If H and mcpapa agree that McCain's a swell guy, I think my point is proven.

 

Oh yeah? Well what does 'RINO' mean, anyway? Speak in English, dude! :lol:

Oh yeah? Well what does 'RINO' mean, anyway? Speak in English, dude! :lol:

RINO - Republican In Name Only

This is not 1980. The political climate in the country right now could not be more different. The anger and acrimony directed toward George Bush is at a fever pitch. Being in the same party as George Bush is going to be enough of an obstacle for any Republican this race. Being a big conservative (what the vast majority of people, correct or not, consider George Bush) is an even bigger obstacle. Voters aren't going to re-elect "another conservative Republican."

If I wanted to simply be on the winning side of an election, I would just check the polls the morning of the elections. McCain has already shown a tendency to join forces with liberals like Ted Kennedy to undermine his conservative colleagues in the US Senate.

 

I have no reason to believe that he would continue to "get things done" if elected president. The problem is, I am not interested in more restrictions on individual liberty. If that was my bag, I would just register as a Democrat and vote for one of the nearly indistinguishable "progressives" running for president.

 

Sometimes there is not much difference in winning and losing and that is the way I view a potential McCain presidency. We might as well elect a real pollster and be done with it.

I often disagree with George Will's take on Republican politics, but he seems to have done a pretty good job in recognizing McCain as a RINO.

 

In 2004, one of John McCain's closest associates, John Weaver, spoke to John Kerry about the possibility of McCain running as Kerry's vice presidential running mate. In "No Excuses," Bob Shrum's memoir of his role in numerous presidential campaigns, including Kerry's, Shrum writes that Weaver assured Kerry that "McCain was serious about the possibility of teaming up with him," and Kerry approached McCain. He, however, was more serious about seeking the 2008 Republican nomination.

 

But was it unreasonable for Kerry to think McCain might be comfortable on a Democratic ticket? Not really.

:

:

:

McCain says he would nominate Supreme Court justices similar to Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito. But how likely is he to nominate jurists who resemble those four: They consider his signature achievement constitutionally dubious.

 

When the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold 5-4, Scalia and Thomas were in the minority. That was before Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, who was in the majority. Two years later, McCain filed his own brief supporting federal suppression of a right-to-life group's issue advertisement in Wisconsin because it mentioned a candidate for federal office during the McCain-Feingold blackout period prior to an election. The court ruled 5-4 against McCain's position, with Alito in the majority.

:

:

:

In the New Hampshire debate, McCain asserted that corruption is the reason drugs currently cannot be reimported from Canada. The reason is "the power of the pharmaceutical companies." When Mitt Romney interjected, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys," McCain replied, "Well, they are."

 

There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities. That place is in the Democratic Party, where people who talk like McCain are considered not mavericks but mainstream.

 

George Will: Waiting for Straight Talk

I have always considered a RINO as somebody who consistently votes like a Democrat and therefore I don't believe McCain properly fits that definition. An examination of McCain's overall voting record would show that he fairly consistently votes a conservative agenda; often earning respectable conservtive marks in independent ratings of congressional votes. However, as many have already noted, there have been many important votes (gang of fourteen, tax cuts, etc....) that McCain has not taken the conservative route but has chosen to side with the Democrats. It seems that if a high profile vote significant to the conservative cause comes up, when McCain's vote is needed the most, the less likely he is to vote conservative. That behavior may garner favorable converage in the mainstream media, or elicit comments by Democrats that McCain is the Republican that appeals to them the most, but it doesn't endear him to the vast majority of conservatives. If that isn't already clear to everyone, it will be brought home in no uncertain terms as results from states that only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries are reported. McCain has almost no chance of being the Republican nominee. Mark it down: the Republican nominee will be either Romney or Guiliani; not because McCain is a RINO, but because he is not trustworthy as a conservative.

McCain is a conservative, but he's also shown a willingness to seek common ground with those in the rival party. That's an admirable trait, as far as I'm concerned ... but some on the Right don't agree.

McCain is a conservative, but he's also shown a willingness to seek common ground with those in the rival party. That's an admirable trait, as far as I'm concerned ... but some on the Right don't agree.

 

Seeking common ground and a willingness to compromise are admirable traits. If it were clear that McCain was trying to get the best deal possible, or yielding on one issue to get what conservatives wanted on another, that would be a horse of a different color. However, McCain goes far beyond "seeking common ground" while upholding conservative principles. He completely adopts the opposition's rhetoric, effectively he changes sides and even worse, he'll chastise those who he leaves behind. This ideological inconsistency leads one to believe that McCain's motives are less than admirable.

McCain is a conservative, but he's also shown a willingness to seek common ground with those in the rival party. That's an admirable trait, as far as I'm concerned ... but some on the Right don't agree.

Make that most on the right don't agree and I can agree with part of your post..

 

McCain may not qualify as a RINO because he has consistently voted with the Republicans on several issues, but he is definitely not a conservative. There are persistent reports that McCain's staff held serious discussions with John Kerry about the possibility of McCain running as his VP. As liberal Democrats often point out, supporting the troops does not make one a patriot, nor does it make them a conservative.

 

Like Shooter said, McCain may not be a RINO but he is not a trustworthy Republican either. Conservatives might find common ground with moderate Democrats on some issues, but there is no common ground to be found with the likes of Ted Kennedy.

 

In the midst of this presidential race, many GOP faithful appear to have forgotten that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and his friend Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) were planning last December to introduce a new immigration bill that is even more liberal than their past “amnesty” bill. They’re calling it a fast-track to citizenship for illegal aliens.

 

US Border Patrol agents haven’t been happy with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) since he voted for the first Amnesty Bill (S. 2611). And they’re not being quiet about their collective anger over the senator’s recent actions and remarks.

:

:

“He routinely ignores correspondence from Border Patrol agents and often gives the impression that he is just too big and too important to deal with us,” they said.

 

“He attempts to undermine our mission at every turn and actively supports the criminals who violate our laws. He always trys to downplay the fact that illegal aliens knowingly and willingly violate our laws, and he is a close ally on immigration matters with Senator Ted Kennedy, who we believe is the biggest disgrace of all time in the United States Senate.”

:

:

“You [McCain, Kennedy, Specter, et al] have succeeded in placing the morale of frontline Border Patrol agents in the toilet just when we thought it couldn’t possibly get any worse.”

Presidential Hopeful John McCain Counting on Voters’ Short Memories

FWIW - Why would Kerry lie about this? Answer: Because Kerry is Kerry. Still, the rumors that there were serious discussion between the Kerry campaign and McCain have been very persistent.

McCain is a conservative, but he's also shown a willingness to seek common ground with those in the rival party. That's an admirable trait, as far as I'm concerned ... but some on the Right don't agree.

 

Westsider, no surprise that I agree with your post. I'm not sure where people get off with it being the "conservative" or even Republican point of view that amnesty is wrong. As I've stated before, I know many strong Republicans that agree with the amnesty position IF the border is made more secure (which is McCain's position). And as Aces as acknowledged, McCain has voted consistently with Republicans on several issues. The fact that he does not support the anti amnesty folks does not mean he is betraying Republican principles. Heck, I always thought that capitalist minded Republicans liked free trade, free competition at work etc and it was the Democrats who supported the unions that loath the low wage Mexicans crossing the border and want all the low wage Mexicans currently in the States deported. Silly me for getting this issue wrong again from the Republican principle view point. Don't get me wrong; controlling the borders is important from a homeland security issue and its important to make sure that people crossing the border take the necessary steps to become "part of the system", but those are the only reasons why I care about it.

 

By the way, don't we already have laws in place that are designed to make sure that only legal employees are hired? Seems to me that those employers hiring illegals are as much to blame for illegals working in the States as anyone; seems to me that those employers are the one stimulating illegals crossing the borders. I really think that if employers were being honest (denying work to the illegals) you wouldn't see near as many illegals crossing the border to get work because there won't be any work for them. No jobs, no reason to cross the border. The fact that employers hire illegals is really a pretty sad reflection on American employers in my opinion. Sort of my philosophy on illegal drugs. We spend big dollars trying to stop the flow, when the real problem is demand. When Americans realize the harmful direct and indirect effects of drug usage, then the demand with drop. When demand drops, the big flow of dollars to corrupt foreign governments from drug sales will dwindle, we can stop spending so much money on drug supply intervention and re direct that money to lowering the federal deficit and the military.

 

As to the McCain approaching Kerry comment, yes it would trouble me if he had in fact done that. But I think we need to be factually correct. It was some of McCain's "people" that allegedly did it. Based on what I've read and heard on the issue, no one has said McCain did it himself. Maybe McCain was just being careful to keep a back door open of deniability open, I don't know. Then again, maybe it was just some of his supporters still very upset with Bush's (make that Rove's) cheap tricks from 2000. At this point we have no idea how senior and closely connected with McCain the "people" were whom approached Kerry. Heck, if I called up Clinton or her people and said that if she wins and McCain loses their respective primaries, McCain would consider being here VP, that would "fit" into what Kerry stated. If anything, the fact that Kerry is making noise about this at this point indicates what I, Novak and many others feel: that McCain could beat the Democratic nominee in November. Seems to me that they are trying to eliminate their toughest opponent.

