McCain

[Wes Tausend]

...

Of all the Republican candidates, I like McCains style the best. He reminds me of G.W.'s brass or maybe Harry Truman. But I think the guy is fairly genuine at heart ...not likely to get prison religion or any other Karl Rove BS just to get elected. The kind of guy that will give someone the finger to his face if needed ....but protect anybodies back if they drop the soap in the shower. Either party.


"GOP Senators Reassess Views About McCain
His Old Foes Still Wary Of His Pugnacious Style

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 4, 2008; A01

John McCain once testified under oath that a Senate colleague inappropriately used tobacco corporation donations to sway votes on legislation. He cursed out another colleague in front of 20 senators and staff members, questioning the senator's grip on immigration legislation. And, on the Senate floor, McCain (R-Ariz.) accused another colleague of "egregious behavior" for helping a defense contractor in a move he said resembled "corporate scandals."

And those were just the Republicans."

The rest...
( GOP Senators Reassess Views About McCain )



...

[CobraEd]

I agree. He seems like a good man.

.

[427 S/O]

If you sit down and make a serious list of the most important in your life, I hope fighting terrorism is #1. It's mine, and John will fight.

[bomelia]

Yeah, I know. But he likes to sleep with Teddy K.

Push come to shove, I'll support him. But I am not a happy camper. But I am a Republican. What can I say?

Whaa.

Mike

[Bill Bess]

I don't like McCain working too much with the left side, but unfortunately we concervatives have not been able to get much done lately. I think he is attempting to "bridge the gap" on some basic issues so things can get done that help the Country.
Hopefully the first thing he'll do as President (if he wins), will be to drop most of the bombs.... on the leftside of the fense and all the terriorist.
Bill

[Roscoe]

McCain scares me. He is too chummy with the left. I don't see why conservatives, or even republicans, have to compromise with the left. Reagan didn't do it.

Also, I don't believe him. He doesn't seem genuine.

When the left leaning media endorse him I start to worry. The New York Times, of all people, endorses him.

Back around 1970 I was a Goldwater Republican. My views on politics and the country have not changes much at all. However, the country has moved so far to the left that I'm now considered just to the right of Atilla the Hun.

McCain ain't the guy........Unfortunately, I may have to vote for him.

Roscoe

[427 S/O]

He definitely got an ear full from America when the 'immigration bill' was introduced, and so did all our senators/congressmen. Should he be the nominee, he will find out real fast what conservative America wants. I'm concerned but I'll vote for him.

[VRM]

I'm still going to write in Ron Paul. He is the only one who consistently votes for small government and small taxes. I also think he is the only one who even has an iota of understanding of what the Constitution says. Everybody else is running to further their own (and their special interest groups) agenda.

The thing I don't get is that many of you are claiming to be in favour of small government, small taxes, and personal freedom, but you all seem to want to vote for people who will not be promoting any of that.

Steve

[Ron61]

Steve,

I like what Ron Paul has promoted, but who is to say that if he were elected he wouldn't turn into the same type the rest have. Remember, we have had people run and get elected based on that idea and the first thing they do is forget all about it. Crap, our darn Govt. is so big now they outnumber the people. Get rid of all the Congressional aides, no congressman needs 21 of them, and then get a whole new bunch in Congress along with the White House. And put term limits on Congress. Remember, no matter who is President they can't do anything unless the Fat Crooks in Congress go along with it.

Ron

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by VRM

The thing I don't get is that many of you are claiming to be in favour of small government, small taxes, and personal freedom, but you all seem to want to vote for people who will not be promoting any of that.

Steve

That is because there are OTHER issues that are important to me.

Your issues are a siren call. Never will happen. The reduction in personal freedom comes as a result of the increase of taxes which therefore help government grow. When have you EVER seen government shrink? Does this bother me? Yes. Do shorter days in the winter bother me? Yes. Can I do anything about it? No. So, go ahead and write Paul's name on your ballot. Pi$$ straight into the wind. One of my biggest concerns is national defense (security) and constructionist judges on the bench (all levels). That is what guides my decisions.

What guides your decisions? Only you can say, but I think you did say.

Mike

[VRM]

Ron,
It is certainly possible that he could turn in to the same type as the others, but he has spent many years in Congress and he has not yet. Besides - the others are already there so there is no point in voting for any of them.

I agree - any President is going to be stuck with a pathetic Congress.

Steve

[Cobrabill]

a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hildebeast.He can not win.A vote for him takes away a vote for someone who can beat that scary b.itch.

[VRM]

Mike,
Our government is 'by the people'. If the people want it to shrink, then they are the ones who have the power to do it.

Regarding judges - MA had that problem recently. Everybody accused the MA Supremes of being activists and changing the will of the people regarding gay marriage. The MA Constitution does not allow for any discrimination based on sex, so they had no choice. The voters are allowed to change it, but in order to do so they also have to allow discrimination based on sex. Having more personal freedom and responsibility is what this country is founded upon.

Regarding defense - Ron Paul wants to secure our borders and has an 'America First' defense policy.

Steve

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hildebeast.He can not win.A vote for him takes away a vote for someone who can beat that scary b.itch.

Ron Paul can win. That is the beauty of our elections - anybody can win if they get enough votes.

You only say that Paul can't win because everybody else says Paul can't win.
Friggin sheep...

And yes, I might have to vote for McCain or Romney if Clinton is the DNC nominee.

Steve

[bomelia]

This is a straight up wager Steve.

Paul gets the GOP nomination, I will fly to New England and buy you dinner. I will wear shirt that says Red Sox suck while I am there (you may change the message).

Paul does not get the nomination, you fly here to buy me dinner. You have to wear a shirt saying "Southern Folks are Beagle Skin Wearing Rednecks"

So, we on?

Mike

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by VRM

Ron Paul can win. That is the beauty of our elections - anybody can win if they get enough votes.

You only say that Paul can't win because everybody else says Paul can't win.
Friggin sheep...

And yes, I might have to vote for McCain or Romney if Clinton is the DNC nominee.

Steve

Go grab your velcro gloves and get you "sum sheep tang".I say that Paul can't win because he can't friggin win.I know how the system works-obviously YOU don't.The "system" isn't "set-up" for a third party on the national level.Jesse Ventura won Minnesota because there is no electoral college on the state level.You can relax now,you really are a safe distance from genius.

[Sharroll Celby]

THEORETICALLY. Ron Paul (or ANY other Candidate) CAN win, assuming they get the most votes.

REALISTICALLY, (now, and in the foreseeable future) third-party candidates have NO chance of beating the system.

Everybody is right, BUT everybody is wrong, as well.

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Sharroll Celby

Everybody is right, BUT everybody is wrong, as well.

Theoretically, does that include you?

Mike

[VRM]

Mike and Cobrabill,
I said 'can', I did not say 'will'. There is a big difference. I said exactly what I meant, and it is still correct.

The only thing preventing Paul from winning is the number of votes he will probably get (oddly enough). However, there are about 220 million voting age Americans who could change that if they really wanted to.

Unfortunately, Pauls chances of winning the GOP nomination or the general election are about nil. This is because most everybody is programmed to only vote for the GOP or DNC mainstream candidates.

Ok Mr Genius (Cobrabill), please explain to me what a third party has to do with the Electoral College? What (other than lack of votes) would prevent them from having electors, and thus getting their candidate elected, in the same fashion as the GOP or DNC? Perhaps you should think before you write.

Steve

[VRM]

Mike,
BTW, you had a chance to make a bet with me before, but you chickened out. Your lack of follow through that time does not sit well with me for possible future gentlemans wagers, as it gave me the feeling that you would weasel out if you lost.

Steve