If conservatives won't turn out to, at the very least, vote against a Democrat, then there is no one in this bunch of Republicans that will fire them up enough to get out and vote affirmatively. At least anyone with a chance of winning the nomination. If the die-hard conservative bloc of the party is so powerful then Tancredo would be running away with it.

 

I continue to place Romney at the top of the running but I'll upgrade McCain to having an outside chance of the nomination.

 

 

I agree. None of the candidates vying for the nomination are likely to set Republican hearts aflutter.

That was true eight years ago. It is no longer true now.

 

 

Why do you say that? Specifics please.

McCain doesn't appeal to the conservative wing of the party and no Republican who cannot spark some enthusiasm among the base has a shot at the nomination. McCain is this year's Bob Dole, except Dole avoided bringing the ethics baggage to the table.

 

The spectacular failure of the McCain-Feingold Act to achieve any of its stated objectives is enough to sink McCain's chances. Throw in his membership in the exclusive Keating Five ring and an assortment of less publicized ethical lapses and a McCain nomination has all of the makings of a Democratic landslide.

 

There are plenty of things to like about McCain if you are a member of the liberal media - he is a dead certain loser if he gets the nomination. The few independent votes that he might garner would pale in comparison to the low turnout of conservative voters who vote heavily for the Republican candidates in presidential elections.

 

 

The bolded part is interesting. According to a lot of people (and one moderator in particular) I am the closest thing to Attila the Hun when it comes to being conservative (and while I don't think I'm that bad, I am pretty conservative militarily and fiscally. There are lots of things I like about McCain and am seriously considering voting for him largely in part because he is more moderate. Our country desperately needs to come more together and get away from the extreme differences. Its one of the reasons why I supported Bush to begin with. I do think that the conservative wing would get energized and support him in the general elections. They may hold their noses when they vote, but depending on who wins the Dem primary, McCain will probably still be the best alternative available to them.

 

Frankly I love the fact that McCain is willing to buck what one poster called the "centrists" in the Republican Party (which are not very centrist at all). We have way to many politicians controlled by extremist partisan hacks. I can live with the fact that McCain doesn't agree with me on all positions. He seems like he'll be the kind of President that will approach issues with an open mind, allow both parties to provide input, and then will make his decisions based on that input, as opposed to just listening to the extremists in his party.

 

Save this post as I'm agreeing with H's posts on this thread.

The bolded part is interesting. According to a lot of people (and one moderator in particular) I am the closest thing to Attila the Hun when it comes to being conservative (and while I don't think I'm that bad, I am pretty conservative militarily and fiscally. There are lots of things I like about McCain and am seriously considering voting for him largely in part because he is more moderate. Our country desperately needs to come more together and get away from the extreme differences. Its one of the reasons why I supported Bush to begin with. I do think that the conservative wing would get energized and support him in the general elections. They may hold their noses when they vote, but depending on who wins the Dem primary, McCain will probably still be the best alternative available to them.

 

Frankly I love the fact that McCain is willing to buck what one poster called the "centrists" in the Republican Party (which are not very centrist at all). We have way to many politicians controlled by extremist partisan hacks. I can live with the fact that McCain doesn't agree with me on all positions. He seems like he'll be the kind of President that will approach issues with an open mind, allow both parties to provide input, and then will make his decisions based on that input, as opposed to just listening to the extremists in his party.

 

Save this post as I'm agreeing with H's posts on this thread.

 

 

Ironically enough, I am just left of Genghis Khan. Looks like we have something in common. :lol:

My biggest issue with McCain is his position on illegal immigrants. Its as if not more liberal than W's position.

My biggest issue with McCain is his position on illegal immigrants. Its as if not more liberal than W's position.

 

In looking at McCain's website info, I don't know that I disagree with his thinking. Could you tell me why you think his position is so liberal (honest question)?

Ironically enough, I am just left of Genghis Khan. Looks like we have something in common. :lol:

 

I'm sure we do if we look hard enough:banana:

In looking at McCain's website info, I don't know that I disagree with his thinking. Could you tell me why you think his position is so liberal (honest question)?

Early in the year, McCain told Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina voters the country must take a comprehensive approach -- strengthening the borders as well as creating a temporary worker program and providing millions of illegal immigrants the opportunity to earn citizenship if they meet certain criteria.

Over the past few months, he has stressed border security first and said border-state governors should certify their borders are secure before making other needed immigration changes.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21614851/

 

McCain was the author and sponsor of the horrid immigration bill that George W espoused earlier this year and was rejected by both Republicans and Democrats.

Early in the year, McCain told Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina voters the country must take a comprehensive approach -- strengthening the borders as well as creating a temporary worker program and providing millions of illegal immigrants the opportunity to earn citizenship if they meet certain criteria.

Over the past few months, he has stressed border security first and said border-state governors should certify their borders are secure before making other needed immigration changes.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21614851/

 

McCain was the author and sponsor of the horrid immigration bill that George W espoused earlier this year and was rejected by both Republicans and Democrats.

 

 

Thanks. I guess I view his approach as pragmatic. I'm not opposed to legalizing the existing illegal immigrants. Heck, they're here and in some situations getting certain benefits of living in this country, while at the same time not paying taxes. Lets get them in the system. They are willing to do a lot of needed jobs that others don't seem to be willing to do, jobs that benefit you and I. There is probably more than one that, if legalized, would be willing to serve in our military and die for our country. Do I agree that the borders needed to be made secure? Sure, even before we do concentrate on dealing with those illegals already here. But we do need to concentrate on assimilating the illegals here into the system, don't we? What am I missing?

The bill that McCain wrote (with Ted Kennedy) had almost no enforcement in it. Like you, I'm not totally against amnesty. However, McCain's bill was more like an invitation to illegals. I don't recall all the particulars. I'd just like to see something reasonable and good for this country enacted.

Thanks. I guess I view his approach as pragmatic. I'm not opposed to legalizing the existing illegal immigrants. Heck, they're here and in some situations getting certain benefits of living in this country, while at the same time not paying taxes. Lets get them in the system. They are willing to do a lot of needed jobs that others don't seem to be willing to do, jobs that benefit you and I. There is probably more than one that, if legalized, would be willing to serve in our military and die for our country. Do I agree that the borders needed to be made secure? Sure, even before we do concentrate on dealing with those illegals already here. But we do need to concentrate on assimilating the illegals here into the system, don't we? What am I missing?

 

Well said.

The bolded part is interesting. According to a lot of people (and one moderator in particular) I am the closest thing to Attila the Hun when it comes to being conservative (and while I don't think I'm that bad, I am pretty conservative militarily and fiscally. There are lots of things I like about McCain and am seriously considering voting for him largely in part because he is more moderate. Our country desperately needs to come more together and get away from the extreme differences. Its one of the reasons why I supported Bush to begin with. I do think that the conservative wing would get energized and support him in the general elections. They may hold their noses when they vote, but depending on who wins the Dem primary, McCain will probably still be the best alternative available to them.

 

Frankly I love the fact that McCain is willing to buck what one poster called the "centrists" in the Republican Party (which are not very centrist at all). We have way to many politicians controlled by extremist partisan hacks. I can live with the fact that McCain doesn't agree with me on all positions. He seems like he'll be the kind of President that will approach issues with an open mind, allow both parties to provide input, and then will make his decisions based on that input, as opposed to just listening to the extremists in his party.

 

Save this post as I'm agreeing with H's posts on this thread.

My problem is not with what McCain says his positions are or what he promises to do if elected. My problem, and the problem most conservatives have with McCain is that his walk has never matched his talk.

 

The McCain-Feingold Act was either an extremely poorly thought out effort to "reform" campain financing or an ingenious piece of legislation full of large, well designed loopholes that were designed to be exploited by those most familiar with the law. Either way, the legislation has been a miserable failure and nothing was gained for the infringement on our First Amendment rights.

 

Like his best buddy, John Kerry, McCain's political career got a jumpstart when he married a wealthy woman. As one of the Keating Five, McCain was exposed as a corrupt politician early in his career. Somehow, his career survived, as his four accomplices have long since exited the political arena.

 

McCain's "leadership" role in the Gang of 14 undermined the Republican's leverage in getting good, qualified judicial nominees a fair hearing and a floor vote in the US Senate. Democrats were getting a political black eye from repeatedly filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. Denny Hastert was beginning to finally draw the line in the sand, when along came McCain and his fellow RINOS to pull the rug out from under Hastert.

 

McCain's shortcomings on the immigration issue and his support of Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens program have already been thoroughly discussed, so I will not bother to itemize his transgressions in that area.

 

If he somehow managed to bamboozle enough Republicans to get the nomination, the media would have a field day with McCain. His age would suddenly become a major issue. What would he look like after four years in the White House? Is he too old to be more than a one-term president if he is elected? I can easily imagine the type of coverage that we would be treated to during a Hillary/Obama/Edwards vs. McCain campaign.

 

McCain talks a good game and I agree with nearly all of his stated positions. If he had a record of being trustworthy, I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, his record and his rhetoric are in constant conflict with one another. Maybe it's what draws McCain and Kerry together.

Well said.

 

Quit doing that. I'm getting a complex:D

My problem is not with what McCain says his positions are or what he promises to do if elected. My problem, and the problem most conservatives have with McCain is that his walk has never matched his talk.

 

The McCain-Feingold Act was either an extremely poorly thought out effort to "reform" campain financing or an ingenious piece of legislation full of large, well designed loopholes that were designed to be exploited by those most familiar with the law. Either way, the legislation has been a miserable failure and nothing was gained for the infringement on our First Amendment rights.

 

Like his best buddy, John Kerry, McCain's political career got a jumpstart when he married a wealthy woman. As one of the Keating Five, McCain was exposed as a corrupt politician early in his career. Somehow, his career survived, as his four accomplices have long since exited the political arena.

 

McCain's "leadership" role in the Gang of 14 undermined the Republican's leverage in getting good, qualified judicial nominees a fair hearing and a floor vote in the US Senate. Democrats were getting a political black eye from repeatedly filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. Denny Hastert was beginning to finally draw the line in the sand, when along came McCain and his fellow RINOS to pull the rug out from under Hastert.

 

McCain's shortcomings on the immigration issue and his support of Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens program have already been thoroughly discussed, so I will not bother to itemize his transgressions in that area.

 

If he somehow managed to bamboozle enough Republicans to get the nomination, the media would have a field day with McCain. His age would suddenly become a major issue. What would he look like after four years in the White House? Is he too old to be more than a one-term president if he is elected? I can easily imagine the type of coverage that we would be treated to during a Hillary/Obama/Edwards vs. McCain campaign.

 

McCain talks a good game and I agree with nearly all of his stated positions. If he had a record of being trustworthy, I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, his record and his rhetoric are in constant conflict with one another. Maybe it's what draws McCain and Kerry together.

 

Wasn't the Keating Five Witch Hunt just a big bunch of nothing? McCain attended two meetings with the S&L regulators and at the second one made it clear that he wanted no special favors done? If my recollection is correct, the special prosecutor investigating it recommended that McCain and another senator be dropped from the investigation as he found McCain had done little if any wrong. The whole Keating 5 thing gets hyped to the max, and I'm sure old Charlie from Cinti wasn't of the cleanest hands, but I remember McCain pretty much receiving a slap on the hand and not much more because they couldn't find that he did anything wrong. He was not exposed to be a corrupt politician at all.

 

What does marrying a wealthy woman have to do with anything? Does marrying a wealthy woman make some one unfit to be President? The mere fact that you raise that issue makes me wonder whether you may have some biases or something.

 

McCain Feingold I agree has loopholes. Then again, its better than what we had isn't it? If you'll recall, attempts to get more stringent limitations on political contributions and influenced were stonewalled by Repubs and Democrats alike. MF was the best that could be gotten through Congress. I don't fault McCain for that.

 

Heck, I'm not worried about a second term. We have to have a strong foreign policy President now who can get the country working together, not against one another. He may be too liberal on certain issues for some of us. I can live with that if he can lead the effort to find some middle ground with the moderate Democrats. Who knows, it may result in the Democrats sending the far left liberals to the curb. I know this: we cannot villify the Democrats for being lead around by the nose by the far left types if we are going to only send far right conservatives to bat for us.

Wasn't the Keating Five Witch Hunt just a big bunch of nothing? McCain attended two meetings with the S&L regulators and at the second one made it clear that he wanted no special favors done? If my recollection is correct, the special prosecutor investigating it recommended that McCain and another senator be dropped from the investigation as he found McCain had done little if any wrong. The whole Keating 5 thing gets hyped to the max, and I'm sure old Charlie from Cinti wasn't of the cleanest hands, but I remember McCain pretty much receiving a slap on the hand and not much more because they couldn't find that he did anything wrong. He was not exposed to be a corrupt politician at all.

I guess it depends on how high or low you want to set the bar for corruption and hypocrisy.

 

In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the meetings between the senators and the regulators. McCain, Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, and Riegle became known as the Keating Five.

 

(Keating himself was convicted in January 1993 of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud and served more than four years in prison before his conviction was overturned. Last year, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud and was sentenced to time served.)

 

McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."

 

But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)

Is John McCain a Crook?

IMO, the measuring stick for corruption in public office should not be indictments and expulsions from office.

 

What does marrying a wealthy woman have to do with anything? Does marrying a wealthy woman make some one unfit to be President? The mere fact that you raise that issue makes me wonder whether you may have some biases or something.

Not much, really - it just fits my impression of McCain as a relentless opportunist who will use anyone and anything to further his career.

McCain Feingold I agree has loopholes. Then again, its better than what we had isn't it? If you'll recall, attempts to get more stringent limitations on political contributions and influenced were stonewalled by Repubs and Democrats alike. MF was the best that could be gotten through Congress. I don't fault McCain for that.

No, I do not believe that McCain-Feingold is better than what we had. Campaign spending immediately exploded in the first national election cycle following the enactment of the law. IMO, the conservative position is to err on the side of free speech and require full disclosure of political contributions without the spending limits. Incumbent politicians have always crafted "reform" laws that make it more difficult for challengers to unseat them and I do not expect that will ever change.

Heck, I'm not worried about a second term. We have to have a strong foreign policy President now who can get the country working together, not against one another. He may be too liberal on certain issues for some of us. I can live with that if he can lead the effort to find some middle ground with the moderate Democrats. Who knows, it may result in the Democrats sending the far left liberals to the curb. I know this: we cannot villify the Democrats for being lead around by the nose by the far left types if we are going to only send far right conservatives to bat for us.

What do you consider to be a "moderate" Democrat? There are very few (if any) left in the US Senate. There are a few in the House, but gerrymandering has decimated the ranks of moderates in this country. There is not much middle ground left.

 

If you think McCain is already a little bit too liberal on a few issues now, I believe that you would be amazed at how fast and far he could move to his left to work with a Democratic Congress.