 

And as to the the earlier comments about McCain winning with the support of independents and Democrats in those states permitting cross over voting, I think that shows how McCain can win the general election. I fully understand, appreciate and somewhat agree with Aces point that the Republican nominee should only be elected by Republican voters. Heck I agree that some of McCain's positions bother me as a Republican. But this is one time that I am glad that the aberration is allowed. A strict Republican (whatever that is) will NOT win in November and we will end up with Obama or Clinton (and I think Senator Kerry agrees with that which is why he is coming forward at this time about McCain's people approaching him in 04). Both of those choices scare the bejeezus out of me one heck of a lot more than McCain's failure to strictly follow all things traditionally called Republican. If McCain can attract independents, moderate Democrats and get the support of the majority of Republicans, we can avoid what I will think be a disaster if Obama or Clinton get elected. The last thing this country needs at this point in our history is for the pendulum to swing dramatically in the other direction. Such breeds uncertainty to our allies (yes, in spite of the press tells us, we still have some very strong ones) and encourages our enemies. A gradual move back towards the center would be a much smarter move, particularly if the person making that move by far has the best foreign policy, intelligency and military credentials. Russia is quickly becoming a big problem again. N. Korea, Iran, Venezuela and N. Korea are not going to go away. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going to be solved before Januaray 09. As important as some of the domestic issues are, the foreign affairs issues have greater significance to me. And McCain has much stronger experience than any candidate from either party in those areas.

Westsider, no surprise that I agree with your post. I'm not sure where people get off with it being the "conservative" or even Republican point of view that amnesty is wrong. As I've stated before, I know many strong Republicans that agree with the amnesty position IF the border is made more secure (which is McCain's position). And as Aces as acknowledged, McCain has voted consistently with Republicans on several issues. The fact that he does not support the anti amnesty folks does not mean he is betraying Republican principles. Heck, I always thought that capitalist minded Republicans liked free trade, free competition at work etc and it was the Democrats who supported the unions that loath the low wage Mexicans crossing the border and want all the low wage Mexicans currently in the States deported. Silly me for getting this issue wrong again from the Republican principle view point. Don't get me wrong; controlling the borders is important from a homeland security issue and its important to make sure that people crossing the border take the necessary steps to become "part of the system", but those are the only reasons why I care about it.

 

By the way, don't we already have laws in place that are designed to make sure that only legal employees are hired? Seems to me that those employers hiring illegals are as much to blame for illegals working in the States as anyone; seems to me that those employers are the one stimulating illegals crossing the borders. I really think that if employers were being honest (denying work to the illegals) you wouldn't see near as many illegals crossing the border to get work because there won't be any work for them. No jobs, no reason to cross the border. The fact that employers hire illegals is really a pretty sad reflection on American employers in my opinion. Sort of my philosophy on illegal drugs. We spend big dollars trying to stop the flow, when the real problem is demand. When Americans realize the harmful direct and indirect effects of drug usage, then the demand with drop. When demand drops, the big flow of dollars to corrupt foreign governments from drug sales will dwindle, we can stop spending so much money on drug supply intervention and re direct that money to lowering the federal deficit and the military.

 

As to the McCain approaching Kerry comment, yes it would trouble me if he had in fact done that. But I think we need to be factually correct. It was some of McCain's "people" that allegedly did it. Based on what I've read and heard on the issue, no one has said McCain did it himself. Maybe McCain was just being careful to keep a back door open of deniability open, I don't know. Then again, maybe it was just some of his supporters still very upset with Bush's (make that Rove's) cheap tricks from 2000. At this point we have no idea how senior and closely connected with McCain the "people" were whom approached Kerry. Heck, if I called up Clinton or her people and said that if she wins and McCain loses their respective primaries, McCain would consider being here VP, that would "fit" into what Kerry stated. If anything, the fact that Kerry is making noise about this at this point indicates what I, Novak and many others feel: that McCain could beat the Democratic nominee in November. Seems to me that they are trying to eliminate their toughest opponent.

 

And as to the the earlier comments about McCain winning with the support of independents and Democrats in those states permitting cross over voting, I think that shows how McCain can win the general election. I fully understand, appreciate and somewhat agree with Aces point that the Republican nominee should only be elected by Republican voters. Heck I agree that some of McCain's positions bother me as a Republican. But this is one time that I am glad that the aberration is allowed. A strict Republican (whatever that is) will NOT win in November and we will end up with Obama or Clinton (and I think Senator Kerry agrees with that which is why he is coming forward at this time about McCain's people approaching him in 04). Both of those choices scare the bejeezus out of me one heck of a lot more than McCain's failure to strictly follow all things traditionally called Republican. If McCain can attract independents, moderate Democrats and get the support of the majority of Republicans, we can avoid what I will think be a disaster if Obama or Clinton get elected. The last thing this country needs at this point in our history is for the pendulum to swing dramatically in the other direction. Such breeds uncertainty to our allies (yes, in spite of the press tells us, we still have some very strong ones) and encourages our enemies. A gradual move back towards the center would be a much smarter move, particularly if the person making that move by far has the best foreign policy, intelligency and military credentials. Russia is quickly becoming a big problem again. N. Korea, Iran, Venezuela and N. Korea are not going to go away. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going to be solved before Januaray 09. As important as some of the domestic issues are, the foreign affairs issues have greater significance to me. And McCain has much stronger experience than any candidate from either party in those areas.

 

 

This is how I have found myself looking at things recently as well, needless to say I am in agreement with LN here. :thumb:

This is how I have found myself looking at things recently as well, needless to say I am in agreement with LN here. :thumb:

 

Well heck fire, when a Highlands fan and a Trinity fan can agree on something, its got to be right!