NationStates Jolt Archive

Think again. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11283678/)

I've been saying it for a long time, so I can't claim to be surprised by any of this, but maybe it will wake up some people who give McCain more credit than he deserves for his so-called moderation.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a man in perpetual motion, flew to South Carolina on Jan. 16. His stops included a tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. and speeches to local Republican groups. But one of his most important events was not on the public schedule -- a 5 p.m. meeting at a Spartanburg hotel with loyalists to President Bush.

A dozen or so people were in attendance. At least two were among Bush's major national fundraisers. Virtually all had been on Bush's side in the bitter 2000 South Carolina primary that badly damaged McCain's chances of winning the presidential nomination and scarred the relationship between the two men and their rival political camps. McCain was there to woo them.

But wait, it gets better.

"I'll be sitting having a cup of coffee and the phone will ring and it will be McCain," said Charles "Chuck" Yob, Michigan's GOP national committeeman. He described the senator as "a lot more conservative than a lot of conservatives give him credit for."

In short, McCain's image is just that--an image. There's no substance to the idea that he's a moderate or a maverick. He sold his soul in 2000 to have one more shot at the Presidency when he sucked up to the man who attacked his family politically. So to all Democrats or moderate Republicans or independents who think McCain is some sort of honorable independent Republican, I ask you to rethink your position, and look at what he has become, not what he may have been a decade ago.

Yea, but I would rather have McCain than Bush.

Yea, but I would rather have McCain than Bush.
I'd rather have a rock than Bush...wait, they're the same. my bad!

Yea, but I would rather have McCain than Bush.
I'd rather have an enema than Bush, but fortunate for us, in 2008, the only way that's an issue is if Jeb! runs. I'm just trying to let people know that there's not an awful lot of difference between Bush and McCain.

I'd rather have an enema than Bush, but fortunate for us, in 2008, the only way that's an issue is if Jeb! runs. I'm just trying to let people know that there's not an awful lot of difference between Bush and McCain.

Eh, there is a diffrence. McCain actually has combat experience.

Eh? McCain is clearly very right wing. That's the way he votes. Why is this even a question? (<- getting the hang of NS general).

Eh? McCain is clearly very right wing. That's the way he votes. Why is this even a question? (<- getting the hang of NS general).
He's clearly right-wing to anyone who pays attention. Unfortunately, the group that pays attention does not include the media, who treats McCain as though he's something other than a right-wing shill. It also doesn't include a large number of people who consider themselves independent or conservative Democrats--they find McCain's faux-moderation refreshing or as a sign that he's not the same old Republican they've gotten used to. I'm just trying to ensure that the people on this board don't forget that McCain is so much a winger that he ought to be nicknamed "Kip."

Is this really a surprise to anyone? I've lived in Arizona for more than six years now, and I always knew McCain was a pretty conservative Republican. He just seems a bit less partisan. What always shocked me was the number of righties who despise him and seem to think he's a liberal, mostly on the basis that he occassionally questions party leaders.

He's clearly right-wing to anyone who pays attention. Unfortunately, the group that pays attention does not include the media, who treats McCain as though he's something other than a right-wing shill. It also doesn't include a large number of people who consider themselves independent or conservative Democrats--they find McCain's faux-moderation refreshing or as a sign that he's not the same old Republican they've gotten used to. I'm just trying to ensure that the people on this board don't forget that McCain is so much a winger that he ought to be nicknamed "Kip."

I agree with you how that I have been paying more attention that McCain is just another McRepublican. And perhaps it's all just a ploy to make people think he is more moderate than Bush but at least we have seen at least a little dissent from him. it's also good to see that he gets praise for dissenting views in the sense that it means people agree with the dissent. If he does end up running for president then there will be plenty of evidence to show what a "flip-flopper" he is and hopefully he Dems use it when the time is right to inform people of that fact.

In short, McCain's image is just that--an image. There's no substance to the idea that he's a moderate or a maverick. He sold his soul in 2000 to have one more shot at the Presidency when he sucked up to the man who attacked his family politically. So to all Democrats or moderate Republicans or independents who think McCain is some sort of honorable independent Republican, I ask you to rethink your position, and look at what he has become, not what he may have been a decade ago.
You do the same thing with McCain that you do with me: characterize both as not fitting YOUR peculiar beliefs as to what constitutes a "centrist," then getting your panties in a wad and labelling us as right-wing or conservative, or whatever political epithet you happen to hate at the time.

