Poll: McCain perceived as eight points left of center
posted at 10:37 am on August 17, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
According to the latest Rasmussen survey. Whereas Rudy Giuliani, whose stance on abortion and gay marriage is supposedly going to torpedo his candidacy in the primaries, is perceived as being only three points to the left.
Just a little too much “maverick” for a little too long on a few too many issues. He’s good enough on the war that I could grit my teeth and forgive him the campaign finance act. But immigration, alas, was a dealbreaker.
Who else is out there? Allen? He’ll call Condi Rice a “macaca” at one of the debates. Condi? Her prospects are about as bright as Lebanon’s now. Mitt Romney? Who?
I hereby declare, in my formal capacity as custodian of HotAir.com, August 17, 2006 to be the start of Giuliani time.
Incidentally, Rick Moran says Condi must go. Must she? I didn’t realize that the State Department now operates completely independently of the president.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Right up until the torture ban, he was.
CFR was his Tessio move, as far as I’m concerned. Immigration was the icing on the turd, lest we forget him telling union workers that they couldn’t pick lettuce for $50 an hour.
Boo, the republican version of the seven dwarves!
Hooray, Rudy!
Kid from Brooklyn on August 17, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Must we always settle for a left leaning candidate? It isn’t as if the lefties appreciate the effort.
Newt Gingrich for President! :oP~~
DannoJyd on August 17, 2006 at 10:52 AM
I think McCain would be a very strong presidential candidate…
for the Democrats.
Mojave Mark on August 17, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Incidentally, Rick Moran says Condi must go. Must she? I didn’t realize that the State Department now operates completely independently of the president.
That’s true. But the excreable UN resolution was lost not in the high councils of state but in the diplomatic trenches.
A week prior to the cease fire, Rice told the President to hold up the Israeli offensive because she was close to a deal. In the space of 72 hours, the French went from signing on to the independent international force operating under Chapter 7 rules (and an immediate disarmament of Hizbullah) to advocating the tepid UNIFIL augmentation with disarmament to be determined later along with an unenforceable arms embargo. The issue of the captured soldiers went from unconditional release to a matter to be discussed later.
What happened? Certainly not Bush. Condi couldn’t close the deal and Israel lost 72 hours in their final offensive that was making excellent progress when it was halted on Monday.
Yes blame Bush. But a President is only as good as the advice he gets. And Rice failed in that regard.
rick moran on August 17, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Speaking of left of center, it appears the Nedrenaline has ceased, according to the latest poll
from the dog grooming school in Hamden, CT.
Ain’t no stopping the Joementum now.
JammieWearingFool on August 17, 2006 at 11:06 AM
This wasn’t a close call, though, Rick. He should have torpedoed that resolution Condi’s advice notwithstanding.
Allahpundit on August 17, 2006 at 11:06 AM
I second the Newt nomination. Giuliani, although I admire certain aspects of his character and personality, has faded since he was ‘Americas Mayor’. And there are certain left leaning components to his politics that leave me cold.
Newt, on the other hand, is a consistent conservative who can articulate the message better than anyone and has a proven track record of getting things done. Tough on crime. Tough on terror. Fiscally conservative.
Dunno. It’s a no brainer for me.
pistolero on August 17, 2006 at 11:11 AM
So Bush is forcibly bound to a crappy deal, just because Condi can’t get it done? Are we bound (to put it in Rumsfeldian terms) to work with the deal we have, instead of the deal we want? What good is a veto on the SC if we don’t have the bag to use it? The fish rots from the head down.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 17, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Gingrich/Tancredo in ‘08! ;)
May not be perfect but it’s a heck of a lot better than any other option *I* see…
RH
RobertHuntingdon on August 17, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Don’t underestimate Allen … or Newt … or Romney.
I don’t want to underestimate McVain either, but he’s persona non grata with much of the base and I think he’s more of a political opportunist than any of the others in the race. I don’t trust him and I won’t vote for him.
thirteen28 on August 17, 2006 at 11:23 AM
another vote for Newt in 08
RobertCSampson on August 17, 2006 at 11:24 AM
I don’t think the run of the mill Republican will ever vote in a Mormon as President, so that would tend to shoot down Romney.
I like the idea of Gingrich/Tancredo but it somehow, just doesn’t seem possible.
Think I’ll wait a while before declaring for anyone.
Death to Islam, and
their mediot stooges!
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on August 17, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Rowane — I warned you about this the other day but I guess you didn’t see it. So I’m warning you again, for the last time: if you insist upon the “Death to Islam” message in your comments, you should take your business elsewhere.
Allahpundit on August 17, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Abortion and gay marriage should torpedo his candidacy
MarkB on August 17, 2006 at 11:54 AM
There is a theory that the guy (or gal…hope springs eternal) who wins is the one who oversets the shortcomings of the preceding president–a crooked Nixon begats a pious Carter, an ineffective Carter begets a strong Reagan, a domestically disengaged Bush I begets a domestically focused Clinton, a morally corrupt Clinton begets a home in bed with wife by 9 Bush.
So a incompetent Bush begets—the obvious answer would be someone seen as erudite and accomplished. Gingrich would appear to have the advantage in this scenario. (But hey, I’m a Dem :) don’t listen to me!!)
honora on August 17, 2006 at 11:58 AM
The problem for Giuliani, McCain, Romney and others tough on war but socially liberal, is getting the nomination. Whether you like it or not, and I like it, the conservative right controls the nomination process right now and I don’t think they would ever nominate anyone in this group. I am sorry George Allen made a slip of the lip, he was my leading candidate. Newt has too much baggage to ever get elected.
Th next problem is this, what if McCain or someone of his ilk is able to get the nomination? McCain and Giuliani might appeal to enough independents and liberal to moderate Republicans to get elected, except for one thing – I think most conservatives will simply sit out the 2008 election and no matter what Democrat runs they will probably get elected.
We need a true conservative to run, but one with the ability to articulate their views clearly and not piss off the left so much that he/she would not get enough independent voters.
Umnumzana on August 17, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Sorry folks, but McCain is an idiot.
BirdEye on August 17, 2006 at 12:14 PM
I feel sorry for McCain and will never Vote for him to be President. Being a POW has tapped his brain and left him unfit for the job. When I saw him on the floor of the Senate during the Immigration debates nearly foaming at the mouth I knew he had lost touch with reality and quite literaly feared he would hurt himself there for all to see.
Priest on August 17, 2006 at 1:09 PM
Allah, no offense, but Bush can’t even veto ONE spending bill. do ya really think he has the b**ls to use our veto power on the SC? No way, IMHO.
pullingmyhairout on August 17, 2006 at 1:13 PM
Mitt Romney? Who?
We can ask the same thing about Giuliani. Giuliani? Who? At least we know where Romney stands on issues.
We all know Giuliani was a popular mayor and tough on crime, but what about the following?
-Immigration?
-Foreign Policy?
-Judges on the Supreme Court?
President Bush has been more conservative than Reagan on judicial philosophy: Alito, Roberts versus O’Connor, Kennedy.
With Giuliani we most likely will get more of the “moderate” same of President Bush, plus liberal judges.
januarius on August 17, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Sorry- I forgot to put the following statement by AllahPundit in quotes:
januarius on August 17, 2006 at 1:42 PM
Priest: I agree with you. There are many reasons I would not vote for Viet Cong Johnny McCain; but the one that got me really mad was the Campaign Finance Reform bill he and Feingold created and sponsored. It in effect, resulted in amending our Constitution and the Bill of Rights absent the Amendment process. It abridges my free speech political rights to spend my money up to the day of the election so I can say candidate “A” is a bastard and candidate “B” is the better choice.
He has often conspired with liberals like Teddy “I kill my dates” Kennedy to draft, sponsor and force through legislation that are wholly contrary to what I believe is good for this country. An example, the Immigration Reform Bill, which Bush’ comments to the contrary, is an amnesty bill, and does nothing to close our borders to illegal aliens.
But, we can relax because I do not believe McCain can get the Republican Party nomination. On the other hand, he could follow Leibermann and in fact form a McCain/Leibermann ticket as an Independent, which would only guarantee the Democrat presidential nominee wins!
Umnumzana on August 17, 2006 at 1:46 PM
I like honora’s theory above, but think it could also point to Rudy. A hands-on, practical, get things done guy who keeps his cool and does the right thing under pressure. Newt is very smart, but I wonder if too many voters have a negative impression of him.
mikeyboss on August 17, 2006 at 1:49 PM
And I’m sorry to see all this bashing of McCain. If I understand correctly, he turned down an opportunity to be released from captivity because he wasn’t there the longest. David Foster Wallace, a lib, wrote a very interesting essay while travelling with the McCain campaign in 2000. He was impressed at McCain’s willingness to put his self-interest behind adherence to prinicple.
mikeyboss on August 17, 2006 at 1:52 PM
honora, all that ‘begetting’ works in more tranquil times. These are different and only someone who’s tough on security and the WOT will win. I see no woman on the horizon who comes even close. This country will have a woman as President some day – it will not be in 2008!
In general, and not my vote/support, just analyzing it at this time…the conservatives are enamored with deference (why the nice but not-most-winnable Mr. Dole).
McCain is that person, for the very last time. In spite of his many wild streaks, there is something of a ‘destiny’ in him. He happens to be right on the WOT. I can see McCain/Giuliani, the VP being younger and ready to jump in, if something happens with the aging McCain. The country, social/domestic issues being second now, would trust this duo to protect us and to continue the fight in the WOT. Many independents and right-leaning Democrats would vote for them. No Democrat would have a chance!
In 2008 many conservatives will have to hold their noses tight and go for the guy who can beat the liberal candidate. More than principles and party affiliation will be at stake – i.e. survival. I’m just hoping that they are wise enough to weigh the outcome. The alternative is devastating because we have no time to flounder. These are not the 90s!
I like Gingrich, his vast knowledge of history, and his ideas and could vote for him but I don’t think the time is now.
Messrs. Frist, Romney, Allen, Pataki…not going to be!
Mr. Giuliani is a great communicator. Now, here honora might be onto some begetting :)
Entelechy on August 17, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Amen. Just because we don’t particularly like McCain’s politics, doesn’t mean we should stoop to the level of the DU types and bash him personally. We can and SHOULD have an honest discussion as to who should be on the 08 ticket, but the personal destruction needs to stop. just my two cents…
pullingmyhairout on August 17, 2006 at 2:08 PM
McCain has my sympathy for what he went through during the Vietnam war, but that does not give him carte blanche to conduct himself politically in the way he has since then – which means at odds with the conservative movement much of the time. One can easily make a laundry list of things he’s done to deserve present bashing:
- His insistence on bashing religious conservatives, playing right into the hands of Christian-hating liberals. Even after he tried to make nice with them recently, he turned around and bashed them again.
- His sellout on the Gang of 14 deal, which undermined not only President Bush on the one thing he’s been great on, but undermined a number of his senatorial colleagues as well. That in turn undermined Bush’s confidence that he could get a decent judge through the senate and led directly to the nomination of Harriet Miers, which almost tore the conservative movement in two.
- His vile accusation of Bush engaging in “Clinton-like truth-twisting” during the 2000 primary campaign. I guess it takes one to know one.
- His anti-torture bill, which is moral posturing off of his status as a victim of torture himself. Practical reality in our current war says we cannot take that option completely off the table, yet he wants to. Just because the torture of him was unjustified doesn’t mean it’s always unjustified, as may very well have been the case with the recently uncovered plane bombing plot.
- CFR. Ever hear of the frickin’ 1st Amendment, Senator McVain?
- His utter lack of respect for American sovereignty (not to mention residents of his own state) and the rule of law as demonstrated by his advocacy of an open borders bill so maliciously bad it would exacerbate the problem in orders of magnitude.
- His constant preening and posturing for the mainstream media because he loves the adulation he gets from them for his “maverick” status.
And willing to put self-interest behind for adherence to principles? What principles was he adhering to when he pushed McVain-Feingold? It certainly wasn’t the principle of free speech, and he certainly seemed to love the editorial page of the NYTimes during that whole episode. And I’d love to see the donor list of Mr. Keating Five to see how well he continues to “adhere to principles” he espoused in getting the influence of lobbyists and such out of politics.
Sorry mikeyboss, but John McVain has brought all of this bashing on himself. He deserves every bit of it and more.
thirteen28 on August 17, 2006 at 2:48 PM
Oh, and pullingmyhairout, I don’t think anyone here has stooped to DU level in their bashing of McVain – just pointing out what he’s done and why we don’t like him, for which we have good reason.
thirteen28 on August 17, 2006 at 2:50 PM
pullingmyhairout: Believe me I could easily bash McCain for both his war time and political record. I strongly dislike him for many reasons; but myself and others pointing out his weaknesses and socially liberal record is hardly ‘bashing” him or is it politics of personal destruction!
Entelechy:
1. How does he get the nomination? Why would conservatives nominate him? Are there enough moderate Republicans to nominate him?
2. You said. “More than principles and party affiliation will be at stake – i.e. survival. I’m just hoping that they are wise enough to weigh the outcome.” It is interesting how many people like you are prone to say principles don’t matter, just our survival. Survival as what? Many millions of those living under various murderous dictators and regimes survived, as frightened prisoners and victims of evil men, but is simple survival worth it? So we elect people who are great at fighting the war on terrorism and they even defeat IslamoFascist terrorism for the most part, meanwhile they undermine every moral and spiritual value this country has represented and those holding to those moral and spiritual values become the enemies of the state! That is a high price to pay for survival!
I understand and appreciate your point, and if some creature like McCain got nominated by the Republican Party and Hillary, Kerry, or some of other appeasment minded liberal is the Democrat nominee; then I would say perhaps it is better to win the war on terror, and maybe we should vote for a creature like McCain rather than the Democrat. But, it is my belief that most conservatives would simply sit out that election, and that means the Democrat wins by default!
Umnumzana on August 17, 2006 at 2:52 PM
thirteen28,
Isn’t it possible he sincerely believes in the positions he’s taken? We all (I think) accept that the right to free speech is not absolute. The question of where to place restrictions is debatable.
I may be naive, but I tend to assume the best of people. Of course noone is perfect, but this guy has proven himself in dramatic circumstances.
And vain? The guy can’t even raise his arms to comb his own hair.
mikeyboss on August 17, 2006 at 2:58 PM
I agree with the bashing of McCain, as in: enough already. I cringe when I see these “yeah, he was in the Hanoi Hilton, but…” posts. We should be grateful for his service, and his grace while in captivity.
Any discussion of Senator McCain should begin and end with his voting record and his ideas; both of which utterly suck. McCain-Feingold alone should serve as a disqualifier, for curbing free speech with a “campaign finance reform” bill that does nothing to reform campaign finance. But then there’s the torture ban, which was the first step towards granting Geneva rights to head-chopping terrorists. And, of course, we can’t forget his efforts to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Remember his gem at that union meeting? His reply to local workers who answerd his rhetorical challenge to pick lettuce for $50 an hour: “You can’t do it”. That was the last straw. The MSM can mentally masturbate to a “Unity Ticket” all day long, and tout his moderation until they’re blue in the face. In a primary between McCain and a dead dog, I want to hear the dead dog’s position on immigration before voting.
Kid from Brooklyn on August 17, 2006 at 3:07 PM
McCain has my undying gratitude for the courage and dignity he showed during his captivity in Vietnam. My respect for him has no bounds due to that episode. Having said that, I would not vote for him for anything. I think he is wishy-washing, dogmatic and his immigration policy not something I can support. But he is a good man. He is most likely a great man, he just isnt my cup of tea as a politician. Could I support Guilliani? Absolutely. With Newt as VP it would be a great team.
I cant warm up to Allen. Romney? Possibly.
labwrs on August 17, 2006 at 3:08 PM
Actually, these are the quotes I was referring to. foaming at the mouth? idiot?
I don’t know about you, but that seems to be stooping to me…
I never said that pointing out his record was “bashing.” His record is fair game. He has a liberal voting record and it certainly deserves to be highly criticized. He has made numerous political choices that I personally find appalling. I was just encouraging everyone to keep it clean and not make it personal.
pullingmyhairout on August 17, 2006 at 3:18 PM
Sure it’s possible – which only damns him further. At least with Bush I can assume his wrong-headed position on immigration has something to do with his good-Samaritan views as a Christian. But McVain thinks religious conservatives are intolerant, so what principle could possibly be motivating his support of open borders, lawlessness, and utter lack of respect for American sovereignty? Believe me, there is no way in hell I would vote for a candidate that sincerely believed in those principles.
Did he sincerely believe Bush was engaged in Clinton-like truth twisting?
Does he sincerely believe that the first amendment should be trumped to his own vision of campaign finance reform?
Again, if he sincerely believes in those principles, I would be no more inclined to vote for him than a candidate who sincerly believes in the prinicples of socialism are the best way to run an economy.
No offense, but I think you are a little naive if you believe this. I probably come off as pretty negative with my dim view of human nature, but I’ve got thousands of years of recorded history (not to mention current events) backing up my position. People are generally self-interested and will do what brings them advantage. It’s only through certain institutions (e.g. families) and civic virtues that we obtain our higher selves, but there is always that struggle between the baseness of our nature and what we want to believe about our higher selves.
I’m not saying you should assume everybody is a wolf in sheep’s clothing – but don’t just assume everybody is good either. But if you assume the best of everybody, you will most definitely be taken advantage of and will end up disappointed. Guarunteed.
And with politicians? It would be very naive to assume the best, even of the ones you believe in.
As for the dramatic circumstances you are talking about, I will assume you mean his captivity in Vietnam. Again, I’ll give him his due there, but that does not qualify him to be president by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it mean his policy positions should be overlooked.
I’m certainly not talking about his flowing mane when I refer to him as McVain. Rather, I’m referring to his obvious enjoyment of the attention and adutlation he receives from the MSM for his “maverick” status. Funny how Lieberman never gets called a maverick by the same people. What does that tell you?
thirteen28 on August 17, 2006 at 3:19 PM
labwrs: I have tried to stay away from saying some ugly things about McCain’s service; like the Kid from Brooklyn, I prefer to focus on his voting/public record; however,
1. I do respect his being able to endure unbearable torture and suffering, which I doubt I could have endured at all, but . . .
2. He did, at the end of his captivity, give aid and comfort to the enemy; and no matter his motives, which may have been of the highest degree; he nonethless violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice in doing so. Don’t get me wrong, I would have probably not only done the same thing and with less noble motives, I would have made up stuff just to stop the pain. So, I am not judging him, just pointing out an uncomfortable truth that this man, even as a POW, was no paragon of virtue.
3. He was almost universally hated by his fellow Navy Officers, before his capture, for his self-righteouness and rigid demands that others conform to his standards.
4. Since Bush was elected, McCain has at every critical juncture, when the President needed his support for non terrorist related legislation, stood with liberal Democrats and against the President; which to me, indicates a duplicitous, back stabbing, self serving nature.
I’m sorry, not only would I not vote for McCain, I would actively work against his nomination and election!
Umnumzana on August 17, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Absolutely agree with pullingmyhairout!
Name calling (unless it is about Kofi Annan or the French) is not good. Citing reasons you dont like someone is fine, stooping to badmouthing is not.
labwrs on August 17, 2006 at 3:27 PM
You have a point pullingmyhairout, but even those comments don’t fall anywhere near the depths of DU level. But the overwhelming majority of the anti-McVain (I will continue to call him that, with reasons already discussed) comments are based on his own actions and justified many times over.
thirteen28 on August 17, 2006 at 3:36 PM
Yes, but it’s a slippery slope.
pullingmyhairout on August 17, 2006 at 4:08 PM
Perhaps your moniker should be fifteen88 (birth of Thomas Hobbes)?
Seriously, interesting points. Glad to have a place we can discuss these things.
mikeyboss on August 17, 2006 at 4:17 PM
Gets down to: do you who can win or do you want who can lead the way you want him/her to lead? (I am the mistress of the obvious….)
On the first, I think McCain is the front runner by most measures. I don’t see the Republicans nominating Rudy–a NY Republican is a screaming liberal in many parts of the country and certainly among the base (meaning the social conservative “values” folks).
On the second, Gingrich. Though I agree with whoever points out his Q rating is pretty low.
The war and terrorism gets all the press, but don’t you think a lot of voters–particularly Republicans–are looking for fiscal responsibility?
honora on August 17, 2006 at 4:19 PM
Any bets on how soon we see the “Hanoi Hilton Veterans” telling us the “real story” of McCain didn’t really earn his medals?
honora on August 17, 2006 at 4:23 PM
I’m almost positive that McCain will end up getting the 2008 nomination because (1) he is pro-life and (2) he is conservative in foreign policy. He also strongly supported President Bush on his conservative judges.
I’m hoping Romney gets the nomination, but I predict McCain will get it. Giuliani definitely won’t.
januarius on August 17, 2006 at 4:24 PM
Rudy might have to swing a bit to the right on things like the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage. Luckily with the gay marriage issue, a lot of right-wingers can be placated by a game of semantics: “I’m in favor of civil unions… not gay marriage.” Same thing, but remove the precious m-word, and pulses are calmed.
The president has little power over abortion… other than nominating SCOTUS appointees, so I’m willing to overlook that. The 2nd Amendment is near to my heart, but I really can’t think that a Republican would ever dare attack it. It would be suicide. Besides… it’s the one right that defends itself, if need be (in the words of Heston: “out of my cold, dead hands.”)
I had some hope in Condi, but that’s likely gone… she’s been tainted by association with the Bush administration, and perhaps a bit unlucky with the way things have turned out in the Middle East. Newt is just more of the same, except that he has an even stronger name for the thing that will be distracting him from the domestic agenda: “WWIII.” Tancredo opposes legal immigration, which makes him about as American as… well… whatever the opposite of The Statue of Liberty is.
Rudy might be the best bet… if he can get through primaries. Let me put it this way: he may be the only Republican that’ll keep me from voting for the Libertarian Party candidate and keep my father from voting for the Conservative Party candidate. That should be pretty indicative of his broad appeal. Hopefully some of the one-issue voters (gay marriage, abortion) can look beyond their pet issues and vote for the person who can defeat Hillary.
Mark Jaquith on August 17, 2006 at 4:29 PM
But then it wouldn’t be football related, and I can’t have that …
honora:
I think whatever advantage McVain may have had over Rudy with conservatives was long ago squandered by virtue of the many things that have been pointed out in this thread.
Furthermore, Rudy’s had five years off from politics, and the last thing people remember of him is his handling of 9/11. What’s the last thing people remember McVain doing in govt.?
Gingrich’s achilles heel will be the way he handled his second divorce and third marraige, both of which resulted from an affair. I don’t know if that’s enough to sink his candidacy though, because on the plus side he’s got a powerful intellect, a lot of ideas, and the trophy from the 1994 Republican takeover of congress on his mantle. That’s a pretty big trophy. And if Republicans lose congress in the upcoming midterms, that trophy will look even bigger.
We definitely want fiscal responsibility. But we want to stay alive and safe from terrorists first.
thirteen28 on August 17, 2006 at 4:33 PM
Um, Gang of 14, anybody?
thirteen28 on August 17, 2006 at 4:35 PM
He supported Bush on Alito and Roberts, and, in fact, strongly criticized him when Bush nominated Harriet Myers, saying that if Bush promised to put conservatives on the Supreme Court, he should keep his promise. Because he would not support overruling the filibuster tactics of the Dems does not mean he did not support conservatives for judges.
Reagan gave us 2 libs on the Supreme Court and 1 conservative. Bush has given us 2 conservatives. If McCain plays it right, he can take some credit for it during campaigning.
I’m not crazy about McCain and want a staunch conservative in the White House, but I’m sure he will get the nomination. McCain is a social conservative, whereas Giuliani is not. That is going to win McCain primary after primary in the South.
januarius on August 17, 2006 at 4:50 PM
But in the Gang of 14 compromise he threw several good conservative judicial candidates under the bus. He’s taken as many steps forward as he has backward, and his Gang of 14 compromise (which undermined Bush and other Senate Republicans) will not be forgotten, as is demonstrated on this very thread.
I have yet to hear Guliani or any other Republican candidate refer to religious conservatives as intolerant as McVain has or engage in other bashes of them. Religious conservatives are the strongest Republican demographic in the South and they are not going to be lining up to vote for McVain when there are numerous other choices that haven’t engaged in Christian-bashing in order to win favor with the NYTimes editorial writers.
thirteen28 on August 17, 2006 at 4:59 PM
McCain is FOR free speech unless it is within 90 days of the people’s time to VOTE !
gary on August 17, 2006 at 5:30 PM
I’m rather depressed by ALL the front runners. Wouldn’t matter which one wins the primary. It will be at the very least an uninspiring campaign, at worse, another choice of the lesser of the evils.
McCain….. No, I won’t vote for him NO MATTER WHAT.
Allen?….. Yeah, I’d vote for him but not be a volunteer.
Romney….. I’d vote for him, but — YAWWWNN.
‘Gingrich… Greatly respect his intellect but just don’t trust him anymore due to his behavior in the last 6 years. I’d vote for him, but reluctantly.
Rice…. Was one of her earliest cheeerleaders, but no longer. She WOULD make for the most interesting campaign, (Assuming she decides to run) but my vote would be reluctant because I believe she is a closet new world order globalist and NOT an American Conservative.
Giuliani…. Sure, he is a social liberal, but he is (apparently, anyway) a hard core, common sense, American patriot who would take America’s security and economy seriously… At least under him, I think our soverignty would survive for a few more years. I’d vote for him; reluctantly, but a little less reluctantly than for the previous.
Tancredo…. I’d vote for him, maybe even volunteer to work in his campaign… But I don’t believe that he is really ‘presidential’. But ILLEGAL immigration is my ‘hot button issue’, something I have to deal with every time I leave my house, and I’d go with tancredo just to ’shake things up’.
Why the heck can’t we find a really smart, wise, honest, charismatic, Patriot, beholden to no one but his own conservative credentials, instead of all these highly flawed people. There has got to be at least one person like that who could be induced to run.
LegendHasIt on August 17, 2006 at 5:52 PM
Senator McCain and Joan Baez go to jam sessions together. His love those who can walk, those who can walk across borders at least is hard to top, second only to Kennedy.
Gulliani doesn’t jive with the second ammendment worth crap.
I like Newt, if he were to give up the big buisness habit.
Tancredo for Pres. that is if by that time, not too many illegal aliens are registered to vote. You know damn well Congress won’t stop voter fraud.
08 could be live, die or learn Spanish. Elsewise a carniceria truck might be a good investment.
Speakup on August 17, 2006 at 6:03 PM
Allert to conservatives! When honora rightly so, claims to be the “mistress of the obvious” we’re in biiiiig trouble:
Do not sit it out, under any circumstances in Nov. 2006 and 2008! The alternative for this country and the world is devastating!!!
Umnumzana, I have read all your posts and have been thrilled that you joined this site. Sometimes I feel that you are the reincarnation of another commenter. I assure you that we are on the same side and that you and I fight the same fight. Your following comment depressed me, however, even though you then recovered a bit later. Allow me to dissect it a bit, given that I even understand it well enough:
1. Principles matter a lot. I am extremely principled and have had to, at times, work much harder to succeed, just by sticking to them. However, if I’m dead, they don’t count any more.
2. I was born into a communist dictatorship. NO, I don’t want to wake up in one again. The liberals, with their ‘peaceful, nuanced, elitist and sissy approach’ will take us there.
3. “Survival as what?” I’d much rather survive as what we are now and then focus on making our lives better, than not survive in the first place. Yes, I have ideals and oodles of joie-de-vivre but I’m trying to use my brain in these times to find practical ways to win first.
4. I’m glad you then understood my point, sincerely.
5. I’m not happy about any conservative (at any political range) sitting out this and the 2008 election. Work hard, very hard to prevent this from happening.
I’m not for or against McCain. One item all forgot to mention is that he extemely faithfully and diligently campaigned for Mr. Bush in 2004 (not easy, given the venom from 2000). I believe Mr. Bush will never forget that, and neither should the party.
With the country so bitterly devided, it’s not inconceivable to see a winnable McCain/Lieberman ticket.
Honora, sincerely, I so appreciate that you stick it out, debate, come up with ideas, and make all of us more civilized in the process. You are an example of what should take place multi-million-fold in our country today.
Entelechy on August 17, 2006 at 6:15 PM
…one more thing…all this is interesting but we should begin to put all our energies into Nov. 2006. Most important for now!
Entelechy on August 17, 2006 at 6:20 PM
Entelechy: While you are right about focusing our energies on 2006; non-presidential election years are notable for their low turnout and that gives advantage to incumbents; except in the off year elections of a President’s last term there is a general fever for change, whether change is good for us or not, but we just get tired of the same old faces and we are affected by the constant criticism of the party out of power.
Umnumzana on August 17, 2006 at 9:44 PM
Umnumzana, I agree with your statement but this year they’re in such a winning funk that we can’t stay home. They are making a huge effort to bring out the voters. And you know about the categories…
I think the polls mean nothing today but we can’t become bitter, complacent or spiteful. I’d love to throw a few of our ‘bumbs’ out myself but this is not the time. Historical trends can not be relied on regarding ‘incumbent advantage’. These are times which are too serious and different. We must vote in droves. The alternative gives me nightmares.
Entelechy on August 17, 2006 at 11:38 PM
“not bad for Mr. Maverick“, nor for “Giuliani time”…
Entelechy on August 18, 2006 at 12:49 PM
Comment pages: