Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
McCain takes SC (update)
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, January 19, 2008

Some consider it a mild upset, others seem to think it was McCain's to lose. Regardless, it is John McCain's night in South Carolina.

The news organizations finally called it at about 9:20pm with 82% of the vote in (that's how close it remained for the entire evening).

As I write this, 97% of the vote is in and Fred Thompson holds a slight 16% to 15% lead over Mitt Romney for third place.

Thompson gave a short speech tonight which seemed to leave many of the pundits on Fox and MSNBC scratching their heads and wondering what it was all about. He ended it by saying he was going to TN to see his mother who was in the hospital. He thanked all of his campaign workers, etc. during the speech and it sounded like a speech about dropping out of the race without actually saying it.

In my opinion there's really no mystery about the speech. He's going to go to TN for a day or so to make a decision. If it is to drop out of the race, he's said his good byes. If not, he'll see them all in FL. If he goes to FL, however, it will be his last stand.

As Michael Barone said tonight, this was a tale of two counties. Greenville county and Charleston county. Charleston county went heavily for McCain in 2000 and did so again tonight (41% to 18% over Huckabee). That meant to have a chance, Huckabee had to have the same sort of showing against McCain in Greenville county which gave George W. Bush a 20 point margin of victory over McCain in 2000. That didn't happen for Huckabee who eeked out a 28.5% to 26% victory there.

Again, McCain's victory was mostly to be found among independents. 79% of voters were Republican and McCain and Huckabee split their vote 30% to 30%. 19% of the total were independents and it was there the primary was won. McCain took them 39% to 22% for Huckabee.

So did Thompson's stronger run have an effect? I think so.

Evangelicals made up 58% of the voters. Huckabee took 41%. McCain took 27%. Romney 11%. But Fred pulled 14% and I'd guess many of those might have been potential Huckabee voters. And, as mentioned, Huckabee and McCain split the Republican vote while Fred took 16% of them. Again, with McCain's strength being mostly with independents and moderate Republicans, Thompson most likely took most of that 16% from Huckabee.

While this is a good win for McCain, it may mark the crest of the Huckabee run for the White House. This was a pretty ideal state for him, given the constituency heavy with evangelicals and the time he had to work the state. Flordia isn't at all that sort of a situation and he on Super Tuesday he's at a disadvantage, especially in states such as CA, NY, NJ and IL.

It'll be interesting to see how he adjusts to that reality and the momentum the McCain campaign now takes into the future primaries.

UPDATE: And for the McCainiacs out there, I'd still like an explanation for this McCain quote before we go on:
"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgment of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
Fair warning to those of you starting to warm up to this guy.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’ve been pretty bad on predictions over these primaries lately, but it seems to me it’s really likely to be McCain for the GOP now. I just don’t think Guiliani’s strategy has a chance, and Huckabee needed this one to show he could be that candidate always wrongly underestimated. Thompson is all but out, and Romney...well, he has a chance, but I think the New Hampshire/South Carolina double punch puts McCain in the drivers seat. McCain vs. Clinton: advantage McCain. McCain vs. Obama: fascinating. I think any of the two Democrats would be likely to defeat Romney, I just don’t see him as a strong candidate (in terms of effective campaigning).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Yep, I prefer a corrupt bought government that counts the voice of it’s constituency with a cash register.

Who are you kidding, I have yet to see a pol step away from something they want to do because the Constitution prohibits, the Constitution is used like the Bible, it’s literal when it says something you like, and it’s allegorical when it doesn’t.

I don’t care what they do with campaign finance, it won’t work anyway, but I would like to see a return to electors, actual decision making citizens, chosen by citizens of a state who exercise their votes for President on behalf of the constituents that elected them.

For the Senate, a return to election by State Legislatures, and for Congress, straight popular vote as it is.







 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
For McCainiacs: From Mark Levin
"The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety."