You do the same thing with McCain that you do with me: characterize both as not fitting YOUR peculiar beliefs as to what constitutes a "centrist," then getting your panties in a wad and labelling us as right-wing or conservative, or whatever political epithet you happen to hate at the time.
Let me ask you something Eutrusca--is Bush a right winger? Most certainly. Did you even read the article? Obviously not, because you would have seen that the thrust of the article was that McCain is courting Bush's right-wing supporters for a 2008 run. Now, if you're courting right-wingers, and if you vote for and shepherd through the legislation of a right-wing president, is it really all that much of a stretch to conclude that you're a right-winger? I don't think so. But by all means, console yourself with the idea that you're a moderate when your actions and positions make it clear that you're as much a hack as McCain.

The best I can say about McCain is at least he's not a fucktard like Bob Dole.

The best I can say about McCain is at least he's not a fucktard like Bob Dole.
Or Jon Kyl, our other Senator. That guy's a real jackass. I talked to him once, asked a leading question about the Iraq War, and he gave a thorough non-answer and blew me off. Prick.

Let me ask you something Eutrusca--is Bush a right winger? Most certainly. Did you even read the article? Obviously not, because you would have seen that the thrust of the article was that McCain is courting Bush's right-wing supporters for a 2008 run. Now, if you're courting right-wingers, and if you vote for and shepherd through the legislation of a right-wing president, is it really all that much of a stretch to conclude that you're a right-winger? I don't think so. But by all means, console yourself with the idea that you're a moderate when your actions and positions make it clear that you're as much a hack as McCain.
Which only serves to prove my point. Calling someone with whom you disagree a "hack" only drives home the fact that you cannot accept anything but 100% YOUR position on things.

In order for any Democrat to be nominated for the Presidency, they have to make concessions to the African-American wing of the Party, the unions, and a wide variety of other groups on whose support they will have to depend. I don't see you criticising them.

Yet when McCain does the same identical thing in an effort to win his own Party's nomination, you not only criticise him, you call him names.

What's wrong with this picture? :rolleyes:

He's clearly right-wing to anyone who pays attention. Unfortunately, the group that pays attention does not include the media, who treats McCain as though he's something other than a right-wing shill. It also doesn't include a large number of people who consider themselves independent or conservative Democrats--they find McCain's faux-moderation refreshing or as a sign that he's not the same old Republican they've gotten used to. I'm just trying to ensure that the people on this board don't forget that McCain is so much a winger that he ought to be nicknamed "Kip."

Yeah, I didn't think I was a genius for pointing it out.

Unfortunately there are no real national left-wing candidates. :(

Or Jon Kyl, our other Senator. That guy's a real jackass. I talked to him once, asked a leading question about the Iraq War, and he gave a thorough non-answer and blew me off. Prick.

What an asshat.

Which only serves to prove my point. Calling someone with whom you disagree a "hack" only drives home the fact that you cannot accept anything but 100% YOUR position on things.

I think the same can be said for just about everyone, Forrest.

Or Jon Kyl, our other Senator. That guy's a real jackass. I talked to him once, asked a leading question about the Iraq War, and he gave a thorough non-answer and blew me off. Prick.
well, it's all thanks to you Phoenix bastards who are making this state red! Thanks a lot!:D

Which only serves to prove my point. Calling someone with whom you disagree a "hack" only drives home the fact that you cannot accept anything but 100% YOUR position on things.

In order for any Democrat to be nominated for the Presidency, they have to make concessions to the African-American wing of the Party, the unions, and a wide variety of other groups on whose support they will have to depend. I don't see you criticising them.

Yet when McCain does the same identical thing in an effort to win his own Party's nomination, you not only criticise him, you call him names.

What's wrong with this picture? :rolleyes:What's wrong? That you're dishonest?

Let me point it out for you in plain language, Eutrusca. McCain has made his rep on being a maverick, on being the independent, on the Straight Talk Express (his Presidential campaign bus in 2000, in case your memory is failing). But when the rubber meets the road, McCain is following the same road that Bush did. Kind of hard to be a maverick when you're licking up the slime the last guy left, isn't it? Unless, of course, you're a hack.

And by the way, the 100% thing? I've never voted for a person I agreed with 100%. I've never found him or her. If I can get above 50 or 60%, I'm usually satisfied.

I think the same can be said for just about everyone, Forrest.
Not really, no. Some who have not been blinded by knee-jerk ideology understand the arts of compromise and negotiation.

Not really, no. Some who have not been blinded by knee-jerk ideology understand the arts of compromise and negotiation.
which, obviously doesn't include our current president

Let me ask you something Eutrusca--is Bush a right winger? Most certainly. Did you even read the article? Obviously not, because you would have seen that the thrust of the article was that McCain is courting Bush's right-wing supporters for a 2008 run. Now, if you're courting right-wingers, and if you vote for and shepherd through the legislation of a right-wing president, is it really all that much of a stretch to conclude that you're a right-winger? I don't think so. But by all means, console yourself with the idea that you're a moderate when your actions and positions make it clear that you're as much a hack as McCain.
Actually, all that means is that he's trying to get VOTES. Who the fuck else is he going to court for votes? Partisan hacks like you? Would it make ya feel better if he showed up at Cindy Sheehans door and bashed America for a few left wing votes? How about if he goes out hunting for votes from the Anarchy crowd. Would that make you sleep better?

