electoral calculations.
I just checked AZ currently and based on another quick count AZ has 17 states that have more EV than it, three with the same number of EVs and 30 with fewer EVs. So I guess you could argue that I am saying AZ is smaller than it really is. That is a matter of opinion. What we can says is that GA was more important in EV terms in 1976 than 35 other states, while today AZ is more important in EV terms than 30 other states.
Georgia was not a pretty big state electorally in 1976. The cut off of 12 electroral votes is pretty arbitrary in any event. States with 10 or 11 would be roughly the same as those with 12 13, or 14. Georgia was a second tier state with 12 EVs, along with Missouri and VA. States with 10 included LA, MD, Minn, and Tenn. Wisconsin had a 11. North Carolina and Indiana had 13. Mass had 14.
I consider "pretty big" to in at least the top ten.
I don't really care what you consider. I don't think I asked you.
GA at 12 EVs compared to MA at 16 EVs in the two elections is some difference. If you don't want to consider GA an big or an important or any thing else, that is your business.
One could argue that it takes a Southerner to win as Dim. One could argue that Dim successful nominees seem to come from moderate sized states although AR at 6 is pretty small.
None of that changes the fact that recent successful GOP nominees come from large states like CA, CA, Tx and Tx. That is not in my mind AZ.
Care to elaborate?
I agree. I would rather see a DemocRAT in office that John McCain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.