http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2390.html

 

McCain rips into Cheney and Rumsfeld.

 

This is like watching an icerberg calve in slow motion.

 

 

Frances

McCain's always been a RINO.

McCain's always been a RINO.

 

I don't disagree with that, but he isn't the only one that is leaving the ship.

 

 

Frances

I don't disagree with that, but he isn't the only one that is leaving the ship.

 

 

Frances

 

It is all politics, just like in 1999, 2000. Many on the left sought to differentiate themselves from an outgoing president. Many on the right are doing the same now.

I don't disagree with that, but he isn't the only one that is leaving the ship.

 

 

Frances

 

They have to get re-elected, some of them running for President, at some point. How long should they be in bed with a 26% approval rating.

I don't disagree with that, but he isn't the only one that is leaving the ship.

 

 

Frances

I think that its just political rats (aren't they all?) abandoning ship after the beating they got in November. They've decided maybe they need to dance to a different tune. I wonder if we ever know a politician's true feelings on an issue.

McCain has spent more time off the reservation than most. This isn't anything new for him.

... How long should they be in bed with a 26% approval rating.

 

A fair question, Habib. Many would ask how long someone with a 26% approval rating takes before they consider the possibility that they are on the wrong path.

 

 

Frances

I think that its just political rats (aren't they all?) abandoning ship after the beating they got in November. They've decided maybe they need to dance to a different tune. I wonder if we ever know a politician's true feelings on an issue.

 

 

I didn't interpret McCain's comments as abandoning ship. Sure he was critical of Cheney, but McCain is solidly behind Bush's surge policy and thus he's still on board as I look at it.

 

I do get a chuckle out of this whole RINO thing however. If a Republican stays to the far right, he is casted as someone who is so idealogical that he can't work with the Democrats and compromise to move America forward. If a Republican works with the Democrats and is not so extreme, then he is a RINO. People say the problem with the Democratic Party on the national level is that they are controlled by the far left liberal agenda; that the Democrats need a more moderate candidate. When the poor son of a gone decides to run on a more moderate Democratic platform, people will be criticizing him as a DINO I guess. I don't really understand some people.

 

Bush has a deficit because of the extreme costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and homeland defense. Rather than starting a war with the Democrats by cutting social programs or starting a war with the Republicans by raising taxes to keep the deficit as small as possible, Bush makes the call that he's going to do neither and trust that with economic growth, the deficit can be managed (and there are economists that agree with him on that point and it has happened in the past). And he gets casted as someone who abandoned the Republican principles of small govt., i.e. a RINO. He gets criticized for invading Iraq to protect America's oil interests. Yet other people go ape crazy when oil prices go high and blame him for that also. Which is it? It can't be both.

 

Rather than give the man (and other similar politicians) credit for trying to be a moderate and not be an extremist (which is something we all say we want from our elected officials, but for some reason can't recognize it when it happens), people attack him. Why? Because some people just don't like him and look for reasons to attack him, both from the far left and from the far right. They want to criticize him to make him and his party look bad for their own and their party's best interests. The reasons why more politicians are not moderates and willing to compromise and work with the other side, is easy to understand. When you do so, you are attacked from hacks on both sides of the aisle. Its politically safer to be an extremist because you only get attacked from one side, which while safer is not what I want from my elected officials. I want people who are not afraid to make the tough choices regardless of the political attacks. I want elected officials not to be hung up on his party's extreme idealogical positions. And I fully realize that some people did the same thing to Clinton while he was in office and that was wrong also.

I didn't interpret McCain's comments as abandoning ship. Sure he was critical of Cheney, but McCain is solidly behind Bush's surge policy and thus he's still on board as I look at it.

 

I do get a chuckle out of this whole RINO thing however. If a Republican stays to the far right, he is casted as someone who is so idealogical that he can't work with the Democrats and compromise to move America forward. If a Republican works with the Democrats and is not so extreme, then he is a RINO. People say the problem with the Democratic Party on the national level is that they are controlled by the far left liberal agenda; that the Democrats need a more moderate candidate. When the poor son of a gone decides to run on a more moderate Democratic platform, people will be criticizing him as a DINO I guess. I don't really understand some people.

 

Bush has a deficit because of the extreme costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and homeland defense. Rather than starting a war with the Democrats by cutting social programs or starting a war with the Republicans by raising taxes to keep the deficit as small as possible, Bush makes the call that he's going to do neither and trust that with economic growth, the deficit can be managed (and there are economists that agree with him on that point and it has happened in the past). And he gets casted as someone who abandoned the Republican principles of small govt., i.e. a RINO. He gets criticized for invading Iraq to protect America's oil interests. Yet other people go ape crazy when oil prices go high and blame him for that also. Which is it? It can't be both.

 

Rather than give the man (and other similar politicians) credit for trying to be a moderate and not be an extremist (which is something we all say we want from our elected officials, but for some reason can't recognize it when it happens), people attack him. Why? Because some people just don't like him and look for reasons to attack him, both from the far left and from the far right. They want to criticize him to make him and his party look bad for their own and their party's best interests. The reasons why more politicians are not moderates and willing to compromise and work with the other side, is easy to understand. When you do so, you are attacked from hacks on both sides of the aisle. Its politically safer to be an extremist because you only get attacked from one side, which while safer is not what I want from my elected officials. I want people who are not afraid to make the tough choices regardless of the political attacks. I want elected officials not to be hung up on his party's extreme idealogical positions. And I fully realize that some people did the same thing to Clinton while he was in office and that was wrong also.

 

A good and fair post, Leatherneck. Well said.

 

 

Frances

Thanks Frances. I really respect your opinions (even though we disagree from time to time:banana:) and when you compliment one of my posts, I really appreciate it.

I didn't interpret McCain's comments as abandoning ship. Sure he was critical of Cheney, but McCain is solidly behind Bush's surge policy and thus he's still on board as I look at it.

 

I do get a chuckle out of this whole RINO thing however. If a Republican stays to the far right, he is casted as someone who is so idealogical that he can't work with the Democrats and compromise to move America forward. If a Republican works with the Democrats and is not so extreme, then he is a RINO. People say the problem with the Democratic Party on the national level is that they are controlled by the far left liberal agenda; that the Democrats need a more moderate candidate. When the poor son of a gone decides to run on a more moderate Democratic platform, people will be criticizing him as a DINO I guess. I don't really understand some people.

 

Bush has a deficit because of the extreme costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and homeland defense. Rather than starting a war with the Democrats by cutting social programs or starting a war with the Republicans by raising taxes to keep the deficit as small as possible, Bush makes the call that he's going to do neither and trust that with economic growth, the deficit can be managed (and there are economists that agree with him on that point and it has happened in the past). And he gets casted as someone who abandoned the Republican principles of small govt., i.e. a RINO. He gets criticized for invading Iraq to protect America's oil interests. Yet other people go ape crazy when oil prices go high and blame him for that also. Which is it? It can't be both.

 

Rather than give the man (and other similar politicians) credit for trying to be a moderate and not be an extremist (which is something we all say we want from our elected officials, but for some reason can't recognize it when it happens), people attack him. Why? Because some people just don't like him and look for reasons to attack him, both from the far left and from the far right. They want to criticize him to make him and his party look bad for their own and their party's best interests. The reasons why more politicians are not moderates and willing to compromise and work with the other side, is easy to understand. When you do so, you are attacked from hacks on both sides of the aisle. Its politically safer to be an extremist because you only get attacked from one side, which while safer is not what I want from my elected officials. I want people who are not afraid to make the tough choices regardless of the political attacks. I want elected officials not to be hung up on his party's extreme idealogical positions. And I fully realize that some people did the same thing to Clinton while he was in office and that was wrong also.

My comment about McCain being a RINO pertains to his stances over the past two presidential election cycles rather than his response to the SOTU address. I didn't see his remarks. All I saw last night was Democrat after Democrat. However, I honestly feel that his stance on many issues aligns more closely with the DNC than the GOP. If anything, I would say McCain wasn't alone. The last session of Congress was filled with RINOs. I also don't feel that McCain meets your standard of not being afraid to make the tough choices regardless of the political attacks. He's not a standard bearer; he's the pennant which points whichever way the wind blows.

Thanks Frances. I really respect your opinions (even though we disagree from time to time:banana:) and when you compliment one of my posts, I really appreciate it.

 

LN -

 

Believe me when I say that I have nothing but the deepest respect for who you are, what you have done, and what your family does for our country.

 

The fact that we will see some issues from different sides of the aisle could never change that respect, or the depth of it.

 

 

Frances

My comment about McCain being a RINO pertains to his stances over the past two presidential election cycles rather than his response to the SOTU address. I didn't see his remarks. All I saw last night was Democrat after Democrat. However, I honestly feel that his stance on many issues aligns more closely with the DNC than the GOP. If anything, I would say McCain wasn't alone. The last session of Congress was filled with RINOs. I also don't feel that McCain meets your standard of not being afraid to make the tough choices regardless of the political attacks. He's not a standard bearer; he's the pennant which points whichever way the wind blows.

 

While I disagree with you about McCain and probably disagree with the whole RINO concept, reasonable minds can differ. While there must be issues that you can point out where McCain has gone with the wind for you to have that position, I'd assume you would agree that he has been constant in his support of the Iraq War and his call for needing more troops on the ground. As posted in another thread, I can appreciate the logic to go small first to see if it works so as to not appear to be an occupational force (and thus disagree with McCain's criticism of Rumsfeld), I have to give McCain credit for being consistent in his call for more troops on the ground. On that issue at least, he's not shifted with the wind.

I didn't interpret McCain's comments as abandoning ship. Sure he was critical of Cheney, but McCain is solidly behind Bush's surge policy and thus he's still on board as I look at it.

 

I do get a chuckle out of this whole RINO thing however. If a Republican stays to the far right, he is casted as someone who is so idealogical that he can't work with the Democrats and compromise to move America forward. If a Republican works with the Democrats and is not so extreme, then he is a RINO. People say the problem with the Democratic Party on the national level is that they are controlled by the far left liberal agenda; that the Democrats need a more moderate candidate. When the poor son of a gone decides to run on a more moderate Democratic platform, people will be criticizing him as a DINO I guess. I don't really understand some people.

 

Bush has a deficit because of the extreme costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and homeland defense. Rather than starting a war with the Democrats by cutting social programs or starting a war with the Republicans by raising taxes to keep the deficit as small as possible, Bush makes the call that he's going to do neither and trust that with economic growth, the deficit can be managed (and there are economists that agree with him on that point and it has happened in the past). And he gets casted as someone who abandoned the Republican principles of small govt., i.e. a RINO. He gets criticized for invading Iraq to protect America's oil interests. Yet other people go ape crazy when oil prices go high and blame him for that also. Which is it? It can't be both.

 

Rather than give the man (and other similar politicians) credit for trying to be a moderate and not be an extremist (which is something we all say we want from our elected officials, but for some reason can't recognize it when it happens), people attack him. Why? Because some people just don't like him and look for reasons to attack him, both from the far left and from the far right. They want to criticize him to make him and his party look bad for their own and their party's best interests. The reasons why more politicians are not moderates and willing to compromise and work with the other side, is easy to understand. When you do so, you are attacked from hacks on both sides of the aisle. Its politically safer to be an extremist because you only get attacked from one side, which while safer is not what I want from my elected officials. I want people who are not afraid to make the tough choices regardless of the political attacks. I want elected officials not to be hung up on his party's extreme idealogical positions. And I fully realize that some people did the same thing to Clinton while he was in office and that was wrong also.

Good Post. There are dino's out there... Lieberman is the most prominent. Look at what his own party tried to do to him.