Face it, you aren't gonna get anyone new to jump on the "Left or Bust" bus in '08.

Well this is productive. We should all commit henceforth to carry this on, and only argue personality, not ideology.

I am sure that will result in the best government possible.

1. What's wrong? That you're dishonest?

Let me point it out for you in plain language, Eutrusca. McCain has made his rep on being a maverick, on being the independent, on the Straight Talk Express (his Presidential campaign bus in 2000, in case your memory is failing). But when the rubber meets the road, McCain is following the same road that Bush did. Kind of hard to be a maverick when you're licking up the slime the last guy left, isn't it? Unless, of course, you're a hack.

3. And by the way, the 100% thing? I've never voted for a person I agreed with 100%. I've never found him or her. If I can get above 50 or 60%, I'm usually satisfied.
1. Nice flame.

2. Again with the not so thinly veiled insults. Trying to indicate early onset of some senility on my part goes considerably further than being just disengenuous. "Licking up the same slime" is a totally unjustified charaterization, unless, that is, you are simply trying to discredit an apparent front-runner in a political party you hate for whatever obscure, demented reasons.

3. Why am I not surprised.

Actually, all that means is that he's trying to get VOTES. Who the fuck else is he going to court for votes? Partisan hacks like you? Would it make ya feel better if he showed up at Cindy Sheehans door and bashed America for a few left wing votes? How about if he goes out hunting for votes from the Anarchy crowd. Would that make you sleep better?

Face it, you aren't gonna get anyone new to jump on the "Left or Bust" bus in '08.Exactly--votes for a right-wing agenda. You made my point for me. He's a hack, not an independent.

Well this is productive. We should all commit henceforth to carry this on, and only argue personality, not ideology.

I am sure that will result in the best government possible.
Interesting that you say that only after the Man In Black's post, and not in reference to The Nazz.

Exactly--votes for a right-wing agenda. You made my point for me. He's a hack, not an independent.
So anyone who votes for a right-wing agenda, for whatever reason, is a "hack." YOU made MY point for me! :D

1. Nice flame.

2. Again with the not so thinly veiled insults. Trying to indicate early onset of some senility on my part goes considerably further than being just disengenuous. "Licking up the same slime" is a totally unjustified charaterization, unless, that is, you are simply trying to discredit an apparent front-runner in a political party you hate for whatever obscure, demented reasons.

3. Why am I not surprised.1. Nothing to do with your age. Everything to do with your political philosophy. Right-wingers have a tendency to forget inconvenient facts.

2. If Bush leaves anything other than a slime trail, I'd be interested in finding out what it is. And as the article points out, McCain is definitely following it.

3. So what's your problem? Before, it was "anyone I don't agree with completely is a hack." Now it's "I'm not surprised that you'll settle for 50 or 60%?" Pick a side.

So anyone who votes for a right-wing agenda, for whatever reason, is a "hack." YOU mande MY point for me! :D
You must be short, because posts seem to go whizzing right over your head a lot of the time. Anyone who consistently votes for a right-wing agenda while claiming to be a moderate or an independent is a hack. Do you see the difference? Do you? I'd hate to have to trout-slap you with it, Forrest.

Eh, there is a diffrence. McCain actually has combat experience.
I do hope that you were trying to be droll and that you don’t actually think that his combat experience is anything even resembling a positive characteristic.

1. Nothing to do with your age. Everything to do with your political philosophy. Right-wingers have a tendency to forget inconvenient facts.

2. If Bush leaves anything other than a slime trail, I'd be interested in finding out what it is. And as the article points out, McCain is definitely following it.

3. So what's your problem? Before, it was "anyone I don't agree with completely is a hack." Now it's "I'm not surprised that you'll settle for 50 or 60%?" Pick a side.
1. NOW who's being "dishonest?"

2. Not worthy of a response.

3. I was pointing out that your inability to find a candidate of whom you approve is indicative of your knee-jerk ideological approach to politics.

Exactly--votes for a right-wing agenda. You made my point for me. He's a hack, not an independent.
Like I said, who's votes should he go after? Yours? Nobody is that dumb to waste their time on someone as blazingly partisan as you.

"Oh no, he's trying to get a vote from a right winger! He must want to torture people and rape women!" Get over yourself. Your ability to interpret political activities is akin to a dogs ability to swing a baseball bat.

1. NOW who's being "dishonest?"
You, as per usual.


3. I was pointing out that your inability to find a candidate of whom you approve is indicative of your knee-jerk ideological approach to politics.
And somehow I find someone to vote for in every election. Politics is all about compromise. I've never found the perfect candidate for me, but I still find plenty of people to give my (meager) resources to, and to knock doors for, and to volunteer for. Guess I'm not so kneejerk after all. Sorry to fuck up your buzz by telling you that.

2. If Bush leaves anything other than a slime trail, I'd be interested in finding out what it is. And as the article points out, McCain is definitely following it.

How about record home ownership, 2.2 million new jobs, record spending on poverty, 60 million people with hope for a new future (and counting) etc...


Oh, and before you bring up the deficit (your predictable like that) it is NOT a record deficit if you factor in the size of our economy. As a matter of fact, FDR had a bigger deficit/economy ratio.

So if you want to talk about what Bush is gonna leave behind him, try being honest about it. Honesty is refreshing, ya know. You should try it sometime!

Like I said, who's votes should he go after? Yours? Nobody is that dumb to waste their time on someone as blazingly partisan as you.

"Oh no, he's trying to get a vote from a right winger! He must want to torture people and rape women!" Get over yourself. Your ability to interpret political activities is akin to a dogs ability to swing a baseball bat.
Mine? No. But should he be pursuing a blatantly right-wing agenda while simultaneously claiming to be an independent? Not if he doesn't expect to be called out on it. Tell me--when has McCain opposed the White House when it counted? When has he forced through legislation that Bush wouldn't sign or modify with a signing statement? When has he told the far right to take a short walk off a long pier? He hasn't. He's a stalwart conservative and the people in know have admitted it. So why won't you?

The answer is simple, by the way. Stalwart conservatism doesn't sell in a national election. It never has. It has to be disguised as something else. In 2004, it was disguised as "tough on national security" even though that was a crock. McCain knows that to win the primaries, he has to suck up to the christians, and to win in the general he has to still be "independent." Well, he's not independent, and that's plain to see.

How about record home ownership, 2.2 million new jobs, record spending on poverty, 60 million people with hope for a new future (and counting) etc...


Oh, and before you bring up the deficit (your predictable like that) it is NOT a record deficit if you factor in the size of our economy. As a matter of fact, FDR had a bigger deficit/economy ratio.

So if you want to talk about what Bush is gonna leave behind him, try being honest about it. Honesty is refreshing, ya know. You should try it sometime!
Interesting you bring up poverty--more people are in it than ever before thanks to Bush's policies. How about an economy that has given us stagnant wages over the last five years? Not to mention a stagnant stock market for five years? And I'll just say that 2.2 million jobs over 5 years is pretty fucking pathetic--there were single years where Clinton's economy produced more than that. But yeah, you go ahead and brag on that economy.

Stalwart conservatism doesn't sell in a national election. It never has. It has to be disguised as something else. In 2004, it was disguised as "tough on national security" even though that was a crock. McCain knows that to win the primaries, he has to suck up to the christians, and to win in the general he has to still be "independent." Well, he's not independent, and that's plain to see.
Stalwart liberalism doesn't sell in a national election. It never has. It has to be disguised as something else. It was disguised as "helping the poor" even though that was a crock. Hillary knows that to win the primaries, she has to suck up to the [ enter a special interest group with socialist tendencies ], and to win in the general election she has to still be "independent." Well, she's not independent, and that's plain to see.

Yea, but I would rather have McCain than Bush.

Hmmm tough call. Whould shrubby tell the C. Clinton joke in public?

Must as I detest the man, I get the impression he has better manners over such issues.

Stalwart liberalism doesn't sell in a national election. It never has. It has to be disguised as something else. It was disguised as "helping the poor" even though that was a crock. Hillary knows that to win the primaries, she has to suck up to the [ enter a special interest group with socialist tendencies ], and to win in the general election she has to still be "independent." Well, she's not independent, and that's plain to see.
The answer is simple, by the way. Stalwart conservatism doesn't sell in a national election. It never has. It has to be disguised as something else. In 2004, it was disguised as "tough on national security" even though that was a crock. McCain knows that to win the primaries, he has to suck up to the christians, and to win in the general he has to still be "independent." Well, he's not independent, and that's plain to see.
If I put both of you together, you’re almost somebody I can tolerate…

Stalwart liberalism doesn't sell in a national election. It never has. It has to be disguised as something else. It was disguised as "helping the poor" even though that was a crock. Hillary knows that to win the primaries, she has to suck up to the [ enter a special interest group with socialist tendencies ], and to win in the general election she has to still be "independent." Well, she's not independent, and that's plain to see.
Very true--Hillary is not independent. Then again, she's not exactly making those claims, now is she? And further, we're a long way from her being the nominee. And before you go there, I'm not saying that McCain will be the nominee either--I'm just saying that he's obviously prepping (actually, the article is, but you never read that), and that he's prepping by abandoning his earlier tactic of being an independent and becoming a Bushite.

Stalwart liberalism doesn't sell in a national election.

Same could be said for a stalwart conservatism.

Remember shrubby "I am a uniter; not a divider"

1. Very true--Hillary is not independent. Then again, she's not exactly making those claims, now is she?

2. And further, we're a long way from her being the nominee. And before you go there, I'm not saying that McCain will be the nominee either--I'm just saying that he's obviously prepping (actually, the article is, but you never read that), and that he's prepping by abandoning his earlier tactic of being an independent and becoming a Bushite.
1. LOL! She reminds me of Kerry, taking so many different positions that she's going to have to hire someone to keep track of them for her.

2. McCain is trying to get his party's nomination, the exact same thing Hillary is doing. How can you fault one and not the other. And despite your incorrect assumptions, I did indeed read the article.

2. McCain is trying to get his party's nomination, the exact same thing Hillary is doing. How can you fault one and not the other. And despite your incorrect assumptions, I did indeed read the article.
Very simply--I don't like Hillary, for the very reasons you raised. She's an opportunist. I don't blame her for running--she'd be a fool not to--but I don't like her. She's little better than McCain. But the difference--as I have pointed out repeatedly and you seem to keep missing--is that McCain claims (as you do, and with about as much accuracy) to be an independent. He's not. That's all I'm trying to point out. He's a conservative--not an independent, not a maverick. A conservative. Period.

If I put both of you together, you’re almost somebody I can tolerate…

They are both a little 'right' for me, but I could live with an Eutruzaa, or a Nazzca.

. But the difference--as I have pointed out repeatedly and you seem to keep missing--is that McCain claims (as you do, and with about as much accuracy) to be an independent. He's not. That's all I'm trying to point out. He's a conservative--not an independent, not a maverick. A conservative. Period.


When did McCain ever claim to be an Independant?

Hes a Republican.
Hes been one since he first ran for office.

If you asked him, thats what he would tell you.
Im afraid you arent sure of what youre talking about.

First of all, let me say that I like McCain. Not a lot, but I like him.

He is, however, a politician. He is a politician looking for the support of the republican Party. It is very clear that in years past, he didn't kiss enough ass to get the Republican nomination. This year, he is getting an early start. Because that's what the nomination is; It's an ass-kissing contest. Oh, we like to pretend that it's the primaries and our votes that choose the nominee. But that's an illusion. The nominee is chosen by the Party. Simple as that.

If you're trying to take a shot at McCain for kissing the ass of the Republican Party, the same can be said for any and every aspiring Republican and Democrt(and many independents) that have aspirations on being president. You have to sell your ideals off and and buy your way into the good graces of the party with promises of being a good little republican or democrat.

It doesn't make him a good person. It certainly doesn't make him a better candidate in my eyes. In fact, I'm wary of anybody who gets the nod from either party. It means they were the biggest ass-kissing sellout. Not something I'd likely vote for. What it does make him is a politician. Simple as that.

On the other hand, I would like to think that McCain will kiss only just barely enough ass to get the nod. I'd like to think that he'll have a few scruples left and will not be completely strung up as a corporate puppet by the time he gets the nomination. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. Time will tell.

There's also a slight chance that he'll fuck his party over after getting in the White House and do whatever the hell he wants. Which is extremely wishful thinking but I still can hope, can't I?

I'm not even committing myself to voting for him. I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. But I think that of all the republicans that may run, he is the one I'd be most likely to vote for. *nod*

First of all, let me say that I like McCain. Not a lot, but I like him.

He is, however, a politician. He is a politician looking for the support of the republican Party. It is very clear that in years past, he didn't kiss enough ass to get the Republican nomination. This year, he is getting an early start. Because that's what the nomination is; It's an ass-kissing contest. Oh, we like to pretend that it's the primaries and our votes that choose the nominee. But that's an illusion. The nominee is chosen by the Party. Simple as that.

If you're trying to take a shot at McCain for kissing the ass of the Republican Party, the same can be said for any and every aspiring Republican and Democrt(and many independents) that have aspirations on being president. You have to sell your ideals off and and buy your way into the good graces of the party with promises of being a good little republican or democrat.

