Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Graying of John McCain

Republicans have no doubt been cheered by polls showing John McCain with a 10-15% lead over Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical 2008 match-up. Coming almost three years before the election these polls probably don’t mean much*, but they do make McCain look like a strong candidate. McCain has a huge vulnerability though, and hardly anyone has noticed.

This seems to have slipped under everyone’s radar, but McCain is quite an old guy. McCain will turn 70 this August, and will be 72 by the time of the 2008 election. This is three years older than Reagan was in 1980. Do you think McCain’s opponents will try to use his age against him? Is the Pope Catholic?

One question his primary opponents could ask is whether he is planning on running for a second term. If he were re-elected, he would be on track to be the first octogenarian president in American history. If he wasn’t planning on running again, on the other hand, then he would be a lame duck and not a very appealing candidate for the GOP. His opponents (the younger ones at least) could also point out that CEOs usually retire at 65.

Truth be told, there is a historical precedent to look at also. I know that Ronald Reagan is regarded as a saint by many people, but even his admirers have to acknowledge that he was ot-nay all-way ere-thay by the end of his second term. (His detractors would throw in his first term, too.) Of course, being old is different than looking and acting old. Think of McCain’s little rant against Barack Obama. Getting a little cranky, John?

Hillary Clinton is no spring chicken herself, but she is still a decade younger than McCain. I would bet that all of McCain’s rivals for the 2008 nomination are at least five years younger than he is. Even Dick Cheney, who is widely regarded as “too old” to run for President, is actually a mere 65. This gets really odd when you realize that he wasn’t even 60 yet when he was the advertised as the eminence grise in the 2000 election. Age is a funny thing.

*Michael Dukakis had a 17% lead of George HW Bush a couple of months before the 88 election.

Posted by Woody Mena at February 18, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #126963

McCain is a democrats idea of a Rpblcn, a conservative with actual morals and values. He is not the Rpblcns idea of a candidate. He and his wife adopted a child from Bangladesh, which is what the fuss was about in the SC primary in 2000. No good deed goes unpunished in his cynical hypocrital party.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 18, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #126965

He’s old it’s true, but I don’t think he will win because people are just so sick of the Republican agenda. We need something different.

Posted by: Max at February 18, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #126976

If McCain could get nominated, he’d have a serious chance of winning — he could take more votes from the Left than almost any other Republican — but he’s too close to the center to ever be nominated. The Republicans (much like the Democrats) don’t want compromise and moderation. They want to ram their agenda down the throat of America, like it or not. A candidate who would be willing to compromise — who would see 51% as anything other than a full mandate — won’t make it past the first weekend of the primaries.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 18, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #126977


McCain is old. He may not be a two term president. But nobody in the running has what he has. The comparisons to Dick Cheney are not apt. Cheney is like the bionic man with all that plastic making his heart work.

I plan to work for McCain and will be putting my time and money where my mouth is. I still think, however, that he is an outside chance. My guess is the Republicans will be running George Allen against Hillary Clinton and we will win.

Re Reagan, an old Reagan was better than any of the Democratic alternatives.

We should not make age the only issue

Posted by: Jack at February 18, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #126981


You are correct about not making age an issue.
The problem is that most elections around our wonderful nation come down to one issue.

Posted by: dawn at February 18, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #126982


You are my case in point. People are fed up with the Christian right wanting to take over this country and impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. This country is based on seperation of church and state, and if you don’t like it, you should leave. Love it or leave it Bonnie.

Posted by: Max at February 18, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #126987

Oh Bonnie, I’m told it’s best to just ignore wingnuts like you … but it’s tough. John McCain has said that he would not repeal Roe v. Wade (Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999):

McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

So Bonnie, I guess you won’t be voting in the next election, huh? Abortion is a science issue, not a religious one. Please keep your ‘all-caps’ fanatical ramblings to your self-absorbed, judgmental self. (Yes, I see the irony in judging her post and then calling her judgmental)

I certainly hope that the Democrats have someone up their (our) sleeve better than Hillary. She will get destroyed in a national election. Winning the Northeast ain’t gonna get it done. She can ask Kerry about that. Only a good ole’ boy like her husband can take some southern states.

Posted by: Jesse at February 18, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #126988

A poll comparing/measuring McCain and Hillary at this point in time is incredibly premature.

McCain (who I both admire and respect)is living proof of why a prospective employer cannot ask someone’s age during an interview. That age can impact performance in both the short and long term. What can you do for me (and mine) today and what will you be able to do tommorrow.

Depending upon who you listen to there is a chance that given citizen disgust there could be a landslide victory for the Democratic party in the upcoming mid-term elections. Unless, of course the same mixture of less than 35% of the age eligible voters turn out which is likely to change very little.

What is needed for the mid-term election to make change or, at least start the wheels of change turning is for larger numbers of age eligible voters go to the polls and, an informed base of anti-incumbent voters to join them.

Personally, I have not spent much time evaluating potential candidates of any party for the next Presedential election. When the time nears I know one thing for sure, I will be voting for the non-incumbent (for obvious reasons). I am hoping that folks who are beginning to support non-incumbent voting through groups such as
will rally around a responsible individual of any party to lead our country in the direction of responsible government.

Posted by: steve smith at February 18, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #126997

A couple of points of clarification:

I like John McCain. If he had won in 2000 he would have been a better prez than W. Being elected president is like winning a gold medal in the Olympics. You only get a chance every four years at most, and pretty soon you run out of chances. As Bob Dole knows, you can still do endorsements.

I don’t think that Hillary will necessarily be the Dem nominee. She certainly won’t be the nominee if Dems think she is going to lose. And yes, the polls are pretty meaningless now. Just something to talk about.


As I said I like McCain, so I hate to pick on him. But…. he is not exactly the picture of health himself. He has had two bouts of skin cancer, in 93 and 2000. Actually — I am not making this up — he was inducted in the Cancer Survivors Hall of Fame. (There is a HOF no one wants to be be in! Although it beats the Non-Survivors HOF…)

Age certainly won’t be the only issue, but it will be an issue.

Steve Smith,

Not sure what your point is about age discrimination. I think it legitimate to ask whether the leader of the free world is going to stay healthy for the next four years. It is legal for companies to have mandatory retirement policies for CEOs, based on age.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 18, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #126999


Are you against Artificial Insemination too?

Posted by: Aldous at February 18, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #127014


Sorry for the clarity of my age point. I was really just agreeing with a previous reference to the fact that IMO McCain would be marginally too old to be President in 2008 and certainly too old for a second term. Thre was no intended malice in my post.

Posted by: steve smith at February 18, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #127015

Another precedent: Bob Dole was 72 when he run against Clinton. As we all remember he was a lousy candidate, age was an issue, and Clinton cleaned his clock. (Say that 3X fast.)

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 18, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #127025

It didn’t help Dole that he fell of the stage at the Republican Convention.

Endorsements, maybe.
But Viagra?

Posted by: Rocky at February 18, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #127031


Dole was a lousy candidate because of the lousy way the RNC handled him.
After the election when we actually got to see the real Bob Dole he appeared to be a likeble guy.

Posted by: Rocky at February 18, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #127043

If Dems wish to loose let them keep
up the Hillary / Gore / Kerry / Dean
theme. Newcomer & Hillary as a vice
maybe. Please get it right this time.

Bonnie the single issue voters have
placed us on the road to becomeing
the very thing we say we loath.
As history has proven Democracy
works. Theocracy breeds extremist.

Posted by: Honey P at February 18, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #127045

I have the same problem of judging judgemental people.

I have lost respect for McCain because I think that he has sold out to Bush in order to position himself to run for President. I have lost respect for Hillary for the same reason - plus I just don’t like dynasties at the Presidential level. Worse, I don’t think that she is electable. I like John Warner, Joe Biden, or Wesley Clark.

I liked McCain (I might even have voted for him) and I thought McCain and Bradley would have been far better candidates in 1999. I thought Clark, Gephart, or Dean would have been better candidates in the last election.

This highlights one of the problems with our electoral system (Scientific American has some very good articles on this). Some decades ago there was a move toward open primaries in an attempt to democratise the choosing of candidates. Prior to that party bosses had a lot of influence in choosing the candidates. The problem is this, the party bosses at least had some connection to the grass roots base of the party. Now, with open primaries the so called “free speech” of big money special interests have a much louder voice in choosing the nominees. So, the process is actually less democratic. The current system means that candidates have to sell themselves to $special interst$ and to the party base instead of to the main stream of America. This is good for $$$special interest$$$, and it is good for party base activists like me / us, because our voices resonate more loudly. It is not good for the United States of America. The loudest voice by far in picking candidates, and in electing them, is the $$$free speech$$$ of special interests.

It has been a while since I read the articles in Scientific American, so my senile Reagan-esc mind is fuzzy on the all important details… but… one of the problems with the current system is that; if you like someone like Nader or Buchanan, you either have to throw your vote away by trying to vote for a “winner” or, you have to throw your vote away by voting for the obvious “loser”. This is hardly democratic and will not express the real will of the people in either case.

One, of many alternatives, that addresses these and other problems is rank order voting. So, if there where five candidates - your first choice would get five points - your second, 4 points - and so on. The candadate with the most points would win. People would put thier names on the ballot by meeting some minimum standard of popular support, then voters rank thier order of preferences. This allows things like voting for anybody but Bush - or anybody but Hillary. It would allow people to express a mandate or support for the ideas of someone like Nader or Buchanan without throwing thier vote away.

There are many voting schemes to consider. Each scheme has its own set of advatages and disadvantages. Many other schemes would do a better job of representing the will of the people than our current system.

Visit my blog at: Thanks.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 18, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #127065


It didn’t help Dole that he fell of the stage at the Republican Convention.

Endorsements, maybe.
But Viagra?

How would Viagra have helped him stay on stage? It’s not like you can use that part to prop yourself up! :-)


I certainly hope that the Democrats have someone up their (our) sleeve better than Hillary.

If things turn out right, Hillary might be the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. If she can keep all the attention focused on her until right before the Democratic Primary, and then bow out, she can set the stage for a relative unknown to take the nomination. (See Tsongas/Clinton, 1992) I was REALLY hoping that Howard Dean would do that in ‘04, but Kerry was too strong.

Overall, I think the best bet for the Democrats in ‘08 is to find a strong Governor, and NOT a Senator, to run for President. All the best senators the Dems have are too caught up in flip-flop war voting to run an effective campaign against the GOP.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 18, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #127069
Overall, I think the best bet for the Democrats in ‘08 is to find a strong Governor, and NOT a Senator, to run for President.

I agree, for both parties. Voters are so pissed at the entire federal lawyer of government right now that anyone who can plausibly argue that they’re “not from Washington” will have a leg up. And of course, the Republican lawmakers may have problems with their war votes, too…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 18, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #127078

>>anyone who can plausibly argue that they’re “not from Washington” will have a leg up. And of course, the Republican lawmakers may have problems with their war votes, too…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 18, 2006 03:26 PM


It takes but a minute for a ‘not from the beltway’ winner to become a pac hack. Maybe the solution is to burn DC to the ground and start anew someplace else…maybe in the middle west.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 18, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #127093


“Untill” is actually spelled u-n-t-i-l and Senator “Finestine” spells her name f-e-i-n-s-t-e-i-n. Just wondering, did you learn how to spell and hate at Bob Jones University?

I’d also like to hear some concrete examples of the Democratic Party’s “canabalism”.

BTW, since you call all Democrats baby killers, I wonder how many young Republican women were killed in the back alley prior to Roe? I guess they don’t count, huh?

Posted by: mike at February 18, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #127095

sorry to take space on a what is a great debate.
I feel I must say this. Anyone who is so finatical
about abortion is more likely to support the
extremist who bomb such clinics. When you place
your religious beliefs so high on the list you try to control
others and force your views apon them. You become the terrorist.
For that is exactly the type of view they maintain. This
is the very reason church and state must remain seperate.

Posted by: Honey P at February 18, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #127129

Oh Bonnie.. There’s nothing worse than CAPPING everything, misspelling and then spewing that the only people that have true ideals are “Christians”. Also, you may want to invest in ‘spell-check’, it’s a great tool. Go vote for the Republicans, fine by us. We don’t need your right-wing, holier than thou, the only people that matter are heterosexual white Christians attitude. An open mind is good thing,you may want to try it on.

Posted by: Veronica at February 18, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #127149

People ought not to be attacking Bonnie’s writing mechanics here.

Especially not people who write “An open mind is good thing” (Veronica), and those who don’t know that periods go inside of quotes (Mike and Veronica).

Honestly, who really cares about such stuff on an internet comment board?

I sure don’t.

If you do, however, then it would probably be best not to complain about somebody else’s writing in error-filled posts of your own.

Posted by: sanger at February 18, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #127157

For all you libs … when you read Bonnie’s post … that’s how I feel when I read all of your “Bush Is Evil”, “Bush Lied About WMD”, “No Blood For Oil”, “Arggh, Halliburton!” horse hockey.

Rob C.

Anyway, back on point. I disagree somewhat Rob. Clinton was moderate, at least when you compare him with Gore. Heck, Gore makes Clinton look like Pat Buchanan. I didn’t mind Clinton’s politics so much except for the HUGE swath of military cuts. My other main beef with him was a matter of character and leadership.

The Bush’s are moderate when you look at the way they spend. GWB is completely trouncning Clinton in the social spending perspective. They also cut military personnel and assets . . although thankfully “W” added some much needed pay raises after the military got left behind pay-wise in the ‘90’s.

Bottom line, McCain did have that angry side which I think hurt him 100 times more than any adoption choice. Guliani is a moderate, so are Allen and Romney … and I believe they can definitely win the Republican nomination, if not the whole kit and kaboodle (sp?).

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 18, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #127159

And Woody,

You can call McCain “cranky” over Obama backing out of the bipartisan attempt for congressional reform … but sometimes there is a thing called “justifiably upset” and I doubt Obama will ever renege on his word to McCain again.

Go ahead, teach some newbee in your business an ethics lesson … and then let me call you “cranky”.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 18, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #127167


If age is the only argument the Democrats can put forward against McCain, I don’t see them winning.

It will be interesting to see if he will “exploit, for political purposes, his opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

As for the nomination, Republicans are criticizing Bush more and more on spending. If McCain can prove himself as a fiscal conservative and make it a big issue, the party might let him slide on some social issues.

Posted by: The Traveler at February 18, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #127192

In my opinion, Democrats need to forget about possible 2008 presidential candidates who are/were Senators. Current and former senators who have expressed an interest in pursuing the Democratic nomination are Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh, and Tom Daschle.

Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and General Wesley Clark would make stronger candidates.

I think a very strong Democratic candidate would be Mark Warner. Mark Warner was a Democratic governor in a red state. He has wide appeal with independents and moderate Republicans, having the ability to reach across party lines. He left office with an 80% job approval rating, the highest approval rating for an outgoing governor in Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., two-decade history.

He turned a $6 billion deficit into a $1 million surplus. In 2004, the nonpartisan Governing magazine named Warner as one of America’s top eight public officials, the only governor to make the list. In January 2005 the Government Performance Project named Virginia the “best managed state in the nation”, and time magazine named Warner in the top 5 of U.S. governors. He supports gun owner rights and has the potential to win red states, whereas Hillary has virtually no chance. While Warner does not have a lot of foreign policy experience, I think a John Warner/ Wesley Clark ticket would be very appealing.

Of course, you are going to have the Democratic leader thugs who are going to try to sabotage his campaign in favor of Hillary, (like they did to Paul Hackett in Ohio). If they do, then they deserve to lose and remain the minority party, just like they deserve to lose in the Ohio Senate race.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 18, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #127194
The Bush’s are moderate when you look at the way they spend. GWB is completely trouncning Clinton in the social spending perspective.


Bush is a fiscal moderate? I would hate to see what you call a fiscal liberal! GWB and the Republicans in congress implemented the largest expansion of a social program in Medicare history. Social spending under Bush is up 39% since 2001.

but sometimes there is a thing called “justifiably upset”

Apparently this only applies to conservatives. When liberals are “justifiably upset”, then they get called un-American. Ok, whatever.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 18, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #127219


My above comment should have been:

I think a Mark Warner/ Wesley Clark ticket would be very appealing.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 18, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #127241


I agree that Mark Warner and Wesley Clark would be a good Democratic ticket. In my earlier post I incorrectly referred to John Warner - I meant Mark. I also think that Mark Warner and Joe Biden would be a good ticket. We need to run somebody that can win. We need to be thinking about it now. Now is when we in the blogosphere have a chance to stop Hillary. If we wait, it will be too late. We will will have to get behind her and hope for the best. I believe that she would be a good President if she did get elected. I don’t think that we as a party can afford to take that risk - risk maybe 8 more years of maybe Jeb Bush the third. I don’t think that our country could take it.

I attended protests in Washington DC aimed at driving Bush out of office on February fourth. For more information you can visit my blog at There will be more protests in the future. We need to try to drive Bush out of office before 2008. You can also find information at

Posted by: Ray G. at February 18, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #127245

You really should start taking those pills again.
Oh,yeah.How many unwanted children have you adopted? If the answer is none you have no moral authority to speak on the issue. If you have,God bless you.

Posted by: BillS at February 18, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #127248

Every Senator thinks they should be President and none of them ever get elected. Seems they always have too much baggage. You know, sausage making and making laws is not pretty.Voting for something you do not support because you need support somewhere else etc. is the name of the game but all shows up on record to be nit-picked.
Richardson seems promising to me.
One of the few things I have against Bill Clinton is he did not cut defense spending enough. Notice I said defense spending,not defense. The cold war was over. Major standowns always occur after protracted conflicts. He should have not only cut more but he should have changed the whole crazy procurement system that has us spending billions for obsolete,insanely expensive weapons systems while our troops lack basic armor. One bomber 2.2 billion $? Pleeaassee.

Posted by: BillS at February 18, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #127271


I believe that Bush has done enough to justify impeachment, but I think the Dems in Congress are in a difficult position. If an impeachment were to happen it would more than likely involve both Bush and Cheney (as Congressman John Conyers has called for). If such an action happened before the 2006 election the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, would become President, a very scary proposition.

Although it may not be in the best interest of the country, it may be in the best interest of the Dems if Bush/ Cheney finish out their term, and head into an open presidential race. Besides, if the Dems can retake Congress at the end of the year, they will be in a better position to keep the executive in check.

I also agree that now is the time to act to stop Hillary. I think the only reason that Hillary comes out in the top of the polls is because of name recognition. Up until recently Mark Warner was pretty much unknown outside of Virginia. I think the more the public gets to know about other candidates the lower Hillary’s numbers will slide.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 19, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #127292

As Arlo Guthrie once said of Pres. Reagan’s sleeping in the Oval Office, the more he sleeps, the safer we are. Given the tragedies and deaths that have occured to Americans under Bush’s watch, perhaps a sleeping McCain in the oval office would too make us safer, given McCain’s record of being an extreme war and military hawk.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2006 3:04 AM
Comment #127293

Jay Jay, I generally agree with your analysis, except I would add one dynamic you didn’t cover. If Bush cannot pull a rabbit out of his hat to unite this country and end this war and secure us against out of control deficits and debt, by 2008, an anti-Bush may just be the most appealing candidate, and Hilary is, if anyone is, the anti-Bush.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2006 3:07 AM
Comment #127319

Bonnie not until people stop spelling “until” with two L’s will the horror end. Actually I do agree with you about GM frankenfoods but I’d have to add fluoridation in our water system as a cheap means of filtration to that list and possibly synthetic baby formulas now made in Mexico (yes that’s with Mexican water—don’t ya’ just love Republicans aren’t they cute how they do that?).

The right-wing hates them some McCain, they do, I troll at the Free Republic Site as a right-winger and they loathe him. To them he’s a “weathervane” and by that climate alone he will never get the nomination and a sense of humor to them means squat-diddley and no more than that.

See the problem is we will have a democratic win possibly but you have to click your heels three times and say there’s “no man like Joe”—“there’s no man like Joe”—“there’s no man like Joe”. Biden will be running and he’s thrown his hat in the ring already. Dean could screw up this election if he doesn’t hide himself and Kerry and Clinton (possibly both Clintons). We need to have a Democratic Party with a facelift after the last race with the whack-pack out there. And I’ll shoot Michael Moore myself if he pops out of the romper room—we have to be serious players all the way. Which means DO NOT CATER TO THE YOUTH VOTE it looks damn silly. No more meaningless jingoisms “Hooope is awn the waaaay” “together we can do better” and such. we need brass and generals and top minds and brilliant speeches, and yes Cuomo too. If we look like we’re serious and NOT LISTEN to a damn thing CNN has to say like “John Edwards is a really great speaker” (Lotta’ good that did) we can take it with Biden. But we need to play smart cards only, no horsecrappy PR stunts—War issues first and then Deficit fixing not just noticing there is a deficit but a fix for our woes and gas prices. MUST CUT PORK hooboy if we had a dem who would go on the offensive about that we’d clean up.

Will we have any of that? Well Dean will probably say some stupid things, Kerry might pretend we still like him, Gore might come out to everybody trying to stuff him back into the Al in the box. And Hillary might buy a plantation because she hates us—that’s my only explanation for what she does anymore.

Keep the faces fresh is my advice.

Posted by: Translator at February 19, 2006 5:27 AM
Comment #127323


What is the actual situation on ES&S and Diebold blackbox voting? And follow-up question: what’s the situation on the redistricting in the southern states?

These two aspects actually determine alot here. Will there be more computerized Voting or less of it by 2008?

How do we organize as Dems to get rid of it or prove it faulty enough for them to ditch those machines? We have quite a bit of work to do yet and that is not Kool-aid but workload.

Posted by: Translator at February 19, 2006 5:54 AM
Comment #127348

Just a thought……not all Democrats are pro abortion. Most simply think the church and not government should make the call. I think that is what pro choice means. For me…..I’m so against abortion and would never support it. But I am also against sending young kids to invade another country and give up their lives for whatever excuse the current administration now uses. Killing people whether they are unborn babies or young adults is really all the same to me. Think of the health care, education and prosperity we would all have if we focused on ourselves, alternate energy sources, and not on the warmongers misguided reasons to send our children into harms way. Perhaps “Bonnie” could have benefited from a better education.

Posted by: Concerned American at February 19, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #127350

I mulled over my last comments and here are some new ones. Why not let the right wing win? Now they can’t get off the ferris wheel of tax-cuts to the ultra wealthy or the spending on the hill. Sure it hurts us but would it be acceptable to just allow them to commit hari-kiri in the public domain??? They will never be able to get off the trickle down economics and spending merry-go-round. If they raise one iota of the taxes the rich will have their warchests on them and it will be Bush 1 all over again and if they don’t give the pork to congress they get nothing passed.

WHY should the dems have to pick up what is essentially their mess. If you had a boarder in your house who didn’t pay the rent and ran up a $5000 phone bill— would you pay it off for him or her. No you let them deal with it themselves, the bills of teh Bush administration are really not ours and they will clunk themselves into further deficits with no means to pay down the deficit with exception of through raising taxes on teh middle classes which will mean war. They won’t cut the tax-cuts to the wealthy and the pork will flow upwards and onwards. Maybe the answer is let them doom themselves.

Just a thought

Posted by: Translator at February 19, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #127357

Think about possible insalience during wartime that is where we are going with the republicans. That’s the course they have set. Now this war and potentially others in the region could be the stimulus coupled with the tax-cuts and the exorbitant pork that could send this country into a severe tailspin. Why stop them? It’s a unique idea let’s go for broke. Cheney seems to think that deficits don’t mean anything (which they mean our currency) and the Republicans do haphzzardly believe it with no rebuttals. Let’s let them do this country in all the way right to third world status. They will bring this entire country to its knees in wartime which is a humungous expenditure in the longhaul. Procurement will go down contracts will be shut off and America will swan dive right into default. And it was all because of the Republicans and their arrogance and misarticulation/misunderstanding of the structures of creating a sound economy.

They will be no more but so will our borders and our finances as our dollar drops to below to 30 cents current value.

Posted by: Translator at February 19, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #127380


Re “cranky”: McCain’s mistake was making his complaint public. I’m not saying he did something horrible, but it didn’t look very classy. Frankly, it kind of made me think of an aging actress calling the latest “it girl” a slut. Two years from now no one will remember, but if it is a sign of things to come…

Guiliani is pro-choice. No way he will ever get the GOP nomination. I know he does well in GOP polls, but I don’t think people know much about his political beliefs.


I don’t think that there will be any need for the Dems to say anything about McCain’s age. His GOP opponents will do it for them. There is no question that a lot of people in the GOP want to take him down.

You are obviously referring to how Reagan gracefully handled the age issue. There is no question it can be done, but Reagan himself IMHO is not a great example of an elderly president. I know many people disagree.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 19, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #127401


It is unlikely that we will succeed in actually forcing Bush out before 2008, but we must try. Doing so will weaken him and help to prevent him from doing more damage. It will weaken the Republicans and help to restore balance in the midterm elections and give the Dems a better chance in 08.

That said, if we can get the Congress to do some real oversight - and some leading Republicans are starting to step up to the plate - like Specter, and Graham - then the best scenario is one similar to Watergate. Force Cheney out for his high crimes just as Agnew was forced out under Nixon. Then Bush gets to nominate an interim replacement like Ford - a good guess might be McCain. The Senate confirms the replacement, then Bush is impeached for his high crimes. That scenario means McCain probably would be elected - but our country needs regime change now! There has to be a process of orderly succession. Even Hastert would be better than Bush.

Here is an entry from Rays Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases:

Disassembling (Dǐs-ă-sĕm-blēng) transitive verb. 1.) Bushism for dissembling. As in: George Bush really disasembles the truth. 2.) Bush doctrine to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. As in: Bush is disassembling the Constitution of the United States of America because he thought that his oath of office only applied to preserving, protecting and defending the actual piece of paper. See Strict Constructionist.


Posted by: Ray G. at February 19, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #127407

What would be the point of nominated another red state politician who can not even carry his own state in the presidential election, like Edwards and Gore did not? The democratic party has 3 bases, the west coast, the northeast, and the upper midwest. Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, and Missouri are more gettable than Virginia. Louisiana may be in play because of Katrina. When was the last time that Virginia, the home of the church of I Hate You, was in the democratic column in a presidential election?

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 19, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #127408
When was the last time that Virginia, the home of the church of I Hate You, was in the democratic column in a presidential election?

Interesting question: 1964. May make sense to look at someone from the West, like Bill Richardson, or someone from the central US like Clark (although I find him subtly creepy).

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 19, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #127417

1964 was an anomaly. Goldwater was considered to be a right wing lunatic warmonger even in his own party, although he was the forerunner of the current Rpblcn party. Other than Arizona, the only states that went for him were states where Johnson was not on the ballot. The actual number of votes cast in those states was so small that it does not really count in a statitical sense, so only the electoral votes counted.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 19, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #127425

Ray, if you think McCain has morals, ask him two questions:

1. How we could not just politely, but strongly support Bush after the 200 attack ads in S.C.

2. “Keating Five.”

And Ken? You think Rudi, a pro-choice guy, can win the GOP nomination? Please, put down the crack pipe.

Somebody nobody is mentioning is from down here in Tejas. If Rick Perry gets reelected, especially if it becomes a three- or four-person race, watch out. He is the real darling of the Religious Right; makes W look like a secularist.

Posted by: Steve Snyder at February 19, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #127439

I am not a defender of McCain, but I guess he supported Bush, because he was the Rpblcn party nominee. His feelings about the Bush tactics did not change. My understanding of the Keating thing, was that it had more to do with his wife than him. She is more of a Hilary than a Laura.

I like the Richardson suggestion, but he is a big guy. How about his age and health? The more weight a person carries, the shorter the life expectancy and general health.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 19, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #127444


Yur point is good taken.

Nevertheless, you completely missed the point I was making. She’s the one that came into this forum with what was frankly hate speech. i think that opens yurself up for some heet.

So, Untill she explanes what she meant with a lot of the more outrageous, baseless claims she made with specific examples, I’ll withhold my “apology”. (I think when I’m dealing with someone calling me a baby killer, I’ll put my punctuation marks wherever I pleese).

I’ll also continue to shiver at the thought of her breeding. Maybe next time you can critique with no original thought about the substance of a post with a red pen?

Posted by: mike at February 19, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #127454

It is a mistake to underestimate Mc Cain or Rudy. The neo-cons will put forward anyone that can win and the Christian right will go along. The moral arguements they put forward are only tactics to gain the support of “BONNIE et al.”Do you really think BushCO operates from any kind of moral base? The game here is power. A plausible candidate that will allow the continuation of the fascist kleptocracy will have support. If the real powers can “adjust” election results for the whole country manageing primary results is easy.
This is all assuming that an election is allowed to take place at all. Sound farfetched? If it looks like they will lose do not be surprised at how far they will go.

Posted by: BillS at February 19, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #127469

Steve Snyder,

I did not mean to imply that McCain was any good. I did like him at one point. If you read my first post on this thread you will see that I said that I lost respect for him. He would be better than Bush though and he would have been far more electable in 2000 than Bush (Bradley would have been more electable than Gore) but niether of them got the chance to run. That is the whole point of my first post - often the best candidates from both parties never get the chance to run.

Keating five, yes, sell out, yes… McCain would simply have been a bad President - and that is not so bad.

Please don’t scare me with any more gun slingin jackass Texan idiots. I don’t mind Taxan gunslingers - but the jackass idiot has got to go.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 19, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #127538

Bill S,

Giuliani supports abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control. Don’t lose any sleep about him getting the GOP nomination. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 19, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #127650

As odd as it seems, here in good ol’ red state Kansas we have Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius who was also on Times’ top 5 list.

Her name was even tossed around as a possible Kerry running mate to which she showed no interest.

You’ll also find her listed as one of 8 on the “short list” at

She has been very fiscally responsible, but she’s vetoed some very popular “conservative” bills designed to limit abortion and to allow “concealed carry” of firearms. How she does in this years election should tell a lot. After all Kansas is about 70% Republican.

This is the most current news regarding her 2nd term run:

A 61% approval rating isn’t bad.


Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #127707


It’s obvious that the republicans hate McCain by a good margin—the dems like him because he is a less wonkier form of white meat who can spit a one liner. But he won’t make it as a red and I’m not so sure I trust him in the blue column either. Greying or not he can’t get in there to get it—the red table has locked him out.

The real question is who do we have on the Dem litany that won’t prove embarrassing? I’m not going to go trough the roster of wonks, wonkettes and “what the hell are you even talking abouts”.

I like Bill Richardson’s basic temperment as a centrist moderate although as prez material he’s more veep-like but perhaps not at wartime which war may very well still be pencilled in there by 2008.

I like Ed Rendel but he has some lobby skeletons but a good man none the less.

I think Joe Biden might be good material and very likeable with no real oddball characeristics such as was the case with Kerry and even moreso his insane wife. But he’s also very much suseptible to the Senatorial woes in attaining a presidency which are the congressional records. He was also on the board reviewing the Waco incidents so that could come out too.

Hillary NO! She could hardly carry the blue states.

Who else do we have?

See here’s the problem as I see it we have the stage entirely set for the Democrats to jump in there but we have no one who can do anything with the opening presented. gas prices, tax shelters, Nafta, open borders, corporate welfare, pork barrel, deficits, lobby scandals could the scenery be more in our favor? But we need someone who isn’t either damaged goods or easily damagable goods.

Posted by: Translator at February 20, 2006 6:17 AM
Comment #127716

I think we’d better quit worrying about 2008, and concentrate on 2006.

Take some seats back in Congress and the Presidency may take care of itself. If we don’t gain some seats, the Presidency will not mean much.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 7:22 AM
Comment #127737

I’ve listened to Sen. Dorgan a few times on C-Span during the Senate hearings and I’ve been impressed with his views on the economy and job outsourcing. I would like to have the Democrats look at him a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate. I also think that McCain is a front-runner because he is best positioned to generate crossover vote, no matter what his age. The Democrats as a whole should not allow the next election issues to be determined by the Republicans to single issues like abortion and gay rights. As a party we have so many issues to address, it’s like the Republicans have handed us the key to the White House. Take advantage of it. As much as I’ve admired both the Clintons, I don’t think that it should be a slam dunk that she is the 2008 candidate, there is going to be plenty of resistance no only of electing a woman president, sorry to say, but one that has her baggage. Though I do believe that she would make an excellent VP. But first let’s get out there and convince the public that the Democrats are still a viable party that has more that one or two issues on their platform.

Posted by: earjoy at February 20, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #127756

If the Democratic party nominates Hillary Clinton as its Presidential candidate, they are going to lose no matter who the Republican candidate is. The US is not ready for a woman President, especially one that comes with the amout of baggage that comes with her.

Posted by: Jerry at February 20, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #127858

You really should start taking those pills again.
Oh,yeah.How many unwanted children have you adopted? If the answer is none you have no moral authority to speak on the issue. If you have,God bless you.

Posted by: BillS at February 18, 2006 11:33 PM

Sorry to be off topic but this is one of my main problems with the right to lifers. My parents are agianst abortion but instead of protesting they simply adopted 7 children. Every time I see protesters at planned parenthood I ask them if they have adopted any children. Only once did a person say they did. Morality is more than just a buzz word and it is more than just making yourself feel superior. It’s about living right and giving not just trying to take away.

Posted by: zakquiet at February 20, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #127878


I disagree, I think there are a few out there that look very promising on the blue side. Of course, everyone here knows that Mark Warner is at the top of my list, but I also like Evan Bayh. He has a pretty good congressional record and just introduced legislation, along with 8 other Senators, including McCain and Feingold, to make it easier to remove pork from spending bills. He is also a former Governor of Indiana and has executive experience.

Of course there are some really bad choices out there too. Hillary, Kerry, Gore, & Edwards are all DOA candidates, and I hope the Dems have enough sense to pass on them in the primaries. Joe Biden is interesting, but there is just something about him I don’t like. Kinda like he is hiding something. I don’t know that much about Tom Daschle, but my guess is that if he lost his senate seat, then he probably would not be an ideal presidential candidate. Feingold is another that I really don’t know that much about, other than he is the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

I really think that we need to seriously think about passing on Senators for 2008. It may be ok to run a senator when your party is in power and in good graces, but in the present climate, I really think the Dems will be making a mistake running a Senator in 2008.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #127974

I didn’t see a Bonnie post anywhere on this article, but it seems as if she rattled some of your chains somewhere. I too, believe in the separation of church and state, but I include all churches, not just Christianity. The U.S. government has been unconstitutionally establishing the Church of Atheism through the judicial system for years. This is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment and it needs to be stopped. Why do liberals contend that the establishment clause only applies to Christianity? What ever happened to equal protection? Atheism is a religion that is adhered to by fanatics who will stop at nothing to impose an “atheocracy” on the rest of America! This secular jihad is no less dangerous than Islamic jihad and should be dealt with in the same manner, preemption.

Posted by: Duano at February 20, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #128024


Wow! I’ve been an athiest for sixty years, and had no idea how much influence I had on American life until your post…Thanks, I needed that pep=talk…

But, to set the record straight…I don’t believe in anything supernatural, and I hold no rites, and I don’t recruit (do missionary work), and I don’t give a big shit if there are no other athiests in the world. If mine is a religion, it’s the most ineffectual one in existance…

I don’t suppose that info will help you very much, but I tried…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #128113

I think everyone knows my personal favorite is Joe Biden, but is he electable?

As someone else said “making law and making sausage” are neither one attractive.

A very successful and “clear spoken” Governor is probably our best bet.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2006 5:24 AM
Comment #128288

Nice try. Your belief that nothing supernatural exists cannot be proven scientifically, so you’re taking a leap of faith on that one. Your spiritual leader, Michael Newdow, holds rites all the time whenever he decides to evangelize on the national stage by bringing lawsuits trying to get his religion established by the government. Your religion is being taught to kids in public schools without allowing ANY dissenting opinions ( I wouldn’t call it missionary work, more like coerced conversion). You are entitled to any religion you choose in this great country, but the country cannot be allowed to give preference to one religion over the other. By denying that yours is a religion, you have found a way around the first amendment, and that is a national tragedy. And by the way, you have my condolences for the misery of the last sixty years.

Posted by: Duano at February 21, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #128295

I like McCain, and think he would be a terrific president regardless of his age. However, don’t expect him to be our candidate in ‘08, the string pullers in our party will not allow a maverick like him to get through the primaries. Look for a George Allen or a Mitt Romney, and of course the sleeper, Condi Rice. Condi walks the party line pretty good, and if you guys put up Hillary, we may have to one-up you with an even stronger female candidate. Either way, so far I don’t see anyone on your side to be very concerned about, but you’re right about governors being superior to senators when it comes to a presidential race. Warner is the best horse you’ve got in the race right now. Ciao!!

Posted by: Duano at February 21, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #128485
Your religion (atheism) is being taught to kids in public schools without allowing ANY dissenting opinions Posted by: Duano at February 21, 2006 05:42 PM
I’m serious, what does that mean? My interpretation of that quote: Schools teach atheism, i.e. that there is no God, as a religion. Am I missing something? Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #128652

Looks like you interpreted that pretty well. Kids are told they’re not even allowed to pray silently to themselves at school, and that the universe began with a mysterious “big bang” that nobody seems to know the origin of. Can any brilliant scientific mind out there explain how an entire universe explodes into existence out of nothing? What caused the big bang? Nobody knows, but all public schools teach that it was caused by nothing, and nobody is permitted to disagree.

Posted by: Duano at February 22, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #128737

>>Your spiritual leader, Michael Newdow, holds rites all the time


Who the hell is Michael Newdow? And, how’d he get to be MY spiritual leader? Have you had access to the Cheney/Bush wiretapping program?

Get a grip. Athieists are rare birds to begin with, and since we believe in no power except our own, we don’t converse or plot or plan with each other. You must be talking about you and Ralph Reed?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 22, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #128738

>>Kids are told they’re not even allowed to pray silently to themselves at school


You’ve been lied to. School children can pray anytime they want as long as they do not disrupt school activities. Noe one has ever stopped prayer in school. Private prayer is allowed. Organized prayer should be reserved for church anyway. It is not athiests who wish to foist their belief onto others, it is ya’ll missionaries who do so at every opportunity. And now you want our government to sponsor your kind of prayer in government buildings by government employees. Back off!

Posted by: Marysdude at February 22, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #128743


The ‘Big Bang’ theory of the forming of the universe is a scientific posit that is being studied and proven all the time. One day it may be acknowledged to have too many holes to support proof. At that time another posit will be presented for scientists to study and offer proofs. The difference between scientific posits and religion is the very act of proofs. Religion does not allow scientfic study or proofs because it is a superstition, and has no scientific basis.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 22, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #128825


Ithink that Micheal Nedow is that lawyer from California who filed the lawsuit about including under god in the pledge of alligiance.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 23, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment #128832

>>Ithink that Micheal Nedow is that lawyer from California who filed the lawsuit about including under god in the pledge of alligiance.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 23, 2006 05:50 AM

That you know of, has he ever conducted a religious service, preached a sermon, conducted a rite, performed a baptism, burned a sacrifice, et al?

He sued somebody and became a spokesperson for fifteen hundred or so athiests and is now considered a national symbol for secularist movements?

He’s probably not even an athiest. He’s likely in it for the publicity. Didn’t you say he’s from California? When does his movie premier?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 23, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #128940

I’m glad you secular humanists have everything figured out. Is there anything you guys don’t know? As a former atheist, I too used to know everything there was to know about everything. That was before I discovered that reality is the most unbelievable phenomenon in the universe. One day, all will be known, but that day has not yet come. Be prepared.

Posted by: Duano at February 23, 2006 6:26 PM
Post a comment