McCain on Meet The Press...


PDA






Biker
June 19, 2005, 10:41 AM
I just heard McCain (sp?) state that "We are making American employers break the law" with our current immigration policies. Words escape me....
Biker

If you enjoyed reading about "McCain on Meet The Press..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lone_Gunman
June 19, 2005, 10:44 AM
Get used to him... He's running in 2008. Bush feels the same way though.

rick_reno
June 19, 2005, 11:27 AM
This "we're making employers break the law" will the marketing pitch for his immigration reform crap. We're moving from "It's for the children" to "It's for the employers".

Remember, in a Hillary vs. McCain in 2008 will be another "I can't throw my precious vote away on a 3rd party - so I'll vote for McCain". The summer of 2008 this forum will be full of that discussion.

Lone_Gunman
June 19, 2005, 11:32 AM
Remember, in a Hillary vs. McCain in 2008 will be another "I can't throw my precious vote away on a 3rd party - so I'll vote for McCain". The summer of 2008 this forum will be full of that discussion.

I agree with that.

Right now, the Republican lap dogs here are all saying McCain will not get the nomination, but I believe they are wrong. The Republicans will have to run a strong, well known candidate to beat Hillary. They don't have a lot of options other than McCain.

A lot of people here think Condoleeza Rice could be the nominee, but I don't think she has a chance.

GEM
June 19, 2005, 01:28 PM
Condi says she won't do it. She probably is too smart to want the job. That's why she would be a good candidate. :p

Hillary vs. Condi - that would be something to see. Betcha, it is two boring old toot male governors from two Mooville states.

Both will take an O/U shotgun and tramp around in the fields and proclaim 'guns R for sportsmen'.

2nd Amendment
June 19, 2005, 01:43 PM
If Dr Rice wants the nomination she'll have it. If she is nominated she'll be the next president. Her race, gender and politics give her an advantage over Hillary. ;)

If McVain runs then I believe you are wrong. The Repub apologists, and people like myself who are simply practical, will either be staying home or voting less "practical". Whatever, McVain would be the end of the Repub party as a meaningful conservative bastion, and a Hillary "presidency" would be the end of our Constitutional Republic. Yes, I DO believe it would be that bad...in a best case scenerio.

rick_reno
June 19, 2005, 01:45 PM
Whatever, McVain would be the end of the Repub party as a meaningful conservative bastion, and a Hillary "presidency" would be the end of our Constitutional Republic.

I'm pretty sure the current occupant of the White House has taken care of this.

nico
June 19, 2005, 01:51 PM
I'm pretty sure the current occupant of the White House has taken care of this.

you may be right, but McCain could very well be the last nail in the coffin.

Lone_Gunman
June 19, 2005, 01:55 PM
If Dr Rice wants the nomination she'll have it. If she is nominated she'll be the next president.

I don't believe you are correct. It is my opinion, and I admit it is strictly opinion, that a deal was struck between McCain and the party machinery prior to 2004, whereby he would remain in the party and not run as an independent or chastise Bush prior to the 2004 election, in return for the 2008 nomination.

2nd Amendment
June 19, 2005, 02:07 PM
Deals are made to be broken. In politics part of the fun of deal breaking, especially against a goober such as McVain whose career has reached its end, is the look on their faces when you kick them to the curb.

OTOH, if you are right and McVain is a sure thing, then the US will not be the same nation by 2012, whomever wins. And people like a lot, perhaps a majority, of TFL members will find life very uncomfortable at least.

Rebar
June 19, 2005, 02:36 PM
McCain will never get the party nomination, unless he's the only candidate, and that's not going to happen. It's the party faithful that votes in primaries, they're good and pissed at him, and they're not bound by any "deals" made by anyone.

The real danger is if he gets mad about being rejected and runs a third party campaign. That could draw enough votes away from the republican to let Hillary win.

beerslurpy
June 19, 2005, 03:48 PM
Somehow I doubt that only one person wants to run on the republican ticket in 08. I also doubt that the conservatives will let his slimy personage have the nomination.

Not that he would get nominated, but think Ron Paul could run? I mean, he is technically a republican, and its not against the law for him to run.

R.H. Lee
June 19, 2005, 04:15 PM
McCain. WTH makes him think he's presidential material? :confused: :barf:

Monkeyleg
June 19, 2005, 06:14 PM
The only people who like McCain are Democrats and the media. He never gets the nomination. And he won't run as an independent, as it would diminish his stature (and thus face time on the talk shows).