It doesn't make him a good person. It certainly doesn't make him a better candidate in my eyes. In fact, I'm wary of anybody who gets the nod from either party. It means they were the biggest ass-kissing sellout. Not something I'd likely vote for. What it does make him is a politician. Simple as that.

On the other hand, I would like to think that McCain will kiss only just barely enough ass to get the nod. I'd like to think that he'll have a few scruples left and will not be completely strung up as a corporate puppet by the time he gets the nomination. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. Time will tell.

There's also a slight chance that he'll fuck his party over after getting in the White House and do whatever the hell he wants. Which is extremely wishful thinking but I still can hope, can't I?

I'm not even committing myself to voting for him. I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. But I think that of all the republicans that may run, he is the one I'd be most likely to vote for. *nod*
Although I could take issue with a few of these comments, I will forbear ( primarily because I'm long overdue for a bit of sleep! ). :p

"Politics is the art of the possible." In order for any candidate to get elected, he or she needs lots and lots of support. It's a big Country, and it's very, very easy for one little politician to get lost. In order to be nominated by one of the major parties, you have to form alliances within the major voting blocs of the party. You have to convince them that you're going to push for at least some of what they want should you be elected. This means that you're going to have to at least appear to compromise.

However, "compromise" does not necessarily equate to giving up your principles, or ( as you so indelicately put it ) becoming "an ass-kisser." :p

Although I could take issue with a few of these comments, I will forbear ( primarily because I'm long overdue for a bit of sleep! ). :p

"Politics is the art of the possible." In order for any candidate to get elected, he or she needs lots and lots of support. It's a big Country, and it's very, very easy for one little politician to get lost. In order to be nominated by one of the major parties, you have to form alliances within the major voting blocs of the party. You have to convince them that you're going to push for at least some of what they want should you be elected. This means that you're going to have to at least appear to compromise.

However, "compromise" does not necessarily equate to giving up your principles, or ( as you so indelicately put it ) becoming "an ass-kisser." :p

If I come off as overly cynical, I apologize. I just did my taxes. :p

Like I said, who's votes should he go after? Yours? Nobody is that dumb to waste their time on someone as blazingly partisan as you.

"Oh no, he's trying to get a vote from a right winger! He must want to torture people and rape women!" Get over yourself. Your ability to interpret political activities is akin to a dogs ability to swing a baseball bat.

Hmmm speaking of partisans......

If I come off as overly cynical, I apologize. I just did my taxes. :p
OMG! In that case, you're forgiven! :D

I'm not even committing myself to voting for him. I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. But I think that of all the republicans that may run, he is the one I'd be most likely to vote for. *nod*

I don't know. I used to think I could vote for him but after talking up the guy who basically said he is a Manchurian Candidate? Then there is the C. Clinton comment that was rather tasteless.

I don't think I would vote for him.

But that is the problem, there is no really good leaders anymore......

... there are no really good leaders anymore......
I disagee. There are a huge number of really good leaders. Unfortunately, most of them are going into venues other than politics. Why subject your entire life, and perhaps even your health, to the tender mercies of the media and the opposition when you can earn far, far more by working in another field?

First of all, let me say that I like McCain. Not a lot, but I like him.

He is, however, a politician. He is a politician looking for the support of the republican Party. It is very clear that in years past, he didn't kiss enough ass to get the Republican nomination. This year, he is getting an early start. Because that's what the nomination is; It's an ass-kissing contest. Oh, we like to pretend that it's the primaries and our votes that choose the nominee. But that's an illusion. The nominee is chosen by the Party. Simple as that.

If you're trying to take a shot at McCain for kissing the ass of the Republican Party, the same can be said for any and every aspiring Republican and Democrt(and many independents) that have aspirations on being president. You have to sell your ideals off and and buy your way into the good graces of the party with promises of being a good little republican or democrat.

It doesn't make him a good person. It certainly doesn't make him a better candidate in my eyes. In fact, I'm wary of anybody who gets the nod from either party. It means they were the biggest ass-kissing sellout. Not something I'd likely vote for. What it does make him is a politician. Simple as that.

On the other hand, I would like to think that McCain will kiss only just barely enough ass to get the nod. I'd like to think that he'll have a few scruples left and will not be completely strung up as a corporate puppet by the time he gets the nomination. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic. Time will tell.

There's also a slight chance that he'll fuck his party over after getting in the White House and do whatever the hell he wants. Which is extremely wishful thinking but I still can hope, can't I?

I'm not even committing myself to voting for him. I have never voted for a Republican or a Democrat. But I think that of all the republicans that may run, he is the one I'd be most likely to vote for. *nod*
McCain has proven time and again he is a lapdop who sits up and begs whenever the Republicans tell him too. He pretends to be a moderate, poorly, and people are like "Oh, McCain is great, he isn't like all the other Republicans." If he hadn't started publicly pandering to the worst of the worst, he might have won bipartisan votes. But every time he begs for a treat from the people who slandered him as campaign design, he loses more and more bipartisan support. As it stands now, he has proven that he is one of the unshakable Republican base who would support the neocons if one of them personally walked into the person's home and shot their dog.

The 2008 elections are going to be an effort in futility. McCain won't get nominated but will still lay at his masters' feet. The Democrats have no one worth fielding that hasn't been slandered so bad the lies are engraved into the minds of the people, unless Obama runs, and he won't. The Republicans are probably going to run some incompetent neocon or Jeb Bush so they can capitalize on their eight year legacy of fucking over the general public.

I disagee. There are a huge number of really good leaders. Unfortunately, most of them are going into venues other than politics. Why subject your entire life, and perhaps even your health, to the tender mercies of the media and the opposition when you can earn far, far more by working in another field?
Exactly. Who really wants to be president? If you truly want to be president, there's something wrong with you :p I think the only reason anyone would want to be president is for the power trip.

I disagee. There are a huge number of really good leaders. Unfortunately, most of them are going into venues other than politics. Why subject your entire life, and perhaps even your health, to the tender mercies of the media and the opposition when you can earn far, far more by working in another field?

Which is why we need to sop electing half-wit mediocre leaders and start electing entertainers. People who can distract us from our troubles and deflect attention away from the people who are really running this country.

I'll be old enough to run in 2012. ;)

I'll be old enough to run in 2012. ;)
Dear god, no! :eek: ^^see my above post ^^ :p

I disagee. There are a huge number of really good leaders. Unfortunately, most of them are going into venues other than politics. Why subject your entire life, and perhaps even your health, to the tender mercies of the media and the opposition when you can earn far, far more by working in another field?

Well we are probably all too blame for that since we vote for the talking point rather then the man.

What is even more scary is how many people vote on issues from talking points or the junk mail they get over an issue.

For the heck of it I asked 10 people if they read an initiative and none did. A few said they looked at who supported it and voted accordingly......

Dear god, no! :eek: ^^see my above post ^^ :p

We all know the President is just a figurehead. With me, it'd just be more obvious. :)

We all know the President is just a figurehead. With me, it'd just be more obvious. :)
oh okay, :relief:

All I see from that article is a man who understands political reality. That reality is that he will not win the White House without the support of the Bush camp. The Bush camp doesn't need to love him, either. They, like everyone else, only need to love him more than they do the other choices. He knows that and he has to deal with it.

McCain is the only Republican I know of that has sponsored meaningful climate legislation, anti-torture legislation and anti-lobbying legislation. He is one of the few legislators, Republican or Democrat, that understands our oil problems and who also understnds that corn based ethenol makes us more reliant on oil, not less.

I know that appearences don't always mean much in politics, but everytime I see him interviewed I come away with the feeling that he really does love his country and that he's intelligent and thoughtful and has integrity. For me at least, I find him to be "conservative" where I am and "liberal" where I am. He's pro-choice, for example, but not blindly so. I do have a problem with third trimester abortions, and I think most people do. He's against drilling in ANWR not because he's a complete tree-hugging hippy, but because he understands how little it will do to curb our dependence on foreign oil and tp bring down the price.

I'll vote for him. Hopefully he taps Colin Powell for veep.

i'd rather have cheney than bush.
mccain is the author of a law that limits freedom of speech and of the press and at the same time he is a proponent of terroristrights. imo he is as centrist as lenin.

All I see from that article is a man who understands political reality. That reality is that he will not win the White House without the support of the Bush camp. The Bush camp doesn't need to love him, either. They, like everyone else, only need to love him more than they do the other choices. He knows that and he has to deal with it.

McCain is the only Republican I know of that has sponsored meaningful climate legislation, anti-torture legislation and anti-lobbying legislation. He is one of the few legislators, Republican or Democrat, that understands our oil problems and who also understnds that corn based ethenol makes us more reliant on oil, not less.

I know that appearences don't always mean much in politics, but everytime I see him interviewed I come away with the feeling that he really does love his country and that he's intelligent and thoughtful and has integrity. For me at least, I find him to be "conservative" where I am and "liberal" where I am. He's pro-choice, for example, but not blindly so. I do have a problem with third trimester abortions, and I think most people do. He's against drilling in ANWR not because he's a complete tree-hugging hippy, but because he understands how little it will do to curb our dependence on foreign oil and tp bring down the price.

I'll vote for him. Hopefully he taps Colin Powell for veep.
He may be against it, but he would sign for anything he is against lickety split if the Republicans offered him a treat.

Or Jon Kyl, our other Senator. That guy's a real jackass. I talked to him once, asked a leading question about the Iraq War, and he gave a thorough non-answer and blew me off. Prick.
That's usual when questioning politicians.

Yet when McCain does the same identical thing in an effort to win his own Party's nomination, you not only criticise him, you call him names.
"Right-winger" is more of a 'label' than an insulting 'name'.

1. Nice flame.

2. Again with the not so thinly veiled insults. Trying to indicate early onset of some senility on my part goes considerably further than being just disengenuous. "Licking up the same slime" is a totally unjustified charaterization, unless, that is, you are simply trying to discredit an apparent front-runner in a political party you hate for whatever obscure, demented reasons.

3. Why am I not surprised.
You're really an artful dodger! You've managed to run away from conceding with the simple logic:

1. Bush is a right-winger.
2. McCain agrees with, defends Bush.
3. Thus McCain is a right-winger.

with the localised addition

4. Eutrusca agrees with, defends Bush.
5. Thus Eutrusca is a right-winger.

pointing out that your inability to find a candidate of whom you approve is indicative of your knee-jerk ideological approach to politics.
It's better to follow principles than personalities.

*OP SNIP*

Whoa, whoa wait! Hold the phones! You are accusing a Republican presidential hopeful of being a right-winger who is pandering for votes from, wait for it, wait for it..... REPUBLICANS! Holy fucking obvious, Batman! :eek:

But really, the fact that the media portrays him as a "moderate" or a "maverick" is really quite moot 'cause you know, it's the media. If he claimed to be an "Independent" he would be registered as one and be running as one.

What difference does it make whether he's a right-winger, left-winger, communist, capitalist, socialist, marxist, pink unicorn-worshiper, leprechaun, the wizard of Oz, a moderate or an independent? The Republican party will decide whether or not they want him to lead them, and the American people will decide whether or not they want him as their president. You'll get what you vote for.

But really, the fact that the media portrays him as a "moderate" or a "maverick" is really quite moot 'cause you know, it's the media. If he claimed to be an "Independent" he would be registered as one and be running as one.It's more than a media portrayal--it's a carefully crafted political personae that McCain has put together over the years, that he's not your average hack, machine politician. The press has aided and abetted him in this, and the result is that McCain has considerable moderate and independent appeal. All I'm trying to point out is that McCain isn't as moderate or independent as he claims, and that moderate and independent voters would do well to take a closer look at McCain's voting record and the people he's pandering to before giving him cred as a moderate.

It's more than a media portrayal--it's a carefully crafted political personae that McCain has put together over the years, that he's not your average hack, machine politician. The press has aided and abetted him in this, and the result is that McCain has considerable moderate and independent appeal. All I'm trying to point out is that McCain isn't as moderate or independent as he claims, and that moderate and independent voters would do well to take a closer look at McCain's voting record and the people he's pandering to before giving him cred as a moderate.


Who doesn't have a carefully crafted political persona (or at least an obvious but incidental one)? Ted Kennedy, whether or not he's the one doing the crafting, has a political persona for Christ's Sake! Rick Santorum has a political persona; when these names come up a whole shit load of extra baggage comes with them. Projecting an image (along with tearing them down) is what politics is all about and having a completely honest one has next to no advantage.

"Hack" and "machine politician" are both subjective to the individual voter's taste. You could ask any Republican who the hacks are in the Democratic Party, you could ask any Democrat who the hacks are in the Republican Party..... Chances are, they are both absolutely right and neither one will ever come to terms with it. Personally, I feel that it comes with the territory; these guys are there to pander, and posture. McCain is a career politician with presidential ambitious. This is nothing but par for the course so far.

I'll admit that I don't exactly follow his career meticulously, but I seem to recall quite a few harsh words, refuted rumors, and pretty obvious right-wing posturing coming along with the criticism he occasionally levels against the White House. I can say with fair certainty that I was never under the impression he was anything but a Republican. For me, this just seems moot and obvious... that's just me.

McCain never claimed to be a maverick or independant. Others pinned him with that. You can piss and moan how it was a big conspiracy with the media, but it will just show your fantacism.

His claim was that he didn't march lockstep with the GOP leadership (he doesn't) and that he is willing to compromise with the Democrats for the good of the country (he has).

He is a politician. He willfully and consiously tells people he is a Republican. Yes, he plays an image game. He wants to be president, so he has to pander to all of the groups that are considered Republican strongholds. Its called reality. He also panders to the unions to widen his appeal.

Its the same reason Clinton can go to an ACLU luncheon in the afternoon and an NYPD banquet at night. She is pandering to both sides of the spectrum.


And Nazz, you are way too dishonest with yourself to be making these accusations.