Is McCain in 08 really that bad?

[The Real Hawkeye]

I'll agree with that. Now you are 1 step closer to a gun ban then you were before the elections----CONGRATS.

Negative! Continually voting for increasingly leftist, internationalist, anti-gun and fascist Republicans, just because they are not quite as bad as the Dems, will get you where you don't want to go faster than making every politician earn your vote with conservative and Constitutional governance. When a weak-on-gun-rights Republican loses to a pro gun Democrat, I am not particularly displeased for two reasons. Firstly, that improves our gun rights situation, and secondly it gets some people in the Republican Party thinking that perhaps they'd better start paying more attention to the interests of gun owners.

 

[MechAg94]

I also seriously disagree that McCain-Fiengold violates the First Ammendment, which was not designed to be a mechanism by which special interests and large corporations can essentially buy votes.

What makes special interests so special? The NRA is a special interest. I send them money to lobby the govt on my behalf about gun rights. They speak for me and my special interest in gun rights. Why do you think it is okay to limit my freedom of speech indirectly by limiting the NRA?

 

[Mayo]

You need to look more closely at how the votes break instead of how the individual feels about a certain topic. I'm sure you are aware that pressure is applied to both party's representatives on voting issues. Many, many times they will vote with the party line and against their personal beliefs. Actually, as elected officials, they are bound to due so by their constituents. They represent the people first and their idealogy SHOULD come second. Ergo, Democrats in control of the House and Senate = control of the issues and you WILL see some cross lines to vote via pressure.

 

[Mayo]

I am by no means supporting McCain alone---only in a Hillary vs McCain showdown mind you.

 

[Mayo]

Let me try a different approach to the 3rd party voting idea. I agree whole heartedly that IF you intend to send a message to either side---the time to do so is in the pre election runoffs. Vote all the 3rd party candidates you want. Then if they actually make it or have ANY chance vote in the National Election do so.

That said, in the 2004 Presidential election 122,000,000 million votes were cast. 62 million R and 59 million D with 99,000 other. That is less then 1% that didn't vote D or R. Like it or not it is a fact. Fact is, most 3rd party voters DO end up voting D or R, but a good % don't. Once the Presidential Election is down to 2 and only 2 VIABLE candidates---you should make an informed decision and NO THEY ARE NOT BOTH THE SAME. Might not like both or hate both the same---there is some differences. Until there is a legitimate 3rd party candidate then that is the scenario---message or not.

 

[johnster999]

I'd choose McCain over HRC.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'd choose McCain over HRC.

I think that conservatives demonstrated this month that they'll sit out an election, or vote for a third party in protest. During the '90s, conservatives and others voted for Perot, a big talker with no real answers, instead of Bush I, who wasn't much of a conservative and certainly was no libertarian.

The GOP needs "independents" to win an election, but there's no way the GOP can win an election with only the "swing voters."

A McCain candidacy would be exactly what Hillary ordered.

So, whatever you think of the guy, I think a McCain campaign would be, at best, a waste of money, and at worst, the event that would signal very-long-term overall GOP decline. Total dominance by modern Democrats means a re-run of the Carter years economically, combined with more recent social-engineering authoritarianism. The Cold War Democrats are no more; the party is in the hands of the aging-hippie left for the moment. Massive GOP decline would not be good for the country, unless it allowed the Libertarians to replace the GOP, and I don't see that happening tomorrow.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Until there is a legitimate 3rd party candidate then that is the scenario---message or not.

What you don't seem to be getting, Mayo, is that it is those who think like you, and follow your advice, who ensure that there is never going to be a "legitimate" 3rd party candidate, because your definition of a "legitimate" 3rd party candidate is one that is tracking close behind, tied with, or ahead of a major party candidate at any given time. That can never happen, however, if they do not have our support, which is exactly what you recommend we deny to them. Do you see the illogic in your position? It's entirely untenable.

 

[Bigjake]

Hillary vs McCain

screw'em both, if them be the options.

I'll be spending that day at the range rather than the polls.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

None of the current third parties are "legitimate" in the sense that they have any real interest in selecting qualified candidates or running an aggressive campaign designed to get someone elected. Mostly, they just act as spoilers and hope they will cross the magic 5% threshhold where the party leadership can spend the federal matching funds frivolously.

You can establish the most principled party platform in the world. You can go out on the Internet and convince all the world to give up on the two-party system and give you a chance. You nominate the guy whose political history is "Runner up to President in my college dorm" and you are going down in flames regardless.

Despite all that, I am not voting for McCain regardless. If that is the best the Republicans have to offer then it is clear they do not need or value my vote.

 

[ArmedBear]

That can never happen, however, if they do not have our support, which is exactly what you recommend we deny to them. Do you see the illogic in your position? It's entirely untenable.

Politics aren't about logic; they're about winning.

The last legitimate third-party candidate simply served to win the Presidency for a man who got 43% of the popular vote (i.e. 57% of voters voted against). This leaves a bitter taste, and lot of doubt, for those of us who remember further back than yesterday.

I understand your frustration. But simple "logic" does sometimes need to be subjected to a reality check. Here goes:

Reality: http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc

Hillary polls between 36% and 40% over this year, 40% as of last week, with 15% undecided.

So, you've got 60% of voters to work with. Democrat voters are not going to be voting for any libertarians. Many benefit personally from Democrat policies.

So, you've got to lure at least 10% of the 15% undecideds, and 30% of the 45% republican-leaners. That's 2/3 of them!

Ain't gonna happen. I can't think of an American who is well-known and well-respected enough to get 2/3 of GOP and swing voters. Can you? This person would have to be outside politics, most likely, as well. For some reason, scumbag political insiders get votes over and over again, when upstanding outsiders have an uphill battle. (No, I didn't like Perot; that's not the point.)

I don't care how much support you throw behind this third-party candidate. The numbers don't add up. Like Bartholomew said, they'd go down in flames.

I don't like this. But reality is sometimes not what we prefer.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Despite all that, I am not voting for McCain regardless. If that is the best the Republicans have to offer then it is clear they do not need or value my vote.

I'm going to hold you to that, Bart. Let's see if you begin to waver when the moment of truth approaches. I'm with you, of course.

 

[History Prof]

Most conservatives in Arizona detest the man.

In the 2000 primaries, the AZ Gov (I forget her name, but it was a R at the time) endorsed Bush over McCain.

Once in office he would quickly change his stance on most issues to the ultra-left wing side.

When he ran for re-election in '04, the Dems didn't even run a viable candidate against him. I wonder why? Could it be that Old Fuff has hit the nail on the head here? In the primaries that year, I wrote in the name of my former congressman - just as a subtle protest.

Never, ever believe what he says. The only reason he voted against some anti-gun legislation was because doing otherwise would have killed him politically in Arizona when he ran for reelection as a Senator.

Again, Old Fuff has hit the nail on the head. One of the things I like about AZ is the political climate. One of the things I don't like about AZ is that most conservative voters forget what McCain is like when he is NOT running for reelection.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Dan from MI]

I will NEVER vote for McCain.

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

He flipped-flopped on that one too. BTW - Good riddance to DeWine and Chafee who just received early retirement.

----

S.1807
Title: A bill to require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 10/31/2003) Cosponsors (13)
Related Bills: H.R.3832
Latest Major Action: 10/31/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Chafee, Lincoln [RI] - 10/31/2003 Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 11/4/2003
Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] - 1/22/2004 Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] - 10/31/2003
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 3/30/2004 Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 3/12/2004
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 12/9/2003 Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 12/9/2003
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 10/31/2003 Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 1/22/2004
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 10/31/2003 Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 10/31/2003
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 10/31/2003

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Ain't gonna happen. I can't think of an American who is well-known and well-respected enough to get 2/3 of GOP and swing voters. Can you?

That's like telling a thirteen year old kid to give up the idea of ever becoming a pitcher for the NY Yankees, because he can't throw a ball nearly as fast as Humberto Sanchez, so no point in trying. No, he should try his best, and every year try to be a little better than the year before. That's a reasonable goal for a kid who wants to be a Yankee pitcher, and it's a reasonable goal in politics. He may not ever be a Yankee but, damn it, if that's his goal, he ought to try.

 

[gunsmith]

my first gun was a cheap Raven .25

I was lucky, it was reliable, accurate and I once dropped it by accident and it didn't go bang.

I will not vote for some one who tries to take away my right to life because I am not making a lot of money.

 

[ArmedBear]

That's like telling a thirteen year old kid to give up the idea of ever becoming a pitcher for the NY Yankees, because he can't throw a ball nearly as fast as Humberto Sanchez, so no point in trying. No, he should try his best, and every year try to be a little better than the year before. That's a reasonable goal for a kid who wants to be a Yankee pitcher, and it's a reasonable goal in politics. He may not ever be a Yankee but, damn it, if that's his goal, he ought to try.

Whoa!

You flipped from an appeal to "logic" to an irrelevant simile designed to tug at the heartstrings. Sorry, but if you look at the numbers I posted, I don't think it holds a bit of water.

But you have the answer yourself:

he should try his best, and every year try to be a little better than the year before. That's a reasonable goal for a kid who wants to be a Yankee pitcher, and it's a reasonable goal in politics.

I'm sure you know how people become Yankee pitchers these days. They start in Little League. They play in club and school teams. They try to get into high schools that are "on the map" in athletics. They look for the right college. They hire coaches and strength trainers. They bust their butts in the minors. Then, if they make it that far and show even more promise, they get the chance they've earned.

The Presidency is the top of the game. Those who become President have been in the game for a long time, and they started small, as plebes, then 2nd lieutenants and ensigns, and worked their way up to generals, or as city council members who moved up to mayor, then governor. Politicians who even get a shot at the final election are often second-generation politicians, like Gore and Bush, or have other family connections like Kerry. Not only did they put in the time, but so did their ancestors.

Third party candidates are generally unwilling to do this. Ross Perot had done so in (government-funded) private industry; he was unique in this regard. He also got the most votes in my memory, by a HUGE margin.

Pitching for the Yankees someday after a lot of blood, sweat and tears is WAY different from pitching for the Yankees at 13.

We're talking about the Presidency in 2009 here, not "someday." The Libertarians, or whomever, won't win it in 2008. Want to work up to pitching for the Yankees, you start smaller.

Voting for a third party candidate for President in 2008 won't help or hurt a third party cause. 1%, 1.5%, who cares? Working at a level that offers at least SOME chance of success just makes more sense. By having a pool of experienced people who could be elected President, we have a much better chance. Let's build up that pool. We can start that right away.

For the moment, though, I will likely re-register GOP, so I can vote in the primary. Right now, that's the best and most logical vote I can cast. Keep it from being McCain vs. Clinton, and we might get a better choice.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Goody
Another lesser-of-the-two-evils thread.

They say Pelosi will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

With McCain followed by Rudy followed by Pelosi you'd have to be watching the tele to know there had actually been a change in thought-leaders inside the beltway at least from an outcomes POV.

A John and Rudy ticket would be the clearest indication I can think of that the GOP is clueless, totally homing on internal noise, completely out of touch.

I think we're there.

HAGD

S-

 

[JohnL2]

I for one hope he gets the nomination.

 

[MrAcheson]

Even with a republican Congress, who was in power when AWB was passed??? (Honestly I'm not sure if that went down before or after the Newt and Republican took control after something like 40 yaers of Democrat control)

The '94 Crime Bill was passed by Clinton and the pre-takeover Democratic congress. To this day, Bill Clinton blames it and gun control for the Republican takeover of Congress later that year.

Oh and no, I'll never vote for McCain. Not after McCain-Feingold.

 

[loumarch]

If you really want a measure of the man, just read the McCain-Feingold bill. Anyone that is willing to start taking away our basic rights does not deserve the presidency.

McCain limited the effectiveness of all sorts of lobbying groups with this legislation, and Bush helped him by not vetoing this piece of crap bill.

No one raised their voice when McCain-Feingold was passed, don't expect much noise when he agrees to another AWB or worse.

 

[ArmedBear]

McCain limited the effectiveness of all sorts of lobbying groups with this legislation

Actually, it seems he limited the effectiveness of ideological lobbying groups -- the sorts of groups the First Amendment was meant to protect -- while doing nothing to curtain lobbyists only after our money, see Abramoff for a good example.

His intent was to silence civil liberties and other political groups (note that the ACLU and the NRA were co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against it), around election time, to keep the peasants from thinking about things like abortion (pro- or anti-), guns, free speech, search and seizure, etc. when it could be inconvenient for incumbents.

 

[Caimlas]

Please see Rule #4 of the Forum Rules. {Sorry! - Caim}

ETA: It seems as if many of you are facing a logical barrier, potentially one of emotional nature. You appear unwilling to sede that "voting Republican" may not be a good option, or even the best option. (This isn't targeted at anyone in particular; it's just a general observation on multiple posts.)

Your reasoning goes as follows, "I'm going to vote for McCain (who supports banning guns) because he isn't a Democrat like Clinton or Obama (who support banning guns)." That doesn't really make sense, does it?

If it came to a choice between McCain (or other like-minded Republican) and Clinton (or other like-minded Democrat), I would take my Constitutional option/vote 3rd party.

 

[RealGun]

When a weak-on-gun-rights Republican loses to a pro gun Democrat, I am not particularly displeased for two reasons.

I reviewed my election and gun rating data and didn't find a single case where that actually happened. That is to say that wherever a pro-gun rated Democrat won, he or she was up against a well rated Republican. That includes both houses of Congress. Governor's races or other State elections may have been quite different.

 

[Caimlas]

When he ran for re-election in '04, the Dems didn't even run a viable candidate against him. I wonder why? Could it be that Old Fuff has hit the nail on the head here? In the primaries that year, I wrote in the name of my former congressman - just as a subtle protest.

Precisely!

Which is why we're likely to see a Clinton vs. McCain in 2008, I imagine.

Welcome to the world of one-party political systems.