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

 
OK. Then I’ll Liveblog It.
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, February 05, 2008

I'm a bit late getting started, so I've missed the early action in the Northeast. So, I'll start by summing up where we are so far.

1755: For the Dmeocrats, it's a real battle. Clinton has taken AR, MA, TN and OK, while Obama won IL and GA. lots of very close races there.

McCain, on the other hand, pretty much swept the Northeast, winning NJ IL, CT, and DE. but also there are some surprise Huckabee wins shaping up, including his win in WV early today, and AR tonight. Ronmey takes MA, of course.

1904: Romney is getting creamed. Apparently, it takes more than being a Vulcan with nice hair to attract votes. He's missing something. Maybe it's just that he strikes most people, including me, as an empty suit.

Huckabee is the real surprise so far. He's leading in GA, AL, MN, and MO, currently. Apparently, reports of his political death were premature.

1911: Overall, it's been Clinton's night so far, with victories in AK, MA, NJ, NY, OK, and TN. Obama's only taken AL, DE, GA, and IL. However, he's narrowly ahead in CT, KS, ID, MN and ND, while Clinton is only ahead in MO. Very few precincts are reporting in those states, but clearly Obama has some strength as the voting moves west.

What with the proportional delegate assignment for the Democratic Party, this looks like a fight all the way to the convention for the Dems.

1922: So far, the delegate counts for the Dems stand at Clinton 299, Obama 219. On the Republican side it's McCain 332, Romney 135, Huckabee 54. Republicans require 1191 delegates to capture the nomination, Democrats require 2025.

2006: OK. California's pools are now closed. This will be an interesting race. Obama has been surging in California, despite it being Clinton country. Hillary has really been the big winner tonight, in terms of states, if not overwhelmingly the delegate count. Obama has won nine states, but they've tended to be the small states, while Clinton has won the big states. So, she's still ahead by 74 delegates. But 74 delegates, when you really need 2025 to get the nomination, is pretty small potatoes. The democratic race is still essentially even steven, with 24 states remaining over the next 7 weeks or so to push for victory.

2013: Obama gets 65% of the caucus vote in Colorado.


2017: Obama wins the Idaho caucus, too. meanwhile, on the Republican side, McCain appear to be carrying Arizona handily.

The first returns from California are coming in. Only 1% of returns have been counted, and those are probably not from heavily urban precincts, but the early, early picture is:

DEM:
Clinton: 57%
Obama: 33%

REP:
McCain 48%
Romney: 23%
Huckabee: 11%

2029: Missouri is a real nail-biter for the republican side. Huckabee is ahead by about 400 votes, with 88% of precincts reporting. Obama is behind by about 21,000 votes against Clinton, but that's with St. Louis mainly still uncounted. Obama, of course, is expected to do well there, so that last 12% of precincts might be the most important 12% for that state.

2041: St. Louis must be weighing in, in Missouri. Clinton's lead is now down to 9,000 votes. McCain, however, has pulled ahead of Huckabee by 2,500 votes.

2047: Apparently, some of the people in Obama's camp are saying that it's possible that Obama, winning 11 of the 22 primaries today, along with a strong showing in states where he lost, may end up giving him a very slight lead in the delegate count.

I think that may be a little overstated.

2055: 94% of precincts are reporting in MO, and Clinton's lead over Obama has stretched again, to 13,000 votes. McCain's lead, also lenghtened to 4,000 votes. No one is willing to call that one yet.

Meanwhile, in California, with 13% reporting, it's a blow-out so far for Clinton and McCain.

2059: Updated delegate counts:

DEM:
Clinton: 299
Obama: 225

REP:
McCain: 389
Romney: 135
Huckabee: 93

2102: Missouri's nail-biter continues. 96% of precincts reporting. Clinton ahead by 4,000 votes, McCain ahead by 7,000. I think, at some point very soon, the Republican side will get called for McCain.

2104: And no sooner do I write the above, than AP calls it for McCain in MO. Meanwhile, Clinton's lead is down to 3,000 votes.

2113: Apparently, the runaway McCain and Clinton leads in California are solid enough for Fox to go ahead and call the state for them already. That's a big win for both of them.

Meanwhile in MO, the Dem race continues with Obama taking the lead with 98% of returns in, and going ahead by 4,926.

2124: Updated delegate counts:

DEM:
Clinton: 332
Obama: 269

REP:
McCain: 475
Romney: 151
Huckabee: 93

2133: Finally, MO gets called, and it goes to Obama.

2137: Well, it's beddie-bye time for me, so I have to sign off. As I go,the updated delegate counts are:

DEM:
Clinton: 668
Obama: 557

REP:
McCain: 514
Romney: 177
Huckabee: 122

Overall, despite Clinton's wins in big states—by big margins—Obama won more states, winning 12 states to Clinton's 8. It may not be a big win, and certainly not a pretty one, but it was a win tonight for Obama. Hillary will no doubt tout the difference in the delegate count, But Obama will be able to claim that he won more states, and more of the heartland. Clinton may have blunted his momentum, but she didn't stop it. With 20+ more state primaries and caucuses to go, this race looks like it will be slog all the way to the convention. Clinton remains alive, because of the distribution of delegates on a proportional basis. That may be just enough to secure the nomination for her if the remaining primaries go the way they did tonight.

The plus for Obama is that he demonstrated his appeal across the breadth of the country, while Clinton showed, again, that she's really the candidate of the coastal elites in California and the Northeast. The remaining states move more into the heartland, where Obama's greatest strength was tonight. If Hillary can't do better in the heartland than she did tonight, she's in trouble.

On the Republican side, McCain is now unquestionably the presumptive nominee. He is almost halfway to the nomination already. Unless his campaign totally collapses, it is increasingly difficult to construct a scenario in which Romney can lay out a path to the nomination. It is even more so for Huckabee, despite his surprising strength in some places. One wonders now if it is Huckabee who's taking votes away from Romney, or vice versa.

Absent McCain being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, the only remaining question in this race appears to be who his opponent will be.

2300: One final note. The actual numbers of voters bodes ill for the republican candidate, whoever he may be, come November. In many states across the country, Democrats out numbered Republican voters by huge margins. In MN, for example, caucus attendance was 175,000 people. This far surpasses the previous record attendance of 75,000 people who gathered during the Vietnam War.

Democrats are excited. They are motivated. And they are voting. Republicans are not. this not only speaks volumes about the regard that Republicans have for the current crop of candidates, it is an indication that the November electorate may contain a larger than usual leftward tilt.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Romney is clearly failing miserably. He has spent so much money, got so much attention from the talk radio types, who hyped him as the true hier to Reagan. Yet he has not inspired support. He lacks something, voters aren’t inspired by him. Huckabee has shown resiliency; even as he was derided by the talk gurus and the so-called "conservatives," he’s inspired support and is winning some states. McCain-Huckabee? Heck, McCain might do that just to piss off Rush Limbaugh.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Which talk radio types "hyped [Romney] as the true hier to Reagan"?
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
With Ron Paul taking Minnesota...

I knew the people there were nucking futs...

And if by some hellish freak occurance, and it was Huck up against Hill, Huck would get MURDERED!!!