That said, Huckabee is a fraud. A Cuckoo conservative that takes the larger portion of the food from the original inhabitant of the nest. Huckabee hurts Thompson, not the other way around.
My take on Thompson’s defeat:
If you wanted a conservative, why do you have to be convinced? Just vote for the CONSERVATIVE. Who cares about the "campaign?"

The Reagan Revolution is dead. Long live the liberals. When you get a liberal president, don’t blame the Fred Heads.

Fred Thompson misjudged the electorate. He listened to the GOP and thought that there was support for him. His qualities match EVERY SINGLE THING we’ve asked for in the last 20 years. And you turned it down. Because you couldn’t get excited....

Small government? Federalism? Repeal McCain-Feingold? Immigration? 2nd Amendment?
Abortion? Non-activist judges? AND fighting the GWOT?

What if......

Too late now. Should’ve voted for the conservative when you had the chance.
 
Written By: Cargosquid
URL: http://unitedconservatives.blogspot.com/
Senator Clinton’s appeal erodes with exposure. I lived in Western New York during both of her Senate campaigns, listened to her over-promise and watched her under-perform. Had she been running against Rudy, he would be a senator and she would be divorced and writing a tell all book about Bill and Monica. Of course, none of her failures were her fault.

Unlike former President Clinton, she comes across as phony and scripted, probably because she is! Hillary is Romney without the looks, intelligence or experience. You could see it during the debate when, in 30 seconds, she was for then against driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. Her response: the men are ganging up on me. Yeah, right!

Her staff has been a slow motion train wreck. Marc Penn has had her running for President since 2001 when she first set foot in the well of the Senate. What legislation has she sponsored? She hasn’t any because that might define her politics. In her first campaign for Senator, she held rallies and fund raisers in Buffalo, promising to revitalize Western New York. Unemployment in Erie county went from 9% to 11%. Ford & GM shut down their plants. Her response: the republicans control the NY state legislature.

Fortunately, Senator Clinton has a record. She tried to nationalize health care - 15% of our economy. She had a great speech in October 2002 in support of H.J. Resolution 114, the authority to use force in Iraq. She "knew" Saddam had WMD. Lately, she has been voting to cut off funding or to add restrictions and timelines. My personal favorite is her arrogant lead in to the the Petraeus testimony, "Willful suspension of disbelief." We will see that a lot this Summer.

I do not want a Commander in Chief who breaks into tears during a primary campaign. That might impress someone’s grandmother but the mullahs it Teheran are probably laughing at their good fortune. Probably the only person less qualified to be President than Clinton is Obama.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
I do not want a Commander in Chief who breaks into tears during a primary campaign.
George H.W. Bush admitted he broke into tears a few times (saying on the CNN Cold War series "I’m sometimes too emotional.") I think the idea that we need cold hearted people unable to express sentiment is unbalanced and dangerous. I want a commander in chief, male or female, who is not afraid of emotion, does not suppress it, and does not consider it a weakness to show it. You’re thinking a generation or two ago, Arch. Peoples’ attitudes on this sort of thing are changing, Muskie would not have been hurt if that episode happened today.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Wow. That McCain quote definately falls into the category of "I gotta see this for myself." The link train from Rhymes with Right deadends on a bad Imus link but, wonderful age that we live in, somebody posted the original clip to YouKnowWhere.

Unbelievable. How on earth can McCain’s campaign overcome something as damning as this? I for one certainly hope that it can’t.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Preaching and Practicing of the First Amendment seems to be splitting you American Bloggers in two!

Why would you rather have a piece of paper to kow-tow to rather than actually living the spirit and letter and reality of what is written on that piece of paper?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which of these has McCain abridged, flouted, decried or derided? Surely you cannot say that McCain-Feingold was an abridgement of Freedom of Speech? The Senate with a Republican Majority passed it, President Bush signed it, and thus far it has worked in favour of the Republican Party.

