PDA

View Full Version : Prediction: Gore vs. McCain


Taco John
04-18-2006, 02:24 PM
I think Gore will end up with the Democratic nomination, and McCain with the Republican.

Any predictions on who would win that, or a match-up of your own?

jAZ
04-18-2006, 02:53 PM
Wow, bold prediction, IMO. Why Gore? I think Hillary might crush Gore in the primary.

jspchief
04-18-2006, 02:55 PM
Anyone heard anything about Vilsack as VP?

I've heard rumblings, but was curious if it was just in-state scuttlebutt.

Pitt Gorilla
04-18-2006, 02:58 PM
McCain.

ChiefsCountry
04-18-2006, 03:00 PM
McCain

Brock
04-18-2006, 03:04 PM
McCain by landslide.

jAZ
04-18-2006, 03:05 PM
McCain by landslide.
(Shudder)... I agree with Brock.

Brock
04-18-2006, 03:08 PM
(Shudder).

Stop touching yourself.

banyon
04-18-2006, 03:08 PM
There are about 10 candidates that would crush Gore or Kerry.

They have both been branded with the "loser" label by the parties.

This isn't the 1890's where you can trot out William Jennings Bryan every 4 or so years.

Jenson71
04-18-2006, 03:14 PM
When was the last time a loser was nominated again? It doesn't happen much.

ChiefsCountry
04-18-2006, 03:25 PM
When was the last time a loser was nominated again? It doesn't happen much.

Nixon?

RedDread
04-18-2006, 03:35 PM
Wes Clark vs. McCain IMO

McCain wins.

jAZ
04-18-2006, 03:39 PM
Wes Clark vs. McCain IMO

McCain wins.
I think McCain's pandering to the nutjob right will haunt him come general election time. I think Clark would give him a strong competition. In the end, I'd be be far happier with whatever the outcome of that election would be, than I am with anything that's happened in the last 5+ years.

God, can we just have that election now?!

patteeu
04-18-2006, 04:00 PM
I think McCain would win and that a lot of libs (including the moderate ones) who think they like him would be disappointed. I'm no big fan of McCain myself, but between the two, McCain would be my preference by far on the strength of the GWoT issue alone.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 04:03 PM
I think McCain's pandering to the nutjob right will haunt him come general election time. I think Clark would give him a strong competition. In the end, I'd be be far happier with whatever the outcome of that election would be, than I am with anything that's happened in the last 5+ years.

God, can we just have that election now?!

Don't you think that if Senator Straight Talk can pander to the "nutjob right" that he's just as capable of pandering to the liberals/moderates and the establishment media who have bought into the "straight talk" facade?

jAZ
04-18-2006, 04:22 PM
Don't you think that if Senator Straight Talk can pander to the "nutjob right" that he's just as capable of pandering to the liberals/moderates and the establishment media who have bought into the "straight talk" facade?
Let me put it this way.

My confidence in McCain being a straight shooter has been shot to hell. I do think that he's a better choice than what we have now, but that's not saying anything at all.

I've similarly disappointed in McCain's pandering to right as I was Powell's "good soldier" routine before the UN.

I think both men lost a lot of respect from me for their respective actions. At the same time, I don't think a total knee-jerk reaction to the failures is warranted either.

I think some of their behavior is a result of their roles. McCain as a moderate candidate in a party dominated by complete RRW nutjobs. Powell as a "good soldier" not in the role of an ultimate administration leader.

I think both guys if put into the position of power, will behave differently than they did in those respective events. McCain would not govern as a RRWNJ like Bush has. Powell would not have invaded Iraq in the same way Bush did.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 04:49 PM
Let me put it this way.

My confidence in McCain being a straight shooter has been shot to hell. I do think that he's a better choice than what we have now, but that's not saying anything at all.

I've similarly disappointed in McCain's pandering to right as I was Powell's "good soldier" routine before the UN.

I think both men lost a lot of respect from me for their respective actions. At the same time, I don't think a total knee-jerk reaction to the failures is warranted either.

I think some of their behavior is a result of their roles. McCain as a moderate candidate in a party dominated by complete RRW nutjobs. Powell as a "good soldier" not in the role of an ultimate administration leader.

I think both guys if put into the position of power, will behave differently than they did in those respective events. McCain would not govern as a RRWNJ like Bush has. Powell would not have invaded Iraq in the same way Bush did.


By what measure has Bush governed as a RRWNJ? Barely more than lip service for his "faith based initiatives" programs and school vouchers? Please. And as we are reminded regularly here, he hasn't been very conservative either with his failure to veto the big spending Congress and his active support of costly government expansions like the medicare prescription drugs entitlement.

As much as I don't trust McCain, he'd be quite likely to be as conservative or more conservative than Bush and he hasn't given any indication that he would cut and run from Iraq either.

banyon
04-18-2006, 04:54 PM
By what measure has Bush governed as a RRWNJ? Barely more than lip service for his "faith based initiatives" programs and school vouchers? Please. And as we are reminded regularly here, he hasn't been very conservative either with his failure to veto the big spending Congress and his active support of costly government expansions like the medicare prescription drugs entitlement.

As much as I don't trust McCain, he'd be quite likely to be as conservative or more conservative than Bush and he hasn't given any indication that he would cut and run from Iraq either.

IMO,l Bush has governed as a CRWNJ. (Corporate Right Wing Nut Job).

:) Cool, that acronym is close to NJ CROW.

ChiefsCountry
04-18-2006, 05:25 PM
No president liberal or conservative is going to cut and run from Iraq. Sorry to break this to any of you.

jAZ
04-18-2006, 05:25 PM
By what measure has Bush governed as a RRWNJ? Barely more than lip service for his "faith based initiatives" programs and school vouchers? Please. And as we are reminded regularly here, he hasn't been very conservative either with his failure to veto the big spending Congress and his active support of costly government expansions like the medicare prescription drugs entitlement.

As much as I don't trust McCain, he'd be quite likely to be as conservative or more conservative than Bush and he hasn't given any indication that he would cut and run from Iraq either.
Don't confuse a relatively failed, lameduck 2nd term with an absence of a commitment to empower the RRWNJs.
* He nominated 2 USSC justices almost certain to limit or possibly overturn RvW.
* He pulled the USSC nomination of a 3rd due to pressure from the RRWNJ part of the party.
* He institutionalized federal funding for religious activities.
* He instituationalized and then underfunded a NCLB educational system that may eventually lead to school vouchers.
* Not to mention the unknown many RRWNJ judges he's packed in to the appeals benches
* He installed John Ashcroft, the man who objected to the nude "Spirit of Justice" statue and ordered it covered up, pushed to fine media outlets massively for indeceny (driving howard stern off the air effectively), and going on a TommyChong-bong rampage

Hell, the real pandering to the RRWNJ's has just begun...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/15/ap/politics/mainD8H0I2LO0.shtml

patteeu
04-18-2006, 07:43 PM
Don't confuse a relatively failed, lameduck 2nd term with an absence of a commitment to empower the RRWNJs.
* He nominated 2 USSC justices almost certain to limit or possibly overturn RvW.

If nominating Alito and Roberts to the SCOTUS is your idea of RRWNJishness, it's a testament to how far out on the LLWF (lunatic left wing fringe) you are.

* He pulled the USSC nomination of a 3rd due to pressure from the RRWNJ part of the party.

The disappointment over the Miers nomination was broadbased. Religious conservatives were not specifically the ones who killed her nomination. In fact, one of the most influential religious conservatives, James Dobson, supported her. So did Senator Frist, who has been pandering to the religious right early and often. Sure there were some members of the religious right who opposed her, but they were joined by secular conservatives (libertarians, neocons, paleocons, etc.) and a wide variety of democrats. Your attribution of the withdrawal of Miers nomination to RRWNJs is as offbase as your typical political analysis.

* He institutionalized federal funding for religious activities.

He got a very limited version of his faith based initiatives approved. Very limited.

* He instituationalized and then underfunded a NCLB educational system that may eventually lead to school vouchers.