And maybe that would keep the preachers out of politics. Those evangelicans scare the crap out of me...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Only at the last minute, faced with McCain, did anyone on the radio hype Romney.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Only at the last minute, faced with McCain, did anyone on the radio hype Romney
What amazes me is how — and I really don’t understand it — it is that so many of you have such personal, emotional dislike of McCain. I mean, obviously McCain’s position on the wars (Afghanistan is falling apart by the way...but nobody mentions it) is very different than mine, and I could never support him. But McCain, Huckabee and Romney seem like decent people. Romney is just a bit too slick and willing to shift positions for me, but he seems decent. It’s almost like there is a need in some to personally dislike people whose political positions are different than their own. That’s not rational — not from the left, or the right. And nobody seems able to explain the intense dislike — the most people have said is that he’s taken views on a few issues they don’t like, or he’s arrogant (what politician at that level isn’t — maybe Reagan, but not many), or his ACU average is lower in the 90s than the 80s.

Oh well, it’ll be hard to stop McCain now. I guess you Romney folks have to hope California can keep him viable, but it’s hard to imagine him turning it around.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Romney is just a bit too slick and willing to shift positions for me,
You dislike competition?
or his ACU average is lower in the 90s than the 80s.
I’m hardly shocked you harp on this number. You, the person who can’t use an accurate statistic to save his god damn life as far as Iraq is concerned would have to marry himself to a number that means, frankly, nothing.

Here’s an example: If via eBay every package you ship you instead of the item you send a live bobcat, you’ll still have a 97% positive feedback rating.

But you’re sending freaking BOBCATS!!!

McCain slapped almost EVERY conserativein the face with amnesty (and then lied about what it was). He shot the 1st amendment in the kneecap, and he led a group of republicans to make SURE that almost NONE of Bush’s judicial nominations got to the floor. He absolutely thinks we’re to blame for Global Warming, despite the fact that no proponent can get the group together and point to one model that is even remotely accurate.

And we’re supposed to just suck it up and back him?

Hell. F*cking. No.

I will never, ever support McCain.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
McCain slapped almost EVERY conserativein the face with amnesty
Well, he supported the President. The President claims it was not amnesty. What are you saying, "Bush lied, people crossed the border..."

Then it’s McCain-Feingold-Thompson...

And then it’s the compromise to maintain Senate rules on judicial nominations, a conservative protection of tradition which many analysts say helped Bush.

Three issues, and you get a visceral, emotional, angry reaction.

It’s not rational, Scott. I don’t mind — I don’t want McCain as President either — but to disagree on issues and get so angry, I don’t get it. I’m starting to think it’ll be McCain-Huckabee vs. Obama-Daschle ;-)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott Jacobs: I believe you meant "If via eBay every 30th package you ship..."
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
No, Thompson wasn’t a CO-AUTHOR YOU GOD DAMN RETARD!!!

And Fred has appologized for that bill. McCain gets pissed when you dare question him.

McCain has yelled "F8CK YOU" to his own party that tried to tell him they didn’t like "Immigration Reform".

McCain sided with dems to block judges.

And you’re right, James.

That’s such a great strip...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
What I find funny is that McCain is a much bigger threat to the people Mr. Erb would like to see in the whitehouse. He has a much better chance of defeating Billary or B. Hussein Obama. Frankly I don’t know whether or not in the general election I’d vote for him. Haven’t decided - not that it matters much since I live in a Blue state - but still I think it’s interesting - his tone definitely indicates someone who thinks he can stir up trouble and maybe keep people home... which if Billary is the nominee the negatives are definitely a problem... the whole equation changes once the nominations are set.

BTW Mr. Erb, don’t kid yourself as the general election approaches and people feel the pain of the recession and the threat of more democrat taxes to give money to everyone but them - voters will show up for the election :-)
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
The Fact that McCain demands we knuckle under and support him "just because" and his claiming that the nomination is already his, would be enough, even if I didn’t hate the guy...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
No, Thompson wasn’t a CO-AUTHOR YOU GOD DAMN RETARD!!!

And Fred has appologized for that bill.
Are you sure?

Fred has not apologized for the bill. I read the WSJ interview, and he said "he’s not ready to go there yet, but maybe the hard money caps should be removed". That’s hardly an apology, and he made no so reference to problems with any other parts of the bill. He defended the bill as recently as September 07.
Fred Defends McCain-Feingold: Fred Thompson finally made clear his position on the statist campaign finance restrictions embodied in the McCain-Feingold bill. And conservatives are clearly not going to be pleased.

When the former star of TV’s "Law and Order" series and newly-minted presidential candidate spoke to reporters on the porch of the Grand Hotel here, I asked Thompson whether he was proud of his role in enacting the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation in ’01.

"Yes," replied the former Tennessee senator without hesitation. "You will recall that the central part of the legislation was getting rid of soft money [from the political process]." He then went on to remind me that he came from a background in the private sector and, in that sector, it would have been thought unseemly for "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to be poured in to influence someone’s decision. In the public arena, "it got to be the norm" because of the soft money, upon which there were no limits for donations to the two major political parties." The contributors, he said, would then, "harass legislators before they vote on anything. This was not a good idea." Thompson went on to remind me that it was his amendment to McCain-Feingold that, "raised the hard money index" and he was also proud of that.

If there is anything in McCain-Feingold that "has not worked out," he went to say, it is "placing limitations on ads [by independent groups] in the [political] process. Thompson hinted that he would support legislation to change this, since "the Supreme Court has better things to do with its time than hear cases on unfair limitation." (Earlier this year, by a decision of 5-to-4, the Supreme Court struck down parts of McCain-Feingold that dealt with limiting ads by independent groups.) He also said that the landmark campaign finance legislation he held shepherd to passage (and which President Bush signed in ’01) has created a larger bureaucracy to enforce regulations and "that part hasn’t worked out."
Oh, and this,
Thompson wasn’t a CO-AUTHOR YOU GOD DAMN RETARD
I don’t about the semantics, but when someone authors an amendment to a bill that strengthens it, I think it’s a lot closer to say they are a co-author than not.
Thompson went on to remind me that it was his amendment to McCain-Feingold that, "raised the hard money index" and he was also proud of that.
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
The hard truth is that of the four major candidates remaining, not a single one is a good candidate for President. Every single one of them has proven amply that given a choice between their pet project, political success, public approval, their private enrichment and the Constitution, they would take every other choice before honoring the Constitution. I cannot vote for any of them. I could have voted for Thompson, because I didn’t have any major disagreements with him except about campaign finance. But of the remaining candidates, none will get my vote. I may write in Fred Thompson, or David Boren.

I think I preferred the smoke filled rooms.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
I’m still a registered Democrat so I voted for Hillary. Not that I like her much, but Obama has almost no experience, accomplishments or specific ideas that qualify him for the presidency, and he is unreservedly against the Iraq War. Plus, as I’ve said, his church creeps me out. I also think Obama will be harder for a Republican, particularly McCain, to beat.

I’m not sure what happened with the Republican field, whether it was bad luck or whether the Reagan era is exhausted or whether the tensions in the Republican coalition caught up with it or some combination thereof. The strength of McCain and Huckabee caught me by surprise—I still have no visceral sense of who is voting for them. Guiliani was my favorite for his policies on the war and energy, and his personal energy and intelligence. Then he faded away as though he hadn’t run in the first place. I could never catch fire with Romney, though I never checked into him much either beyond listening to Hugh Hewitt’s show. Thompson didn’t seem to be really in the race.

A strange primary season and right now it’s not looking good for Republicans.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
The entire Republican campaign this go around was all about boxing out Romney, imho. Some of it was dumb luck and some was not.

The media & evangelicals elevated Huckabee to take votes away from Romney early to prevent Romney momentum.

The media created more aggressive benchmarks/consequences for Romney’s win/losses than anyone else. I mean if Huckabee or McCain did anything but get slaughtered, the were declared to have "momentum".

The pull ahead and subsequent loss of Democratic Delegates in states that allowed cross-overs was a lucky boon to McCain and gave him momentum going into Super Tuesday. At least I hope it was luck.

Considering that Romney wasn’t known by the majority of the country prior to this run, Romney even at his current position, has done very well.

Unfortunately the Democrats are using their nomination to right injustices. In their case, Blacks or Women. The Republicans are about to do the same.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Republicans require 1191 delegates to capture the nomination, Democrats require 2025.
That’s so unfair. Everything is stacked against the Democrats during the Bush/Cheney administration!

/sarcasm
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Scott still doing his schill for the ultra conservative John McCain. And he stopped using the exact numbers for ACU rating after having been slapped in the face that Mr McCain came in at around 250th out of 535 with his vaunted lifetime 82.5 rating. This is his PVT Beauchamp sond and dance with just the wording changed to fit the current argument.

LAT endores McCain
NY TImes endorses McCain
Scott Erb endorses McCain

That is 3 strikes.


 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Time to vote for Pat Paulsen again.

Where the hell did I put my Paulsen buttons?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Enough of this McCain isn’t conservative enough or Bush killed the Reagan era blah blah blah. The Reagan era ended when RR left office and Bush I, not very conservative, took office.

I wanted Rudy. He’s gone. McCain vs. Hopeman/Stalinette? You’re kidding, right? You choose the person who Best Represents Your Values. Get over it. In other words, f*&k your feelings, dude. Save ’em for Valentine’s Day. Use your head, bring a scorecard. McCain beats the pair of socialist windbags every time. The game may be a nailbiter, but a win is a win is a win.

Scott Jacobs: The bobcat works great, but threw up on my carpet, so I’m leaving neutral feedback
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Romney is just a bit too slick and willing to shift positions for me, but he seems decent. It’s almost like there is a need in some to personally dislike people whose political positions are different than their own.
I get it. People oppose McCain for the same stated reasons you oppose Romney. But since you say you don’t personally dislike Romney, indeed claim you can disassociate completely the man from the policy, you see your preference through some sort of pseudo-moral lens as more esteemed than the anti-McCain position. As if nothing or no one gets your dander up. You’re very interesting on a psychoanalytical level.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Let’s see

Have a liberal agenda shoved down our throat by Hillary and opposed by a republian congress. Have the American people be reminded of the CLinton legacy and era and relive that nightmare for 4 years and really get a good glimpse at theleft to include the fawning of the MSM and then win back the President and Congress due to the backlash.

Or

have a liberal agenda shoved down our throat by McCain, have it unopposed by the republicans in congress and cheerfully voted on by the democrats. Have Obama win the White House in 4 years and stay in it for 8 years due to the total betrayel the right feels towards McCain.

Gee what a choice. I think I will try out B and see what happens. As much as I barf at the thought of 4 years of Hillary as President, thinking of McCain as President for 4 and Obama as President as 8 is something I dont think the US can stand 12 years of being totally ruined vs the 4 that Hillary would impose on it.


 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
What amazes me is how — and I really don’t understand it — it is that so many of you have such personal, emotional dislike of McCain
What amazes me is your unashamed ability to keep telling The Big Lie. Everyone here who opposes McCain has given you logical, policiy-based reasons for their opposition. And you keep characterizing it as "personal, emotional dislike."

There’s no other way to describe your actions but willful, calculated, intellectual dishonesty.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
So the racist coastal elites stuck with Hillary. And look at the overwhelming support Obama received from blacks. Racists.

Sorry, I just love the clash of identiy politics.
 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://
and really get a good glimpse at theleft to include the fawning of the MSM and then win back the President and Congress due to the backlash.
Oh, this is a guarantee? How do you know the next Rep. President won’t be more liberal than McCain?

Let’s play a game, shall we? Bush, in my opinion, is too liberal on domestic issues, as many of you would agree. Yet, how many times in the past 8 years have you though: Gosh, I wish Gore/Kerry was in office? For me: ZEEERRROOOOOO. You???

Or how about this game: Give me one way in which the country has moved rightward after the ’06 midterms. I was told that the R’s, and the country as a whole, would be taught some sort of lesson and bing! Conservatism/libertarianism would grow like wildflowers. Has it?
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
"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." - John McCain
 
Written By: meh
URL: http://
There’s no other way to describe your actions but willful, calculated, intellectual dishonesty.
You call names well, and wear your emotion on your sleeve. But you haven’t given any reason for the intense dislike. You don’t seem to accept the ability of someone to have different viewpoints on various issues without having real animosity towards that person. MDS is much like BDS, but it strikes a different population.

To say McCain has a "liberal agenda" as one person above does is a denial of reality. Sure, his ACU scores haven’t been in the 90s like some (though he was at 80 in 2005, and often around there), but he doesn’t get down where the democrats are, often 10 or even lower! Liberal agenda? That’s pure fantasy.

Rob, I oppose McCain as much as I oppose Romney, if I had to choose I don’t know who I would choose (not being a Republican, I don’t have to make that choice). I’m just amazed by how emotional and personal it’s become. And the thing is none of you know John McCain personally (that I know of). Your views are being molded by media and pundits, pushing certain themes, and trying to arouse an emotional action. You do not have the data to make a personal judgement on McCain. There is enough data out there to allow a variety of interpretations, depending on what you emphasize, but you really don’t know him. So why does it get personal for so many people?

 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
And BillS: I agree that McCain would likely defeat Clinton, and he’s a much stronger Republican candidate against Obama than Romney or Huckabee would be. In fact, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would get the religious evangelicals out in full force, which would probably hand McCain a lot of states and a victory. I think that’s what Huckabee’s shooting for. McCain is Clinton’s worst nightmare on the GOP side.

So I’m not "endorsing" McCain, or supporting him, I’m analyzing the politics and amazed by what seems unfounded anger, especially given Romney’s relatively liberal record as governor. To me this says something about the dynamic that’s overtaking some of the right. It seems that if you change positions and apologize for having been wrong, then you are forgiven. Otherwise, you must conform on key issues and not challenge the conservative line or else you are attacked vigorously as not a true believer in "the movement." I don’t a lot of you realize that’s what’s happening, you’re falling for it. I also hope you realize that Reagan would not fare well under this kind of scrutiny — he raised some taxes, had an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and did a whole bunch of things that would rankle those who demand a kind of ideological purity. But even then, there’s a difference between opposition and what seems to be viceral hatred from some. Some of you just oppose McCain — that’s cool, so do I. I’m more surprised by those who really seem to dislike him personally.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott E.: I agree. (and yet hell is still way over the 32 degree mark!)

No on McCain at all Costs/Fred! Gets Me All Tingly in a Reaganesque sort of Way People: McCain has been endorsed by Rudy, the head of the Federalist Society, Steve Forbes and Ted Olson. When Freeeedddd! endorses J Mc, and he will, 100% guarantee on that, please, please take some pictures of your exploding heads.

Meh: OOoooohh! Scary, scary, scary stuff there. A politician said something stupid. Didn’t Bush once say he wanted to become dictator or something? I wish I could finish this comment, but the Secret Police are knocking at my door....

 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Come on, Please,

You are exactly right. Unfortunately it seems that much of the Republican base has gone completely insane. They hate McCain so they are going to pretend that he is somehow equivalent to Hillary or Obama. Because he’s been a bad Republican, they aren’t going to vote for him and thereby help elect Hillary or Obama. Since that’s pretty crazy, they are going to pretend that putting a Democrat in control is actually going to be a good thing — it’s somehow going to strengthen the Republican party, move it back toward its conservative roots, and show the country how bad Democrats are so that they will vote for a real Republican next time. Never mind that it’s just as likely that the Democrats might be in power for the next 20 years.

Let’s just forget about any new entitlements and huge government programs that the Democrats will put in — ones that will never be revoked. Let’s forget about all the left-wing judges that will be put on the bench for lifetime appointments. What about the Supreme Court? Oh yeah, let’s just pretend that McCain will nominate people who are just as bad as those who will be put up by Hillary or Obama. And then there is foreign policy, the one area where the President has the most power, and the one area where John McCain has been a solid Republican. Who cares about that, right? Even if McCain were as bad as Hillary or Obama on every other issue, which he isn’t, that alone would be reason to vote for him over them. I hope Republicans snap out of it and come to their senses before November.


 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
"There’s no other way to describe your actions but willful, calculated, intellectual dishonesty."

You have to be talking about Scott Erb. It just fits him.

Scott Beauchamp anyone
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
David C.: And I’m not even a registered Repub, and Bush 2004 was my first non-third party presidential vote.

Pundits like Rush L, Ann C. and Sean H. can afford, literally, a Socialist administration. I can’t.

So no one took the bait. One more time:
Let’s play a game, shall we? Bush, in my opinion, is too liberal on domestic issues, as many of you would agree. Yet, how many times in the past 8 years have you though: Gosh, I wish Gore/Kerry was in office? For me: ZEEERRROOOOOO. You???

Or how about this game: Give me one way in which the country has moved rightward after the ’06 midterms. I was told that the R’s, and the country as a whole, would be taught some sort of lesson and bing! Conservatism/libertarianism would grow like wildflowers. Has it?
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Conservatives have become to the Republican party what African Americans are to the Democrats.

McCain is the republican version of Kerry. (umm this is the best we can do to try to get someoone elected so lets fall on our swords and go with him ). In other words we are now voting ABB - Anybody but Billary.


The best thing that McCain can do is have Fred Thompson as his VP and then kick the bucket on inaugural day. Yes horrible of me to say it and bad of me to think but that to me is McCain’s most redeeming quality - that he may not make it 4 years. Shoot me.




 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
I don’t even like McCain. I think he is a "feminine cleansing device"-bag. I was a Rudy guy this time around. But for crying out loud....

RT: Fred! is gone from politics forever. His robust conservatism and that winning folksy twang will continue on YouTube for centuries to come (unless Saul Alinskillary or HopeChangeAramaBama unleash the Fairness Doctrine).

 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
McCain Feb 6, 2006

"He asserted that the pundits’ conservative hero Ronald Reagan — and his — reached across the aisle to Democrats just like he wants to do as president.

"I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there are areas that we can agree on for the good of the party and for the good of the country," he said. The critics argue he’s too liberal for the party.

"

Feel that knife go in SO SMOOTH. Why I bet you weren’t even expecting it.

And Hey. Why not have 20 million illegal aliens be eligible for Social security benefits, the fund has a surplus just ask the Democrats.

And let’s wreck the economy on Al Gore’s favorite source of income - Global warming. Of course we can pay for it since our taxes just quaddrupled but no worries we get free health care (just cant afford the gas to get to the doctor).

Of course we wont get to say anything because the new McCain- Clinton free speech bill will ensure there is no govt discourse allowed.

Yep it is going to be a great 4 years. Cant wait for Obama to get elected in 2012 woohooo. The united Socialsts States of America here we come.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
The above date should be 2008 not 2006.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
The upside is that this is such a weird election cycle that I bet the surprises aren’t over. I’m a bit depressed to see the Republican side in such disarray, but much can change—on either side—in the coming months. The Democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory too.

I encourage people to keep their eyes open for opportunities.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
One final note. The actual numbers of voters bodes ill for the republican candidate, whoever he may be, come November. In many states across the country, Democrats out numbered Republican voters by huge margins. In MN, for example, caucus attendance was 175,000 people. This far surpasses the previous record attendance of 75,000 people who gathered during the Vietnam War.

Democrats are excited. They are motivated. And they are voting. Republicans are not. this not only speaks volumes about the regard that Republicans have for the current crop of candidates, it is an indication that the November electorate may contain a larger than usual leftward tilt.
How much of that turnout is due to the Hillary/Obama race, though? If Hillary gets the nomination, will the same numbers turn out? Judging by what the vocal ones say online (and we know how representative the online comms are; Ron Paul is winning the R nom, right?), alot of the young Obama supporters claim that they won’t show up at the polls if Hillary is the candidate. Whether that’s true or not remains to be seen. Perhaps the women and boomers would still come out in droves to set new records.

On the Republican side, given the field, is it really a surprise that Republicans aren’t showing up to the primaries? Depending on who pulls out the D nomination, could we see a big presence in the General (or everyone stays home in disgust, I suppose) just to deny That Woman? There just doesn’t seem to be any real excitement around any of the R candidates, and I suppose that’s what you’re getting at, but the General Election is a whole different ballgame.

I know how I think things will play out in various scenarios, but it’s all gut feeling and I don’t have the research to back it up. Of the 3 possible winners in November, I don’t think HRC or McCain will last more than 1 term, and I doubt Hillary will win without the 18-30 demographic (a group we keep hearing will be making a difference and then staying home) coming out heavily for the Dems. Obama is a big question mark. If his support is real, I think he could win the general against McCain, but I don’t think he has what it’ll take to be an unmitigated success through ’12, though he could come out and surprise everyone and secure a second term.
 
Written By: pef
URL: http://
Or how about this game: Give me one way in which the country has moved rightward after the ’06 midterms. I was told that the R’s, and the country as a whole, would be taught some sort of lesson and bing! Conservatism/libertarianism would grow like wildflowers. Has it?
The problem is that neither party has a functional set of principles for the 21st century. The Democrats patch together coalitions, use populist rhetoric, and get propelled by an unpopular war into power, but their solutions don’t work. Big government programs to deal with problems just yields an ever growing bureaucracy.

Yet the Republicans don’t have a coherent counter strategy. They are divided between the social conservatives like Huckabee, who see a rather paternalist state, the free market types like Steve Forbes, who want a smaller government and are fiscally conservatives, and emotional issue conservatives, who like to belittle "liberals" and emphasize gut issues, like immigration, McCain-Feingold, and other things that arouse anger (that’s a logical place for talk radio to be, since emotion holds listeners).

The free market conservatives can’t win because: a) they are at odds with the evangelicals, who produce a lot of votes; and b) their perspective often differs with the emotional conservatives, especially on issues like immigration, and their need to compromise to try to problem solve makes them appear to be "appeasing" the other side (because to emotional conservatives, liberals are not just people with different viewpoints, but evil and un-American). Also, free market conservatives are divided between pragmatists and ideologues, though usually the pragmatists win out politically.

Either the Democrats or the Republicans will be forced by our current economic and foreign policy woes to rethink America’s policies and even position in the world. The party that can do it successfully — can redefine politics, if you will — will do very well. I think it will have to be a merger of fiscal conservatism, pragmatic free marketism, multilateral cooperation to protect free trade, and multilateral problem solving to deal with the Mideast and problems in places like Africa. Government will have to be downsized and decentralized, but in a way that doesn’t push us back to the 1950s and the kind of poverty and misery that held vast segments of the American population. What this kind of politics will look like, I don’t know, but change often comes when it has to, regardless of who is in power.

A few things for the "emotional" right to think about: a) Immigration — that’s a losing issue for the GOP. Not only does it divide the party, but unless there are real alternatives that are provided which can be detailed and paid for, nothing will stop migration of people north, and once here they’ll have children and change the demographics so they can demand friendly policies. I think you’ve lost that battle. b) McCain-Feingold: You think this is unconstitutional. Well, the Supreme Court exists so those disputes can be settled, and I believe they found much of it unconstitutional. c) Judges. I agree that both parties have behaved badly blocking the other party’s Presidents nominees. Yet changing Senate rules to force them through would have numerous consequences, and add to the partisanism (that the emotional conservatives love, the pragmatists don’t). McCain did the right thing to be one of those who stood in the way of a radical change in Senate rules.

Finally, something nice to say about Romney: I think he gets it on the economy. He’s the only candidate close to laying out the real threats we face, and the only one I’ve heard talk pretty bluntly about it. I don’t think McCain realizes the economic danger facing us right now. If I had to choose a Republican between those two, I’d probably now choose Romney, something I would not have done four weeks ago when he was the Republican I had the least sympathy for.

BTW, is anybody saying anything about Afghanistan and the danger of a new terror attack given the growing strength of the Taliban? I talk about that in my blog today, but I think a storm is brewing in terms of conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan along with our economic problems, and the political discourse ignores it.



 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
nothing will stop migration of people north...
Scott - enforce the border patrol, hold companies accountable for hiring illegals and fine them, and make it easy to head south again. That’ll pretty much stem the tide.
and once here they’ll have children and change the demographics so they can demand friendly policies
Cease granting citizenship rights to the children of illegals.

The above wouldn’t cost too much and would have an IMMEDIATE impact on the number of illegals in the country. In fact, I say the end result would be a net gain as we would no longer be supporting a good number of people who are not supposed to be supported.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Cease granting citizenship rights to the children of illegals.
Doesn’t that require a constitutional amendment, given the 14th amendment. Ain’t gonna happen. And where will you get the money for a massive increase in border patrol? How big of a bureaucracy do you want to go after companies who may hire illegal aliens? How much is this going to cost, what will it do to our economy?

No, none of that is going to happen. There will be symbolic increases and crackdowns, but the fact of the matter is President Bush was right on immigration because when you peel apart the onion, we’re not going to see mass deportations, people are not going to move en masse down south, and the Latino voter is becoming much more vocal. The reason why immigration isn’t that big of an issue in the campaign, even on the GOP side alone, is that they don’t want to upset the Latino community, and the libertarian side of the GOP sees limits on immigration as limits on the market. America is changing in demographics and politics, and I don’t see any feasible way of changing that — nor do I think we need to.

The good news is that illegal immigration has helped our economy far more than it’s hurt it, and it’s a myth that we’re "supporting" all these people.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Look, this is very simple and doesn’t need the back and forth vitriole from the usual suspects.

McCain represents everything that is wrong with the Republican party.

*He’s the ’It’s my turn, damn it!’ candidate, which is shown clearly by how the establishment has come to endorse him almost unanimously.

*He has a strong authoritative streak that comes through, which is highly unnerving.

*His positions constantly go against his party’s main line, and I’m not talking about the crazies on the extreem, I’m talking about your average voter:
-Pro Amnesty even AFTER there was clear overwhelming animosity towards it. Infact, he was beligerant and went on insulting binges against those who opposed him.
-Opposed Bush Tax Cuts and has only recently come around on it.
-Opposes Waterboarding for Terrorists and wants Gitmo closed and the terrorists given Constitutional protections.
-Two words: McCain-Kennedy
-McCain-Lieberman, which would put a 50 cent increase on gasoline, on top of all the other nonsense that Energy Bill had. Sounds like a Tax to me.
-Flirted with the idea of switching parties because he lost in 2000
-Flirted with becoming John Kerry’s runningmate
-Has publicly said Hilary Clinton would be a good President.
-Went well out of his way to insult and margianalize the social cons in the party then, magicaly, tried to cozy up to them this time around.
-Seems very fond of cussing out Republicans but seems to have no problem cooperating with Dems.
-Gang of 14

*Co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, an abomination and direct affront to the First Amendment.

*Has engaged in a dirty political move specifically meant to silence conservatives in the Primaries by allying with Mike Huckabee. In fact, the only reason Huckabee is still in the race is to block any chance Romney has at beating McCain. Where this a two man race in truth, without Huckabee pulling a Perot. In fact,the ONLY reason Huckabee won West Virginia was due to this alliance. If this were truly a two man race, Romney would trounce McCain. But with McCain’s lackey playing spoiler, he’s safe.

Sorry, but the more this season unfolds, the more Clintonian McCain proves himself to be. He is more concerned with power and assuming the Presidency than he is about helping or serving. This may have not been the case before, but it certaintly is now, and with each passing day, my respect for him dwindles.

I cannot, will not, in good conscience vote for John McCain. He’s running for the wrong Party, and I will not be party to the destruction of The House that Reagan Built.

Again: that’s the SHORT list. The problem with McCain is hardly anything new, and conservatives have been having problems with him for seven years now.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
BTW, Erb, I have a question.

If I were to break into your house, sleep in one of your bedrooms, steal food from your fridge, money from your wallet, your identity to open new credit cards for me and take your medicine from your medicine cabnet and, as you protest, call you a bloody racist for complaining...what would you do?

Or are you only for enforcing laws against criminals that harm you personally?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Joel C.,

I agree with most of your negative laundry list about McCain, but he’s still far better than Hillary or Obama on most issues that matter, or should matter, to Republicans. Why is that not important?
I will not be party to the destruction of The House that Reagan Built.
Except that that’s exactly what you are doing. You think being a Republican who refuses to vote for the Republican nominee is somehow Reagan-like? The people trying to destroy the party are those who want to split it and put a Democrat in the Whitehouse.





 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
David

The thing is if Hillary gets the nod then you will have the Republicans opposing her agenda.

In addition, you will have a lot of dems upset because lets face it the only way she will beat Obama is her superdelegates and or Mich/Florida. Thus totaling ticking off a lot of her base. Her ideas are so wacko that the middle will desert her faster than the good ship Healthcare went down under Billy bob.

She will play the picking on a woman card and the victim card and that wont wash and she is out in 4 years. Her damage will be somewhat minimized.

As I stated above. Elect McCain for 4 years and you practically gaurentee Obama for 8 after that unless McCain dies in office.

Sorry I think I will choose the lesser of 2 evils. 4 years of hell vs 12 years of it.





 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
One other thing. Who says that some of those "Dem" votes for Hillary aren’t republicans hoping she will get the nomination so that she can be beat in the general election. The "common" wisdom is that she will be easier to beat than Obama.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Doesn’t that require a constitutional amendment, given the 14th amendment.
Are you against the very thought of bringing it up as an amendment?
And where will you get the money for a massive increase in border patrol?
You know, I’m just guessing there is a smart and efficient way of managing the borders with only minimal increases in spending. Start with surveillance, move to intercept, and act swiftly. Word will get around that it ain’t so easy any more.
How big of a bureaucracy do you want to go after companies who may hire illegal aliens?
As small a bureaucracy as possible. Just an efficient one with mandates. They show up here, there, and over there a few times... impose massive fines... see how long companies thumb their noses at the law.

It’s funny Scott, you seem all for government bureaucracies when they are for the things you support, but are aghast they might exist for something else.



 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Who says that some of those "Dem" votes for Hillary aren’t republicans hoping she will get the nomination so that she can be beat in the general election.
That’s me. I’m also for Hillary (over Obama) in case, as seems likely, a Democrat is inevitable for the White House in 2008. We will get silly domestic policies either way but I don’t think Hillary will let the US be rolled internationally and in Iraq quite so easily as Obama. Hillary is ruthless and I won’t mind seeing that ruthlessness aimed at our real enemies for a change.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Hillary is ruthless and I won’t mind seeing that ruthlessness aimed at our real enemies for a change.
The INDIVIDUAL is her enemy. Never forget that!
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I think Hillary’s enemy is anyone who will make her look bad. That could include al-Qaeda if she were President.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
agree with most of your negative laundry list about McCain, but he’s still far better than Hillary or Obama on most issues that matter, or should matter, to Republicans. Why is that not important?
Because the differences are miniscule. I’d much rather deal with someone who I disagree with and is upfront about it than someone trying to con me into thinking he’s on my side.
Except that that’s exactly what you are doing. You think being a Republican who refuses to vote for the Republican nominee is somehow Reagan-like?
An ’R’ after your name and before your state does not a Republican make. You don’t understand what it means to be President: you become the head of the Party. As President, you have the power to shift the entire platform of the Party and mold it. You have tons of influence as to who will run things.

Again: giving McCain that power would be utterly destroying everything we achieved after Nixon/Ford.

Again: voting for McCain will solve nothing if McCain is likely to give us the same garbage Hillary is...and he is going to do it. The difference is I’d rather let Democrats act like Democrats than Republicans act like Democrats. Or, in McCain’s case ’Republicans’ /scoff
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://

If I were to break into your house, sleep in one of your bedrooms, steal food from your fridge, money from your wallet, your identity to open new credit cards for me and take your medicine from your medicine cabnet and, as you protest, call you a bloody racist for complaining...what would you do?

Or are you only for enforcing laws against criminals that harm you personally?


That’s just too weird to respond to. Let’s talk about issues and not make absurdly false analogies. Hint: all laws are different. Not all laws should be enforced. The basis is not how it affects me. Your example is pure appeal to emotion, trying to deny the facts and issues at play.

Meagain: I tend to be skeptical of big governmental bureaucracy all the time. I just think you guys don’t have a chance on immigration, even within the GOP. Best bet: find a pragmatic compromise and move forward with clear, enforcable rules. And a constitutional amendment is off the table, it’s not at all feasible.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"I tend to be skeptical of big governmental bureaucracy all the time."

Sorry Scott you support Hillary or Obama and are obviously a democrat. That is a paradox from the statement above.

Universal Health care anyone.

" Let’s talk about issues and not make absurdly false analogies"

Actually the analogy was fairly accurate. Of course you want to discredit it because of that very fact.

The journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step.

1. Even if you cant change the constitution via an amendment you pass a law that the child stays and the parents go home.

2. You enforce the laws. If they are bad laws get rid of them and pass good ones. But you dont selectively enforce laws you dont agree with. That leads to chaos (aka the imigration situation).

3. You streamline the judicial process to have Julio and his family back across the border within 24 hours.

4. You start smacking $100k fines on businesses for hiring illegals.

5. You have the IRS and social security administration talk to each other on verifying Social security numbers. *GASP* government agency intercooperation what a concept.

6. you start denying people who cant prove they are citizens things like education, health care, welfare, food stamps, etc. They will pack up and go home and guess what, Mexican politicians will complain all over again that they cant handle their poor.

7. You close down the border via a number of methods. This would also cut drug traffic and a number of other things that are going on illegally.

Treat illegal mexicans the way that mexicans treat illegals. *GASP* What a concept. Stop being the dumping grounds for someone else’s problems. They wont try to fix their problems as long as they can just hand them to us to solve.



 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
That’s just too weird to respond to. Let’s talk about issues and not make absurdly false analogies.
Oh?

They break into our country, clog up our medical services, take up our social services, make up a high percentage of crime and tons of tax payer’s resources and make up a big population in our jails. And, when you protest them being here illegally, they call you a racist. (I say you because I’m a hispanic, so that doesn’t really work).

I live in Miami. I went to school with illegals. I see them in construction sites, out in the fields in Homestead. I’m not skewing any facts, sir. I speak their language, I know their heritage because i share it. I’m far, FAR more familiar with this than you are, even to a personal level. So spare me your condesending tone and either answer the question or admit that you’re wrong.

So how doesn’t this work, Erb?

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
You choose the person who Best Represents Your Values.
So hypothetically, if McCain supported 99% of the ideals, ideas, and policies you support, but also advocated raping 8-year old boys, you’d support McCain?
I’d much rather deal with someone who I disagree with and is upfront about it than someone trying to con me into thinking he’s on my side
Exactly. While I don’t respect thieves much, I respect more the one that admits it.
Doesn’t that require a constitutional amendment, given the 14th amendment.
Unless we start interpreting the other way, which is to say "It applies to those who are beholden to our lows, and since they broke the law getting here, it’s a moot point".

The children born here to those who legally come here? Sure. Little Jose can be a citizen by birth...

The kids of someone that snuck into the US, works a job using a fake ID, and pays no taxes because they hide who they really are? They aren’t showing a whole lot of "beholden", so their little frog-spawn don’t get to anchor mommy and/or daddy.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Unless we start interpreting the other way, which is to say "It applies to those who are beholden to our lows, and since they broke the law getting here, it’s a moot point".
Just reinterpret the constitution when it says something you don’t like. Gee, isn’t that what you don’t like about McCain-Feingold? And you were talking principles? Do you really think that when it suits one politically all one has to do is reinterpret the constitution. Here you’d be changing the meaning completely. I guess the constitution doesn’t mean much to you, eh?

Joel, the better analogy is someone breaking into my house and making improvements after I hinted that I needed improvements and would be grateful if anyone made them. Yeah, they broke in, but I wouldn’t press charges. They’re an economic net gain.

Retired, who says I support Hillary or Obama? I haven’t voted mainstream for a long time.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So hypothetically, if McCain supported 99% of the ideals, ideas, and policies you support, but also advocated raping 8-year old boys, you’d support McCain?
Well, since the other side rhetorically speaking supports raping 4 year old blind crippled girls, in answer to your question: Yes, yes, I do!
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
"Just reinterpret the constitution when it says something you don’t like. Gee, isn’t that what you don’t like about McCain-Feingold? And you were talking principles? Do you really think that when it suits one politically all one has to do is reinterpret the constitution. Here you’d be changing the meaning completely. I guess the constitution doesn’t mean much to you, eh?"

Well given that this is the definition of liberalism I am sure that it is okay with you.

As far as you voting. Since you say you dont want anyone with an R behind their name it infers Hillary or Obama.

That fits 99.9% of the population anyway. But then you dont seem to fit with any of the population with your wacky statements here.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Well, the good thing is guys if Hillary/Obama gets elected, we won’t have to move to France or Canada. We’ll be there already............
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://

As far as you voting. Since you say you dont want anyone with an R behind their name it infers Hillary or Obama.
When did I say that? I voted Republican for the Senate race in my state in 2006.

In any event, we’ll have a lot of candidates to choose from. And I’ll cast my vote for the person I think is best, regardless of that person’s chance of winning. It’s my vote and I’ll use it as I want to!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Joel, the better analogy is someone breaking into my house and making improvements after I hinted that I needed improvements and would be grateful if anyone made them.
You are kidding Scott. Right? I mean, you must be! You really think you would be OK walking in to your house and finding a group of strangers there? Even if they were doing something you perceive at that moment to be good, who are they? Why are they there? Are you going to pay them? If you are going to pay them, then why didn’t you offer the job to your neighbor who is out of work? And if 10 of them are doing good work, but one of them steals your valuables, how happy are you?

Please Scott - it truly does get embarrassing when you stoop this low.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I voted Republican for the Senate race in my state in 2006.
Snow or Collins? Checking the math -

Olympia Snowe is a Moderate Populist Conservative. (ontheissues.org)

Susan Collins is a Centrist. (ontheissues.org)

So you really didn’t vote for a Republican.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Of course for Scott, Mccain is the best conservative choice this electoin so I can see how Snowe or Collins would in his mind be a republican. Either though they do have an R behind their name.

Labels.

And Billary is caring too at least according to her supporters.

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
retired military,
The thing is if Hillary gets the nod then you will have the Republicans opposing her agenda.
True. But the Democrats control Congress. And as we already know, there are plenty of RINOs who will compromise. I’m not counting on getting all of her really bad ideas blocked. I fear she will be able to do quite of bit of irreparable damage.
In addition, you will have a lot of dems upset because lets face it the only way she will beat Obama is her superdelegates and or Mich/Florida. Thus totaling ticking off a lot of her base. Her ideas are so wacko that the middle will desert her faster than the good ship Healthcare went down under Billy bob.

She will play the picking on a woman card and the victim card and that wont wash and she is out in 4 years. Her damage will be somewhat minimized.
That’s another big gamble. She could just as easily be a two-termer, and her vp could be in good position to hold the presidency.
As I stated above. Elect McCain for 4 years and you practically gaurentee Obama for 8 after that unless McCain dies in office.
Or McCain’s vp could win in 2012.
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
Joel C.
Because the differences are miniscule.
I don’t see how you can possibly say the differences between Hillary and McCain are minuscule. But if you actually believe that, I can at least understand your position.
An ’R’ after your name and before your state does not a Republican make. You don’t understand what it means to be President: you become the head of the Party. As President, you have the power to shift the entire platform of the Party and mold it. You have tons of influence as to who will run things.
Actually having an R after your name does in fact make you a Republican. That’s why we have conservative Republicans, moderates and liberals. Does the term "big tent" ring a bell? Different types of Republicans disagree on different issues. Conservatives didn’t get a conservative candidate this year. We didn’t get one in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 or 2004 either. But in any event, I’m more worried about the country than the party. Bush has left the party in a sorry state already. And I’m just not seeing how having Hillary or Obama in power is going to somehow make the party better.

I’m a lot more worried about what Hillary or Obama is going to be able to "accomplish," than I am about John McCain’s effect on the Republican party. And we are already at war — do you want Hillary or Obama in charge if we are attacked again? I’ll take McCain, with all his faults, over either of them in a second.
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
Snow or Collins? Checking the math -

Olympia Snowe is a Moderate Populist Conservative. (ontheissues.org)

Susan Collins is a Centrist. (ontheissues.org)

So you really didn’t vote for a Republican.
Yes I did — a Republican is someone who is part of the party, and in this case chosen by the party to represent them. I didn’t vote for a conservative Republican, but she definitely is a Republican. And, given the way primaries are going, it seems that a lot more Republicans are moderate or independent minded than those who define themselves as part of some kind of conservative "movement." Most Republicans are pragmatic (as are most democrats), even if many of the elite in each party are more ideological.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Prof Erb — I don’t think the "most people are moderates" story explains the current situation.

Though Obama talks a good game of unity and transcending partisan differences, he actually is close to a pure liberal ideologue, and most of the Dem leadership is not far behind. Obama even attends a radical black identity church, which is not moderate at all. Yet this is flying just fine with typical Democrats, while the Republican field had only one consistent conservative candidate, and the rest balancing their moderate tendencies with the conservativism they thought was required. Yet the impure Republicans—McCain and Huckabee—have done far better with voters than expected.

It’s not that most Americans are moderate, but that the pendulumn has simply swung left, as it does, so it’s fine now to vote for an ideological liberal, but not a conservative one.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Prof Erb — Put another way ... Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are left, lefter, and leftest. Nothing comparatively parallel is happening on the Republican side.

The Kos/Moveon/netroot purists still howl over Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War and her refusal to push for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, though she has largely been chastened back into line, and otherwise defines herself a progressive, calling for much the same progressive agenda as Obama and Edwards.

Hillary is not the Democratic analog to McCain. Joe Lieberman would be, if he could get anywhere near the Democratic nomination process, but of course he can’t. He has been so thoroughly ostracized for his betrayal of current Democratic ideology that he didn’t even run as a Democrat in his last election.

The current Republican slate is a jagged, unhappy field, but it is far more varied and far less ideological than its Democratic counterpart.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Huxley, I don’t care about Obama’s’ church at all, and distrust claims this really makes a difference (how often does he go, anyway?) It does matter that he has a very liberal voting record, that will be an issue in the fall if he’s the nominee.

I agree Lieberman has been treated unfairly. I disagree completely with the war, but many on the Left have reacted to Lieberman in the same way people on the right have reacted to McCain (and accordingly, some on the right don’t realize how liberal Lieberman is, and many on the left don’t comprehend how conservative McCain is).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Prof. Erb — This is one of your "But Hitler was a vegetarian who loved dogs" responses. It may be true but it is entirely tangential to the current discussion.

You missed the basic import of my post — that the country’s political center has shifted left and thus the Democrats have three ideological, largely identical candidates on the left, but the Republican candidates are all over the map in terms of their conservative purity and their presumptive nominee has in fact deeply alienated the conservative base for his impure stands.

It doesn’t matter at all in this discussion whether you care about Obama’s church or whether you think Lieberman’s treatment has been unfair. I mention the Dem voters’ acceptance of Obama’s church and Lieberman’s ostracism as evidence of the country’s leftward shift, that the ideological purity of Democratic candidates is accepted, even required, today, but conservative purity on the Republican side is ignored.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Huxley, your comment inspired my own blog entry today.

I won’t cut and paste all of it, which is about the "civil wars" taking place within each political party (the Democrats a quiet behind the scenes one, the GOP a very public one) and what I think is the best short term solution for each. Here, though, is my conclusion — I think we need to get beyond left-right politics and recognize that we’re in a new era needing new ideas:
Long term: part of the confusion is that neither party really has come to grips with the reality we face. As noted yesterday, all this talk about the ’surge’ in Iraq ignores the problems of Afghanistan — which are more threatening to our national interest — and in fact ignores that there is little political progress in Iraq. Our economy is in dire straights. Yet "more government programs" from the Democrats doesn’t seem to offer much of a solution (how will we pay for them?), while the GOP has lacked feasible ideas in recent years, with the Bush Administration engaged mostly in problem solving and coping with the unexpected disaster in Iraq.

Herein lies the hope: McCain as a maverick and Obama as an inspirational newcomer each has the capacity to break with old thinking and find a way to redefine American politics and come up with a creative way to deal with the issues we face. There is a kind of political crisis taking place, the old way of thinking about politics doesn’t work, but we’re not sure how else to approach the issues. Both parties are stuck in 20th century thinking about taxes, sovereignty, government programs and coalitions. This is a new era, and we need new ideas. The notions of "left" and "right" or "conservative vs. liberal" are obsolete. It is now a test of our political process to see if we can adapt to these changes and generate the new kind of thinking needed to deal with the future.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Here goes Erb posting links to his blog again. As I said before. If we wanted to read your blog entries we would go there and read them instead of having to read your drivel here. Stop schilling your web site here.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — How in the world is Obama a sign of hope for getting beyond left-right politics? He has one of the most ideologically pure voting records in congress. Yet I somehow suspect you will never use the word "Stalinism" in the same sentence with him as you did with Republican conservatives.

The only new thing Obama offers is a young, black, political-rock-star face.

And anyone honest about Obama would admit that if he weren’t half-black, he would just be an undistinguished junior senator with who knows how to give a good speech and run a decent campaign, but nothing else.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
OK, I bit and read your piece, Herb. You show your bias plainly in deeming the Republican battle as the more "public" one. Well... it’s the most public one because it’s been deemed by the mainstream media as the "public" one. You read the internet, right? Wow, pretty big fight behind the scenes and in the liberal blogosphere over which direction the Dems should go. I won’t include links because you don’t need them. Just go to HuffPo to begin. But the big news for Lauer and Matthews: the Republicans are fighting each other! And you regurgitate it because you see conservative talk radio as the monkey pox. If liberals could sell talk radio to the public (er, I mean, if we brought back the fairness doctrine) what do you think they’d be talking about right now? You know, besides wishing the painful deaths of BushRoveCheney? So where did your evenhandedness go?
The notions of "left" and "right" or "conservative vs. liberal" are obsolete.
This is the hope of the European socialists among us. Blur the lines and govern in a scattershot, feelgood manner. Appeal to emotion as much as possible without relying on obsolete principles learned from history or past successful, principled politicians. Principles are not progressive and, in the 21st century, progressive is the key word that needs to drive policy. Look at how the global warming debate is being framed. To not be progressive is to be a square from a bygone era (but not the sixties cause the sixties were cool).
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
And anyone honest about Obama would admit that if he weren’t half-black, he would just be an undistinguished junior senator with who knows how to give a good speech and run a decent campaign, but nothing else.
If this were Europe, you’d be brought up on charges for making this statement. For shame, sir. Actually, I’d be surprised if this were not already a "hate crime".
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Rob, most people aren’t following the behind the scenes democratic struggle, it’s not visible to average voters who see Obama and Clinton generally talking nice to each other. Look at the barbs being traded among Republican pundits and politicians. There is a huge difference.

As to your description of "European socialists," I think it’s really the right that is appealing to emotion — it’s logical, that’s how talk radio keeps it’s listeners, it’s sort of the yellow journalism of this age. But frankly, I think you’ve set up a false dichotomy. I think the age of ideologies is ending, we’re moving towards more pragmatic problem solving. That’s one reason why McCain gets support from average folk, they see him as not being driven by some kind of ideological dogma justified by calling it "principles."

But yes, the times they are a-changing. Think: what if there had been no Iraq war, what if President Bush had pushed through his "Ownership society," stayed popular, and made fundamental changes. Could be that the Iraq war undercut the domestic agenda of the GOP completely, creating the current dilemma the so-called "right" faces?

Oh, and I’ve found concern political correctness more common here than in Europe. I think you also have a caricatured view of Europe, created by a few emotional examples that get put forth as reflecting ’all’ of Europe.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The important thing will be who will be selected as VP on both sides now.

If McCain doesnt select someone palatable to the conservatives they probably wont show up to vote for him.

If Hillary doesnt pick Obama she ticks off the African American population.

If Obama doesnt pick Hillary he ticks off the female population.

No matter who Obama or Hillary pick there will be voters who behind the closed door of the curtain pull the lever for McCain instead of the dem nominee stritctly based on the fact that Obama is Black or Hillary is a woman or both.
(Yes racism and sexism is alive and well in the Democratic party as well as everywhere else). Not too many folks have brought this point up (that I have seen but I am sure that it will play a factor.)

So in theory the VP choice will have almost as much effect on Voter turnout IMO than the Presidential nominee.






 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://

If McCain doesnt select someone palatable to the conservatives they probably wont show up to vote for him.
He got a very warm reception at CPAC. I think the conservatives will come home to him, it’s the way the political dance goes. Not all, but enough.

Hillary could pick a black that is not Obama (Ford, maybe), and Obama could pick a woman who is not Hillary. Also, I’m not sure Hillary would want to be VP (though I think Obama would take it).

Then again, the campaign will heat up, and the issues of February might be very distant by October. One mistake people made last year is thinking that the political landscape of mid-2007 (when McCain looked dead and everyone was upset about immigration) would have any impact on the politics of 2008. It’s a moving target.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh, and I’ve found concern political correctness more common here than in Europe.
Well, of course you have, darling. And your anecdotes trump mine because, well, you are an educator, yes, and that’s what you’re doing to me here. Thank you.
I think you also have a caricatured view of Europe, created by a few emotional examples that get put forth as reflecting ’all’ of Europe.
Why on earth did I let myself get carried away like that? Here’s one of my few "emotional example". I guess I need to quit reading the European tabloid press, which is a repetitious phrase anyway. Thanks for straightening me out again, Scotty.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
By the way, does one have to actually travel to Europe to truly "find political correctness more common here"? Is there a preferred reading list or must I enroll in one of your classes? Surely there’s a news source that is some sort of bellwether for European society. That you’d approve of, of course.

Not that you know where I get my info. Or do you have a caricature of me?
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Scott

Actually I had thought of the "other african american or Other woman scenario"

Where as it could work it could also backfire and be seen as pandering then. Not that nominees dont pander for votes (Ie McCain at the CPAC conference) but I dont think that pandering would be taken very kindly.

Ford is not an Obama and it would also look like Hillary is trying to cut him out for 16 years (8 for Hillary and 8 for Ford).

The same goes for another woman. Noone else has the presence or ability to get votes or has the namesake of Hillary (she deserves it dammit).

I dont think that scenario will fly very well. I could be wrong.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://

 
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