McCain- GOP's Last man standing?

[88Comrade2000]

Mccain: GOP's Last Man Standing

Good column by Robert Novak. Mccain is hardly perfect but out of a flawed field, I personally think he's the best candidate for the Republicans to field against Hillary or Obama.

[JMS]

Mccain: GOP's Last Man Standing

Good column by Robert Novak. Mccain is hardly perfect but out of a flawed field, I personally think he's the best candidate for the Republicans to field against Hillary or Obama.

John McCain is fatally flawed as a candidate. Two problems..

(1) He's been holding hands with Geogre Bush for the last four years and that association with a president at 30% approval has crushed his once sterling credibility.

(2) His "anti" torture bill actually legalized torture, tried to remove the courts from hearing detainee petitions, and attempted to re-interpret/change the Geneva convention. Basically everything John McCain said he was trying to stop while rallying the country to his cause. When the Democrates point this out McCain will be shown to be exactly what he's become. A shadow of his former self, and a pretty slimey guy, who traded on the trust the nation placed in him for his own political advancement.

Having said that I disagree with the column. I think the GOP is wide open with four viable candiates.

• Guliani(leads nationally but not in the early primaries),
  
• Romney( leads money, and New Hamphsire),
  
• Huckabee( leeds Iowa)
  
• McCain ( strong across the board but leads no where ).
  

The GOP might decide this in there convention for the first time since the 1920's and 1930's.

[Sarge]

Actually, he held hands with Ted Kennedy on immigration as well. Just another Dem in Republican clothing.

If he gets the nomination, it'll only be because the others running are so ..........blah

[The_cavalierman]

McCain is the ONLY republi-cant I would vote for or feel comfortable with as POTUS.

The rest of the GOP field sucks @ss.

[Teller]

The rest of the GOP field sucks @ss.

Ah yes, the in-depth analysis you can only get on ES. :laugh:

[Prosperity]

The rest of the GOP candidates do suck ass but that is to be expected when the GOP candidate is pretty much guaranteed to lose in the next election. Doesn't really matter who they run, anyway.

McCain is close to senile

Huckabee is a lunatic

Giuliani is evil

Romney? :laugh:

None of them have charm or intelligence on the level of Obama and none are as well polished as Clinton.

The Democrats' Year

http://economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10230233&top_story=1

It is a golden rule of American politics that every election season brings at least one big surprise. Nevertheless it looks highly likely that this will be the Democrats’ year. The Republican Party is in serious disarray—unpopular with the electorate, plagued by scandals, tarnished by incompetence and unsure which way it is heading. Five years ago America was evenly divided by party identification: 43% for each party. By 2007 the arithmetic had evolved to give the Democrats an advantage of 50% to 35%. By October 2007 Democratic presidential candidates had raised about 70% more money than their Republican rivals. Ohio, Virginia and Colorado are all leaning Democratic—Ohio, which tipped the election for George Bush in 2004, decidedly so. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will most likely end up in the White House.

The battle for control of Capitol Hill will be even more one-sided than the battle for the White House. The Democrats will comfortably maintain a working majority in the House of Representatives: polls show the public prefer Democratic candidates for the House by 7-12 percentage points. The Democrats will also expand their majority in the Senate from what has been a measly margin (provided by two independents who normally vote with them).

[JMS]

McCain is the ONLY republi-cant I would vote for or feel comfortable with as POTUS.

The rest of the GOP field sucks @ss.

McCain has always been weak in the GOP, ever since George trashed him in the 2000 presidencial election. McCain's only claim to relivency was he appealed to moderates and middle of the road Republicans who have become more and more alienated by their already conservative party's sharp turn to the right.

McCain's support by these moderates is what disappeared over the last four years as John climed into George's front trouser pocket. The return of moderate support is what is floating latest presidential hopes. Only that support will evaporate again once the Dems show what he's been up to over the last few years.

• He's wrong on immigration. ( against the vast majority in the country. )
  
• He's wrong on the torture bill. ( against the majority but worse betrayed what he identified as his own core moral cause )
  
• He's wrong on the war.
  
• He's wrong on Taxes.
  
• He's wrong international treaties.
  
• He's wrong on relations with Mexico.
  

Again, wrong is subjective in many cases. But for the purposes of this discussion wrong is defined as the opinion opposed to the majority.

[JMS]

The rest of the GOP candidates do suck ass but that is to be expected when the GOP candidate is pretty much guaranteed to lose in the next election. Doesn't really matter who they run, anyway.

McCain is close to senile

Huckabee is a lunatic

Giuliani is evil

Romney? :laugh:

None of them have charm or intelligence on the level of Obama and none are as well polished as Clinton.

The Democrats' Year

http://economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10230233&top_story=1

I disagree here too.

Obama is less experienced by orders of magnatude than any of the republcian candidates, as is Hillary. But at least Obama has put this forward as a strength. Hillary is just trying to claim experience she doesn't possess.

"polished"?.... She reads every answer from a card and never speaks without a handler feeding her lines. She doesn't give interviews except to friendly journalists ( ala Bush), and she has been caught lieing to the press on several occassions which brings up Clinton fatigue from eight years ago.

Releasing her husbands Presidencial papers is out of her control..:doh:

Nobody claim's Hillary is polished except you. What folks claim about hillary is she is disiplined. Disiplined can also be seen as heartless, it's definitely boring to watch. Hillary's candidacy is being packaged as enevitable. Well enevitable isn't what sells in a country looking for a change of pace. Even the GOP candidates like Huckabee are being more sucessful labeling themselves as change than Hillary.

I think all of the GOP candidates have connnected with their constituents more than Hillary's "disiplined" strategy has allowed her to. Hillary isn't even concerned with connecting. Her biggest concern is to not make mistakes. I don't think trying not to loose is a strategy which will win in 2008.

[Teller]

The rest of the GOP candidates do suck ass but that is to be expected when the GOP candidate is pretty much guaranteed to lose in the next election. Doesn't really matter who they run, anyway.

:laugh:

Keep believing that. Too bad that whole war thing is getting better isn't it? Too bad we'll probably have two more interest rate cuts before November, and nearly a year for the ones we've already had to work.

I like the GOPs chances if the war continues improving, the economy improves, and Clinton gets the nomination. I like our chances a lot.

[Sarge]

[The 12th Commandment]

McCain is the ONLY republi-cant I would vote for or feel comfortable with as POTUS.

The rest of the GOP field sucks @ss.

Agreed. He is in fact the only candidate I trust from either party to do what he thinks is RIGHT and not what's convenient. I disagree with many of his policies but he's a straight arrow and that's more important to me in the end.

[Prosperity]

:laugh:

Keep believing that. Too bad that whole war thing is getting better isn't it? Too bad we'll probably have two more interest rate cuts before November, and nearly a year for the ones we've already had to work.

I like the GOPs chances if the war continues improving, the economy improves, and Clinton gets the nomination. I like our chances a lot.

The war improving doesn't hurt the democrats, it will shift the issue to health care and other domestic issues. The GOP's strength on domestic issues include... gay marriage? flag burning? who even knows anymore.

If you want to make a bet I'd take it. Name the stakes.

[JMS]

Agreed. He is in fact the only candidate I trust from either party to do what he thinks is RIGHT and not what's convenient. I disagree with many of his policies but he's a straight arrow and that's more important to me in the end.

:doh: You are exactly the kind of voter who will get McCain the nomination. And exactly the kind of voter who will abandon McCain when he's exposed for the two faced slimeball he actually has been over the last four years.

[The 12th Commandment]

:doh: You are exactly the kind of voter who will get McCain the nomination. And exactly the kind of voter who will abandon McCain when he's exposed for the two faced slimeball he actually has been over the last four years.

Well you're wrong at least once in this commentary. I won't be voting in the Republican primaries.

[chipwhich]

The rest of the GOP candidates do suck ass but that is to be expected when the GOP candidate is pretty much guaranteed to lose in the next election. Doesn't really matter who they run, anyway.

I am amused at dems who think they can put up any opponent this election and walk with it. If you think hillary or obama would be a lock if nominated, you will be sadly disappointed come election day.

[Teller]

The war improving doesn't hurt the democrats, it will shift the issue to health care and other domestic issues. The GOP's strength on domestic issues include... gay marriage? flag burning? who even knows anymore.

If you want to make a bet I'd take it. Name the stakes.

Since I specifically said "...and Clinton gets the nomination," why don't we wait till then. I'll grant you, it's early, and things can certainly swing drastically either way. (Course, whether you want to admit it or not, the change of course, break from the status quo and success of the surge IS a pretty drastic swing. So much wind has been taken out of that sail, that that ship is dead in the water. But hey, they're democrats, right? Party is more important than the fact that things are getting better on the ground for American troops. That's very, very sad.)

Meanwhile, the True Do Nothing Congress hasn't passed a budget, broke their five-day work week promise, and has accomplished essentially nothing. You can't tell me that things are as good for the dems as they were even six months ago. Honestly, I had written this election off too; largely based on a failing war effort and the "promise" of the new democrat-controlled Congress.

Needless to say, I've been VERY pleasantly surprised on both fronts of late.

[Prosperity]

No I won't be. And I never said anyone (Gore or Kerry would certainly be bad ideas for the Dems)...but Obama and Clinton would beat ANY Republican candidate. I can say that with as much certainty as anyone can claim in our ****ed up electoral system. Yeah elections are not completely predictable but almost every factor that we can consider is helping the democratic candidates.

[JMS]

:laugh:

Keep believing that. Too bad that whole war thing is getting better isn't it?

Bush's deputy defense secretary told us the war would likely cost 10 billion dollars. He was off by two orders of magnatude doubled.....

If you think it's a feather in Bush's cap that he looks like he is on the path to defeating Saddam and winning Iraq in more time than it took FDR to defeat both Hitler and Hirohito simultaniously I think you're confused. Remember FDR started with a military about the size of Belguim Bush started with the most expensive technological force in the history of the planet.

The only thing that makes Bush's recent achivements look good is his previous utter incompetence and failure.

The things that make the GOP candidates chances look promising are

#1 They are all running from Bush's record. ( Note Huckabee last week)

#2 They all look more competent than the Democratic candiates so far.

[Prosperity]

Since I specifically said "...and Clinton gets the nomination," why don't we wait till then. I'll grant you, it's early, and things can certainly swing drastically either way. (Course, whether you want to admit it or not, the change of course, break from the status quo and success of the surge IS a pretty drastic swing. So much wind has been taken out of that sail, that that ship is dead in the water. But hey, they're democrats, right? Party is more important than the fact that things are getting better on the ground for American troops. That's very, very sad.)

Meanwhile, the True Do Nothing Congress hasn't passed a budget, broke their five-day work week promise, and has accomplished essentially nothing. You can't tell me that things are as good for the dems as they were even six months ago. Honestly, I had written this election off too; largely based on a failing war effort and the "promise" of the new democrat-controlled Congress.

Needless to say, I've been VERY pleasantly surprised on both fronts of late.

The number of people who hate Clinton FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON is smaller than you think and shrinking. Just because a lot of people (you Sarge, etc.) REALLY hate her doesn't mean that she is going to have a tough time. I mean, seriously the Hillary haters were never people that were going to vote Dem anyway.

I am shocked that you optimistic actually. I mean the economy is not getting better, the war is, but that was an issue that could only hurt Republicans.

Hillary is more of a sure shot than Obama, mostly because I don't think any Southern state is prepared to vote for a northern black liberal.

[Teller]

If you think it's a feather in Bush's cap that he looks like he is on the path to defeating Saddam and winning Iraq in more time than it took FDR to defeat both Hitler and Hirohito simultaniously I think you're confused. Remember FDR started with a military about the size of Belguim Bush started with the most expensive technological force in the history of the planet.

Kindly show me where I said ANYTHING of the sort. Please quote me and provide the link.

There's a reason the left can't debate honestly, and that too gives me confidence.

[JMS]

I am amused at dems who think they can put up any opponent this election and walk with it. If you think hillary or obama would be a lock if nominated, you will be sadly disappointed come election day.

I agree with that..

[JMS]

Kindly show me where I said ANYTHING of the sort.

Please quote me and provide the link.

Quote:

Keep believing that. Too bad that whole war thing is getting better isn't it?

link.

#9

There's a reason the left can't debate honestly, and that too gives me confidence.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your claim that the recent positive news coming out of Iraq works in the favor of the GOP and George Bush. I'm glad to hear you backing away from that ludicrous moronic claim, which it seems I falsely attributed to you.

Please in the future do not mistake my honest mininterpreting your reasoning with chicanery. That was not my intent.

[Mickalino]

McCain is close to senile

Evidenced by what, exactly ?

I mean, besides the obvious irrelevancy of his age.

[JMS]

Evidenced by what, exactly ?

I mean, besides the obvious irrelevancy of his age.

Well the flip flop on what he identified as his core moral issue would be one clue.. Torture..

Also McCain at 72 born August of 1936, if he was to win the nomination would be the oldest first term President ever to take the oath of office...

(Reagan took his second oath at age 74 )

[Mickalino]

Well the flip flop on what he identified as his core moral issue would be one clue.. Torture..

Also McCain at 72 born August of 1936, if he was to win the nomination would be the oldest first term President ever to take the oath of office...

(Reagan took his second oath at age 74 )

Flip-flopping is a common trait of politicians, it doesn't make them senile, and neither does age.....there are a LOT of people in their 80's that are sharper than some 60 year olds. When you say that, you are actually stereotyping.