"[T]hat may eventually lead to school vouchers." Very powerful stuff. ROFL

* Not to mention the unknown many RRWNJ judges he's packed in to the appeals benches

"[T]he unknown many RRWNJ judges..." By unknown, I guess you mean it could be zero. More powerful stuff. haha

* He installed John Ashcroft, the man who objected to the nude "Spirit of Justice" statue and ordered it covered up, pushed to fine media outlets massively for indeceny (driving howard stern off the air effectively), and going on a TommyChong-bong rampage


Yes, I guess I forgot to include the broadcast decency crusade his administration has been on. Stop the presses, the Christians are attacking our nude statues and our on-air profanity!! OMG (I wonder if the people who make fun of the idea that Christians are being persecuted will find this reverse take just as ludicrious.)

Hell, the real pandering to the RRWNJ's has just begun...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/15/ap/politics/mainD8H0I2LO0.shtml

Pandering is different than governing. Lip service is different than actually making changes.

Is that the best you could do to come up with evidence that Bush is governing as a RRWNJ? Not too impressive, IMO.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-18-2006, 07:45 PM
If nominating Alito and Roberts to the SCOTUS is your idea of RRWNJishness, it's a testament to how far out on the LLWF (lunatic left wing fringe) you are.




"[T]he unknown many RRWNJ judges..." By unknown, I guess you mean it could be zero. More powerful stuff. haha






Regarding the first quote, have you completely lost your f*cking mind?? (Rhetorical)

Regarding the second: I have two words for you: Priscilla Owen.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 08:12 PM
Regarding the first quote, have you completely lost your f*cking mind?? (Rhetorical)

Regarding the second: I have two words for you: Priscilla Owen.

The question that you and jAZ should ask yourselves is what is the difference between the judges a mainstream conservative would nominate and those that a RRWNJ would nominate? I know it's hard for the two of you to see to the center from your far left vantage points, so it's a little unfair for me to expect you to have a clue about the difference between mainstream conservatives and your nutjob counterparts, but if you could you'd realize that the three judges/justices mentioned (Alito, Roberts, and Owens) are all mainstream conservatives. You two are so used to liberal courts and so dependent on them to preserve your antiquated ideas of social justice that any tiny reversal of the pendulum must seem like the end of the world. It's OK, I understand.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-18-2006, 08:21 PM
The question that you and jAZ should ask yourselves is what is the difference between the judges a mainstream conservative would nominate and those that a RRWNJ would nominate? I know it's hard for the two of you to see to the center from your far left vantage points, so it's a little unfair for me to expect you to have a clue about the difference between mainstream conservatives and your nutjob counterparts, but if you could you'd realize that the three judges/justices mentioned (Alito, Roberts, and Owens) are all mainstream conservatives. You two are so used to liberal courts and so dependent on them to preserve your antiquated ideas of social justice that any tiny reversal of the pendulum must seem like the end of the world. It's OK, I understand.

Priscilla Owen is a mainstream conservative?? That's the f*cking problem with you, the one decrying me as out of touch with reality claims that Priscilla Owen is a mainstream conservative. If that is indeed the case, the conservative movement is so far out of touch with the center, that the left would have to appoint VI Lenin himself to create a true oppositional opponent to the right

Bush's appointee as Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, during his service with Owen on the Texas Supreme Court had frequently criticized Owen; Gonzales argued, for example, that one of Owen's positions taken in dissent would "judicially amend" a statute for the benefit of manufacturers selling defective products. [1]

Defective products like seatbelts that don't function properly and leave teenagers paralyzed, but Owen sides with the corporations and I think we all know why.

jAZ
04-18-2006, 09:32 PM
That's the f*cking problem with you, the one decrying me as out of touch with reality claims that Priscilla Owen is a mainstream conservative.
Pat is the same person who recently said that "Bush isn't even the worst president in the last decade".

Just to add a little context to the "out of touch" discussion. I'm not sure anything needs to be said to further illustrate how far out there pat has moved.

jAZ
04-18-2006, 09:36 PM
The question that you and jAZ should ask yourselves is what is the difference between the judges a mainstream conservative would nominate and those that a RRWNJ would nominate? I know it's hard for the two of you to see to the center from your far left vantage points, so it's a little unfair for me to expect you to have a clue about the difference between mainstream conservatives and your nutjob counterparts, but if you could you'd realize that the three judges/justices mentioned (Alito, Roberts, and Owens) are all mainstream conservatives. You two are so used to liberal courts and so dependent on them to preserve your antiquated ideas of social justice that any tiny reversal of the pendulum must seem like the end of the world. It's OK, I understand.
The modern day "mainstream" Republican is waaaay to the right of the Nixon/Goldwater/Reagan Republican party. Hell, Leiberman is a little right of those guys. Hell, Biden=Nixon in many ways, and McCain=Goldwater in just about every way. That's how far to the right the both the Republican and Democratic parties have moved.

Taco John
04-18-2006, 10:04 PM
When was the last time a loser was nominated again? It doesn't happen much.



It helps Gore that he won the first time around, but had it snaked out from under him in a political coop. Winning the popular vote is nothing to shake a stick at.

I don't think I'd vote for him. I've always been partial to McCain, but will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate again. But I think Gore is going to make a comeback...

I guess we'll see.

Mr. Kotter
04-18-2006, 10:12 PM
I'd be very surprised if McCain is able to win the Republican nomination--pleasantly surprised, FWIW.

McCain should win pretty easily over a second run by Gore.....unless the Republican woes of the past 6-12 months continue through the election in 2008. Then Gore would stand a chance....but even then, it would be tougher than you'd think it should be.

Chiefs Express
04-18-2006, 10:49 PM
I'd be very surprised if McCain is able to win the Republican nomination--pleasantly surprised, FWIW.

McCain should win pretty easily over a second run by Gore.....unless the Republican woes of the past 6-12 months continue through the election in 2008. Then Gore would stand a chance....but even then, it would be tougher than you'd think it should be.


Gore couldn't win the election if he was the only one running.

patteeu
04-19-2006, 05:35 AM
Pat is the same person who recently said that "Bush isn't even the worst president in the last decade".

Just to add a little context to the "out of touch" discussion. I'm not sure anything needs to be said to further illustrate how far out there pat has moved.

You should make that your signature. ;)

BTW, my movement has been, if anything, toward the mainstream since before 2004 I voted Libertarian or third party but have, at least temporarily, found reason to defend a Republican POTUS.

patteeu
04-19-2006, 05:43 AM
The modern day "mainstream" Republican is waaaay to the right of the Nixon/Goldwater/Reagan Republican party. Hell, Leiberman is a little right of those guys. Hell, Biden=Nixon in many ways, and McCain=Goldwater in just about every way. That's how far to the right the both the Republican and Democratic parties have moved.

Don't lump Nixon in with Goldwater and Reagan if you are talking about their degrees of conservatism.

Mainstream Republicans are not to the right of Reagan and Goldwater and it is insane to suggest that Lieberman is even in their vicinity, much less to their right. McCain is conservative on many issues and it's fair to compare him to Goldwater, I suppose, but I don't think Goldwater would have approved of some of McCain's big "maverick" issues (tobacco company shakedowns, campaign finance reform, and opposition to dividend and capital gains tax cuts, etc.). In short, I think you are off your rocker.

oldandslow
04-19-2006, 07:47 AM
...this entire thread is really moot. Neither of these candidates are going to win their parties' nomination.

1) Southern conservatives are NOT going to vote for McCain.

2) Al Gore is not even going to run.

Mr. Kotter
04-19-2006, 07:47 AM
The modern day "mainstream" Republican is waaaay to the right of the Nixon/Goldwater/Reagan Republican party. Hell, Leiberman is a little right of those guys. Hell, Biden=Nixon in many ways, and McCain=Goldwater in just about every way. That's how far to the right the both the Republican and Democratic parties have moved.:eek:

Wow. Only an extreme leftist could be this delusional. :rolleyes:

While society has become omewhat more conservative, your perspective of the political spectrum is way off kilter.

banyon
04-19-2006, 08:25 AM
...this entire thread is really moot. Neither of these candidates are going to win their parties' nomination.

1) Southern conservatives are NOT going to vote for McCain.

2) Al Gore is not even going to run.

correct :thumb:

NewChief
04-19-2006, 09:07 AM
:eek:

Wow. Only an extreme leftist could be this delusional. :rolleyes:

While society has become omewhat more conservative, your perspective of the political spectrum is way off kilter.

