How is McCain going to win over the moderates that are saying the US should get out of Iraq?

So you are in effect saying that the far right wing of the Republican party will repeat the error committed in '96. Doesn't speak very highly of them. I'm hoping that they will realize that while McCain doesn't share their far right views, that McCain will certainly be better for this country than the much, much more liberal candidate from the Democratic party. Then again, I sometimes give too much credit to people being rational and logical.

 

I find it interesting that for years the critics of national politics have been crying about the candidates for President being too extreme because only extremists can win their party's primary. For the first time in a long time, the Republicans have the opportunity to nominate someone who is not so extreme, can appeal to moderates of the other party and can unite this country. What do we do: whine and complain about him and attack him. What is even more interesting are those comments are coming from Kentuckians, the home of the Great Compromiser, Henry Clay, one of our most revered sons. Simply amazing. And folks, contrary to what his attackers post on here, McCain is not as liberal as he is made out to be. Sure on some isssues he's not attractive to the far right extremists. Heck Limbaugh hates him. Then again, Limbaugh is nothing but an old wind bag, so full of himself that he actually believes he is on "loan from God". And people think I'm arrogant. If Rush was supporting McCain, I'd have to carefully reexamine my support of McCain.

 

The fact that some Democrats, particularly Ky Democrats whom can be more conservative than a of Republicans, support him should not alarm people. It should give them some comfort knowing that if real conservatives, conservatives truly more interested in what's best for this country than what's best for their idealogical faction of the Republican party, support McCain and the moderate Democrats and independents vote for him also, we can avoid another Clinton in the White House.

But how do you feel about his anti-gun stance?

But how do you feel about his anti-gun stance?

 

You are the first person I've EVER heard say he has an anti-gun stance. See the attached link for his thoughts on the Second Amendment. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm Seems about as strong as it can get to me.

Why do you feel he is anti-gun?

You are the first person I've EVER heard say he has an anti-gun stance. See the attached link for his thoughts on the Second Amendment. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm Seems about as strong as it can get to me.

Why do you feel he is anti-gun?

In 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor. Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation, which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely, were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.

 

During the 2000 race for the nomination McCain took a position far to the left of Bush. McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban.

 

Anti-gun is probably too strong, but he's not what I call in our corner.

McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban.

How could anyone in their right mind be FOR little, cheap guns or assault weapns? :eek:

How could anyone in their right mind be FOR little, cheap guns or assault weapns? :eek:

Define both.

 

And to be fair, It says inexpensive, not cheap.

How is McCain going to win over the moderates that are saying the US should get out of Iraq?

 

Well for one, the Iraq War isn't the hot button issue that it was just a few months ago due to the success of the Surge (which as McCain has told us time and time again, he not only supported, he aggressively pushed Bush to do). Thus if the success of the Surge continues into November, it may not be the litmus test issue that it once was. Further, I think there are a lot of moderates that realize the dangers if we simply walk away from the fight, not only to our national security interests in the short term, but also the long term damage to our ability to support people committed to overthrowing dictatorships and evil leaders. If McCain can convince moderates that due to his foreign policy experience, he more than any other candidate can improve the political problems in Iraq (which would of course allow for a withdrawal on more favorable terms) he'll get their vote. Plus, McCain I think will say that he'll use that foreign policy experience to use the tools of diplomacy better to try and avoid having to do what we did again in Iraq. I think that will appeal to a lot of moderates. He'll be able to campaign effectively on the adage of walk softly but carry a big stick. Don't be afraid to use it if absolutely necessary, but only after the skillful use of diplomacy has not worked. If people think that we should exhaust diplomatic means before using the military, who has a better grasp of foreign policy and the ability to use diplomacy than McCain?

 

Wouldn't you agree that so far he's done a pretty good job of attracting moderates and independents in spite of his Iraq position? I sure do based on his success in open primaries.

 

Which brings me to another point. Some folks criticized his success prior to Florida on the fact that the primaries were open and the only reason he had as much success as he did was the ability of Democrats and Independents to vote in the Republican primaries. While he proved that he could be attractive to moderate Democrats and Independents, he was in the minds of some unproven to the Republicans. Well the Florida Republican primary as most know was a closed primary open only to Republicans and he won there too.

 

Some interesting exit polling numbers I saw in today's WSJ: McCain killed Romney with the Hispanics/Latinos. He beat Romney not only with the male vote, but the generally considered more moderate female voters. He surprisingly beat Romney with those voters that felt the economy was the top issue, but just as surprising lost to Romney with voters that felt terrorism was the issue (Guiliani may have hurt McCain here). Lost heavily with those voters that felt that immigration was the top issue (which is also surprising since he won big with the Hispanics/Latinos) and won very decisively with those voters that felt Iraq was the top issue (not surprising considering the amount of active duty and retirees in Florida).

In 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor. Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation, which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely, were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.

 

During the 2000 race for the nomination McCain took a position far to the left of Bush. McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban.

 

Anti-gun is probably too strong, but he's not what I call in our corner.

 

Honestly RTS, I'll have to go check some of his votes and positions on gun control. I've always considered him pro gun. His election site (for what its worth) states positions that I certainly can live with and support. I know that I'm not the least bit opposed to background checks for guns bought at gun shows (which is one of the two issues that the NRA has with him, the other being McCain-Feingold). To me (and I'm pretty much a gun nut as you know and carry one in my briefcase and truck) its kind of silly to require a back ground check if you buy a gun at Cabela's but not at the local gun show two blocks away. But other than the aforementioned two issues, McCain has been a pretty solid pro gun elected official his entire career. Furthermore, getting back to a common theme of mine, are there any other legit candidates that have the same level of support for guns that McCain does even if its not totally at your level? Not that I'm aware of (although I did get a kick out of Romney's alleged hunting experience. Heck, I've hunted more this year than Romney has in his life.)

I agree with the poster that said this could be just like the Dole election. Clinton was ripe to be beat at that point and the GOP ran a "dead man" against him. I just don't think McCain can generate enough excitement to win.

 

Limbaugh was quoted as saying if it was between McCain and either of the Dems that he would hope the democrat would win. His logic was that McCain is so similar to them that the country is going to go to heck anyway and he would rather have a democrat as president to take the heat for it.

 

Plus it is probably a lot easier to do your job when you can second guess every decision the administration makes instead of trying to defend them.

 

I do not agree with McCain on immigration and he has admitted the economy is his weakest point. Well these are two of my strongest concerns tonight and in our immediate future.

He said Romney supports a timetable. Romney did say that. He said it should be a private timetable, but a timetable nevertheless.

 

The video tells only half the story. McCain did more than parse Romney's statement and claim that he supported timetables. McCain said that Romney wanted to withdraw the troops and compared Romney's support for timetables to the timetables that Democrats were advocating. I have started a new thread on the Straight Talk Express and opened it with a post containing a more complete account of McCain's attack.

 

McCain's comments were obviously aimed at creating the false impression that he, McCain, had been more consistent in his opposition to public timetables than Romney had.

The video tells only half the story. McCain did more than parse Romney's statement and claim that he supported timetables. McCain said that Romney wanted to withdraw the troops and compared Romney's support for timetables to the timetables that Democrats were advocating. I have started a new thread on the Straight Talk Express and opened it with a post containing a more complete account of McCain's attack.

 

McCain's comments were obviously aimed at creating the false impression that he, McCain, had been more consistent in his opposition to public timetables than Romney had.

 

You said that he was "dishonest as the day is long." What we have here is a far cry from dishonesty, it may be gamesmanship or wordsmithing, but it is not lying and Romney (nor any other politician) does not come to the line of scrimmage with clean hands, either.

You said that he was "dishonest as the day is long." What we have here is a far cry from dishonesty, it may be gamesmanship or wordsmithing, but it is not lying and Romney (nor any other politician) does not come to the line of scrimmage with clean hands, either.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one, Hearsay. This is one of the few times that I agree with a CNN political commentator.

 

 

.

Hastert knocks McCain as 'allied with Democrats'

 

The former House speaker has not had a lot of good to say about McCain in recent years. He contended that on agenda items under the Republican-controlled Congress, “it just seems like everything we did, John was someplace else.”

 

“It was McCain-Kennedy, it was McCain-Lieberman, it was McCain-Feingold on campaign finance reform,” Hastert said, noting Democratic co-sponsors. “He was against us on tax cuts and his form of immigration reform was to open the gates and let everybody in.”

 

Asked if he considered McCain a conservative, Hastert said, “In my opinion, he is not.”

 

“He is a moderate,” the former speaker said. “In almost everything he’s done, he’s done (things) against what mainstream Republicans thought and he’s allied with Democrats. He was always the undependable vote in the Senate.”

.

.

.

“I think Romney happens to be the right guy. I’m not switching, I’m not changing. I think he would be the best president of the people we have a choice of,” he said. “It was a choice I made through deductive logic. I worked with McCain, I worked with (former Tennessee Sen. Fred) Thompson, I worked with (Texas Rep.) Ron Paul, I worked with (former New York Mayor Rudy) Giuliani after 9/11. I’ve known all these guys.”

All I can say is that a find it ironic that many of the former Reagan people are coming down on McCain's side in this election. From the family to cabinet people, Reagan's people seem to land on the side of the Senator from Arizona.

All I can say is that a find it ironic that many of the former Reagan people are coming down on McCain's side in this election. From the family to cabinet people, Reagan's people seem to land on the side of the Senator from Arizona.

Apparently you have not read Michael Reagan's assessment of John McCain. I am sure that Reagan's liberal son, Ron, supports McCain over the other Republicans, but he is most likely backing one of the Democrats.