Lone_Gunman
June 19, 2005, 06:37 PM
The only people who like McCain are Democrats and the media.

Thats exactly why I think the Republicans will run him.

My theory presumes that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. In a race between McCain and Hillary, McCain will win. I do not believe anyone else can beat Hillary, because McCain, and only McCain, can steal votes away from her own Democratic party members.

Hillary scares the hell out of even some democrats, so they will defect and vote for McCain, since they interpret him as "moderate". They won't if a real Republican runs. If you run Condoleeza Rice, every moderate and liberal democrat will be sure to turn out and vote against her, at least once.

All the Republicans, even you guys who are so against McCain right now, will vote for McCain too, and justify it as another "lesser of two evils" election. By the time you guys cast your votes for McCain in 2008, you will have actually convinced yourselves he is not so bad, and will chastise severely any conservative or libertarian minded individual who would oppose his campaign. Cries of "this election is too important to vote your conscience" will abound on political fourms.

The Republican Party will end up picking someone they think will win, and political agendas will be only a secondary consideration. Some of you think it will be up to the voters to decide who wins the primary. True, but the voters will be told who the party thinks is more likely to win a general election, and so they will vote for him... thats basically what happened with Bush.

2nd Amendment
June 19, 2005, 06:42 PM
I would literally vote for Hillary herself before I would vote for McVain. Hillary is a corrupt leftist socialist looking to subject the US to a Globalist control. McVain is a psychotic capable of damn near anything.

Also, McVain wouldn't have a prayer against Hillary. She doesn't scare the base and the rest, being typical Dems, will pull the party lever because that is what they do. But like I said elsewhere, a real conservative would win going away. There are many more conservatives, and far more hard right ones, than ever show up in elections because there is never a candidate for them to vote for.

We've seen every leftist who is ever going to vote. The last election was all they got. We haven't even seen a decent showing of conservatives yet...and we won't until the Repubs grow the balls to actually run such a being. I admit, I am not holding my breath.

longhorngunman
June 19, 2005, 07:02 PM
McCain ain't gonna be the nominee. Remember the candidate is selected in the primaries where only the hard core of both parties vote. Ain't no way McCain(especially with his role in the judicial agreement) gets it. neither will Rudy. I'll place my money on Sen. George Allen. Same reason you won't get a real candidate in the Democratic side. The base of the Dem party is a bunch of socialist wanna be Commies therefore Hillary gets it instead of an actually viable candidate like Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana.

R.H. Lee
June 19, 2005, 07:52 PM
All the Republicans, even you guys who are so against McCain right now, will vote for McCain too, and justify it as another "lesser of two evils" election. You're right, and it's infuriating. :cuss:

GoRon
June 19, 2005, 09:05 PM
All the Republicans, even you guys who are so against McCain right now, will vote for McCain too, and justify it as another "lesser of two evils" election.

No way, there is a big difference between Bush and McVain.

If by some stroke of bad luck McVain got nominated the turnout on the Republican side would reach all time lows.

I would vote for Libertarian and Constitution party candidates across the board.

If McVain was nominated I wouldn't give the Republicans a single vote for a single office.

bjbarron
June 19, 2005, 09:13 PM
All the Republicans, even you guys who are so against McCain right now, will vote for McCain too, and justify it as another "lesser of two evils" election. By the time you guys cast your votes for McCain in 2008, you will have actually convinced yourselves he is not so bad, and will chastise severely any conservative or libertarian minded individual who would oppose his campaign. Cries of "this election is too important to vote your conscience" will abound on political forums.

Don't bet on it. 20% of us voted for Perot (and I still don't regret it) and gave the election to Clinton. I believe that was a powerful message to the Republicans at the time. That will be 16 years in the past in 2008...Perhaps another message is needed.

Condi says she won't do it. She probably is too smart to want the job. That's why she would be a good candidate.

Condi needs executive branch experience...VP for McCain? Now that would be a quandary.

McCain ain't gonna be the nominee. Remember the candidate is selected in the primaries where only the hard core of both parties vote.

Truth. McCain is not the choice of the activist wing of the Republican Party.

What to do. I will not vote for McCain, and I will not vote for Hillary. I will vote. It's fun to talk about, but too soon to tell. Senators do not make good presidential candidates....two boring old toot male governors from two Mooville states is a good description of who can win.

We've seen every leftist who is ever going to vote. The last election was all they got.

Now that is an excellent observation...from your lips to God's ear. It's true that the demographics are not on the side of the leftist, and the pendulum of public opinion has swung back from the excesses of the 60's...but I would very much like to believe that theirs is as dying an ideology as Marxism.

My problem of course is that the current neo-conservatism is functionally identical to what liberal Democrats were 40 years ago. This current crop of Republicans wouldn't recognize conservatism if it bit them on their forked tongues.

In other words, I have watched both parties slide to the left over my 40 years of voting. The middle ain't where it used to be, I can tell you that.

shermacman
June 19, 2005, 09:20 PM
McCain in 2008.
That would do it, I suppose:
Pigs would fly;
Invest in Zamboni stock--->Big demand expected in Hell;

Lone_Gunman
June 19, 2005, 09:31 PM
See you guys are already doing what I said you would do. You are talking big now about how you won't vote for McCain if he is nominated, you won't vote for any republican, you will vote for a third party... bla bla bla...

When October 2008 comes along all this internet bad boy talk will diminish, you will start raising concerns about what would happen if Hillary was elected, and by November, you will all be towing the party line like good Republicans. You will say this election is just too important to vote third party, McCain is better than Hillary, and so forth.

Then on election day you will vote for him.

However I fully agree with this observation:

My problem of course is that the current neo-conservatism is functionally identical to what liberal Democrats were 40 years ago. This current crop of Republicans wouldn't recognize conservatism if it bit them on their forked tongues

I made that point in 2000, but no one would listen.

Standing Wolf
June 19, 2005, 09:47 PM
Nothing McCain could say or do could induce me even to consider voting for him. He's a sixteenth of an inch to the right of the Hero of Chappaquiddick.

Ala Dan
June 19, 2005, 10:09 PM
Looks like the 'publicans will have to load the ticket with the likes of
Dr. Rice, or Senator McCain, or former Army General Colin Powell to
have an even chance against Hillary Rhode'em Clinton. :uhoh: :D

taliv
June 19, 2005, 10:20 PM
i voted Constitution Party last time, even though kerry was a whisker from winning and every vote counted (at least once)


this time, I would not vote for mccain, no way, no how. Much as I detest hillary, I would prefer the gridlock of the 90s where we had republican house and democratic president to another 4 yrs of republican sweep where they spend out of control, yet haven't reformed anything. I can't think of a single thing they've accomplished.

I SUPPOSE you could argue that not having any waco or ruby ridges in the past 5 years is an accomplishment, but that's not exactly what i had in mind...


running condi would be interesting. she'd lose, but I think strategically, it would be the end of the democratic party because of the damage they would do to themselves trying to defeat a black woman.

edit: btw, senators like mccain don't exactly have a stellar track record. they're losers when it comes to the whitehouse

Kamicosmos
June 19, 2005, 10:29 PM
I personally feel the democrats will win it in 2008, regardless of who runs on either side.

I fear a Hillary Presidency, but I bet she'll get the Dean treatment and wash out early in the primaries. Her and Bill have too much dirt that the other candidates in the Dem party, let alone the Repubs, will throw at them.

But, the Dems will take it.

Heh, I think I'm going to put $5 in an evelope and put it in the safe as a bet with myself. I sure hope I'm wrong, but....I don't see it going to the Repubs this time. And a third party hasn't been a real threat to win since the early 1900s...
:(

But, I'll do what I've done in the past 4 presidential elections (as well as my state and local elections) in my life: Vote 3rd party whenever I can!

callgood
June 19, 2005, 10:48 PM
Looks like another expensive election year for me. I got my AR15 compliments of John French Kerry. By the fall of '08 I'll have enough in the sinking fund (i.e., I have this sinking feeling the dems might win) for an AR10. Oh, well, I'll just tell Mrs. Callgood, "Dear, I'm taking Hilary to the range."
The first time I told her I was taking "John" to the range, she thought I meant my brother.
I used to let this all affect my bloodpressure, but the dems are the party of the loony left and the republicans are conservative in name only, spending at a rate FDR would have found appalling and openly thumbing their noses at the law- i.e., immigration. Blowing a gasket won't change things, so I'll just do the best I can to prepare for what may come.

Selfdfenz
June 19, 2005, 11:26 PM
Remember, in a Hillary vs. McCain in 2008 will be another "I can't throw my precious vote away on a 3rd party - so I'll vote for McCain". The summer of 2008 this forum will be full of that discussion.

There are other threads running right now on THR about 3rd parties and why they can't win. That went on before the last election. If McCain is nominated the Lib and Constitution party get a major shot in the arm. A McCain nomination causes a watershed repositioning in the RP, what it stands for and who it's supporters are.

I went 3rd party [happily] last time and I will again unless something magical happens with the RP. From the outside looking in I don't see the RP doing much to bring the conservatives that bolted back home. Anything but.

If W and McCain are the best the R's can come up, I'm never going back.
For me that is a wasted vote.
Best,
S-

nico
June 19, 2005, 11:34 PM
I definitely won't vote Republican in '08 unless they put a real candidate on the ticket.

I hate to sound like an air america tool, but it really does seem like the national Republicans are just pandering to evangelicals (who they seem to think exclusively make up their base) and doing whatever they want with everything else. It's scary to see how many so-called conservatives support the patriot act.

Selfdfenz
June 19, 2005, 11:44 PM
:scrutiny: :scrutiny: pandering to evangelicals :scrutiny: :scrutiny:
>>?<<
S-

taliv
June 19, 2005, 11:53 PM
umm, yeah, seriously, nico, where'd that come from??

i'm even more evangelical than I am a gun nut. what has Bush done for evangelicals except give us a bad name?

putting tax-dollars into faith-based charities is NOT helping the evangelicals. money corrupts, and evangelicals don't really have much problems raising their own money.

as an evangelical, the list of things i'd like starts with disbanding the federal Dept of Education. #2 on the list is straightening out the "separation of church and state" doctrine, which is currently FUBAR

I'll grant you that Bush has talked a lot about evangelicals, but then, cheney comes to all the NRA dinners too and that hasn't accomplished much either

nico
June 20, 2005, 12:13 AM
Maybe I should have phrased that differently. It seems like Bush (and a lot of the national repubs) tries to make it look like he's pandering to religious Christians (whether or not he's actually doing anything) with things like the gay marriage Constitutional Amendment and Faith Based Initiatives. He doesn't seem to be interrested in going out of his way to make any other specific groups (gun owners, fiscal conservatives, people who want limited government, etc.) that usually make up the Repub base happy. In fact, he's often gone out of his way (advocating renewal of the AWB, spending like there's no tomorrow, the Patriot Act) to screw over groups that usually make up the repub base.

Bush gives evangelicals a bad name in the same way Dean gives quasi-socialist liberals a bad name. Just like there are plenty of leftwing nuts who think Dean is the future of the party, there seem to be a significant number of people who think that bush is a good Christian so they don't care what else he does. I'm gonna puke if I hear another person say "I have nothing to hide so I don't have a problem with the Patriot Act."

Selfdfenz
June 20, 2005, 12:22 AM
nico,

Not sure I'm a poster boy for being an evangelical, but to whatever extent I might be even close, W is not one of us. Not by a country mile.



S-

nico
June 20, 2005, 12:38 AM
I shouldn't have said "Evangelical" as, in this context, it's a buzzword used to demonize a group of people (which is NOT what I meant to do). I do think, however, that Bush for whatever reason, has a significant number of people who think that because he's "a good Christian," he can do no wrong and always has the country's best interrest in mind. Not that it's quantitative evidence, but that seems to be a pretty common sentiment among Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity callers. "The democrats just want to demonize president Bush because he's a good Christian and they can't stand that."

stevelyn
June 20, 2005, 01:59 AM
Everbody seems to be focused on McCain. I think Rudy Giuliani is going to suddenly appear out of the woodwork and throw a monkey wrench into the works.
The repugnikans don't have anyone currently in govt that would motivate their voter base to go out and vote and/or campaign. Everyone that the demonrats can viably run are absolutely destestable to the American voters. Giuliani kinda disappeared from the scene while riding high on a tide of popularity for his leadership after 9/11 and has been hidden since. I think if he were to suddenly appear as a presidential candidate after all the other misfits have revealed themselves, he just might pull off a coup and get nominated.
He seems to be a capable leader, is well liked and personable. By staying hidden he dosen't generate much controversy so there's less dirt to dig up and throw back at him. Don't take your eyes off the immediate threats (Hitlery and the Manchurian), but do be aware of other possibilities.

Lone_Gunman
June 20, 2005, 08:48 AM
Giuliani is a contender as well, I agree, but I think he will end up as McCain's running mate.

taliv
June 20, 2005, 09:29 AM
i'll buy that, nico

Rebar
June 20, 2005, 12:55 PM
Giuliani is not a contender, he'll do better than McCain, but he doesn't appeal to the primary voters. He'd be far better off going for Hillary's senate seat next year.

R.H. Lee
June 20, 2005, 01:03 PM
Giuliani's a non starter. Outside of the east coast urban areas, he's virutally unknown. Hardly presidential material, either.

Lone_Gunman
June 20, 2005, 01:15 PM
Giuliani is not unknown outside the NE. He was everywhere after 911.

I think you guys are underestimating his chances. Any Republican that runs will get the South. Giuliani will do at least as well as Bush in the west and midwest, and he may actually be able to bring in NY.

2nd Amendment
June 20, 2005, 01:46 PM
Giuliani is a Dem with a Repub label. He'd do no better than Bush because he would inspire no more, if as much, desire in conservatives to vote at all than Shrub did. His votes would come from people opposing the Dem, otherwise he wouldn't collect enough votes outside the East Coast to win dog catcher anywhere else.

Mr. James
June 20, 2005, 01:53 PM
Guiliani is a non-starter with the conservative base who fuel primary elections. He is pro-choice. He is anti-gun. He has a checkered marital past (married three times, serial adulterer), which many social conservatives will find positively distasteful. Remember, he shacked up with his girlfriend after his second wife had had a belly-full, and married her at Gracie Mansion at a ceremony officiated by Bloomberg, another dispicable urban RINO.

Guiliani, for whatever steel he showed after 9-11, is poison to the faithful.

JB in SC
June 21, 2005, 08:33 AM
The republican primaries will be a dogfight, and I just don't see McCain surviving them. I don't see the deep south faithful voting for him. Even my own Senator Graham is in trouble for his defection. He's got some 'splaining to do when he gets home.

I seriously doubt McCain will run third party (his little bill stabbed third parties in the back); he's kicking tires and pandering to the media. He's playing the good guy that wants to do "the people's business". I want him to keep his nose out of my business.

RealGun
June 21, 2005, 12:24 PM
Not sure I'm a poster boy for being an evangelical, but to whatever extent I might be even close, W is not one of us. Not by a country mile. - selfdfenz

Not sure what you are saying here. Should I be relieved that a genuine evangelical is not President, "a country mile" stronger about religion as executive guidance and how that should effect proposed legislation, "compassionate" views of illegal immigrants, and the nominations to the federal courts? Was there no satisfaction with his views on gay marriage? What is "one of us"? I know it doesn't include me either way.

You don't need to respond and get into a religious debate, but your statement was strong enough and negative enough to deserve some balancing comment.

dasmi
June 21, 2005, 12:27 PM
All the Republicans, even you guys who are so against McCain right now, will vote for McCain too, and justify it as another "lesser of two evils" election.
Nope, I won't. I will vote my conscience, and that certainly will not be McCain, or Hillary.

SteveS
June 21, 2005, 12:59 PM
I think it is fair to say that, as part of Rove's strategy, GWB sought the "evangelical" vote. It worked, mostly because the Democrats have slowly, but surely, demonized and alienated most religious groups and this was a chance to win a lot of voters.

He doesn't seem to be interrested in going out of his way to make any other specific groups (gun owners, fiscal conservatives, people who want limited government, etc.) that usually make up the Repub base happy.

He doesn't have to. If the Dems had put up a moderate or pro-gun candidate, he would have sucked up to the gun voters, but Kerry certainly didn't fall into either of those categories. As for those other groups, they weren't going to vote for Kerry, so he didn't have to worry. Oh, the joy of a two party system! :barf:

RealGun
June 21, 2005, 01:19 PM
part of Rove's strategy,

The strategy was a no-brainer. Be pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and find no problem with figments of Christianity in government proceedings and your in with the passionately religious crowd being coached from the pulpit, especially when the other guy has opposing views down the line or disingenuous waffling. I believe these philosophies are natural for Bush. Rove may have used it to advantage but it doesn't mean appealing to "traditional values" was his creation.

longeyes
June 21, 2005, 02:42 PM
All McCain needs to do is drop the "Mc."

Beware of men who consider themselves the Great Conciliator.

longeyes
June 21, 2005, 02:44 PM
The candidate the American people are waiting for is a nationalist. Is there one in the house? Of course, I can't see the Rockefeller Republicans who still run the Party ever letting such a creature get anywhere near the nomination.

If you enjoyed reading about "McCain on Meet The Press..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!