By any measure that Law has stopped the likes of George Soros buying candidates and elections, as Mitt Romney is trying to do, and can, since he has deep deep pockets! Without Mc-F Hillary would still have Tsu and $850,000 (and Moveon.org) in her war chest!

McCain Feingold didn’t go far enough to stop the Soroses and Romneys of ego-driven America!

Methinks the deification of the American Constitution is Counter-productive, if, like the Bible, it’s only only for worshipping and not for living.

 
Written By: eliXelx
URL: http://
With that quote, he violated his oath as a Senator and his commissioning oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He should have been stripped of his office.

I’m not voting for McCain.

I’ll vote a straight Democratic ticket. “Americans” want a socialist who’ll destroy the country? I can help give them that, and not provide an ounce of cover by putting RINO’s back in. Let them “get it good and hard”, as Mencken would say, dipped in ground glass and no lube.

Maybe after a generation living like Eastern Europe under the Russians, this country will realize a few fundamental truths.

Time to put this country back into the crucible, refine out the slag, and remake it.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Scott:

For a military commander to loose his composure under pressure is very bad. I am not saying that a commander cannot feel compassion for the troops he sends into harms’ way, but if he breaks down over something as trivial as what the press is saying about him during the New Hampshire, how will he stand up during a real crisis?

Adversaries will test a new commander early. The Russians watched Kennedy pull support for 2506 Brigade in the Bay of Pigs so they set up IRBM in Cuba. Al Qaeda’s first WTC attack was in Feb 1993, eight weeks into Clinton’s first term. The 9/11 attacks were early in Bush’s first term. Rudy didn’t cry in public. If we get to July 2009 without a WMD attack on US soil, I will be astonished. A weeping commander in chief would not inspire confidence.

Think about Kathleen Blanco’s performance during Katrina. We do not live in a touchy-feely world.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Surely you cannot say that McCain-Feingold was an abridgement of Freedom of Speech?
You must not know much about McCain-Feingold to ask this question. The act specifically prohibits third parties from taking out political ads within 60 days of an election.

That means that I, as a private citizen, cannot purchase air time with my own resources and say what I feel about any candidate or political issue during that time.

Please tell me now why you don’t think that’s an abridgment of Freedom of Speech.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Does anyone know what 3rd party candidates will be running? I want to figure out which one I’ll cast my vote for, because I won’t vote for McCain, Hillary or Obama, but I refuse to not exercise my vote.

Or maybe someone can suggest a good write-in candidate?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
“Americans” want a socialist who’ll destroy the country? I can help give them that, and not provide an ounce of cover by putting RINO’s back in. Let them “get it good and hard”, as Mencken would say, dipped in ground glass and no lube.
Ahhh, these are the words that flow from an immature religionist ass:

"We all have to go through Hell in order to get Heaven!

THE END TIMES! THE ESCHATON! You sinners are going to learn, and I’m going to delight in the pain that God chaos is going to bring!"

Wide-eyed hysterics. You don’t belong in civil society; you belong on a street corner waving whatever the anarchist Bible is.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Or maybe someone can suggest a good write-in candidate?
Stephen Colbert

He’s America, and so can you
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
"Peoples’ attitudes on this sort of thing are changing,"

Evidently yours are too.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Arch, bravado and toughness can lead to the same kind of errors as letting a tear show. Both can be a loss of composure (though since humans have emotion, the idea one loses composure by letting a tear show seems a bit absurd), but bravado and holding in emotion to feign toughness can be far worse. Moreover, pushing aside sentiment can lead one to ignore ethics.

But letting a tear show is not loss of composure, not for George H.W. Bush, or for Clinton. Nixon apparently was drunk and out of control for a long time...so I doubt we can really know how the candidates will fare, being able to fake it in public (I sort of suspect Hillary faked it) doesn’t really mean much.
Unbelievable. How on earth can McCain’s campaign overcome something as damning as this?
He already has. And really, if you try to dismiss candidates with ’gotcha’ quotes, that’s pretty lame. You should at least look at the entire context of his defense. Not that I’m a McCain fan by any means (though compared to the relatively sorry lot the Republicans are offering, he’s not that bad), nor do I like Clinton. I’ve only voted "mainstream" in two of my seven Presidential elections, that average may not improve.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott:

Who said anything about bravado. This isn’t a macho thing;it’s about self control. Kathleen Blanco, as the governor of Louisiana, was responsible for executing the emergency evacuation of New Orleans. She cried and people died. (Sounds like a Jesse Jackson slogan.) Governor Blanco was not up to the job. Jeb Bush went through dozens of hurricanes as governor of Florida. Did he cry when he a job to do? No.

The President has the responsibility as national command authority over 7,000 nuclear weapons. If a crew member or maintenance technicial had access to nukes, he would be under observation on the human reliability program.

If you were hiring the CEO of a $100M per year defense company, what experience would you require applicants have?

 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
you were hiring the CEO of a $100M per year defense company, what experience would you require applicants have?
Irrelevant, since this job requires gaining the approval of the most people, experience, qualification, competence, mean virtually nothing.

If Oprah wanted to be President, she would instantly be a frontrunner. If the most brilliant person in America wanted to be President, that person would be lucky to get 1%.

It’s a beauty contest, which is why I say we should go back to the original method of choosing electors who actually make decisions.
 
Written By: Captin Srcastic
URL: http://
"You must not know much about McCain-Feingold to ask this question. The act specifically prohibits third parties from taking out political ads within 60 days of an election.

That means that I, as a private citizen, cannot purchase air time with my own resources and say what I feel about any candidate or political issue during that time.

Please tell me now why you don’t think that’s an abridgment of Freedom of Speech." STEVERINO

That just stops the Romneys and Soroses buying elections, Steverino; and since the playing field is levelled out that makes it fair and equitable for everybody!

If it’s so unfair why did President Bush, who undoubtedly profited from its absence, sign it into law? Why did both houses pass it? Surely the Republican Majority at the time could have stopped it in its tracks!

This is not like the Fairness legislation, which is a Democrat ploy which aims to muzzle talk radio, everyday SPEECH; this is an attempt to muzzle MONEY from talking, forever, louder than words in ELECTIONS!

The choice is between saying whatever the hell you want to say whenever the hell you want to say it, or not being allowed to say certain things for specific periods of time in order not to play unfair. The first is the extreme radical Libertarian ACLU position; the second is just a good common sense prevention to a debilitating disease!

So unless you think that a Soros, or a Bloomberg, or a Romney( OR YOU!) be allowed to outspend the others because he has money and they don’t (and let’s face it, money is mighty important in US Elections!), well, that’s Latin American politics, where Lopezes and Gomezes and Uribes have ruled the roost for ages because of their money!

I ate many a free poltical meal and drank oodles of on-the-house rum in the run-up to elections in South America. McCain-Feingold is just an antidote to this type of electoral poison!

By the way, I still think that this is the Romney electoral strategy; no matter how many he loses he can still outspend his more popular rivals.

Look at South Carolina; he spent millions and weeks there, and then just abandoned it as a loss leader when the time came!

And while we’re about McCain—I still haven’t heard how any Republican Candidate is going to find, round-up, hold, and bus 12 million people to the border!

I know any number of Canadian, British, French and Scottish ex-pats living and working in and around Hollywood, without green cards (I was one such for 12 years in the 90’s!). Are you going to find and deport them too, or risk being Racist?




 
Written By: eliXelx
URL: http://
That just stops the Romneys and Soroses buying elections, Steverino; and since the playing field is levelled out that makes it fair and equitable for everybody!
That’s a bunch of malarkey. No one was buying elections before McCain-Feingold, so the measure did absolutely nothing in that regard. BTW, candidates can always buy their own ads.

You didn’t answer my question: how is preventing private citizens from speaking freely not a violation of the 1st Amendment?
If it’s so unfair why did President Bush, who undoubtedly profited from its absence, sign it into law? Why did both houses pass it? Surely the Republican Majority at the time could have stopped it in its tracks!
First, I never said anything about "unfair", so that’s a straw man you have raised. Second, campaign finance reform has always translated to a greater percentage of incumbents being re-elected, so it’s no wonder Congress supported it. Third, Bush signing the measure was a huge mistake, and I still haven’t forgiven him for it.
I know any number of Canadian, British, French and Scottish ex-pats living and working in and around Hollywood, without green cards (I was one such for 12 years in the 90’s!). Are you going to find and deport them too, or risk being Racist?
Where did that come from? I said nothing about deporting anyone. Stop trying to change the subject.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
heh eliXlex (whatevs) wants people to have free speech without a meaningful vehicle with which to convey it.

That is, hey, you can speak all you like, but we’re going to make it so you can’t buy a lectern, megaphone, billboard, television ad, etc. etc. to actually meaningfully broadcast that message.

He also seems to think that MORE LAWS are the answer.

eliXlex, who do you think can afford the lawyers to research the loopholes of BCRA? Poor folks or rich ones?

So, tell me again how BCRA isn’t really just the "Protect Incumbents Act of 2005"?
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Unbelievable. How on earth can McCain’s campaign overcome something as damning as this?
He already has.
Well, he’s managed to line up 38 of the 1191 delegates needed for his party’s nomination, I’ll grant him that. But I’m willing to bet that very few of even the very few actual votes he’s received thus far come from people who would claim to value "clean government" over First Amendment rights, or from people who would appreciate the fact that he does.

The clip at YouTube has been viewed fewer than 6000 times since April 2006. That will change, and so will McCain’s fortunes.
You should at least look at the entire context of his defense.
Yeah, I bet that’s pretty good. He ought to post it somewhere.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
So Steverino, you wouldn’t really mind if a Saudi prince took out ads a week before the general criticizing your candidate; Free Speech that you would die to defend, right?

Wait did I say Saudi? Are you going to come back with Americans being allowed free speech in America but not Prince Bandar? After all he has a huge economic and political interest in America! Isn’t that a "Human" right?

For that matter a lot of Europeans would love to vote in American elections; can you deny them that right to swamp the Republican Party they hate unto death?

I’m on your side, boy! I want the Republicans to win the GE, but I don’t think Romney is the man! The perfect profile doesn’t make him the best man, except in Hollywood!

I think it’s McCain, but you Repubs are so intent on demonising him for voting his conscience rather than voting the Limbaugh Line that you are cutting your noses just to spite his face!

We MUST move away from the stifling orthodoxy that you all want—Reagan Parte Deux—or no good, satisfactory candidate will ever again emerge on the Repub side. Reagan was a one-off. The world has changed; this party must change, or die!

"You have never forgiven Bush for signing it..." What a patronising, puerile thing to say!; You sound as though there are at least 60 senators and 249 congressmen who will also remain unforgiven. But who’s counting, and who really cares who you forgive and don’t. BTW did you vote for Bush in 2004, or did you go for Kerry because of Bush’s unforgivable actions?

The "Shamnesty", also proposed by the President, and supported by McCain, is another rod you people are using with which to beat McCain. Nobody has asked Romney, or Huckabee, or Fred what they would do. A real plan, not half-baked wish lists!

What would they do? McCain has proposed something between full amnesty—a la Reagan—and all the safeguards the Conservative base requires. But No! You want all the illegals out, now, pronto.

And that led to my last question—will you find, hold, try and deport all the illegal Canadians, Brits, French, Russians, Scots, Saudis, Colombians, Trinidadians, Cubans or are you prepared to be racist by saying that only the Mexicans must go? Believe me, it would be much much easier to find the illegal Brits and Canucks!

I will end this dialogue with a few words from the great martyr Jan Huss, who first proposed a Bible in a language other than Latin, for which he was burned as a heretic, because, said the Pope, "God only understands prayers in Latin". Huss too was for "CHANGE" of the old orthodoxies that alienated the common people!

Huss said "We had rather, in the ways of Good, follow our enemies, than in the ways of Evil walk with our friends."

Now all that remains for us each individually to decide is what is Good and what is Evil! So much depends on that!

Goodbye, and God bless America! ELIXELX (a small city in Spain!)

 
Written By: eliXelx
URL: http://
So Steverino, you wouldn’t really mind if a Saudi prince took out ads a week before the general criticizing your candidate; Free Speech that you would die to defend, right?
A Saudi Prince would by definition not be a US citizen. Foreign nationals have been forbidden from funding US elections for many years, and rightly so. Quit throwing out red herrings and answer my question:

How is prohibiting private citizens from speaking freely about politics NOT a direct abridgment of the 1st Amendment?

This is the last time I’ll ask you the question. Your continued evasion of this question indicates that you are not serious about rational discourse.
I think it’s McCain, but you Repubs are so intent on demonising him for voting his conscience rather than voting the Limbaugh Line that you are cutting your noses just to spite his face!
I hope you’re not counting me in that crow. I’m not a Republican, and I don’t listen to Limbaugh. I have no trouble with McCain voting his conscience, but I am very troubled that his conscience would lead him to flagrantly violate the Constitution. However, my detest of McCain goes much farther back: Google "Keating 5" and you’ll see why.
And that led to my last question—will you find, hold, try and deport all the illegal Canadians, Brits, French, Russians, Scots, Saudis, Colombians, Trinidadians, Cubans or are you prepared to be racist by saying that only the Mexicans must go? Believe me, it would be much much easier to find the illegal Brits and Canucks!
Again, the issue is the Constitution and Freedom of Speech, NOT illegal immigration.

Sol, eLL, do you think you can answer my question? Or will you dodge it again?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Yes, but the Saudi prince would give me the money, so you would never know, would you? Do you think Hillary ISN’T getting laundered Saudi money?

"Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there really IS a fire; and then when there isn’t! Which one is Free speech, and which isn’t?

You have no objection to "Bush**ler"? can I call Hillary a "cow"? Is there nothing that comes out of your mouth that any decent person would find objectionable and want to stop? Have you ever told anyone to shut up? Are you a secret abridger of Free Speech inyour personal life! Aren’t you a hypocrite?

Paedophiles shouldn’t be criminalized, because the age of consent is a political limit! Defend my right to say that would you? Especially if your daughter were the one the paedophile was stalking?

Oh, the sheer silliness of this Free Speech shibboleth has got you people twisted. There, are you happy that I’ve told you that Free Speech is NOT a sacred cow? You seem to think that Rights are absolute; They aren’t; they’re just inalienable until the society feels that there is a greater good to be had from taking them away!

Now, Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did my attempt to widen the discussion about whether McCain’s positions are conservative or not escape that intolerant and closed mind of yours ? If So, sorry for being subtle with someone who prefers bludgeoning and I’ll say it plain; Mccain was correct on Mc-F; he is right on Immigration; He will come to solid conservative positions on AGW and the economy; he will fight jihadis and Iran; he will shoot straight and damn the torpedos; he will make the Repubs a Party for a new century!
 
Written By: eliXelx
URL: http://

The President has the responsibility as national command authority over 7,000 nuclear weapons. If a crew member or maintenance technicial had access to nukes, he would be under observation on the human reliability program.
But is shedding a tear a sign of weakness? That seems obsolete thinking, as if one had to show a stiff upper lip and always appear collected in order to be seen as competent. In the real world, I want a President who takes the emotion of an order that kills millions seriously, I don’t want a cold Machiavellian who in avoidance of emotions sacrifices his or her humanity. Indeed, repressing and suppressing emotions is psychologically far more dangerous — and could have a more devastating impact.

And certainly I don’t think showing a tear is any sign of weakness or lack of composure; FEAR of doing so would be a sign of insecurity, which is even a worse trait. And what President hasn’t cried? Bush the Elder admitted it, Nixon — again drunk and often near breakdown. I think Reagan showed real emotion in public. No, I think one can have genuine emotion, express it, and still be cool and rational in decision making. I mean, I read your comments and I have to ask how old are you? That sounds like thinking from a different era to not want a President to dare show a tear in public.

So yeah, we want someone with composure, psychologically sound. We disagree on what indicates that such a state does or does not exist.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Linda, I don’t think McCain is hurt at all by McCain-Feingold, it would be a factor in the debates and would have prevented his bounce back. Most people aren’t single issue voters in any event. McCain is quite conservative, though many don’t see him that way. Campaign finance reform is a very conservative position in some ways, and Huckabee has a kind of traditional conservatism (e.g., not libertarian) that appeals to many voters. And in a general election, McCain-Feingold will be something he’d proudly proclaim to enhance his "liberal" image. So I don’t really think this will hurt him. I can’t say I want him to win, but right now if I had to bet on who would be President one year from today I’d guess McCain. Before the NH primary I’d have guessed Obama. It’s still early in the game!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Linda, I don’t think McCain is hurt at all by McCain-Feingold, it would be a factor in the debates and would have prevented his bounce back. Most people aren’t single issue voters in any event.
I think you are right with regard to Republicans overall. But it does hurt him with the activist base — although McCain-Feingold is only one of the reasons they despise him.
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
Yes, but the Saudi prince would give me the money, so you would never know, would you? Do you think Hillary ISN’T getting laundered Saudi money?
It’s been illegal for campaigns to take money from foreign sources for years. If, as you say without one shred of evidence in support, Hillary is taking laundered Saudi money, then clearly McCain-Feingold has had no effect on this practice. If you are not a candidate or a part of anyone’s campaign, then I really don’t care where you get your money.
You have no objection to "Bush**ler"? can I call Hillary a "cow"? Is there nothing that comes out of your mouth that any decent person would find objectionable and want to stop? Have you ever told anyone to shut up? Are you a secret abridger of Free Speech inyour personal life! Aren’t you a hypocrite?
You can say whatever you want; whether I object to it is my own business. But me telling anyone to shut up is not an abridgment of free speech. Go read the First Amendment again, and tell me whether it prohibits private citizens from telling others to shut up. (BTW, just because I tell someone to shut up doesn’t mean he will do so.)
Now, Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did my attempt to widen the discussion about whether McCain’s positions are conservative or not escape that intolerant and closed mind of yours ? If So, sorry for being subtle with someone who prefers bludgeoning and I’ll say it plain; Mccain was correct on Mc-F; he is right on Immigration; He will come to solid conservative positions on AGW and the economy; he will fight jihadis and Iran; he will shoot straight and damn the torpedos; he will make the Repubs a Party for a new century!
I’m not being deliberately obtuse, and there’s no need to insult me. I refuse to answer any of your questions until you respond on point to mine.

I’ve given you three tries to answer my question, and you keep dodging it, throwing in all manner of side issues. Since you are not interested in an honest debate, this is the last time I’ll address you.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
The act specifically prohibits third parties from taking out political ads within 60 days of an election.

That means that I, as a private citizen, cannot purchase air time with my own resources and say what I feel about any candidate or political issue during that time.

Please tell me now why you don’t think that’s an abridgment of Freedom of Speech.
My interpretation of the first amendment is that since this is political speech, you should be allowed to do, so there can be regulatory measures regarding the public air waves and the like. In print, you can do what you want.

If we want to get big money out of campaigns in an effective manner, I think we need a constitutional amendment that clearly spells out the provisions. One could be for or against such an amendment, but at least it would render concern about the first amendment moot.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider