Democrats & Liberals Archives

John McCain: Maverick No More?

Fully expecting only partisan Republicans to be baffled by the admission, Independents and moderate Democrats like me have been drawn to the judgment of Sen. John McCain, in part, for his refusal to abandon his Conservative principles. You see, we sometimes share the philosophy of fiscal discipline and right to privacy to which he has held steadfast - an authority George Bush never exercised to veto bloated, pork-barreled budgets, and an intrusion Dr. Bill Frist willing committed via videotape.

Conspicuously though, presumptive '08 Presidential candidate McCain has been less than candid of late, absent from the customary role of pragmatist, usually at odds with his party and President. And now, given the unfortunate turn of events in Iraq, it would be very illuminating to document whether McCain falls into the neo-Con Continuum of Blame from William Buckley's abdication to Bill Kristol's problem with a 3-year effort he now finds seriously lacking. Moreover, it poses a timely opportunity for McCain to strap on his 'Maverick' suit of honor by either calling for a timetable/draw down of troops or the needed infusion of another 100,000 soldiers to at least secure the Iraq borders, restore order and allow the political process to advance.

Unfortunately, advocating such bold and appropriate actions could also put McCain's 2008 aspirations in serious jeopardy. Meaning, one can now expect craven pronouncements from candidate McCain as exemplified by his 'freer than China' defense of the UAE port deal.

You see McCain has quietly gone about co-opting the moneymen (and access to top donors) that bankrolled both Bush/Cheney campaigns. And furthermore, the Bush camp has made the crucial introduction to key Conservatives in the GOP that McCain needs either to win over or neutralize. While some party loyalists may never forgive his insolent acts of rebellion, the quid pro quo for being Bush's ally when it counted, have finally been realized.

For all those McCain Haters in the GOP, please make the viable case for victory with Bill Frist, Sam Brownback or George Allen first slotted on the 2008 ticket, knowing full well Rudy Guiliani is a lost cause and Condi Rice is a pipe dream. Till he secures 992 convention delegates, McCain is willing to meet you halfway, barring there's no surprises awaiting him in South Carolina. He will continue to temper his criticism, while deferring to the judgment of the administration. Heck, he'll even court the Evangelicals and schmooze the Social Conservatives!

Such a calculated strategy should win McCain the Republican Presidential nomination. However, it would also repel key Independents and moderate Democrats if employed in the General Election.

Deigning not to acknowledge as failures the missteps of the Bush administration may secure for McCain that electoral base that keeps Bush's approvals within striking distance of 40% percent. Yet, if McCain is to win, he must clearly explain to the majority that disapproves of Dick Cheney's job performance how his brand of Conservative governance differs from the Bush version.

The duality of McCain's 'Straight Talk' appeal for Centrists like me has also been the dissimilarity to the Rove/DeLay variety of Conservative Republicans. Yet, as favorable a candidate as he now appears, his recent machinations run counter to the principled leadership we've come to admire.

Is John McCain a 'Maverick no more'?

Posted by Bert M. Caradine at March 3, 2006 6:48 PM
Comments
Comment #131184

McCain is a Republican. He doesn’t share your dislike of all things Bush.

I supported McCain in 2000 and I plan to work for him again when/if the time comes. If he wins the Republican nomination, he will beat any democrat like a drum and be a president that restores confidence.

I don’t expect partisan Dems to stand with us, nor do I expect the liberal media to be on our side. Both those groups like McCain because they can use him to attack Bush. They don’t like him for any other reason.

You are a little ahead of the curve and you are shocked, shocked to learn McCain is not a liberal. I am sure the opposition research is going on right now.

Soon we will hear that McCain is too old, that he was involved with Charles Keating, that he is prone to anger etc. The main strategy will be to try to tie him closer to President Bush and good Dems will seamlessly transfer all the hate they have for Bush to the new guy.

BTW - What are you gonna do when Cheney resigns because of his bad health and Rice get gets the leg up as VP.

Posted by: Jack at March 3, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #131185

No matter who the Republicans nominate to run in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats must nominate and elect people who will do a complete about face on all Bush’s policies, undo all the damage this administration has done to our economy, our foriegn relations, our workers, our seniors and this planet.

Someone that will hold independent hearings for all those in power right now, those who have raped our treasury and those who have sold out American workers, destroyed our healthcare system, and murdered thousands of our men and women with blood for oil.

Posted by: Pat at March 3, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #131190

Jack what part of this country do you reside?? Bush has destroyed everything good in my country. Now he selling us out in India for mango???? As far as Mc Cain goes he doesn’t have a chance in hell as far as 2008. He slid back into the bushies and we know no one wants bush to help them in the fall elections as he is one hellva detriment to all repubs. Think about it!!!!

Posted by: artjoe at March 3, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #131193

Artjoe, who do you think will be the next President, Hillary?

Posted by: Joe at March 3, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #131195

Artjoe

We will see. My guess is that Dems will pick up some seats (as parties do in year six of a president) but you will be disappointed. If I were you I would start working on excuses now. The ones you used in 2004 are getting old.

I live in Virginia. Things are good here. Our unemployement rate is 3.5% (2.5% in N. Virginia). Statistics tell me that things are okay most other places too. Sorry you live in a hell hole.

Posted by: Jack at March 3, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #131197

“…and everyone knows Rudy Guiliani is a lost cause.”

Huh? Did Rudy run down a little ol lady and not report it? Did he get caught in a brothel with TV cameras cranking? What’s the scoop on Rudy that he’s no longer a viable canidate?

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 3, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #131203

Rudy is pro abortion and pro gay. Won’t fly even if he did do such a great job in the Big Apple.

‘Soon we will hear that McCain is too old, that he was involved with Charles Keating, that he is prone to anger etc.’
Posted by: Jack at March 3, 2006 08:01 PM

Prone to anger? Hope Al runs again so we can see all the clips of his speeches.

All the damage Bush has done to this planet??
Why is it that people who are so interested in politics always forget that life did not begin with the current administration?? … no matter which party is running things.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 3, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #131205

Pat,

Keep spewing your nonsense. It’s crap like that which I trust will continue to spread across the democratic party and we’ll be able to expose it for what it is.

If you want to advertise a complete about face on all Bush policies, please do! I would love to see the electorate respond to a love fest with Al Qaeda and radical Muslims, pissing on moderate Muslims, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the cessation of terrorist strikes on our homeland coming to an end with some fantastic explosions in major cities, nixing the peaceful pact with Libya, getting rid of the tax break on hybrid cars, canceling the last 6 years worth of needed military pay increases, putting liberal activist judges on the supreme court and … well, you don’t have the life span left for me to continue.

And if you want GWB’s economy to change I guess we’ll need to jack up inflation (expert advice from Carter is available), take people out of their houses and put them in apartments (interest rates were much much higher on average during Clinton’s terms), and that unemployment rate continuing to hover around one of the the lowest rates in our nation’s history … we’ll need to put at least 3 to 6 million people out of work to get that back to a historical standard.

Yes, please counter Bush in every way possible … I’d like to see that voter turnout!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 3, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #131206

Don’t worry about McCain. He has a Black Baby from an Affair he had. He still suffers from mental problems from his days in Vietnam. To top it off, his wife is a Lesbian!!!

Gotta love those Republicans like Jack.

Posted by: Aldous at March 3, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #131208

Here’s the hint for the Dems:

Guliani/Allen. You can sit there and say Guliani is too moderate of a Republican, but I don’t think McCain has the stomach for it at his age, and Guliani has the vision and the liberal untouchable quality of great optimism to win the whole thing.

But either way, Guliani or McCain, the dems are not looking strong. Who are they going to put up? Reid? Pelosi? Hillary the Hawk? I don’t see a contest yet.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 3, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #131209

Ken Cooper,

Check your facts. Inflation was as high during the Ford administration as it was during the Carter administration. The inflation rate under Clinton was lower than BOTH Reagan AND Bush the 1st.

If you can’t get your facts right, why should anyone listen to your opinions?

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 3, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #131210

Ken…
You have to know that Gore is going to try again! And probably Kerry - if his wife let’s him that is.
I hope that their actual spokes’men’ come out and run.
Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, George Soros … people like them! Maybe that psycho Churchill will run for Governor of Colorado. I’ll bet he has a big following.
I don’t understand why they open their purses & their big mouths but don’t place bets on themselves winning any elections.

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 3, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #131217

Ken and bugcrazy,

With things as bad as they can get for the Republicans, what gives you the idea that such overblown attacks on Dem patriotism and trotting out the tired Hollywood wedge issue will work again?

The point of my post is that McCain cannot quibble over the failures of the Bush administration - which is a very principled Conservative thing to do, btw. He will certainly lose if he insteads makes excuses for Bush.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 3, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #131218

And then from the “you just can’t make this shit up file”:

“The California Democratic Party said Friday it will ask government regulators to investigate Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. John McCain for allegedly violating campaign-finance law.”

“Ironically, McCain is being accused of violating a law he helped write.”

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/state/14013638.htm

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 3, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #131219

mccain’s recent pandering to the bushies definitely portends a change in attitude. however, i believe the change demonstrates a willingness to compromise - which is essential to achieve the presidency. i am a bit wary… yet mccain remains my best and only hope for ‘08.

“Is John McCain a ‘Maverick no more’? “

not a maverick. the last honest politician.

Posted by: diogenes at March 3, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #131221

“The California Democratic Party said Friday it will ask government regulators to investigate Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. John McCain for allegedly violating campaign-finance law.”

…oh come on… i seriously doubt that arnold is guilty of this. firstly, he’s already rich - and moreover, last i heard, he accepts *no salary* for his governorship. i wish *he* could run for the presidency. he’d have my vote.

nevertheless, i’ll check your link.

Posted by: diogenes at March 3, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #131222

‘what gives you the idea that such overblown attacks on Dem patriotism and trotting out the tired Hollywood wedge issue will work again?’
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 3, 2006 11:37 PM

What overblown attacks??

Posted by: bugcrazy at March 4, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #131228

“Not a maverick, the last honest politician.”

An honest politician is an oxymoron—or, in McCain’s case, just a moron.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 4, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #131273

I don’t care for McCain. I always thought McCain-Feingold was bad. I think history has proved that (see Swiftboats/MoveOn.org).

Would I vote for him over any Democrat? Yes.

The Democrats have nothing to offer.

Posted by: JimmyRay at March 4, 2006 8:00 AM
Comment #131275

Bert

How about endorsing a “moderate” candidate…you know…someone who reflects the views of the center-right and center-left…that vast group of Americans who truly express the will of the people?

I am for leaving the hystericial leftist and the hystericial rightist and relatiting them to where they belong…which is on the cartoon page,I think.

McCain-Guilliani represents the best of both.Their combined views woulde be tolerated by the vast majority of Americans.

This I do know:Al Gore is making noises of running again…we know that Kerry already is..is that what your party needs?

Neither can get elected dog-catcher.

I think the first step for the dems is to figure out what they stand for…..not what they stand against.

This year they get a free shot to remain negative….Harry Reid’s daily appearances on tv do exactly that….but exactly what else does it accomplish?

By the way,this current trip that the president is on,…fraught with danger….will yield big results very shortly.

You heard it here first my friend.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 4, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #131279

Whats the point in offering facts. Facts just bounce off Republicans.

Try Clint Curtis website for some facts about how Bush stole both elections.

Clint Curtis

Posted by: Pat at March 4, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #131281
RULES FOR BEING A GOOD REPUBLICAN:
You have to believe that the nation’s 8-year prosperity in the late 1990’s was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but that yesterday’s gas prices and 9/11 are all Bill Clinton’s fault.
You have to despise government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.
You have to believe that government should stay out of peoples’ lives yet you want government to regulate same-sex marriages, ending or not ending pregnancies, and what official language should be spoken.
You have to believe that pollution is okay, so long as it makes a profit. It is even better if it’s in another state.
You have to sponsor prayer in public schools, as long as you don’t pray to Allah or Buddha.
You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.
You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body, but that large multi-national corporations should have no regulations or interference.
You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and you’re certain that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, labor unions, and Hillary Clinton.
You have to believe that society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn’t diminish your opportunities, but you still won’t vote for Allan Keyes.
You have to believe that it was wise to allow Ken Starr to spend $80 million to attack Clinton because no other U.S. Presidents have ever been unfaithful to their wives.
You have to declare that a waiting period for purchasing a handgun is bad because quick access to a new firearm is an important concern for all Americans, even children and felons.
You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools because, of course, if teenagers don’t have condoms they won’t have sex.
You have to believe that the ACLU is bad for defending the Constitution, while the NRA is good for defending the Constitution.
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public doesn’t need to be educated about it, because if we just ignore it, it will go away.
You have to believe that biology teachers are corrupting the morals of 6th graders if they teach them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible, which is full of sex and violence, is good reading at any age.
You have to believe that Saddam killed more Americans than handguns, alcohol, and tobacco.
You have to believe that, even though governments have supported the arts for 5,000 years and that most of the great works of Renaissance art were paid for by governments, our government should shun any such support. After all, the rich can afford to buy their own and the poor don’t need any.
You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the extinction of the several species of plants and animals therein.
You have to believe that George W. Bush REALLY won this election.
Posted by: Pat at March 4, 2006 9:01 AM
Comment #131286

If John McCain abanoned his ‘conseritive priniciples’, he wouldn’t believe at all in the right to privatcy, or fisical conservitivism.
I doubt he believes in them as it is. And it’s for sure no libral does.
All I hear from either is a lot of yak but see no action.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 4, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #131297

RULES FOR BEING A GOOD DEMOCRAT:

You have to believe women should be allowed to kill their children from age two and under.

You have to believe people should run around naked and feel free to rape anyone they please, regardless of race, gender, religion, or species.

You have to believe people who work do so to benefit those who refuse to work.

You have to believe the government knows best how to spend your money, therefore all income should taken for government programs.

You have to believe all religions are good except Christianity, and that Bibles should be burned and Christians should once again be fed to lions and killed by gladiators.

You have to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are the creators of the universe and are entitled to worship, including, but not limited to, sacrifice of your firstborn.

You have to believe that communism must be reborn in the U.S.

And most of all, you have to believe that G.W. Bush is Satan’s retarded stepson bent on world destruction, and he used his dad’s influence to brainwash people into voting for him. He also morphed himself to infect all the voting machines to ensure victory.

You have to believe John Kerry went to Vietnam for reasons other than to bolster a political career.

You have to believe we should immediately surrender to Al Qaida.

Posted by: Duano at March 4, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #131299

Nice comeback Duano but at least mine made sense…

Democrats don’t believe in killing children or anyone else after conception, but Republicans have no problem sending anyone else’s kids to die in a needless war.

I don’t think Democrats or Republicans believe in running around naked and raping, except of course, if you’re talking about raping the treasury and running around naked in piles of cash thats a Republican thing.

So much for my brother’s keeper.

Obviously, we Democrats believe that this government knows best how to waste our money by building $250 million bridges to nowhere.

How’s that Christianity thing going so far? As far as I’m concerned you can feed all the Republicans to the lions.

Bill and Hillary Clinton aren’t the creators of the universe, Ronald Reagan was. I loved when he deregulated the Federal Banking System and collapsed the Savings and Loans to the tune of 3 trillion dollars, but what the heck… Neil Bush got away with $40 million of it.

I believe true Democracy needs to be reborn… right now you’re living in a dictatorship… King George Bush (KGB) is the ruler. BTW this message was read by the NSA without a warrant.

G.W. Bush IS Satan’s retarded stepson bent on world destruction. He didn’t need his dad’s influence to brainwash people into voting for him. As far as the voting machines to ensure victory, go to the creator of the software’s website and read the affidavit he filed with the FBI at Clint Curtis.

At least John Kerry served his country (for 3 tours; no less) George Bush was A.W.O.L.

The Al Qaida are in Iran not Iraq. Thank god russia wasn’t responsible for 9/11, Bush would have attacked China.

Like I said… Facts bounce off Republicans.

Posted by: Pat at March 4, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #131300

Duano….so hateful ! But your third from the last statement is right on !!!! (See below)..
.
.
.
And most of all, you have to believe that G.W. Bush is Satan’s retarded stepson bent on world destruction, and he used his dad’s influence to brainwash people into voting for him. He also morphed himself to infect all the voting machines to ensure victory.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 4, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #131302

“Rules for being a good Democrat” This kind of crap is exactly why the Dems are going to win the White House back in 08. All Repugs have are their hard core base-Nothing else! Independents and registered Dems will win the day. People are fed up with this garbage. Repugs have had their chance when the Supreme Court in 00 and Blackwell here in Ohio in 04 handed the election to the bushies. Either Gore or Kerry can and will win the day and save are country from individuals like the before mentioned “Righter”.

Posted by: Jeff Leis at March 4, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #131319

Pat,

You seem convinced that Republicans are unwilling to accept facts. Yet you quote Clint Curtis? Here is the facts on him.

From wikipedia re: Clint Curtis, “Various people have investigated Curtis’ claims, including Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Bill Nelson, the FBI, and CREW. No one has yet to find a single incident where Curtis allegations have been shown to be correct.”

Posted by: Rob at March 4, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #131328

Rob;

Can you post the link… I can’t seem to find anyone disputing Clint Curtis’s claims.

Posted by: Pat at March 4, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #131330

Oh I Did find the link you were referring to at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Curtis

Unfortunately, the article you site makes my argument… you quote one sentence from that article and all of a sudden Clint Curtis is lying…

I hope Clint Curtis doesn’t have a wife who is a CIA Operative.

Posted by: Pat at March 4, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #131333

Gee Rob….you should have pasted the rest of that paragraph too……..here, I’ll do it for you…

Various people have investigated Curtis’ claims, including Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Bill Nelson, the FBI, and CREW. No one has yet to find a single incident where Curtis allegations have been shown to be correct.

Raymond C. Lemme, a Florida DOT investigator, spent about a year investigating and told Curtis that he “had tracked the corruption ‘all the way to the top’, that the story would ‘break in the next few weeks’ and he would be satisfied with the results”. This conversation occurred two weeks before his unexpected death on June 30, 2003, an apparent suicide in a town located 80 miles from where he resided.

On March 3, 2005, Curtis took a polygraph test. The test was given by Tim Robinson, the retired chief polygraph operator and 20-year veteran of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The test did not detect any attempt at deception on the part of Curtis in any of his responses. The test was based on all the allegations in the affidavit that was provided to several members of Congress. However this test has never been released to the public.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 4, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #131336

The guy passed the test which indicates that either he beat the detector of he believes what he is saying. It does not mean, however, that what he says is accurate. That is why we follow actual evidence.

I think many people believe in their hearts that the election was stolen. Many people believe a lot of things in the hearts. We need not doubt their sincerity to question their credibility.

Posted by: Jack at March 4, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #131339

And “denial” is a river in Africa….!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 4, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #131342

I have noted that someone by the user name of NateVerde is consistently editing the page to alter the meaning and then listing the link on various boards. The actual article is latter returned to it’s correct meaning, but the dirty trick is already done.

My name is Clint Curtis and I have sworn under oath and passed a polygraph test regarding the request by Tom Feeney to build a vote fraud prototype.

I am now running for congress against Mr. Feeney and have challenged him to take a polygraph test in a public forum on this and other issues. Just him and me, taking the test in a completely public forum. That should end the speculation.

An independent audit of the machine vote is the only thing that will insure our democracy. “Trust me” voting is the same system that allowed Stalin to hold the people of Russia in bondage for decades.

Posted by: Clint Curtis at March 4, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #131347

Pat,

That was an excellent post about the rules for being Republican. It really hits the nail on the head.

The Repubs should be able to come up with a better comeback Duano. There are, I am sure some funny, reasonable, and true, things that could be used against us Dems, but Duano’s comeback is just hateful and ridiculous

Posted by: Ray G. at March 4, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #131355

Didn’t anybody see George Bush give Bin Laden credit for his reelection. He actually said that if Osama had not put that tape out just before the election, he would have probably lost.
Perhaps that if why he has not sent the marines to Bin Laden’s mothers house in Saudi Arabia to pick Osama up.

Posted by: jlw at March 4, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #131356

I thought the republican nominations were already settled for 2008—McCain/Liberman

Posted by: jlw at March 4, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #131361

The Democratic party has a number of solid candidates lined up potentially for 2008. Successful governors like Mark Warner and Tom Vilsack are particularly attractive candidates, but their funds don’t hold a candle to Hillary’s.

I disagree entirely with an earlier assertion that McCain has no chance, and I think personally that little stands in his way of the Republican nomination and perhaps even the presidency, if indeed Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Nomination of the latter would be another fantastic blunder of the Democratic party’s leadership and grassroots, because the United States is in no mood to follow George Bush with another polarizing figure from either party.

McCain has successfully and indeed at times honorably presented himself as one willing to work across party lines and to challenge his own party - carefully. However, Mark Warner governed Virginia very effectively and worked extensively with both parties in the Republican-leaning state and was even able to ensure a Democratic successor in the statehouse. McCain, on the other hand, is now compelled to reach into his party’s conservative base. He has endorsed Ken Blackwell, for example, the man who engineered eight-hour polling lines in black areas of Cincinnati, for governor of Ohio, and I personally am rather miffed about that. Warner, with a little more publicity, could very well challenge McCain’s bipartisan credentials… if we can give him the chance and not send Hillary out.

Posted by: Peter at March 5, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #131365

>>This I do know:Al Gore is making noises of running again…we know that Kerry already is..is that what your party needs?

Neither can get elected dog-catcher.

se,

I don’t know if Gore or Kerry will run again, but your supposition is not very valid…even if Gore did not gain more popular votes, the voting was close enough to require intervention by the SC, and Kerry lost by less than two percentage points even after being ‘Swift Boated’. Your boy did not do as well as you want everyone to believe, nor did Gore or Kerry do as badly as you indicate.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 5, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #131386

A few comments—

Hillary Clinton: I wish I had a nickel for every Democrat who told me he/she was worried that Clinton would get the nomination and lose, and another one for every Republican who thinks the 2008 election is wrapped up for the same reason.

Blinding glimpse of the obvious — the Democrats aren’t going nominate the Republican dream candidate, unless there is considerable evidence that the Republicans are deluded about her weakness.

My prediction is that the Republicans will need a new self-pleasure fantasy to replace “Hillary ‘08”.

Rudy Giuliani: I am astounded that (apparently) informed Republicans consider him a serious candidate for their nomination. Outside of foreign policy, he is well in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I’m not sure I would even call him a moderate (although the Dems are moderate from my POV). Another thing, his highest office was mayor. MAYOR. If you guys want to nominate him, though, fine by me. We could certainly do worse.

John McCain: I do think his age is an issue. It is legitimate to ask whether he will put in shape to deal with crises like Katrina or 9/11 when he is in his mid-70’s. He is honest man — he is even honest about being dishonest about Bob Jones U. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 5, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #131397

Wow…you get down the page some and the discussion really deteriorates away from the original topic. It seems all of the reactionaries from both sides want to unload.

Question: What is it specifically that hard core conservatives dislike about McCain?

Posted by: bill06 at March 5, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #131398

Woody

That’s why Guilliani has legs…he has appeal on both sides of the aisle….tough on terror and security while not a tight ass on domestics….an example of someone for the great left-right of center position that has attraction everywhere.

As a vice-president,that is.

For now.

Marydude

That ws then,this is now.Both guys are exactly what your party does NOT need.Same old,same old.
My view anyway.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 5, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #131399
That ws then,this is now.Both guys are exactly what your party does NOT need.Same old,same old. My view anyway.

se,

As I say, you may be right…but, Dog Catcher? Since you exagerate about the thumping they got, and how unelectable they are, I think you also exagerate about them not even running a good race for Dog Catcher…see what I mean?

I would like to be able to wager about whether our country would have been better off at this point in time if either had won against Cheney/Bush, but we cannot go back…I’ll just have to live it in my dreams. I am confident that we would NOT have been worse off, either nationally or internationally; morally or economically.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 5, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #131402

Face it. You guys will not be able to resist nominating the junior godess from NY. The fact that her last name is Clinton will be enough to get her through the primaries. It’s okay, my party has problems nominating moderates also, so even though I’d like to see a McCain or Giuliani ticket, look out for George Allen or Mitt Romney. The only chance for Condi Rice is if Deadeye Dick Cheney retires and she replaces him. Slim chance. My rules for a good Dem was a joke, by the way. I didn’t call for anyone to be thrown to lions, like Pat, so who is more hateful? I don’t want Dems to die, just to vote for Reps, that’s all.
Oh, yeah and Giuliani can hardly be within the mainstream of the Dems when he supports “tax cuts for the rich”. Abortion is his biggest problem. As far as McCain goes, I, as a “right-wing lunatic”, admire him quite a bit, but I disagree with some of his positions. He’s got nothing on border inforcement, and McCain-Feingold violates the first amendment. I also disagree with a lot of GW’s positions and decisions, but I still voted for him. I’ll never have a perfect candidate, unless of course, Justice Antonin Scalia runs for President. One more thing, if we’re in a dictatorship run by King George, it’s a pretty ineffective one since all these people get to spew their hatred for the King with no beheadings or crucifixions taking place.

Posted by: Duano at March 5, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #131423
it’s a pretty ineffective one since all these people get to spew their hatred for the King with no beheadings or crucifixions taking place.

Duano,

We’ll start seeing the beheadings, etc., as soon as someone tells His Royal Hieniness that he has to leave office in ‘08. I doubt he knows it yet…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 5, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #131433

Duano You are really a whack job

Posted by: j palermo at March 5, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #131437

Duano and Sicilian Eagle,

If Giuliani is mainstream, then so is Hillary Clinton. They agree on all of the big hot-button cultural issues: abortion, gun control, the death penalty, and gay rights.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 5, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #131438

Oh, and Giuliani for veep? Please. The Christian Right would go completely bonkers.

I am probably going to be accused of stereotyping people, but I am just assuming that these guys are serious about what they believe. A pro-choice veep would simply not be acceptable.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 5, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #131439

There is one candidate out there who can win for the Dem’s.. . Mark Warner of Virginia. Think intellect of Bill Clinton without the baggage. Folks in Virginia love him, and he will play well in all 50 states. Tax and spend liberal won’t work, as VA has good government, and he cut bone, not fat, and got a tax increase with Republican support as they control the legislature.

Posted by: Devon Wright at March 5, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #131440
Duano You are really a whack job

Just a reminder; we do not tolerate name-calling and personal insults here. If this behavior continues you will be banned from participating in this online community.

Posted by: WatchBlog Owner at March 5, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #131444

“Duano You are really a whack job
Posted by: j palermo at March 5, 2006 03:41 PM”

Maybe. I think Duano’s going for “shock value”. He’s right about Mitt Romney though. If you’ve ever watched him and listened to him speak he could easily end up being the guy to beat in 2008. I could easily see him garnering the support of both the true conversative base and the religious right. Just remember Governor GW Bush of Texas! I thought there’d be no way he’d make the final cut.

OTOH someone in my Democratic Party needs to be really thinking. Somehow we think we’re either going to get the “center” to come our way or to get the “apathetic” to get off their butts and I think it’s going to take a hell of a lot more than Hillary to get either done! What we need is a strong and honest voice and that voice needs to get out there soon!

Look at Kansas. We’re 70% Rebublican and we elected Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius. I guess women vote.


KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 5, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #131449

woody menia how about a quote from jack carter (i support a womens choice for abortion. but i am myself against abortion). ????

Posted by: rodney brown at March 5, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #131453

I have to admit, Warner would be a formidable candidate. His biggest problem would be winning over the moveon.orgs and Michael Moores who are propping up Hillary. If we somehow end up with a weak candidate in ‘08, Warner could take it. Even I would have an open mind about him, something I haven’t had for any Dem since Clinton in ‘92. I really like Romney, and I think he has the ability to win over the entire Rep spectrum. Plus he’s a governor, and we all know the record governors have running for president. Warner vs Romney= a dream match
Hillary vs McCain= nightmare for Dems
Hillary vs Condi= Circus
Good Dem vs Frist= Dem POTUS

Posted by: Duano at March 5, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #131455

and BTW, I agree my party won’t put up Rudy for prez OR veep. Pro-choice is a killer.

Posted by: Duano at March 5, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #131510

“An honest politician is an oxymoron—or, in McCain’s case, just a moron.”

don’t be too sure (and besides, it’s not like we haven’t elected a moron before - the precedent has been set)

Posted by: diogenes at March 6, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #131557

WHat about Richardson from New Mexico running for the dems in 2008?

Posted by: jude at March 6, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #131565

If Hilary Clinton wins the nomination for president and runs against McCain, I’d vote for McCain.
Hilary is a “politician”, who would not work to fix the country. Her sole focus would be to get reelected. If she is the best the Democrats have to offer then our party is in big trouble.

Duano,
“And most of all, you have to believe that G.W. Bush is Satan’s retarded stepson bent on world destruction.”
He is!

I can’t believe people would still vote party-line after the tragedy we are now witnessing is over. We need to vote for the best candidate.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 6, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #131572

I definitely think McCain is the (very) early front-runner for the 2008 Republican nomination. He’s got huge name recognition and huge positives among independents and even Democrats. I have never been able to understand why many of the Republican partisans I know dislike him so much, but I guess that’s not really my problem.

I don’t think Mitt Romney has much chance. He’s done what he can to brush up his conservative bona fides (I can see his campaign now: “I tried to clean up Massachusetts, but we all know it’s a lost cause.”), but I really wonder if his achilles’ heel is his Mormonism. This is anecdotal, but I’ve spent the last 10 years in TN and rural MO, and I definitely hear a sense that Mormons aren’t really “Christians” from many folks here in the Bible belt. I don’t know how deep or wide that sentiment is, but I do think it’s out there.

But all I really care about is the Democratic nominee…the Republicans will nominate whom they choose (but maybe Dems in open primary states should go vote for the farthest-right candidate the Republicans field), but I’m partial to Wes Clark and/or Evan Bayh on the donkey side.

Folks are going to hate on Clark because of his brief campaign in 2004, but recall he got a late start and had no campaign experience. He’s liked by the Clinton power-circle, and I think he has legs.

I’m hoping that Hillary’s proto-campaign is a smokescreen, diverting Republicans’ attention away from more credible candidates. I’ve never met a Democrat that admits to wanting her to run, just Republicans.

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 6, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #131620

i for one would like to see a john edwards/ john mccain runoff. then, for once, i wouldn’t care who won - either way america would.

Posted by: diog at March 6, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #131644

I like Richardson. He’s superbly qualified, but I think geography would work against him if he ran against McCain. McCain would have the same or better appeal in the west, and the repubs would still have a hold on the south. I like Warner Vs McCain, partially because I would like to see seeing either one president. Wow, a year where it’s not the lesser of two evils? Imagine!
And I agree, Hilary is a total diversion (at least I hope so. The party can’t be that out to lunch, can it?)

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 6, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #131705

Diog,

I’m coming around on Biden, I think a Biden McCain matchup would offer America two great choices as well.

Posted by: Rob at March 6, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #131729

honestly, i don’t know enough about biden to say. regardless (at least as it stands) there are precious few whom i would vote for over mccain.

Posted by: diogenes at March 6, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #131753

An interesting handicapping of the early field of possible candidates:

http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/wh08/

While I vote for candidates and not parties, I am nowhere on the Republican’s radar screen since they were bought and paid for by the Christian Right. That said, living in NY in the 90’s and early 2000’s was great with Rudy in charge. I didn’t always agree with everything he tried to do, but the man is genuine and one of the only candidates who seems to truly unite people.

OTOH, it will be very interesting to see how the Dems play out. Hillary is clearly not going to please a very large portion of the party. She’s just too smooth, too calculating and too much the slave to polls and such, and I think a lot of those on the left would agree. I am enthusiastically waiting to see whom among Edwards, Richardson, Warner, and even Feingold, can blaze a trail into the centrist mindset and challenge her with conviction and solid, pragmatic stances on the war and the economy. I’ve never disliked Biden but agree with the article author(s) that he has been so demonized by the press, especially Faux News (anyone remember Dean?), he’s an outsider at best.

Posted by: macsonix at March 6, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #132259

diogenes:

“…It’s not like we haven’t elected a moron before…the precendent has been set.”

Millard Fillmore, right?

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 8, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #194588

What makes you all think that democrates are so squeaky clean. Hilliary Clinton, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are nothing more than Nazi wannabees that will hand the United States over to the United Nations. All you liberals are destroying my country with your looking through rose color glasses bs. You all need to leave my country and make sure the Statue of Liberty kicks your behind on the way out.

Posted by: steve at November 11, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #264668

JOHN MCCAIN THE MAVERICK

I think that I have finally figured out what the word ‘maverick’ means in relation to Senator John McCain. As the writer of his complimentary biography in 2002 recently said “I don’t think John McCain has any core principles. I don’t know what he stands for.”

With no core guiding principles Senator McCain is likely to make unexpected, emotional and ‘gut check’ decisions in reaction to any crisis at any given point in time. This is the answer to Senator McCains endless series of ”Hail Mary” passes duriing the 2008 presidential election.

His recent decision to support house Republicans in scuttling the financial bailout plan is one such decision.

Senator McCain is gambling big time. If it is a bad bail out (and most American agree it is) then he will be viewed as a hero and probably be elected to the presidency. If the economy tanks because the bailout doesn’t pass, he will be one of the persons blamed for sinking the entire U.S. economy.

While ”Hail Mary” decisions can produce undeniable flashes of brilliance - if they are correct decisions. But more often such decisions are incorrect. As Senator McCain wrote in his biography, he is prone to making ”rash decisions” but thinks that is fine because he is ”willing to live with the consequences.”

During the presidential campaign when these decisions start to turn against Senator McCain (such as the selection of Sarah Palin as VP seems to be doing) Senator McCain’s solution is to toss another ”Hail Mary” pass to change the conversation.

The question is then, when it comes to foreign policy, the economy, and the multitude of crises a nd decisions that face an American President, can the American people ”live with the consequences” of a maverick’s ”Hail Mary” passes, flip flopping all over the map because his decisions are unguided by any core principles?

A McCain Presidency will certainly be exciting to watch - if your heart can stand the strain.

Bernie Bicoy

Posted by: bernie bicoy at September 26, 2008 4:18 PM
Post a comment