McCain The Democract

[xrayzebra]

Looks like he almost made the switch to the Dems side.
What a guy. A real Conservative. You bet!

Long Article and Denial from McCain (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html)

Trouble is Daschle indicates he and McCain had long walks
and talks on seniority/committee assignments.

[fyatuk]

Did you read your own article? Even the people who were supposedly "courting" him said he would never have switched to Democrat, but become an independent. The article even mentions Daschle stressed that McCain would have been an independent.

Oooh, big deal. Anyone who's looked at McCain's record knows he's more of an independent than anything anyway. That's part of his appeal. He actually will work with anyone to get the job done.

That's part of the appeal of Obama as well. He's so likeable, people think the Republicans would consider working with him. The fact that McCain and Obama are both doing well is indicative of the fact that what people are really sick of is the partisan bickering in lew of progress.

McCain is probably the closest thing to a true Republican that has a chance of winning the election anyway.

[spurster]

I thought they were dimmocrats.

[101A]

Really strange how this comes out RIGHT before Super Tuesday. The Right Wing media establishment: Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Drudge, et al are ALL on board. Romney or Bust. They are marginalizing themselves.

Coulter saying McCain was more liberal than Hillary. Ridiculous. McCain isn't perfect, but I'll take him over Obama/Clinton IN DROVES.

[boutons_]

Yep, the word has gone out to VRWC of goose-stepping neo-cunts and right-wingers:
Trash McCain.

[101A]

Yep, the word has gone out to VRWC of goose-stepping neo-cunts and right-wingers:
Trash McCain.Is it going to work?

I don't think so.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is it going to work?

I don't think so.


As long as we don't have a right winger in the WH it's good for everyone.

[101A]

As long as we don't have a right winger in the WH it's good for everyone.
You're lucky.

None ran this time, or, as it turns out, last time.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You're lucky.

None ran this time, or, as it turns out, last time.


NO we are all lucky.

[101A]

NO we are all lucky.
I don't know. I haven't particularly cared for Bush's past term.

[pussyface]

xrayzebra so clearly represents the idiot wing of right-leaning politics that he really is almost performing some sort of public service.

...imagine the level of a brain that would put forth the sort of material he focuses on. the icon he uses alone(bald eagles/american flags) is proof of an unbelievably feeble-minded dolt with the intellectual capacity of a real-life Stephen Colbert.

by the way, this guy is 9 million years old right?

[101A]

xrayzebra so clearly represents the idiot wing of right-leaning politics that he really is almost performing some sort of public service.

...imagine the level of a brain that would put forth the sort of material he focuses on. the icon he uses alone(bald eagles/american flags) is proof of an unbelievably feeble-minded dolt with the intellectual capacity of a real-life Stephen Colbert.

by the way, this guy is 9 million years old right?I take Ray as a been there - done that guy; and if you're brain is half that sharp at that age (much less already turned to dust), you'll be doing much better than average. He has his prejudices, but show me a cat that old who doesn't.

He adds to the board.

[pussyface]

I take Ray as a been there - done that guy.

...thats because, you're (dramatic pause) .....an idiot

[101A]

...thats because, you're (dramatic pause) .....an idiot
Your act is more appropriate for the troll forum. Scurry along now.

[PixelPusher]

Really strange how this comes out RIGHT before Super Tuesday. The Right Wing media establishment: Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Drudge, et al are ALL on board. Romney or Bust. They are marginalizing themselves.

I think it's hillarious they're all lining up against the Devil-They-Know (McCain) and fawning all over the Devil-They-Don't-Know (Romneybot 2008 Election Edition with Conservative Service Pack 3).

[xrayzebra]

xrayzebra so clearly represents the idiot wing of right-leaning politics that he really is almost performing some sort of public service.

...imagine the level of a brain that would put forth the sort of material he focuses on. the icon he uses alone(bald eagles/american flags) is proof of an unbelievably feeble-minded dolt with the intellectual capacity of a real-life Stephen Colbert.

by the way, this guy is 9 million years old right?

Ahh, you are going to hurt my feelings. And what is it
that you are called? That's right, Pussyface. Had to
put my glasses on, you know how us 9 million year old
guys are. No you don't do you?

And it is not called an icon it is called an avatar. It is
the WTC going down. Something we should never
forget.

And have a nice weekend face and all.

[Johnts71]

Mccain is exactly what the republicans need! Its turns people like rush limdork into blubbering idiots! GO MCCAIN!! :elephant :clap :downspin: hahahaha

[xrayzebra]

Mccain is exactly what the republicans need! Its turns people like rush limdork into blubbering idiots! GO MCCAIN!! :elephant :clap :downspin: hahahaha

And you are supporting the Dimms in their run for the
Presidency. I would say there are kinda slim pickins on
both sides of the fence at this time, with McCain in the
lead.

Hey what if McCain wins? Will you be so jubilant?

[101A]

And you are supporting the Dimms in their run for the
Presidency. I would say there are kinda slim pickins on
both sides of the fence at this time, with McCain in the
lead.

Hey what if McCain wins? Will you be so jubilant?Ray, I had resigned myself to Hillary as a near foregone conclusion. McCain >>>>>>>>> Hillary Clinton.

Yes, considering the alternative, I, for one, will be jubilant.

[xrayzebra]

^^101A I am going to hang fire until after this coming Tuesday.
Perhaps Romney, yeah, I am pulling for him hoping he can pull the fat out
of the fire. I am not sure Hillary has the nomination in bag
either. Obama has fooled everyone so far in the race. And for
him to get old Teddy boy in his camp, wow, did that stir up a
hornets nest. Let's just wait as see what happen Tuesday.

[JoeChalupa]

Romney isn't fooling anyone and he better get ready to count his losses. McCain has to think of a running mate now.

[xrayzebra]

Romney isn't fooling anyone and he better get ready to count his losses. McCain has to think of a running mate now.


The fat lady hasn't sung yet!

[Wild Cobra]

As long as we don't have a right winger in the WH it's good for everyone.
We haven't had a right winger in the White House since 1988, only a moderate, a socialists, and a neocon since!

[Wild Cobra]

Romney isn't fooling anyone and he better get ready to count his losses. McCain has to think of a running mate now.
I don't think McCain will do as well as you guys think on Super Tuesday. He won the Florida vote because of the number of registered republican hispanics. They carried his win. It won't be like that in other states.

I trust these other states will vote more conservative, and pick the conservative candidate over the neocon. Romney would clearly win if Huckabee would drop in time. He's taking many of the conservative votes away from Romney.

[fyatuk]

I don't think McCain will do as well as you guys think on Super Tuesday. He won the Florida vote because of the number of registered republican hispanics. They carried his win. It won't be like that in other states.


According to my few Floridian friends, the average Hispanic republican down there is by far more conservative both socially and economically than the average white Floridian down there.

Granted that's heresay, since the only Floridian hispanic I know personally is a reformed hardcore socialist.

But it probably is safe to say McCain won the Cuban vote (the Hawk always does).

[Wild Cobra]

According to my few Floridian friends, the average Hispanic republican down there is by far more conservative both socially and economically than the average white Floridian down there.

It has more to do with him wanting policies that allow family member brought over, and become citizens, in front of other legal immigration. You are right about most legal hispanics being more conservative than liberal, but family wins out.

[Holt's Cat]

We haven't had a right winger in the White House since 1988, only a moderate, a socialists, and a neocon since!

Who were the "socialists"? Bush the Father raised taxes. Bush the Son signed on to the largest expansion of an entitlement program in two generations. Clinton was easily the most conservative Democratic president since Wilson.

We like to pretend there are major differences among presidential candidates but that is simply not the case, other than the merely rhetorical.

[jochhejaam]

Romney isn't fooling anyone and he better get ready to count his losses. McCain has to think of a running mate now.
McCain/Powell

[jochhejaam]

This article may help put McCain's so-called liberalism into perspective.


McCain is not the enemy
By Jack Kelly
Toledo Blade Columnist
Feb. 2nd, 2008

THE race for the GOP nomination for president is all but over, save for the weeping and gnashing of teeth among conservatives.

I don't think Arizona Sen. John McCain would be a good president. He lacks the temperament for it, he has virtually no managerial experience, and the economy is, as George Will put it, "a subject with which Mr. McCain is neither conversant, nor eager to become so."

But there is a big difference between being a mediocre president - as one could argue George W. Bush has been - and being an awful one.

Many conservatives talk about Mr. McCain as if he were Satan's first cousin. What Web logger Roger Simon calls "McCain Derangement Syndrome" is as irrational and unbecoming as is the Bush Derangement Syndrome that afflicts so many liberals.

A McCain presidency means the end of conservatism and the end of the Republican party, MDS sufferers say. That this is a wildly exaggerated fear is illustrated by the spectacle of Mr. McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claiming to be conservatives, when neither of them is, and accusing the other of being a liberal, which neither of them is.

The best description of both Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney is "moderate conservative." Mr. McCain has a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 82, nearly identical to that of conservative hero Fred Thompson. Mr. McCain's rating for 2006 was just 65, but that's still substantially better than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's 8, or New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's 9.

MDS sufferers tend not to notice that until quite recently, Mr. Romney embraced the deviations from conservative orthodoxy for which they wish to cast Mr. McCain into the outer darkness. Nor do they seem upset that Mr. Romney changes campaign themes as often as he changes his shirt.

Occasional deviation from conservative orthodoxy is not for a Republican the mortal sin MDS sufferers make it out to be. While it is true no Republican can be elected president without the support of the conservative base, it is also true that no Republican can be elected with the support only of the conservative base. When moderates are no longer comfortable in the Republican party, Democrats will win all the elections.

For this conservative, the paramount issue is winning the war on terror, because if we lose, nothing else will matter very much. Arguably, Mr. McCain is better suited than anyone else to lead us to victory.

The next most important issue to me is to appoint to the federal bench judges who will follow the Constitution. Mr. McCain supported the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, but some are trying to manufacture doubt about who he'd appoint. There's no doubt about what kind of judges Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would choose.

With the economy softening, it is more important than ever to keep taxes low. Mr. McCain was wrong to oppose the Bush tax cuts, and his stubborn refusal to admit his mistake fuels MDS. But with Democrats in control of Congress, the issue is not whether taxes will be cut, but whether we can keep them from being raised. And on this Mr. McCain is on the side of the angels. But MDS sufferers say they'll sulk in their tents on election day. They'd rather punish Mr. McCain for sins past than protect us from a Clinton rerun or President Obama.

To gain the conservative support he needs in November, Mr. McCain must stress the issues on which he and conservatives agree. But he has a much more important decision to make.

Mr. McCain will be 72 years old Aug. 29. His mother Roberta is spry at 95, but both Mr. McCain's father and paternal grandfather died at younger ages than he is now. The person he chooses as a running mate could well be president, should Mr. McCain die in office, or retire after a single term.

Most vice presidential candidates are chosen to carry a state that might otherwise go to the other party. But the balance Mr. McCain needs isn't geographical. It's ideological and chronological - and maybe temperamental. His running mate must be solidly conservative, at least 10 years younger, qualified to be president and have expertise on the economy, where Mr. McCain falls short.

Mr. McCain could choose no better than Chris Cox, 55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox), who served 17 years in the House before becoming chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Handsome, articulate, and personable, and with no skeletons rattling around in his closet, Mr. Cox is described by friends as "scary smart." He could be the vaccine for MDS.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080202/COLUMNIST14/802020328/-1/COLUMNIST

[Wild Cobra]

This article may help put McCain's so-called liberalism into perspective.


The best description of both Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney is "moderate conservative." Mr. McCain has a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 82, nearly identical to that of conservative hero Fred Thompson. Mr. McCain's rating for 2006 was just 65, but that's still substantially better than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's 8, or New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's 9.
I know he gets good ratings. However, most of the items that are most important to us conservatives, he is liberal on. So what. He scored good on the less important right/left issues. He failed in areas that count.

[jochhejaam]

I know he gets good ratings. However, most of the items that are most important to us conservatives, he is liberal on. So what. He scored good on the less important right/left issues. He failed in areas that count.
He's a politician, and with so much at stake, even though he's supposedly known as one who doesn't flip-flop on the issues, I look for him to modify to mollify.

The staunch conservative isn't going to vote for either Hillary or Obama over McCain <he's not a lock to win it just yet>, and I'm imagine his camp is aware of that.

[xrayzebra]

He's a politician, and with so much at stake, even though he's supposedly known as one who doesn't flip-flop on the issues, I look for him to modify to mollify.

The staunch conservative isn't going to vote for either Hillary or Obama over McCain <he's not a lock to win it just yet>, and I'm imagine his camp is aware of that.

Oh, he is a flip flopper alright. He was against tax cuts,
now he is for them. He was for amnesty for illegals, now
he says he wants secure borders, of course his state has
passed some of the toughest illegal immigration laws
going. Now he says we need secure borders. He has
worked with Kennedy, Feinstein, and Liberman on
some very controversial bills. Which most Conservatives
were dead set against.

As for voting for Obama or Clinton versus McCain, you
might be surprised. Many figure any of these folks are
going to screw the country up with their Liberal policies,
so why should be Republicans take the rap with
McCain's junk. Let Obama or Clinton do it and the
Democrats take the hit. Remember Carter. That is
what many are saying.

[AFBlue]

Oh, he is a flip flopper alright. He was against tax cuts,
now he is for them. He was for amnesty for illegals, now
he says he wants secure borders, of course his state has
passed some of the toughest illegal immigration laws
going. Now he says we need secure borders. He has
worked with Kennedy, Feinstein, and Liberman on
some very controversial bills. Which most Conservatives
were dead set against.

As for voting for Obama or Clinton versus McCain, you
might be surprised. Many figure any of these folks are
going to screw the country up with their Liberal policies,
so why should be Republicans take the rap with
McCain's junk. Let Obama or Clinton do it and the
Democrats take the hit. Remember Carter. That is
what many are saying.

Working with democrats and going contrary to conservatives on certain issues doesn't make him a flip-flopper. It makes you disagree with his political stances.

McCain disagreed with the tax cuts because they weren't occupied by spending cuts, but I'm sure he would vote to extend the Bush tax cuts because he would make the effort to cut spending as President.

And his policy addition (secure the borders first) was in response to the outpouring of reaction he got about giving a path to citizenship without effectively securing the borders first. Call that flip-flopping if you want, but I call it listening to the people, admitting that the bill he co-authored had holes, and vowing to address those holes in the future.

Everything else showed your clear bias to him as a moderate republican with left-leaning policies on certain issues. You have every right to feel that way, but it doesn't make him a flip-flopper.

[xrayzebra]

Working with democrats and going contrary to conservatives on certain issues doesn't make him a flip-flopper. It makes you disagree with his political stances.

McCain disagreed with the tax cuts because they weren't occupied by spending cuts, but I'm sure he would vote to extend the Bush tax cuts because he would make the effort to cut spending as President.

And his policy addition (secure the borders first) was in response to the outpouring of reaction he got about giving a path to citizenship without effectively securing the borders first. Call that flip-flopping if you want, but I call it listening to the people, admitting that the bill he co-authored had holes, and vowing to address those holes in the future.

Everything else showed your clear bias to him as a moderate republican with left-leaning policies on certain issues. You have every right to feel that way, but it doesn't make him a flip-flopper.

Of course I am bias toward him. I thought I made
that abundantly clear. I am a Conservative, he is
not, he is a Liberal, call him what he is. He is not
moderate or a Republican, and he as you state a
very much left leaning politician.

Why should I compromise my principles. Just
because he has none, doesn't mean many who are
against him doesn't.

Good gosh, the reason I put the article out to begin
with was to show how he seriously considered going
over to the Dimms. shhhsssssshhh. Some guy
with real principles.

[ChumpDumper]

Wait, you're bashing McCain as a flip-flopper and supporting that pillar of consistency Romney?

[JoeChalupa]

McCain is what a true republican is.

[AFBlue]

Wait, you're bashing McCain as a flip-flopper and supporting that pillar of consistency Romney?

Exactly...

THIS was the point I was trying to push Xray. You may not agree with McCain's philosophies, but calling him a flip-flopper while backing someone who hasn't taken a conviction-based stance in his entire career is rediculous.

[xrayzebra]

Wait, you're bashing McCain as a flip-flopper and supporting that pillar of consistency Romney?

Where did I say that? I was supporting Romney.

[xrayzebra]

Exactly...

THIS was the point I was trying to push Xray. You may not agree with McCain's philosophies, but calling him a flip-flopper while backing someone who hasn't taken a conviction-based stance in his entire career is rediculous.

You didn't say that, did you? You just said it, for the
first time.

[ChumpDumper]

Whom are you supporting?

Huckabee?

Ron Paul?

Hillary?

[T Park]

McCain is what a true republican is.

Uh no.

I never supported suppressing free speech.

[xrayzebra]

Whom are you supporting?

Huckabee?

Ron Paul?

Hillary?

Write in for Alfred Neuman, Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse
or ChumpDumper.

Will you accept if nominated?

[JoeChalupa]

So you haven't made up your mind yet? Neither have many others.

[ChumpDumper]

Write in for Alfred Neuman, Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse
or ChumpDumper.

Will you accept if nominated?
Sure. Sounds like fun.

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, you're bashing McCain as a flip-flopper and supporting that pillar of consistency Romney?
Would you stop being a Chump again?

Romney has changed his position a a few issues, and that was also under changing circumstance. So what. He has flipped. Has he flopped back?

He doesn't change his position back and forth like others do. Flip-Flop does not apply to him.

Can it, or back up the back and forth part.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you stop being a Chump again?

Romney has changed his position a a few issues, and that was also under changing circumstance. So what. He has flipped. Has he flopped back?

He doesn't change his position back and forth like others do. Flip-Flop does not apply to him.

Can it, or back up the back and forth part.:lmao

I guess Mitt is your boy since you just shit your pants at the slightest criticism of him.

He'll say and pay whatever it takes to get elected.

Quit your crying.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, the man can't even stick to one favorite novel.

Battlefield Earth ring a bell?
He doesn't change his position back and forth like others do. Flip-Flop does not apply to him. So you are saying he was just for these issues like gay rights and abortion before he was against them.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

I guess Mitt is your boy since you just shit your pants at the slightest criticism of him.

He'll say and pay whatever it takes to get elected.

Quit your crying.
Yes I like him.

Can you address what I said? Can you show him to have Flip-Flopped, rather than a few single flips?

I didn't think so.

Put up or shut up.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Hey if you're comfortable with a guy whose positions on important issues depend solely on what office he is running for and the voters in each election, that's fine.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Hey if you're comfortable with a guy whose positions on important issues depend solely on what office he is running for and the voters in each election, that's fine.
What's wrong? Can you not answer a simple question?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Did I even claim that Romney flip flopped at all?

The answer to that simple question is no, douchebag.

Your dumb ass simply inferred incorrectly.

He flips -- over even the most trivial things. He can't be counted upon to maintain any position. Somehow you find that desirable in a candidate, eh?

Why don't I see Battlefield Earth listed on his website as one of his favorite books?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Paul is who I'd like to see, but he doesn't have a chance in hell because he's not who the establishment wants to see in there *sigh*.

At this point my major concern is that it's anyone but Hillary.

[Holt's Cat]

Romney feigned interest in pro-choice and gay marriage rights in Massachusetts. McCain authored at least 2 major pieces of legislation which were diametrically opposed to conservative GOP positions as a US senator, not to mention he voted against the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

That said, McCain has the only winning general election formula for a GOP candidate if he faces Clinton with his appeal to independent and moderate voters.

[xrayzebra]

Romney feigned interest in pro-choice and gay marriage rights in Massachusetts. McCain authored at least 2 major pieces of legislation which were diametrically opposed to conservative GOP positions as a US senator, not to mention he voted against the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

That said, McCain has the only winning general election formula for a GOP candidate if he faces Clinton with his appeal to independent and moderate voters.

Yeah but HC, it is going to be like holding your nose and
voting for a dimm when you vote for McCain.

[AFBlue]

Yeah but HC, it is going to be like holding your nose and
voting for a dimm when you vote for McCain.

I just don't see that...

Based on everything I've seen, McCain is for small government and would use the majority of the federal budget on national defense, which he views as the top responsibility bestowed upon the government by its people.

There won't be a rash of government-funded social programs or an increase in the size of government under McCain I do not believe.

Sure, McCain has voted contrary to conservative thought on some issues, but he's not going to continue to spend this country into oblivion. That's my main concern with the democratic candidate, who will most likely have a rash of social programs they'll look to bolster and at least one they'll look to invent (universal healthcare).

Bottom Line: There are some VERY distinct differences between McCain and either of the democratic candidates vying for the nomination....especially on the role and size of government.

[boutons_]

"role and size of govt" is and has been a priority of the Repugs for 30+ years.

Reagan did fuck all about the size of govt while running up the deficit 3x. He fired a bunch air-traffic controllers and did a lot of union-busting as demanded by the corps, but he didn't even scratch the govt dragon.

dubya did fuck all about the size of govt while making sure the govt privatized many functions into the no-bid/cost-plus grubby hands of his cronies. dubya also made sure that he politicized and fucked up every bit of govt professionalism he could find.

Execs will come and go, but the govts under the Execs have been repeatedly proven to be effectively unassailable.

I think the best an Exec can hope for is to increase efficiency of the govt, not reduce its size or complexity.

And then there is the rapacious, untouchable, gluttonously wasteful military budget financing high-tech, junk toys to go fight asymmetrically with ragheads sporting AK47s and RPGs.

"Semper Fi" is short for "Semper Fiscalis". :lol

[PEP]

"role and size of govt" is and has been a priority of the Repugs for 30+ years.

Reagan did fuck all about the size of govt while running up the deficit 3x. He fired a bunch air-traffic controllers and did a lot of union-busting as demanded by the corps, but he didn't even scratch the govt dragon.

dubya did fuck all about the size of govt while making sure the govt privatized many functions into the no-bid/cost-plus grubby hands of his cronies. dubya also made sure that he politicized and fucked up every bit of govt professionalism he could find.

Execs will come and go, but the govts under the Execs have been repeatedly proven to be effectively unassailable.

I think the best an Exec can hope for is to increase efficiency of the govt, not reduce its size or complexity.

And then there is the rapacious, untouchable, gluttonously wasteful military budget financing high-tech, junk toys to go fight asymmetrically with ragheads sporting AK47s and RPGs.

"Semper Fi" is short for "Semper Fiscalis". :lol
I love it when the Dims spout off at how horrible Reagan was. I guess they seem to forget how he won both of his elections by huge margins, THE HORROR, THE HORROR!!! Clinton couldnt even get a majority of 50% of the country to vote for him.

[boutons_]

Getting elected president by any margin is totally different from performing the job of President. Getting elected is mostly a superficial beauty contest (dubya is ugly). Reag was Hollywood guy who hit his marks and learned his lines, and had a great voice. Running the Exec is supposedly a little more difficult.

And using Reagan's election margins as indicative of something positive about his actual performance invites us to point out dubya lost the 2000 election by 600K votes and winning as bogus "war president" in 2004 with the smallest winning incumbent margin, combined with his disastrous, totally fucked up performane in office. So what do dubya's margins telll us about dubya's performance in office?

[PEP]

Who said I was happy with Dubya's performance? He''s too much of a Boufon type leader.

[Holt's Cat]

To the extent that McCain is a "maverick" for chastening fellow Republican senators about earmarks and corporate welfare, that's a good thing. The problem lies in that his major legislative efforts amount to conservative apostasy (ie McCain-Feingold & McCain-Kennedy).

I forget, but I guess he voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Puffing up his chest about earmarks amounting to a few billon per year while having no qualms about another half trillion+ addition to an entitlement program is a bit rich.

Anyways, should Clinton win the Demo nomination then most Republican conservatives will find Jesus and support McCain in the general. McCain's campaign is built first and foremost on his bio, specifically his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton. Next it is built on the War on Terror and like it or not, there hasn't been a follow up attack to 9-11 on American soil. Third, he is making Iraq about victory or defeat. While the war is unpopular, defeat is even moreso for a majority of Americans. Clinton has high negatives and her changing stances on Iraq make her rather vulnerable.

Obama, however, can take out McCain. He's been clearly against the war and people like him. Plus his candidacy is just as appealing to independents and moderates, if not moreso.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

There won't be a rash of government-funded social programs or an increase in the size of government under McCain I do not believe.

So, giving all the illegals amnesty (and hence adding them to the tab for Medicare and SS) won't add to our social program liability?

[boutons_]

"there hasn't been a follow up attack to 9-11 on American soil."

If McCain is implicated in post-9/11 attacklessness, then he's implicated in pre-9/11 dereliction of duty.

"defeat is even moreso for a majority of Americans"

Most Americans, the overwhelming majority against the war and dubya now, do not simplistically consider the Iraq war as representing AMERICA's defeat, or even the defeat of the under-manned/equipped military, but only a defeat for dubya/dickhead/neo-cunts/supporters and the incompetent, ideological motherfuckers they installed to run Iraq.

For the millionth time,
dubya/dickhead/neo-cunts/supporters .DOES.NOT.EQUAL. USA

[Holt's Cat]

"there hasn't been a follow up attack to 9-11 on American soil."

If McCain is implicated in post-9/11 attacklessness, then he's implicated in pre-9/11 dereliction of duty.

Perhaps for the lunatic fringe. The sane won't care.





"defeat is even moreso for a majority of Americans"

Most Americans, the overwhelming majority against the war and dubya now, do not simplistically consider the Iraq war as representing AMERICA's defeat, or even the defeat of the under-manned/equipped military, but only a defeat for dubya/dickhead/neo-cunts/supporters and the incompetent, ideological motherfuckers they installed to run Iraq.


Like it or not it won't be hard to paint a withdrawal as a cut and run. Americans love a winner and as much as they hate this war, they hate the thought of losing even more.



For the millionth time,
dubya/dickhead/neo-cunts/supporters .DOES.NOT.EQUAL. USA

And for the trillionth time, your reality is shared by a few. Also, don't be surprised if the US is still in Iraq in 4 years even if a Demo is elected this time around.

[AFBlue]

So, giving all the illegals amnesty (and hence adding them to the tab for Medicare and SS) won't add to our social program liability?

Here's what I don't understand about the anti-path-to-citizenship position....

Why the hell would any illegal immigrant give him/herself up when the result will be the same as if they get caught while hiding out?

Huckabee's shtick about people "holding their heads high" means fuckall when you're talking about providing for your family.

I have a hard time believing any plan to deal with illegal immigration that results ultimately in the deportation of said illegals is going to be successful. There has to be something in it for them.

Finally, your point has one fundamental flaw. If they're given a path to citizenship then they pay the same taxes as everyone else that support the medicare/ss programs they become a part of. It's theoretically not a net loss.

[rascal]

Yeah but HC, it is going to be like holding your nose and
voting for a dimm when you vote for McCain.

Stop complaining. Then don't vote if its that bad.

[rascal]

To the extent that McCain is a "maverick" for chastening fellow Republican senators about earmarks and corporate welfare, that's a good thing. The problem lies in that his major legislative efforts amount to conservative apostasy (ie McCain-Feingold & McCain-Kennedy).

I forget, but I guess he voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Puffing up his chest about earmarks amounting to a few billon per year while having no qualms about another half trillion+ addition to an entitlement program is a bit rich.

Anyways, should Clinton win the Demo nomination then most Republican conservatives will find Jesus and support McCain in the general. McCain's campaign is built first and foremost on his bio, specifically his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton. Next it is built on the War on Terror and like it or not, there hasn't been a follow up attack to 9-11 on American soil. Third, he is making Iraq about victory or defeat. While the war is unpopular, defeat is even moreso for a majority of Americans. Clinton has high negatives and her changing stances on Iraq make her rather vulnerable.

Obama, however, can take out McCain. He's been clearly against the war and people like him. Plus his candidacy is just as appealing to independents and moderates, if not moreso.

THE WAR ON TERROR. You still spinning that slogan? The Terror is there because of the US occupation. "Yankee go home" because the US invasion is responsible for the anti american scare tactic attacks on civilians in Iraq. How many suicide bombings were happening before the US invaded Iraq?

You spin 9-11 then why did the US still not get Bin Laden who was behind 9-11? Maybe 9-11 is not so important after all. You mean to tell me the mighty US still can't capture Bin Laden after all these years?

9-11 was an isolated incident carried out by a small group. Iraq or the US being in Iraq has nothing to do with no incidents on american soil since 9-11.

[Holt's Cat]

THE WAR ON TERROR. You still spinning that slogan?

No, but McCain is.



The Terror is there because of the US occupation. "Yankee go home" because the US invasion is responsible for the anti american scare tactic attacks on civilians in Iraq. How many suicide bombings were happening before the US invaded Iraq?

You spin 9-11 then why did the US still not get Bin Laden who was behind 9-11? Maybe 9-11 is not so important after all. You mean to tell me the mighty US still can't capture Bin Laden after all these years?


Again, not spinning, but that's what McCain is saying and it's not an easily dismissed message. Who wants to tell the American people that they are going to lose in an election year? McCain is playing up the surge and so far, in the public eye, it's working.



9-11 was an isolated incident carried out by a small group. Iraq or the US being in Iraq has nothing to do with no incidents on american soil since 9-11.

Doesn't matter. The public doesn't want to vote for a defeat. McCain is making his campaign about victory, be it in Iraq or in the greater 'War on Terror.'

[xrayzebra]

THE WAR ON TERROR. You still spinning that slogan? The Terror is there because of the US occupation. "Yankee go home" because the US invasion is responsible for the anti american scare tactic attacks on civilians in Iraq. How many suicide bombings were happening before the US invaded Iraq?

You spin 9-11 then why did the US still not get Bin Laden who was behind 9-11? Maybe 9-11 is not so important after all. You mean to tell me the mighty US still can't capture Bin Laden after all these years?

9-11 was an isolated incident carried out by a small group. Iraq or the US being in Iraq has nothing to do with no incidents on american soil since 9-11.


You silly, silly, person. If you had a brain you would
take it out and play with it.

It would be absolutely impossible to answer you questions.
Why? Because we might use words you would have
a hard time understanding.

What a twerp!