polls about the general race right now are silly, as Rudy would be President long ago.
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
Agreed. Likewise the need to suck up to the mainstream media. GW won in 2004 without any mainstream media support and in the face of a ton of negative stories. This notion that a Republican candidate must "play ball" with the media is refuted by 2004. 62 million people voted for GW in 2004 and you can probably count on one hand all the mainstream outlets that endorsed him.
Republican candidates would be better advised to be more combative with the mainstream media because at the end of the day Repubicans are going to be painted as the bad guys. This bias is well established in the public eye. Better to get out front and confront your accusers in the media or else you give them credentials they do not deserve. No need to be combative, use Reagan as the template and simply laugh at the media. In Chicago, Democrat Richard M. Daley employs this strategy with great success and has had the local press eating out of his hand for years.
Squid_Shark
· 1 year ago
"and you can probably count on one hand all the mainstream outlets that endorsed him. "
In 2004: * 33 newspapers endorsed George W. Bush
* 38 newspapers endorsed John Kerry.
* 28 newspapers did not endorse a candidate.
In 2000: * 43 newspapers endorsed George W. Bush.
* 36 newspapers endorsed Al Gore.
* 20 newspapers did not endorse a candidate.
olddeadmeat
· 1 year ago
It would certainly be refreshing to see a politician keep promises, and it would be delightful to have a porkbuster with a veto.
But what is the biggest promise that conservatives would want McCain to hold to if elected? I am curious. Whaddya think?
Cicero
· 1 year ago
1. Build the fence and forget about amnesty in any form; 2. Appoint constructionist judges, regardless of whether the NY Times and Chuck Schumer like them; 3. STOP COURTING THE ACCOLADES OF THE MSM!!! (Oh wait, he never promised that...)
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
Senator McCain morph into Rick Santorum?
jharp
· 1 year ago
"1. Build the fence"
I've never understood this approach.
Don't they know about ladders?
Not trying to be wise guy but really.
Cicero
· 1 year ago
First, we're not talking about one fence. A two layer fence with a sanitary corridor in between would be very hard to breach. Try carrying your ladder over the first one.
Second, check with the Israelis to see whether a well-designed fence can keep people out. I believe theirs has been a remarkable success. And it keeps out people who are well-organized and intent on mass murder;
Third, the small sections of the border in the San Diego area on which a serious fence has been built have substantially reduced the flow of illegals in those areas. And we're not even talking about the type of fence that was supposed to be built in connection with last year's bill.
Finally, here's a question for you. Are we better off having no impediment to illegal border crossings at all because a fence might not stem 100 percent of the traffic? That's a pretty hard case to make.
elgordo
· 1 year ago
A fence saves manpower. Sure you can overcome it but it takes time and those ladders sure are conspicuous. That´s why every used car lot has a fence.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
never heard of a tunnel before I guess.
elgordo
· 1 year ago
That´s right. Because digging a 50 foot long man-size tunnel under a double fence is not conspicuous. Besides, did it ever occur to you that it´s harder to get tens of thousands of people through a couple of tunnels than across 1000 miles of open country?
But they could always use a helicopter or a hot air balloon, so we better give up trying to have a border just like any other country. Stunning logic.
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
logic?
jharp
· 1 year ago
My 2 cents.
As long as folks continue to hire them, they will find a way in.
Kind of like the war on drugs. If there is a demand (money to be made) someone will find a way.
I believe in cracking down on the hiring of illegals.
Pretty simple and we could make some money doing it by levying substantial fines.
I see it as win win. No double wide fence moated fence expense. And a profit center as the alternative.
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
Ask Duncan Hunter and he'll tell you that the fence is working wonders in San Diego. Thanks for your .02, but I'll take Congressmen Hunter's case study over your supply and demand theory.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"I believe in cracking down on the hiring of illegals.
Pretty simple and we could make some money doing it by levying substantial fines."
As someone who claimed to have training in economics, I would think that you could see that the "double wide moated fence" expense is a one-time investment.
On the other hand, your liberal idea, spending money on "cracking down on the hiring of illegals" would be a constant drain on taxpayer money as it would involve creating yet another layer of government bureaucracy. That's because we've tried doing it that way in the past, and it hasn't worked.
The fence, or wall, or whatever, doesn't need to be along the entire southern border, as geography has already determined that some areas will never become smuggling routes. You won't find any mules bringing them over along some of the wilder reaches of the Rio Grande, for instance.
runawayyyy
· 1 year ago
Oddly enough, I agree with jharp. Amazing, I know, but if we look at the success of both Arizona and Oklahoma, it is undeniable that if we simply enforce the hiring laws already on the books (and with the beaurocracy already in place) the jobs will dry up and the incentive to break our laws disappears. As usual, the states are leading the way. The feds only need to follow.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Thank you kindly, runawayyy.
I really am a decent and thoughtful guy whose simply pissed about the past 5-6 years.
Good health to you and your family.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Hell, good health to everyone and their families.
Should have included all.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
thank you!
and to you and yours also!
RBMN
· 1 year ago
A foreign adult, with no criminal record, who can afford a plane ticket to the United States, or Canada, needn't worry about any Mexican border fence. As good as the fences are, they won't solve the problem if employment laws aren't overhauled at the same time. If a "tourist" can step foot on American soil, they can hide on American soil as well.
Cicero
· 1 year ago
Its a certainty that there is no single fix for every aspect of the illegal immigration problem. But I guarantee that a serious fence would revolutionize the illegal border-crossing part of the equation.
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
True enough. But they won't be coming by the millions and they may even have high school educations.
jvandahm
· 1 year ago
I believe in a double fence where border patrol says they need it, a good system of electronic surveilence with corresponding boots on the ground to respond to breaches (virtual fence), a required nationwide employment verification system, penalties for those hiring illegals, and other common sense measures to reduce demand and battle supply. The other big thing, which few talk about, is a strong push by our government and citizens to strengthen our neighbor to the South. With the corruption in governement and business there, poverty there will make demand to come here unavoidable. If the Mexican economy was as strong as the Canadian economy, the incentive to immigrate illegally would not be there.
jharp
· 1 year ago
"a required nationwide employment verification system, penalties for those hiring illegals"
Since we all agree on this part why not do it first, see how well it works, and proceed accordingly.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Because that would be an ongoing expense. Let's build the fence or wall first, which is a one time only investment, and then supplement it if necessary.
We've tried to use our government bureaucracy to crack down on illegals for decades. Hasn't worked, but sure has cost a lot of (wasted) taxpayer money.
runawayyyy
· 1 year ago
We've tried to crack down on illegals for decades? Which decades? Certainly not any recent ones. Cut off the jobs, they will stay home.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Ask any 50+ year old private pilot who has been flying out of the southern Arizona airports like Yuma and Tucson for years-the Border Patrol has been trying to bust them since the 1970s.
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
The added advantage of a fence becomes apparent when they start tearing it down--everyone will see. Now when a law is passed it is just ignored without notice.
Sadly, like Bush, McCain will only enforce the border kicking and screaming.
jharp
· 1 year ago
A fence is a one time investment?
You must know one hell of a fence builder. Fences require maintenance. And this one needs to be a double wide. I very much doubt the effectiveness.
You tell me. You have no money, no job, and no prospect for either. If there is job for you when you get here do you think a fence is going to stop you from entering the U.S. when your kids are starving.
And I'll ask you again.
You ever graduate from college?
Your views remind me a lot of two other well know dropouts.
Limbaugh and Hannity.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"And I'll ask you again.
You ever graduate from college?"
LOL! The correct English language format for your question is "DID you ever graduate from college?".
Normally I don't call you leftists out on grammar or spelling, but when you try to call someone dumb by using the language poorly yourself, you will get called out.
Please don't be so condescending, especially since I told you several days ago that I did in fact graduate and was an honor roll student. Is your memory as short as Hillary Clinton's?
I've never accused you of never graduating from college. Weak, very weak.
Once again, students, we are seeing classic Saul Alinsky tactics on display-when you are losing the argument, insult your opponent and call them stupid. Works every time for the party of Bill Clinton.
A fence IS a one time investment, at least for the primary structure. As others have pointed out, "fence" doesn't necessarily refer to a chain-link fence that you install to keep your neighbor's kids out of your yard.
It would of course require regular maintenance, but said maintenance would be well less than the money required to create that extra layer of taxpayer-funded bureaucrats that your way would require.
It's interesting to note that here in New Hampshire, we still have fences in excellent condition that were built 200+ years ago by our first settlers. We call them stone walls. You can find fences that have survived even longer in Ireland and Scotland.
And when you are talking about fences along our southern border, how much maintenance would you really need? Much of the fence would be along the southern California and southern Arizona borders, where humidity and rain are almost non-existent. Heck, our military and many airlines send their old airplanes to southern Arizona for storage, because it's the one place in the country they won't rust out.
They would have to be painted every few years, due to pitting from wind-blown sand, but that's about it. Combined with an effective system of underground sensors (which is what we've used up here in New Hampshire along our border with Canada for decades), a continuous fence would be much more effective than an army of people shuffling papers in an office trying to legally slow people down.
"Your views remind me a lot of two other well know dropouts.
Limbaugh and Hannity."
Pretty funny. How much money do you make compared to them?
jharp
· 1 year ago
"I told you several days ago that I did in fact graduate."
I don't think you did but if I missed it I apologize. I thought you were intentionally being vague.
"I've never accused you of never graduating from college. "
No you didn't. Maybe that's because I was explicit the first time you asked.
A fence IS a one time investment, at least for the primary structure. As others have pointed out, "fence" doesn't necessarily refer to a chain-link fence that you install to keep your neighbor's kids out of your yard.
It would of course require regular maintenance, but said maintenance would be well less than the money required to create that extra layer of taxpayer-funded bureaucrats that your way would require.
It's interesting to note that here in New Hampshire, we still have fences in excellent condition that were built 200+ years ago by our first settlers. We call them stone walls. You can find fences that have survived even longer in Ireland and Scotland.
And when you are talking about fences along our southern border, how much maintenance would you really need? Much of the fence would be along the southern California and southern Arizona borders, where humidity and rain are almost non-existent. Heck, our military and many airlines send their old airplanes to southern Arizona for storage, because it's the one place in the country they won't rust out.
They would have to be painted every few years, due to pitting from wind-blown sand, but that's about it. Combined with an effective system of underground sensors (which is what we've used up here in New Hampshire along our border with Canada for decades), a continuous fence would be much more effective than an army of people shuffling papers in an office trying to legally slow people down.
So, is it to be fence or a wall?
Let's quit taking jabs at each other a find out just what does it cost. I know to fence in my yard is at least 25 dollars a foot. That's for a 5 foot high wooden fence that can't keep the neighborhood 10 year olds out.
Do the math. About $125,000 per mile for something you could high jump over.
"Your views remind me a lot of two other well know dropouts.
Limbaugh and Hannity."
Pretty funny. How much money do you make compared to them?
Not even close. Kind of tickles me that the folks getting fleeced hold up their icons with the "you don't make as much so they must be right".
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Sorry, you're not worth my time. Like Rush and Hannity, Maya Angelou never graduated from college, neither did Bill Gates or Paul Allen of Microsoft.
Robert Redford, an icon on your side of the aisle, was tossed out of college for being a drunk. Zillionaire leftist David Geffen worked his way up from mail boy. Steve Jobs. likewise.
But the final nail in your coffin? The idiot you love to hate, George Dubyah Bush, not only had higher college grades at Yale than John Kerry, but also got a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard.
Spin that!
jharp
· 1 year ago
"Sorry, you're not worth my time"
I'm OK with that. It's your time and I respect your decision.
I still plan on calling you out when you make a nonsensical claim.
It's not to get even or make you look bad. Its just to give everyone the whole story. They can read what I post and judge for themselves. It kind of what America is all about.
And for the record I don't hate George Bush though I do hate quite a few of his policies.
exhelodrvr
· 1 year ago
Maybe we can get Canada to teach the Mexican government how to run a helath care system
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
Just showing up shows that he recognizes the damaged relationship with the activists in the conservative base that could help him win, if he gets the nomination. It's a moment for both those conservatives and McCain to reach out for accommodation and assurances.
I disagree. Going to CPAC is a bad move for McCain. I will never vote for him, even if he shows up at CPAC dressed up like Reagan in a cowboy saying that "trees pollute."
McCains best argument is to remain the un-orthodox Maverick that liberals like Teresa can project onto and to say to conservatives that he is better than the alternative.
Better to stay the Maverick that the press loves than to look like he is pandering to ugly, hate filled bigots like me.
Jon Herstad
· 1 year ago
[than] pandering to ugly, hate filled bigots like me.
Well that quote says everything doesn’t it?
Most of the McCain haters in the conservative movement simply have a self image (the quote above) that requires them to be against McCain. There are a lot of issues to criticize McCain on but his opponents (Romney and Huckabee) have just as fatal flaws! But they have never gone against “the real conservative party”, the republicans.
AngryDumbo, you are not a bigot! You know it, we know it but you’ll really like to be one… The only place you come close to being a bigot is your profoundly pathetic hate against McCain but that’s not really being a bigot, sorry!
Herstad
· 1 year ago
[than] pandering to ugly, hate filled bigots like me.
Well that quote says everything doesn’t it?
Most of the McCain haters in the conservative movement simply have a self image (the quote above) that requires them to be against McCain. There are a lot of issues to criticize McCain on but his opponents (Romney and Huckabee) have just as fatal flaws! But they have never gone against “the real conservative party”, the republicans.
AngryDumbo, you are not a bigot! You know it, we know it but you’ll really like to be one… The only place you come close to being a bigot is your profoundly pathetic hate against McCain but that’s not really being a bigot, sorry!
elgordo
· 1 year ago
No, Herstadt, it´s called sarcarsm. The opposition against McCain is based on concrete mistakes he made in office and policies he´s promoted. The criticism is often overblown and nasty, but it is not unfair or unfounded. Me, I don´t hate him, I just wanted Rudy.
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
Can I please be a hater oh enlightened one? Get a grip. I don't like your guy. Calling me pathetic doesn't make McCain any more attractive a candidate. As I said, McCain's best argument to me is he is better than the alternative. That just isn't good enough.
Herstad
· 1 year ago
And when did I say McCain was my guy? Never! I just pointed out the pathetic hate towards McCain which you obviously is filled with…
Based on conservative values/principles I can’t really see how Romney or Huckabee is better. Lets face it they are the biggest flip-floppers in contemporary American politics right up there with John Kerry.
McCain on the other hand has some real issues with illegal immigration and McCain-Faingold, but not conservative/republican oh my freaking god!
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
Mc Cain-Feingold (campagin finance), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal immigrants), McCain-Lieberman (global warming CO2 limits), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (patients bill of rights - wet kiss to trial lawyers) - all of this in the past 8 years.
McCains conservative bona fides are dead. He has repeatedly stabbed his party in the back. Cutting deals with democrats is not leadership it is self promotion.
As for "hate," you must be a lib because no conservatives I know use such the lame thought police term.
Neither Romney or Huckabee or ANY legislator living or dead has such a record of betrayal of his party as John McCain.
There is no doubt that one can criticize McCain’s credentials, but you rants again McCain in a way that you don’t do against the other contenders in the republican race although they have quite the same liberal history!
<blockqute>As for "hate," you must be a lib because no conservatives I know use such the lame thought police term. </blockqute>
Oh my! Well I guess you are doing just what you accused me of, name calling, how pathetic. I’m a lib All right a LIBERTARIAN that is! But you really give yourself up here:
<blockqute>[…] has such a record of betrayal of his party as John McCain.</blockqute>
You are simply a partisan that happens to be conservative! But let me tell you something your party is pretty far from being conservative these days.
Bush has been so fiscal irresponsible that he’s the Republican version of Carter. The war in Iraq—which was a war of necessity not of choice—has been mismanage so gravely one can only wonder how stupid the people in charge are! The only really positive thing to say about Bush is that the US hasn’t been attacked since 9/11.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
This is why I -- as a liberal -- am not thrilled about McCain being the GOP nominee. Although I do think there is a chance if Obama is the Dem nominee of McCain becoming the "Bob Dole" candidate -- looking too old, too out of touch in comparison to someone a lot younger and more vigorous.
RBMN
· 1 year ago
Dole's problem was that he wasn't confrontational enough at times when he needed to be confrontational, and was too confrontational at times when it was counterproductive and stupid to be confrontational. I guess Dole's "magic" only worked in Kansas and in the Senate. Nowhere else.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
whats sad is AFTER the election Dole went on all these talk shows and late nigh shows and was totally LIKABLE!!
no longer that "grumpy old man".....damn I though he was OLD - then I understood that you really are as old as you act.
Dole acted OLD during the campain - then acted like a likeable yougn fella AFTER he lost the election.
I think in reality he did'nt really want to be President (alot like Gore).
Dole just seemed (and seems) Happier now.
I always had alot of Respect for Dole - one of the good "old school" conservatives before the mean ones showed up on Newts watch.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
McCain has more charisma in his pinky finger than Dole has in his entire body. If he's up against Her Hillaryness, she's in trouble in that department. She's about as exciting as Dole is.
But if John's up against Obama, who's a great orator, he'll have his hands full.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
very shrewd analysis.
I completely agree.
jvandahm
· 1 year ago
C'mon Teresa...you know you want to vote for McCain. Join the new, more Moderate Republican Party. Do it...do it!!!!
jharp
· 1 year ago
Never have I seen the God, guns, and gays crowd so upset about a candidate from their own party.
Should be an interesting few months and I don't see Romney overcoming.
Just really tickles me that the two most liberal candidates are the front runners.
Maybe it's time for the Newtster to step in.
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
McCain is a Republican?
elgordo
· 1 year ago
Oh, come on. A Republican party that doesn´t have room for a McCain would be pathetic.
Real conservatives are serious people which means they should not look for perfection in a politican. There are too many petty and selfish purists who threaten to hold their breath until they get exactly the candidate they want. They are too eager to throw respectable and accomplished guys like Giuliani (my fave), Romney or McCain under the bus when they all would be vastly preferable to the Democrats.
For months I have been lectured that Rudy is "not a conservative" or Romney is a "phony". It´s all crap. Now you may have to vote for McCain. How do you like them apples, conservative base?
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
it´s called sarcarsm.
wf, man. So shrewd one minute, dumb like a liberal the next. Don't buy the pc "hate" talk. Free speech. I don't like John McCain. Won't vote for the man. As I said earlier, better than the alternative is not good enough for me. This is a straw man argument, at best a red herring. By reduction any Republican is better than any Democrat regardless of their position on the issues and that just don't fly.
Words have meaning and Senator McCain has said many of them in the past 20 years in Congress. Look at his voting record and the legislation he has proposed in the past 8 years and you will see he has been far less than a loyal Republican.
I will have no regrets leaving the box empty in November.
elgordo
· 1 year ago
Dumbo, I´m not naive about McCain (and I´m still pulling for Romney) but it´s not all or nothing for me. He will arguably be a better president than any Democrat on a whole range of issues. Your argument is seductive. I wish I could believe that the Dems will use their chance to screw up and conservatism will be vindicated. But that´s not what is best for the country and it will probably not happen that way. Winning matters, or we would not have a Clinton (!) running for president again.
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
AD. I may be in the same boat....too many years of sea time and bad coffee have put my “pearly whites” (not!) in a bad way. No movie star smile here...that’s why it pains me so much when I have to pick up the teeth knocked out from Sen McCain kicking me in the mouth (I’m one of the “conservatives” he called a stupid racist).
Lesser of two evils may sometimes work with me…but not when I spend half my time ducking to avoid the flailing wingtips…can’t afford to have the molars dislodged…as a lowly swabbie, I’m on a “government dental plan”…
Cicero
· 1 year ago
It's kind of like what your guys think about Lieberman.
bikerken
· 1 year ago
You nailed it here Cicero. What is happening with John McCain is exactly the same as if republicans changed their party affiliaton temporarily just to vote for Lieberman to get the democrat nomination. What do you think they would say about that. I have been reading a lot that the florida McCain voter was like 40% 'independants' who crossed over to vote in the republican primary. It was not a closed primary like advertised.
jvandahm
· 1 year ago
Where you reading bikerken? You might want to go straight to the source and get some credible information. Oh, and even independents get to vote in the general election. Did you think independents are just Democrats who live to screw with the Republican primary process?
Christoph
· 1 year ago
It caps an improbable comeback by a man whom the media laughed off as dead in the water six months ago:
Didn't the media do the same thing to John Kerry right before he came back and won the primary?
Nozzle
· 1 year ago
Have to agree with Teresa and raise you twenty...McCain would definitely be the Bob Dole candidate vs Obama. Obama will drink his milkshake...If you haven't seen "There will be blood", go see it and you'll understand the metaphor. McCain vs Hillary...Can't call it. They both have a serious case of negative charisma...
elgordo
· 1 year ago
Perhaps not. Strip away the lofty rhetoric and Obama is a very conventional leftwing politician. There is any number of issues where he may not really have a majority position. Next to him, McCain may very well come off as the moderate, more grounded guy.
I´m certainly no fan of McCain but he has his virtues. He can be a very good debater / interviewee as long as he controls his temper. And McCain is not a one issue man. He can speak with authority and conviction on healthcare, fiscal policy, social issues. Republicans have ceded this ground for far too long without a fight. It would be a mistake to run only on the war and foreign policy.
MikeyJ
· 1 year ago
"And McCain is not a one issue man."
No, of course not. He's screwed up a whole bunch of issues!!
Fred
· 1 year ago
Of course McCain will show up at CPAC. Remember, you can't poke someone in the eye unless you are near him.
sestamibi
· 1 year ago
Perhaps we should re-evaluate the meme of McCain as a RINO. If he's winning, and his vote combined with that of Mike Huckabee approaches a majority, then perhaps THEY are the new mainstream of the GOP. Perhaps the rest of us, who believe in economic growth, entrepreneuship, and risk-taking, and the policies advocated by the GOP c. 1994 that brought them the congressional majority, have been told we are no longer welcome and perhaps should find somewhere else to go.
Dennis
· 1 year ago
Four years ago today, polls said Kerry would win. Rassmussen had Kerry +3, CNN/Gallup Kerry +7, Quinnipiac Kerry +8.
McCain was behind both Clinton & Obama until mid-December, & he is still neck & neck with Obama.
WHY, OH WHY, are we looking at the January polls, & assuming that McCain is the only one who can win... or that he can win at all?
I wonder if the methodology of the Rasmussen poll can take into account all the conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for a pro-war Democrat?
jvandahm
· 1 year ago
Well, if you want to look at polls, you could look at the polls for Super Tuesday, 6 days away, and see how McCain is dominating most of those too, I suppose.
Dennis
· 1 year ago
Pardon your zinger, but you've missed the point entirely.
McCain's support is largely based on the idea that the polls in January say only he can beat Clinton in November. His support shown the Super Tuesday polls you refer to are also based largely on this mantra... "Only he can win." And that mantra is based solely on the January polls & media support. It's a lot of hot air.
I'm actually saying that it's not wise to look at the polls in January & say "gee he's the only one who can win in November." If you are looking at January polls that say McCain wins by 1-5% in an election in November, and telling us THAT is the reason we need to shut up & get behind a guy that does not support much of anything we believe in... well, it's just wrong headed.
Like I said In January 2004, polls said Kerry would beat Bush by 3-8%... You remember how that turned out 9 months later, right?
jvandahm
· 1 year ago
Since all the anti-McCain folks seem to love the McNicknames...McCainivus for the rest of us!
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
I like McQueeg. : ))
jharp
· 1 year ago
What happened to the conservative candidates?
Let's face it, their runs were pathetic.
What's this mean? Is conservatism relegated to the fringes? Or are republicans not conservatives?
I don't get it. Imagine, we're down to four and all liberals.
I think we can only thank one person, George W. Bush.
bert
· 1 year ago
This poll is useless and based on useless scenarios , the polls in 1980 had Reagan losing to Carter during the primaries ! The Repub base will stay home because they can choose against two types of Liberal democrats . McCains liberal agenda - restrict the first amendment, global warming nonsesne and taxes , opening the border to all, tax the hell out of everyone, giving goodies to his buddlies ( those Keating Five days will be nothing ),let the UN control our Navy, Liberal supreme court, big govt running your lives, letting the terrorists have access to our courts , letting all those poor terrorists go in our Cuba prision,sadly ,the list is endless.. Guess what , That's Hillary's agenda too !!! But his short term buddies call him a Maverick , why not just say the truth he is a Liberal Democrat ! Give pushing McAmnesty a rest .
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
I consider myself to be the Republican base and no way in hell am I staying home.
Brave Americans died for my right to vote. I always vote.
If so-called "conservatives" want to sit at home with their little panties in a wad because they don't get their ideal little candidate, then that's their choice. I can't control that.
But any "conservative" with a brain can see that a Democrat President would be a national security disaster.
Looking forward to voting for John McCain in the Virginia Primary. I've consistently despised Democrats, now I'm starting to to get fed up with so-called "conservatives as well.
newton
· 1 year ago
Hey guys: do you remember what happened back in 2000, when McCain made a stop in Southern VA and flatly condemned Pat Robertson and the whole Christian Coalition crowd - in their own home turf?
Well, that worked nicely then... or did it?
Will he make the same petulant mistake after CPAC?
Stay tuned...
newton
· 1 year ago
Addendum: Have you guys heard that little phrase of his at the debate tonight? "For Patriotism, Not for Profit"...?!?
McCain is weak on national security and weak on judicial nominations. A man who wants to give constitutional rights to terrorists (due process, criminal trials for every one at Guantanamo), and take away free speech (McCain Feingold), understands neither the Constitution nor the War on Terror.
McCain doesn't need fundraising. Media gives it to him free. McCain lies about Romney 3 days before Florida primary with willing accomplices in the press. So what hypocrisy to deny regular Americans the right to produce attack ads within 30 days of an election (McCain Feingold)! So much for free speech!
Senator McCain cannot win General Election any more than Senator Dole in 1996. Even though all early media polls during Primary Season showed Dole winning handily, Clinton CRUSHED Dole in the General. Wasn't pretty. Dole was life-long Senator and decorated war hero too. Bush Sr also lost as a war hero, and so did John Kerry. Time to quit the 'we have to have a war hero' bandwagon, it hasn't worked for other moderates, and it won't for McCain.
No difference between Hilary and McCain. Both voted for War in Iraq, and both later attacked Rumsfeld. McCain is also against the Federal Marriage Protection Act to the U.S. Constitution, was one of only two Republicans who voted against Bush tax cuts (now he is for them!), and wants constitutional rights and trials given to unlawful enemy combatants! This man wouldn't know a strict constructionist judge from a terrorist! http://politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
"Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin." (Rally for RomneyConservatives need to act now, before it is too late. By Mark R. Levin - Endorsement) http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/
JeffLindsay
· 1 year ago
ROMNEY WON THE DEBATE BY FAR AMONG REPUBLICANS Fox News' Frank Luntz: FOX NEWS' FRANK LUNTZ: "First off, who won the debate tonight? I always begin that way." VOTER: "Romney." LUNTZ: "Who says John McCain won the debate tonight raise your hands, 3, only 4 of you. Who says Mitt Romney, about half of you." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 1/30/08)
All Comments
polls about the general race right now are silly, as Rudy would be President long ago.
Republican candidates would be better advised to be more combative with the mainstream media because at the end of the day Repubicans are going to be painted as the bad guys. This bias is well established in the public eye. Better to get out front and confront your accusers in the media or else you give them credentials they do not deserve. No need to be combative, use Reagan as the template and simply laugh at the media. In Chicago, Democrat Richard M. Daley employs this strategy with great success and has had the local press eating out of his hand for years.
In 2004:
* 33 newspapers endorsed George W. Bush
* 38 newspapers endorsed John Kerry.
* 28 newspapers did not endorse a candidate.
In 2000:
* 43 newspapers endorsed George W. Bush.
* 36 newspapers endorsed Al Gore.
* 20 newspapers did not endorse a candidate.
But what is the biggest promise that conservatives would want McCain to hold to if elected? I am curious. Whaddya think?
2. Appoint constructionist judges, regardless of whether the NY Times and Chuck Schumer like them;
3. STOP COURTING THE ACCOLADES OF THE MSM!!! (Oh wait, he never promised that...)
I've never understood this approach.
Don't they know about ladders?
Not trying to be wise guy but really.
Second, check with the Israelis to see whether a well-designed fence can keep people out. I believe theirs has been a remarkable success. And it keeps out people who are well-organized and intent on mass murder;
Third, the small sections of the border in the San Diego area on which a serious fence has been built have substantially reduced the flow of illegals in those areas. And we're not even talking about the type of fence that was supposed to be built in connection with last year's bill.
Finally, here's a question for you. Are we better off having no impediment to illegal border crossings at all because a fence might not stem 100 percent of the traffic? That's a pretty hard case to make.
But they could always use a helicopter or a hot air balloon, so we better give up trying to have a border just like any other country. Stunning logic.
As long as folks continue to hire them, they will find a way in.
Kind of like the war on drugs. If there is a demand (money to be made) someone will find a way.
I believe in cracking down on the hiring of illegals.
Pretty simple and we could make some money doing it by levying substantial fines.
I see it as win win. No double wide fence moated fence expense. And a profit center as the alternative.
Pretty simple and we could make some money doing it by levying substantial fines."
As someone who claimed to have training in economics, I would think that you could see that the "double wide moated fence" expense is a one-time investment.
On the other hand, your liberal idea, spending money on "cracking down on the hiring of illegals" would be a constant drain on taxpayer money as it would involve creating yet another layer of government bureaucracy. That's because we've tried doing it that way in the past, and it hasn't worked.
The fence, or wall, or whatever, doesn't need to be along the entire southern border, as geography has already determined that some areas will never become smuggling routes. You won't find any mules bringing them over along some of the wilder reaches of the Rio Grande, for instance.
I really am a decent and thoughtful guy whose simply pissed about the past 5-6 years.
Good health to you and your family.
Should have included all.
and to you and yours also!
Since we all agree on this part why not do it first, see how well it works, and proceed accordingly.
We've tried to use our government bureaucracy to crack down on illegals for decades. Hasn't worked, but sure has cost a lot of (wasted) taxpayer money.
Sadly, like Bush, McCain will only enforce the border kicking and screaming.
You must know one hell of a fence builder. Fences require maintenance. And this one needs to be a double wide. I very much doubt the effectiveness.
You tell me. You have no money, no job, and no prospect for either. If there is job for you when you get here do you think a fence is going to stop you from entering the U.S. when your kids are starving.
And I'll ask you again.
You ever graduate from college?
Your views remind me a lot of two other well know dropouts.
Limbaugh and Hannity.
You ever graduate from college?"
LOL! The correct English language format for your question is "DID you ever graduate from college?".
Normally I don't call you leftists out on grammar or spelling, but when you try to call someone dumb by using the language poorly yourself, you will get called out.
Please don't be so condescending, especially since I told you several days ago that I did in fact graduate and was an honor roll student. Is your memory as short as Hillary Clinton's?
I've never accused you of never graduating from college. Weak, very weak.
Once again, students, we are seeing classic Saul Alinsky tactics on display-when you are losing the argument, insult your opponent and call them stupid. Works every time for the party of Bill Clinton.
A fence IS a one time investment, at least for the primary structure. As others have pointed out, "fence" doesn't necessarily refer to a chain-link fence that you install to keep your neighbor's kids out of your yard.
It would of course require regular maintenance, but said maintenance would be well less than the money required to create that extra layer of taxpayer-funded bureaucrats that your way would require.
It's interesting to note that here in New Hampshire, we still have fences in excellent condition that were built 200+ years ago by our first settlers. We call them stone walls. You can find fences that have survived even longer in Ireland and Scotland.
And when you are talking about fences along our southern border, how much maintenance would you really need? Much of the fence would be along the southern California and southern Arizona borders, where humidity and rain are almost non-existent. Heck, our military and many airlines send their old airplanes to southern Arizona for storage, because it's the one place in the country they won't rust out.
They would have to be painted every few years, due to pitting from wind-blown sand, but that's about it. Combined with an effective system of underground sensors (which is what we've used up here in New Hampshire along our border with Canada for decades), a continuous fence would be much more effective than an army of people shuffling papers in an office trying to legally slow people down.
"Your views remind me a lot of two other well know dropouts.
Limbaugh and Hannity."
Pretty funny. How much money do you make compared to them?
I don't think you did but if I missed it I apologize. I thought you were intentionally being vague.
"I've never accused you of never graduating from college. "
No you didn't. Maybe that's because I was explicit the first time you asked.
A fence IS a one time investment, at least for the primary structure. As others have pointed out, "fence" doesn't necessarily refer to a chain-link fence that you install to keep your neighbor's kids out of your yard.
It would of course require regular maintenance, but said maintenance would be well less than the money required to create that extra layer of taxpayer-funded bureaucrats that your way would require.
It's interesting to note that here in New Hampshire, we still have fences in excellent condition that were built 200+ years ago by our first settlers. We call them stone walls. You can find fences that have survived even longer in Ireland and Scotland.
And when you are talking about fences along our southern border, how much maintenance would you really need? Much of the fence would be along the southern California and southern Arizona borders, where humidity and rain are almost non-existent. Heck, our military and many airlines send their old airplanes to southern Arizona for storage, because it's the one place in the country they won't rust out.
They would have to be painted every few years, due to pitting from wind-blown sand, but that's about it. Combined with an effective system of underground sensors (which is what we've used up here in New Hampshire along our border with Canada for decades), a continuous fence would be much more effective than an army of people shuffling papers in an office trying to legally slow people down.
So, is it to be fence or a wall?
Let's quit taking jabs at each other a find out just what does it cost. I know to fence in my yard is at least 25 dollars a foot. That's for a 5 foot high wooden fence that can't keep the neighborhood 10 year olds out.
Do the math. About $125,000 per mile for something you could high jump over.
"Your views remind me a lot of two other well know dropouts.
Limbaugh and Hannity."
Pretty funny. How much money do you make compared to them?
Not even close. Kind of tickles me that the folks getting fleeced hold up their icons with the "you don't make as much so they must be right".
Robert Redford, an icon on your side of the aisle, was tossed out of college for being a drunk. Zillionaire leftist David Geffen worked his way up from mail boy. Steve Jobs. likewise.
But the final nail in your coffin? The idiot you love to hate, George Dubyah Bush, not only had higher college grades at Yale than John Kerry, but also got a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard.
Spin that!
I'm OK with that. It's your time and I respect your decision.
I still plan on calling you out when you make a nonsensical claim.
It's not to get even or make you look bad. Its just to give everyone the whole story. They can read what I post and judge for themselves. It kind of what America is all about.
And for the record I don't hate George Bush though I do hate quite a few of his policies.
I disagree. Going to CPAC is a bad move for McCain. I will never vote for him, even if he shows up at CPAC dressed up like Reagan in a cowboy saying that "trees pollute."
McCains best argument is to remain the un-orthodox Maverick that liberals like Teresa can project onto and to say to conservatives that he is better than the alternative.
Better to stay the Maverick that the press loves than to look like he is pandering to ugly, hate filled bigots like me.
Well that quote says everything doesn’t it?
Most of the McCain haters in the conservative movement simply have a self image (the quote above) that requires them to be against McCain. There are a lot of issues to criticize McCain on but his opponents (Romney and Huckabee) have just as fatal flaws! But they have never gone against “the real conservative party”, the republicans.
AngryDumbo, you are not a bigot! You know it, we know it but you’ll really like to be one… The only place you come close to being a bigot is your profoundly pathetic hate against McCain but that’s not really being a bigot, sorry!
Well that quote says everything doesn’t it?
Most of the McCain haters in the conservative movement simply have a self image (the quote above) that requires them to be against McCain. There are a lot of issues to criticize McCain on but his opponents (Romney and Huckabee) have just as fatal flaws! But they have never gone against “the real conservative party”, the republicans.
AngryDumbo, you are not a bigot! You know it, we know it but you’ll really like to be one… The only place you come close to being a bigot is your profoundly pathetic hate against McCain but that’s not really being a bigot, sorry!
Based on conservative values/principles I can’t really see how Romney or Huckabee is better. Lets face it they are the biggest flip-floppers in contemporary American politics right up there with John Kerry.
McCain on the other hand has some real issues with illegal immigration and McCain-Faingold, but not conservative/republican oh my freaking god!
McCains conservative bona fides are dead. He has repeatedly stabbed his party in the back. Cutting deals with democrats is not leadership it is self promotion.
As for "hate," you must be a lib because no conservatives I know use such the lame thought police term.
Neither Romney or Huckabee or ANY legislator living or dead has such a record of betrayal of his party as John McCain.
Oh, and can I mention the Gang of 14?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI2NzVjYz...
<blockqute>As for "hate," you must be a lib because no conservatives I know use such the lame thought police term. </blockqute>
Oh my! Well I guess you are doing just what you accused me of, name calling, how pathetic. I’m a lib All right a LIBERTARIAN that is! But you really give yourself up here:
<blockqute>[…] has such a record of betrayal of his party as John McCain.</blockqute>
You are simply a partisan that happens to be conservative! But let me tell you something your party is pretty far from being conservative these days.
Bush has been so fiscal irresponsible that he’s the Republican version of Carter. The war in Iraq—which was a war of necessity not of choice—has been mismanage so gravely one can only wonder how stupid the people in charge are! The only really positive thing to say about Bush is that the US hasn’t been attacked since 9/11.
no longer that "grumpy old man".....damn I though he was OLD - then I understood that you really are as old as you act.
Dole acted OLD during the campain - then acted like a likeable yougn fella AFTER he lost the election.
I think in reality he did'nt really want to be President (alot like Gore).
Dole just seemed (and seems) Happier now.
I always had alot of Respect for Dole - one of the good "old school" conservatives before the mean ones showed up on Newts watch.
But if John's up against Obama, who's a great orator, he'll have his hands full.
I completely agree.
Should be an interesting few months and I don't see Romney overcoming.
Just really tickles me that the two most liberal candidates are the front runners.
Maybe it's time for the Newtster to step in.
Real conservatives are serious people which means they should not look for perfection in a politican. There are too many petty and selfish purists who threaten to hold their breath until they get exactly the candidate they want. They are too eager to throw respectable and accomplished guys like Giuliani (my fave), Romney or McCain under the bus when they all would be vastly preferable to the Democrats.
For months I have been lectured that Rudy is "not a conservative" or Romney is a "phony". It´s all crap. Now you may have to vote for McCain. How do you like them apples, conservative base?
wf, man. So shrewd one minute, dumb like a liberal the next. Don't buy the pc "hate" talk. Free speech. I don't like John McCain. Won't vote for the man. As I said earlier, better than the alternative is not good enough for me. This is a straw man argument, at best a red herring. By reduction any Republican is better than any Democrat regardless of their position on the issues and that just don't fly.
Words have meaning and Senator McCain has said many of them in the past 20 years in Congress. Look at his voting record and the legislation he has proposed in the past 8 years and you will see he has been far less than a loyal Republican.
I will have no regrets leaving the box empty in November.
Lesser of two evils may sometimes work with me…but not when I spend half my time ducking to avoid the flailing wingtips…can’t afford to have the molars dislodged…as a lowly swabbie, I’m on a “government dental plan”…
Didn't the media do the same thing to John Kerry right before he came back and won the primary?
I´m certainly no fan of McCain but he has his virtues. He can be a very good debater / interviewee as long as he controls his temper. And McCain is not a one issue man. He can speak with authority and conviction on healthcare, fiscal policy, social issues. Republicans have ceded this ground for far too long without a fight. It would be a mistake to run only on the war and foreign policy.
No, of course not. He's screwed up a whole bunch of issues!!
McCain was behind both Clinton & Obama until mid-December, & he is still neck & neck with Obama.
WHY, OH WHY, are we looking at the January polls, & assuming that McCain is the only one who can win... or that he can win at all?
I wonder if the methodology of the Rasmussen poll can take into account all the conservatives who can't bring themselves to vote for a pro-war Democrat?
McCain's support is largely based on the idea that the polls in January say only he can beat Clinton in November. His support shown the Super Tuesday polls you refer to are also based largely on this mantra... "Only he can win." And that mantra is based solely on the January polls & media support. It's a lot of hot air.
I'm actually saying that it's not wise to look at the polls in January & say "gee he's the only one who can win in November." If you are looking at January polls that say McCain wins by 1-5% in an election in November, and telling us THAT is the reason we need to shut up & get behind a guy that does not support much of anything we believe in... well, it's just wrong headed.
Like I said In January 2004, polls said Kerry would beat Bush by 3-8%... You remember how that turned out 9 months later, right?
Let's face it, their runs were pathetic.
What's this mean? Is conservatism relegated to the fringes? Or are republicans not conservatives?
I don't get it. Imagine, we're down to four and all liberals.
I think we can only thank one person, George W. Bush.
The Repub base will stay home because they can choose against two types of Liberal democrats .
McCains liberal agenda - restrict the first amendment, global warming nonsesne and taxes , opening the border to all, tax the hell out of everyone, giving goodies to his buddlies ( those Keating Five days will be nothing ),let the UN control our Navy, Liberal supreme court, big govt running your lives, letting the terrorists have access to our courts , letting all those poor terrorists go in our Cuba prision,sadly ,the list is endless..
Guess what , That's Hillary's agenda too !!!
But his short term buddies call him a Maverick , why not just say the truth he is a Liberal Democrat !
Give pushing McAmnesty a rest .
Brave Americans died for my right to vote. I always vote.
If so-called "conservatives" want to sit at home with their little panties in a wad because they don't get their ideal little candidate, then that's their choice. I can't control that.
But any "conservative" with a brain can see that a Democrat President would be a national security disaster.
Looking forward to voting for John McCain in the Virginia Primary. I've consistently despised Democrats, now I'm starting to to get fed up with so-called "conservatives as well.
Well, that worked nicely then... or did it?
Will he make the same petulant mistake after CPAC?
Stay tuned...
I guess I answered my own question...
http://www.aliakbar.net/blog/2008/01/30/mccains...
McCain doesn't need fundraising. Media gives it to him free. McCain lies about Romney 3 days before Florida primary with willing accomplices in the press. So what hypocrisy to deny regular Americans the right to produce attack ads within 30 days of an election (McCain Feingold)! So much for free speech!
Senator McCain cannot win General Election any more than Senator Dole in 1996. Even though all early media polls during Primary Season showed Dole winning handily, Clinton CRUSHED Dole in the General. Wasn't pretty. Dole was life-long Senator and decorated war hero too. Bush Sr also lost as a war hero, and so did John Kerry. Time to quit the 'we have to have a war hero' bandwagon, it hasn't worked for other moderates, and it won't for McCain.
No difference between Hilary and McCain. Both voted for War in Iraq, and both later attacked Rumsfeld. McCain is also against the Federal Marriage Protection Act to the U.S. Constitution, was one of only two Republicans who voted against Bush tax cuts (now he is for them!), and wants constitutional rights and trials given to unlawful enemy combatants! This man wouldn't know a strict constructionist judge from a terrorist!
http://politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
"Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin." (Rally for RomneyConservatives need to act now, before it is too late. By Mark R. Levin - Endorsement)
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/
Fox News' Frank Luntz: FOX NEWS' FRANK LUNTZ: "First off, who won the debate tonight? I always begin that way." VOTER: "Romney." LUNTZ: "Who says John McCain won the debate tonight raise your hands, 3, only 4 of you. Who says Mitt Romney, about half of you." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 1/30/08)
Watch The Luntz Post-Debate Focus Group: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZOSDnNoQyg