McCain is not the R's Best Choice.

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
This thread is not dedicated to my personal preference or what I would like to see happen, rather, it is an exercise on evaluating what the republicans best move is for them so that they may capture the white house.

Lets cut the Bullshit. McCain is by no means a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. That's why he's been endorsed by the Boston globe. That is why Lieberman supports him (granted Lieberman isnt' much of a liberal but he certainly is no conservative). That is why many of you liberals on this site, if forced to choose, would choose mccain - because he's really not a conservative. That's why mccain has lost a huuge portion of the repub vote in New Hampshire and has had to resort to instead catering to the independents....

THAT'S WHY JOHN KERRY WANTED MCCAIN TO BE HIS VP RUNNING MATE.

Mccain has brought us mccain-feingold. He's crossed the aisle to hold hands with ted kennedy, and his stance on immigration still alienates many southern conservatives. If he were to run for president, he would in no way energize a republican base. In addition, many issues such as campaign finance/immigration etc . . are going to be OFF THE TABLE since he essentially has the same stance as the democratic candidates.

If it's an election between a liberal and liberal-lite, and it's those issues that are dominating the national consciousness, the nation will choose the real deal, and that's not going to be mccain.

The Republicans best hope is to offer up someone that can be a true opposition to who the democrats are running. America has to be presented with a distinct choice. Mccain is not it.
 
George W Bush crossed the washington mall to hold hands with Ted Kennedy on the Education bill and your point is? Can any of you righties believe that MAYBE Americans don't want hardcore rightwingers in charge anymore? That maybe they want someone that is MODERATE that will work with BOTH parties? I don't know if McCain is that guy for the Repubs but I do know that the status quo of the republican revolution of all of 12 years came to an end in 2006. As George Will pointed out losing the southern vote really isn't the worry that the Republicans should be worrying about but trying to win in the north. Will is doubtful that the Repubs can win Ohio again anytime soon and that is the state that had Kerry taken it would have put him in the white house.
 
Grind said:
This thread is not dedicated to my personal preference or what I would like to see happen, rather, it is an exercise on evaluating what the republicans best move is for them so that they may capture the white house.

Lets cut the Bullshit. McCain is by no means a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. That's why he's been endorsed by the Boston globe. That is why Lieberman supports him (granted Lieberman isnt' much of a liberal but he certainly is no conservative). That is why many of you liberals on this site, if forced to choose, would choose mccain - because he's really not a conservative. That's why mccain has lost a huuge portion of the repub vote in New Hampshire and has had to resort to instead catering to the independents....

THAT'S WHY JOHN KERRY WANTED MCCAIN TO BE HIS VP RUNNING MATE.

Mccain has brought us mccain-feingold. He's crossed the aisle to hold hands with ted kennedy, and his stance on immigration still alienates many southern conservatives. If he were to run for president, he would in no way energize a republican base. In addition, many issues such as campaign finance/immigration etc . . are going to be OFF THE TABLE since he essentially has the same stance as the democratic candidates.

If it's an election between a liberal and liberal-lite, and it's those issues that are dominating the national consciousness, the nation will choose the real deal, and that's not going to be mccain.

The Republicans best hope is to offer up someone that can be a true opposition to who the democrats are running. America has to be presented with a distinct choice. Mccain is not it.
Click to expand...


Wrong. If forced to choose I'd go with Romney, the real liberal in the R woodpile.

McCain is a con, period.
 
Darla said:
Wrong. If forced to choose I'd go with Romney, the real liberal in the R woodpile.

McCain is a con, period.
Click to expand...

Your a marxist basically so of course he seems like a con to you, but ask yourself why would Kerry choose a con for his running mate? Get real.
 
I'd disagree with the notion that McCain isn't a fiscal Conservative, or national security Conservative. I may not agree with him on everything, but he's the only honest one running, and he's a genuine war hero. He's earned my vote, and has a proven record of bringing people together, a long record of bipartisan legislation, he's ready to be commander and chief on day one, and work to bring us together. I think he could make a solid canidate.
 
I don't see how this would matter to anyone but an embarassed conservative pretending to be a libertarian. It certainly doesn't matter to us liberal-libertarians, who aren't crass enough to make a compact with the devil to save a few dollars.
 
Grind said:
Your a marxist basically so of course he seems like a con to you, but ask yourself why would Kerry choose a con for his running mate? Get real.
Click to expand...

Kerry may have had some fantasy of McCain as his running mate, but McCain publicly shot that down quickly. So I really don't find much relevance to that in my choice.
 
Watermark said:
I don't see how this would matter to anyone but an embarassed conservative pretending to be a libertarian. It certainly doesn't matter to us liberal-libertarians, who aren't crass enough to make a compact with the devil to save a few dollars.
Click to expand...

liberal libertarian?
 
Grind said:
Your a marxist basically so of course he seems like a con to you, but ask yourself why would Kerry choose a con for his running mate? Get real.
Click to expand...

What's a marxist? Marx, when dying, said that he didn't know what Marxism was, but that he was not a marxist. If Marx didn't know what a marxist was, I just have this feeling that neither do you.

And of course I am not a marxist, I am a very liberal democrat, and advocate a Eurpopean type mixed economy.

But if I was a marxist, what are the chances I would think that Mitt Romney was a liberal? You see, that right there is where you contradict yourself, outright.

You're wrong. McCain is a con, Romney isn't.
 
Watermark said:
I don't see how this would matter to anyone but an embarassed conservative pretending to be a libertarian. It certainly doesn't matter to us liberal-libertarians, who aren't crass enough to make a compact with the devil to save a few dollars.
Click to expand...

This thread only exists in response to another thread. I don't like ignorance. I don't give two shits if mccain becomes the nominee. I'll be staying home on election day or writing in ron paul.
 
WRL said:
Kerry may have had some fantasy of McCain as his running mate, but McCain publicly shot that down quickly. So I really don't find much relevance to that in my choice.
Click to expand...

That was always a bunch of gossip, and if it happened at all, it was some half-assed Kerry idea that McCain could win him over independents, because the press has been creaming themselves over McCain's so-called "maverick" status for so many years that many fools believe it, Kerry and Grind being only two of them.
 
McCain is a maverick; that's why people don't think he is conservative, or "conservative enough." He opposes Bush & the party on a few high-profile issues, so he earns the ire of Rush Limbaugh & the GOP establishment.

If you look at his policy stances, however, he is a conservative through & through. He has taken very few positions that any traditional Reagan Republican would disagree with, or not wholeheartedly support.
 
WRL said:
liberal libertarian?
Click to expand...

Libertarianism can be low-tax liberalism. In fact, Libertarians only ever polled anything whenever they ran under that - under Ed Clark (That's why my tag says "Ed Clark Libertarian"). The conservative-libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists who run the Libertarian party don't represent the whole thing. The Libertarians are never going to get off their feat if they keep running things like that.
 
If the libertarians truly think that they are different than both American liberalism and conservatism, then they should make room for people who lean liberal, as well as those who lean right.
 
those "few high profile issues" are amongst THE most important issues to conservative voters lorax.
 
Watermark said:
If the libertarians truly think that they are different than both American liberalism and conservatism, then they should make room for people who lean liberal, as well as those who lean right.
Click to expand...

you change sides about as much as brent. go flap in the wind some more.
 
you've gone from socialist to libertarian to the self professed "most liberal member of the board" to apparently an ed clark libertarian and who knows what else inbetween. And with those position changes come plenty of issue changes. get real watermark you are the least principled member on this entire site. grow some balls and gather some conviction.
 
Grind said:
those "few high profile issues" are amongst THE most important issues to conservative voters lorax.
Click to expand...

You've got one more than one base of voters Grind.

You've got big business who just by the way, has been paying the freight and buying you guys elections for a long time now, and they want unlimited immigration for cheap labor, and the money boys of any party will be fed.

McCain is far from the only con to be on the business side of the immigration fence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top