McCain and the Conservatives

[Rich]

So what's the plan?

[Universe Prince]

UP McCain just named RON PAUL his VP

I find extremely difficult to believe McCain would ever do such a thing. But let's take the hypothetical. What would I do? Wait to hear why Paul would accept being McCain's running mate. If I liked it enough, there is a remote possibility I would vote for the ticket. However, more likely I'd still not vote for McCain. Because if he won, McCain would still be president.

[Universe Prince]

In broad strokes, right now, fight at the local levels and promote awareness. Possibly also to look for ways to try the civil disobedience idea. One step at a time. Or perhaps more appropriate, the old joke: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time."

[Xavier_Onassis]

However, more likely I'd still not vote for McCain. Because if he won, McCain would still be president.

========================================
A very, very OLD president, who has yet to release his health records, so I hear.

[sirs]

Ahh, so now we shouldn't vote for him because "he's old and might die sometime"?  Should I pull out all the sudden deaths of young people, including perfectly fit athletes, who had underlying medical issues they never knew about??

News flash Xo, age, unless they're using a walker, hooked up to an IV, and with memory issues, are the LAST reason for anyone not to vote for the guy you don't like.  Stick with what's actually valid.....perhaps his positions on immigration, or on taxes, or on the size & scope of Government

[Xavier_Onassis]

Ahh, so now we shouldn't vote for him because "he's old and might die sometime"?  Should I pull out all the sudden deaths of young people, including perfectly fit athletes, who had underlying medical issues they never knew about??

News flash Xo, age, unless they're using a walker, hooked up to an IV, and with memory issues, are the LAST reason for anyone not to vote for the guy you don't like.  Stick with what's actually valid.....perhaps his positions on immigration, or on taxes, or on the size & scope of Government.

=================================================
You have totally missed my point.

It was suggested to UP that McCain might name Ron Paul his VP.

UP suggested that McCain would still be president, so this would not be so big a deal.

But  THEN I suggested that McCain was ancient of days, which implies that he just might not live so long, and then Ron Paul would be the first quasi-Libertarian President in history, thereby filling UP with glee (I am assuming).

============================
I see McCain as more war. I see the GOP as an assortment of clowns who gave us the awful Juniorbush and the (dare I say it?) ghastly Cheney, thereby deserving of harsh treatment and many lashings about the head and shoulders.

I can't see myself voting for either McCain the Warmonger or the GOP.

[sirs]

Ahh, so now we shouldn't vote for him because "he's old and might die sometime"?  Should I pull out all the sudden deaths of young people, including perfectly fit athletes, who had underlying medical issues they never knew about??

News flash Xo, age, unless they're using a walker, hooked up to an IV, and with memory issues, are the LAST reason for anyone not to vote for the guy you don't like. 

It was suggested to UP that McCain might name Ron Paul his VP.  UP suggested that McCain would still be president, so this would not be so big a deal.  But  THEN I suggested that McCain was ancient of days, which implies that he just might not live so long, and then Ron Paul would be the first quasi-Libertarian President in history, thereby filling UP with glee (I am assuming).

Because.......he might die?  So could Obama, so could Hillary.  Congenital defect in the heart, perhaps a ruptured Aortic aneurism.  But if your point was to "make a joke".....your punch line was far too long, I'm afraid

[BT]

If Sirs stays home and a Democrat wins, then Richie's cunning ploy of  voting for Hillary will have been in vain.

Careful reading shows that Sirs will vote for McCain.

UP is a libertarian, my guess is he will vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Rich's ploy to vote for Hillary will be in in only if she wins the nomination. And that depends on the number of corpses left on the side of the road in her wake.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The liberal wing of the Republican Party is good at raising money and using hired campaign workers, but it hasn't any real party building strength.

===========================================================
The Republican Party doesn't have a liberal wing, and hasn't had one for decades, unless you count Sen. Olympia Snow.
Nelson Rockefeller, Lowell Weicker. they were liberal Republicans.

[fatman]

Here's my reasoning for voting for McCain, as of now.  It's still early yet, and these may change.

1)  The Senate will almost certainly have a Democrat majority, as will the House.  I do not like and never have liked the idea of one party in control of both.  I think that a lot of Bush's missteps, especially in regard to Iraq, had a lot to do with poor Congressional oversight.  Yes, some Republicans disagreed with him on some issues, but there is a reason that he didn't veto anything until 6 years into his term, when there was suddenly a Democratic Congress.  A President unchecked is a bad thing, whether it's Republican or Democrat.

2)  I like the idea of having someone who actually served in the military running the country while we're in Iraq.  I don't care about the rank, just someone who has had the experience.  Combat experience is a plus.  Perhaps it's just me, but I trust someone who has been to war when they talk about war more than someone who took deferments and flew planes once in awhile in the National Guard.  McCain might keep us in Iraq, but I'm hoping that the situation will be managed a lot better than it has been in the past (though I think that a lot of that lies more with Rumsfeld than with Bush).

3)  McCain is not popular with the NeoCons.  That's a plus in my book.  The old fashioned conservatives I can live with, as we have some beliefs in common, but the NeoCons are another matter.  Perhaps Colin Powell would come back to the government.

4) He's old.  He has nothing to lose, and can do as he wants, within reason, as he'll theoretically be constrained by a Dem Congress.  He won't have to pander to the fringe of the Republican party.  I tend to think that he'll be more bipartisan and may have more of a willingness to work with the Congress than Bush has, perhaps this is because Bush was a governor and McCain a Senator, I don't know.

I will be far more interested in either candidate when the primary season is over and they both begin to pander to the center.  Right now they're just preaching to the choirs, it'll be interesting when they have to preach to the populace.

I've said before, and I'll reiterate, if Richardson becomes a VP nominee I will probably vote for that ticket, even if Hillary is the headliner.  I do think that if Obama wins the nomination, and picks Richardson as a VP, that it'll all be over.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Nothing useful ever happens when the President and the Congress are of different parties. They cancel each other out, now even more than ever, since they are so polarized.

If we have another deadlock, the war will drag on forever, there will be no health care, no bill on immigration, no Social Security reform, no anything, except lower taxes to please the GOP and more services to please the Democrats.


McCain is the dying breath of Vietnam and its aftermath, a godawful mess that should have expired long, long ago. Insead they found a rhyme for it in Iraq.

The GOP clearly has no ideas, no plan, they have run out of steam. After the mess Juniorbush caused, they don't DESERVE to be elected, none of them I can think of. Some of the Democrats are lame as well, but jeez we need solutions, not more gridlock.

[Universe Prince]

Nothing useful ever happens when the President and the Congress are of different parties. They cancel each other out, now even more than ever, since they are so polarized.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Universe Prince]

I like the idea of having someone who actually served in the military running the country while we're in Iraq.  I don't care about the rank, just someone who has had the experience.  Combat experience is a plus.  Perhaps it's just me, but I trust someone who has been to war when they talk about war more than someone who took deferments and flew planes once in awhile in the National Guard.  McCain might keep us in Iraq, but I'm hoping that the situation will be managed a lot better than it has been in the past (though I think that a lot of that lies more with Rumsfeld than with Bush).

That is a reasonable point, and I'd agree if I thought McCain would be reasonable about the war, but I honestly do not get that impression from his speeches. He seems a very "Us v. Them" sort of guy. While he might question mistakes made in prosecuting a war, he seems uninterested in avoiding war. He may not be someone who wants to go to war, but I don't see anything that indicates he would try to avoid military conflict. To put this another way, while he might consider choices in a war to be a mistake, he seems not to consider that going to war in the first place might be a mistake. It's not getting into a fight that is a mistake, just losing the fight. That is what I perceive to be John McCain's attitude. And for that reason, among others, I am uncomfortable trusting McCain to be the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief Executive of the country.

[BT]

While he might question mistakes made in prosecuting a war, he seems uninterested in avoiding war. He may not be someone who wants to go to war, but I don't see anything that indicates he would try to avoid military conflict.

I'll have to disagree with you here.

If anything McCain has shown a willingness to compromise, to reach out across the aisle, to go his own way, bucking his own party. At least legislatively, he has shown that tendency. Why would that not follow in foreign affairs and international crisis?

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Nothing useful ever happens when the President and the Congress are of different parties"

Didn't we get Welfare Reform under Clinton & a Republican Congress?