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.

Gets down to: do you (vote for) who can win or do you want (the one) who can lead the way you want him/her to lead?

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:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is going to win McCain primary after primary in the South.

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.

Um, Gang of 14, anybody?

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.

He also strongly supported President Bush on his conservative judges.

Um, Gang of 14, anybody?

Perhaps your moniker should be fifteen88 (birth of Thomas Hobbes)?

But then it wouldn’t be football related, and I can’t have that …

honora:

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).

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.?

On the second, Gingrich. Though I agree with whoever points out his Q rating is pretty low.

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.

The war and terrorism gets all the press, but don’t you think a lot of voters–particularly Republicans–are looking for fiscal responsibility?

We definitely want fiscal responsibility. But we want to stay alive and safe from terrorists first.

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.

I’m hoping Romney gets the nomination, but I predict McCain will get it. Giuliani definitely won’t.

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?

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.

Perhaps your moniker should be fifteen88 (birth of Thomas Hobbes)?

Seriously, interesting points. Glad to have a place we can discuss these things.

but even those comments don’t fall anywhere near the depths of DU level.

Yes, but it’s a slippery slope.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

And vain? The guy can’t even raise his arms to comb his own hair.

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?

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.

Sorry folks, but McCain is an idiot.

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…

myself and others pointing out his weaknesses and socially liberal record is hardly ‘bashing” him or is it politics of personal destruction!

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.

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.