Well, Looks Like a Choice of Three Dems for the White House........

[HFWR]

I really really don't want to open up the Monica mess again.

Stop it ; you're killing me...

 

[AltaRed]

But I still don't understand the need for a conservative (let alone strong conservative) VP choice. It's a certaintly that McCain will be the most conservative candidate in the ultimate election. Why any need for additional conservativism on the ticket? Wouldn't he be better off with a VP who can appeal to a different voting block? Unless something surprising happens, McCain will have the conservative position all to himself.

Neither do I understand why a super conservative running mate is needed. The religious right and super conservatives can flail in the wilderness for 8 years. I'd pick Colin Powell for running mate. He would appeal and draw from the Democratic vote and provide some measured reason to McCain's propensity to bounce off the walls.

The USA just can't afford another right wing Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldt trio that has been responsible for about 40% depreciation in the USD in the last 7 years and made tons of new enemies worldwide.

 

[Texas Proud]

because they can't stand a parade without getting out in front of it. Then when he loses, they will repudiate him as a lost cause. McCain is very conservative, but a classic Goldwater style conservative, not a radical Limbaugh style conservative.

Not old enough to know about Goldwater... but I agree he is conservative... and not like Limbaugh...

But then again.. if Limbaugh or someone like him was up... I would have to vote for a dem for president for the first time in my life... heck, the guy is NUTS... and to me the people that follow him are dangerous...

 

[Texas Proud]

Neither do I understand why a super conservative running mate is needed. The religious right and super conservatives can flail in the wilderness for 8 years. I'd pick Colin Powell for running mate. He would appeal and draw from the Democratic vote and provide some measured reason to McCain's propensity to bounce off the walls.

The USA just can't afford another right wing Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldt trio that has been responsible for about 40% depreciation in the USD in the last 7 years and made tons of new enemies worldwide.

Good choice... Colin... but would he want to do it

 

[Texas Proud]

OK..... I will do the 'test'...

McCain Hillary Obama you
Social Issues
Pro life Yes No No NO
Death Penalty Yes No ? YES (and was on a jury who gave one)
School Choice Yes No No YES, but only to low income people
2nd Amendment Yes No No YES, but do believe in some of the current laws

Fiscal
Keep Bush tax cuts Yes No No YES (only because if the recession possibility, otherwise no)
Free trade Yes Yes ? YES
Opposes earmarks Yes No ? YES
Medicare Prescription No Yes Yes? NO
Increase investor tax No Yes Yes NO

National Defense
Support Surge Yes No No NO
Wants timetable No Yes Yes NO, let's declare we won and get out
FISA reauthorization Yes No No YES, but with some restrictions.. I think Bush did things against the constitution... but hey, it is war...
PATRIOT Bill Yes No? No Again.. some changes, but yes
Meet Korea, Iran leaders No No Yes NO, let the underlings talk...

 

[Arc]

I really really don't want to open up the Monica mess again.

Too bad - I love that story. Can't wait for the sequel!

 

[samclem]

What does Hanoi have to do with a BJ?

Hanoi has nothing to do with "A BJ" . . . Hanoi had something to do with "L BJ" (uggh--but somebody had to do it!)

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Bet you could get a BJ in Hanoi from someone named "monica".

 

[DallasGuy]

As far as McCain not getting the nod from the conservative wing of the Republican party....just how many people are there in that part of the party anyway? It kind of seems to me like the huge power from that part of the party is more or a perceived thing. When it comes right down to it, they just don't have the numbers to control the Republican party anymore. Pretty funny actually. They're finally getting what they deserve....to be ignored. Afterall, how long can they beat the drum on abortion, gay rights and other issues meant only to divide people? After awhile people get tired of those same old tired issues.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

As far as McCain not getting the nod from the conservative wing of the Republican party....just how many people are there in that part of the party anyway? It kind of seems to me like the huge power from that part of the party is more or a perceived thing. When it comes right down to it, they just don't have the numbers to control the Republican party anymore. Pretty funny actually. They're finally getting what they deserve....to be ignored. Afterall, how long can they beat the drum on abortion, gay rights and other issues meant only to divide people? After awhile people get tired of those same old tired issues.

Im not sure how you would explain Bush getting elected for 2 terms then

 

[DallasGuy]

Im not sure how you would explain Bush getting elected for 2 terms then

Very simple...you can only fool people for so long...many people are starting to realize that by going along with the conservative wing of the Republican party, it doesn't result in a successful administration...point in case, the Bush administration. Bush may have agreed with all of the conservative principals in order to get elected, but he just wasn't successful at running the country. He wasn't even be a fiscal conservative, which is the main reason why I voted for the Republicans in the past. It's now to the point where both parties spend way too much money but at least the democrats spend it at home.

 

[samclem]

DalasGuy,
What do you mean by "Conservative wing of the Republican Party"?

I don't think the label "conservative" means much without further clarification. A fiscal conservative is one thing. "Social Conservative" is a little more problematic--it has come to mean "favoring use of government authority to reinforce traditional Judeo-Christian values". A Goldwater-type of small-government, individual-liberty conservative does not favor this intrusive government role. Very different.

The fiscal conservative/small government types don't seem to have been in much evidence for the last 8 years.

The term "liberal" or "progressive" does not suffer from the same degree of ambiguity. When someone says they are liberal we have a fairly good idea what this means, and everything else is a matter of degree.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Sam - DING DING DING!

There are a heck of a lot of people with sets of values they'd like to imprint on everyone else.

Like I always say, there are two kinds of people: those that just want to do their own thing and not bother anyone else, and those that want everyone else to do it the way they think is the right way. Neither group does too well with the other.

Lets review:

Being a conservative for most of the last 100+ years has meant spending wisely, reducing taxes, supporting business, staying out of external conflicts unless there was no feasible option to do so, lean government, etc.

I like and can support that. But its not really what the republican party is all about.

BTW, I predict McCain takes Huckabee as his running mate.

 

[HFWR]

Sam - DING DING DING!

Glad to see you got your ding back...

BTW, I predict McCain takes Huckabee as his running mate.

This would be the tipping point for me; pick someone to appease this "faction" of the party, and I'll vote for a Democrat ( or maybe Bloomberg...)

 

[FinanceDude]

Being a conservative for most of the last 100+ years has meant spending wisely, reducing taxes, supporting business, staying out of external conflicts unless there was no feasible option to do so, lean government, etc.

Those are EXACTLY the principles I believe in. Anyone who thinks it's been easy being a fiscal conservative Republican the past 16 years is nuts...............

BTW, I predict McCain takes Huckabee as his running mate.

That might make me not vote at all..........

 

[Texas Proud]

Very simple...you can only fool people for so long...many people are starting to realize that by going along with the conservative wing of the Republican party, it doesn't result in a successful administration...point in case, the Bush administration. Bush may have agreed with all of the conservative principals in order to get elected, but he just wasn't successful at running the country. He wasn't even be a fiscal conservative, which is the main reason why I voted for the Republicans in the past. It's now to the point where both parties spend way too much money but at least the democrats spend it at home.

It was funny... I can not remember his name (and will not look it up)... but I think Lamb or Land or something... he was on Charlie Rose the other night..

He actually seemed 'reasonable'... was saying that McCain was conservative etc. etc... Charlie asked him about the evangelicals.... he said they were 'tolerated' in the party, but they were not 'welcomed'... kind of told the truth... I have to say he did not come across as some rabid guy like Limbaugh or some of the others I have heard...

But he did say that if Gulliani (ok... sp)... had won the repub... he would NOT have voted on principal as he was for abortion... fair enough...

I do like the quote he made... something like... I would rather have a second rate fireman than a first rate arsonist... kind of what they are going to have to do if they want any of their agenda...

I am like FD.... fiscal conservative, but the party has not been that since Reagan, and maybe not even then...

 

[samclem]

The really young ER types may not even know who Goldwater was.

The speech that brought Ronald Reagan to the public consciousness as a political force was a speech he gave promoting Barry Goldwater in 1964. "A Time for Choosing" is regarded as one of the most effective political speeches of the last 50 years (though it didn't win the election for Goldwater). Audio and text are at the link below (click on the tiny "mp3" link at the page if the regular "go" button doesn't work.)
American Rhetoric: Ronald Reagan -- A Time for Choosing

BTW, I wouldn't mind having a president who can give a good speech. Reagan could do it, Tony Blair could do it. Obama seems to have the knack . . .never mind, I'll settle for "right but inarticulate."

 

[quietman]

Huckabee would be a disaster of a VP choice. His evangelical voting block already has no better choice in the likely election than McCain. They may say they are reluctant supporters, but they have no better choice so they will already be on the McCain side of the ledger. By adding Huckabee to the ticket, McCain exposes himself to the even larger anti-evangelical voting block, which will abandon him in droves and make his age into a firestorm of a problem.

I think his best bet for a running mate is a more moderate leaning candidate who can appeal to potential Democratic voters, as long as they are more conservative than the Democratic nominee, which shouldn't be too hard. His long term goal needs to be appeal to the Americam electorate, not just the Republican party.

 

[retire@40]

Huckabee would be a disaster of a VP choice.

I agree. He doesn't complement McCain at all. The person that complements McCain the most is Romney since Romney is strong in the areas McCain is weak in (private sector experience, business, taxation, immigration, health care, executive leadership) and McCain complements Romney in the areas Romney is weak in (military, political experience and ringmanship).

 

[clifp]

Those are EXACTLY the principles I believe in. Anyone who thinks it's been easy being a fiscal conservative Republican the past 16 years is nuts...............

Ain't that the truth. It is so humilating that after 80 years of screaming about deficit spending, it was Bill Clinton that managed to balance the budget for the first time since Ike. I know there has been grumbling about the lack of fiscal discipline in the last 8 years, but no where near the level of screaming as we see in issues like immigration.

I know President McCain would take pleasure in going through a list of earmarks, humilating all of those involved even if sometime he has to hold his nose and vote for the bill.

I'm not a big fan of Romney but I agree that McCain is realitive weak in economic issues and Romney would strength him for both the base and be a good VP.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Its been funny living in MA and CA. People love the democrat's ideas and ideals. Its just that the execution is often lacking and the overhead expensive. So we elect a bunch of them, but put a republican governor on top of it.

Sort of like throwing an adult into the mix to oversee things if they get out of hand

Really, really hard to be a plain vanilla fiscal conservative running for office. Might as well go door to door with a bottle of castor oil and a spoon.

All y'all really underestimate how many bible thumpers are out there that really, really want a strong christian religious leader in charge. Despite our little spate of voting, I have a funny feeling that McCain with a strong religious VP beats Obama and his early Muslim schooling. Sad, ridiculous and unfair, but...

 

[bright eyed]

Im hoping he picks Lieberman

that could be the most boring ticket ever! i'm sure lieberman is hoping the same thing...

 

[JB]

FD I think you've been listening to too much talk radio.

McCain Hillary Obama you
Social Issues
Pro life Yes No No
Death Penalty Yes No ?
School Choice Yes No No
2nd Amendment Yes No No

FYI - both H. Clinton and Obama are for the death penalty and I haven't heard about either of them calling to abolish the 2nd amendment. Saying they are against it is about as silly as saying McCain is against the 1st amendment.

You missing many important issues in your list. For example:

Willing to stay 100 years in Iraq

Supported Iraq invasion and occupation

Voted against Bush tax cuts

And how about Gay peoples rights? I'm pretty sure McCain came out
against the constitutional amendment.

He's also pro federal support for stem cell research.

He's against the use of torture.

I'm not sure where he stands on domestic wiretapping and giving immunity to companies who broke the law and went along with the decisions of the executive branch.

 

[bright eyed]

As far as McCain not getting the nod from the conservative wing of the Republican party....just how many people are there in that part of the party anyway? It kind of seems to me like the huge power from that part of the party is more or a perceived thing. When it comes right down to it, they just don't have the numbers to control the Republican party anymore. Pretty funny actually. They're finally getting what they deserve....to be ignored. Afterall, how long can they beat the drum on abortion, gay rights and other issues meant only to divide people? After awhile people get tired of those same old tired issues.

i think you've hit it on the head - some social conservatives started to feel "used" by the RP to get votes - and not much got done on their "agenda" - and now w/ the surge of people voting - independents, young people and others who didn't vote previously - the math has totally changed. Before - You could win by courting an extreme group which only represented a small % of the general public, but now you have to speak to a larger group and contend with more "likely" voters...

 

[JB]

If Obama is the Democratic nominee the red state, blue state lines could change dramatically. IMO this would be a very welcome change to US politics.