It all depends on the parameters with which you choose to define conservative and liberal. The left is much more fringe as far as moral/social issues (gay rights and the like), but as a whole politics has moved far far to the right as far as governmental responsibility toward citizens and social programs. For instance, Nixon was further left on social programs and worker's rights than most Democrats holding office today.

patteeu
04-19-2006, 09:15 AM
It all depends on the parameters with which you choose to define conservative and liberal. The left is much more fringe as far as moral/social issues (gay rights and the like), but as a whole politics has moved far far to the right as far as governmental responsibility toward citizens and social programs. For instance, Nixon was further left on social programs and worker's rights than most Democrats holding office today.

True enough, but don't you agree that both Goldwater and Reagan were philosophically more conservative than today's middle-of-the-road mainstream (even if that middle-of-the-road mainstream has moved to the right from where it was during Goldwater and Reagan's eras)?

NewChief
04-19-2006, 09:45 AM
True enough, but don't you agree that both Goldwater and Reagan were philosophically more conservative than today's middle-of-the-road mainstream (even if that middle-of-the-road mainstream has moved to the right from where it was during Goldwater and Reagan's eras)?

Once again, it depends on the parameters. I think they were probably way more philosophically conservative when it came to social programs and economic theory; however, I think that they were probably more moderate on the moral/religious issues that seems to be the rallying cry for much of the right these days. I guess what I'm seeing is:

Our politics are moving toward a moderate/middle of the road upholding of the status quo on economic issues while becoming more and more polarized on moral/social issues.

Cochise
04-19-2006, 10:06 AM
McCain can certainly win the nomination. All he has to do is emphasize his positions on the party's core issues.

McCain should come out with the same abortion position as he had in 2000 - against abortion with 3 exceptions. And just last fall he supported a gay marriage ban.

According to liberals, those are the reasons why 'southern conservatives' won't vote for him. But he has the right answers on those. What do you people think that the 'southern conservatives' are going to have to complain about?

NewChief
04-19-2006, 10:21 AM
According to liberals, those are the reasons why 'southern conservatives' won't vote for him. But he has the right answers on those. What do you people think that the 'southern conservatives' are going to have to complain about?

That McCain fella's got a few screws loose. Too much time in them concentration camps back in tha day. God bless 'em for servin' our country, but man ain't been the same since, Nam... one too many bamboo shoots under the fingernails drove him batty.

Least that's what I heard. ;)

Cochise
04-19-2006, 10:41 AM
That McCain fella's got a few screws loose. Too much time in them concentration camps back in tha day. God bless 'em for servin' our country, but man ain't been the same since, Nam... one too many bamboo shoots under the fingernails drove him batty.

Least that's what I heard. ;)

Actually, I think you're right on the money. I don't know what legitimate objections there will be. Whatever there is will be unsubstantive stuff like that. He's fine on all the litmus test issues.

banyon
04-19-2006, 10:52 AM
That McCain fella's got a few screws loose. Too much time in them concentration camps back in tha day. God bless 'em for servin' our country, but man ain't been the same since, Nam... one too many bamboo shoots under the fingernails drove him batty.

Least that's what I heard. ;)

You forgot that he fathers illegitimate children with Vietnamese prostitutes. Or at least that's what Bush's campaign staffers said back in 2000 in the SC primary.

Baby Lee
04-19-2006, 11:02 AM
You forgot that he fathers illegitimate children with Vietnamese prostitutes. Or at least that's what Bush's campaign staffers said back in 2000 in the SC primary.
Proof?

OTOH, what spanked McCain in the SC debate was not the rumor of illegitimate babies. It was this. (http://www.dailyhowler.com/h022200_1.shtml)

Baby Lee
04-19-2006, 11:29 AM
That McCain fella's got a few screws loose. Too much time in them concentration camps back in tha day. God bless 'em for servin' our country, but man ain't been the same since, Nam... one too many bamboo shoots under the fingernails drove him batty.

Least that's what I heard. ;)
My biggest beef with McCain is, while he might not seem as socially conservative as Bush, he has proven himself more amenible to social engireering through legislation.
Bush has provided for funding of charitable activity by religious groups, and has nominated conservative judges, and has spoken in support of socially conservative ideals.
OTH, McCain has authored and sponsored legislation seeking to directly restrict campaign funding, lobbying, 'smut' and violence in media.
Bush may erode privacy to fight terrorism, and 'stifle' dissent [free speech] by giving it the old stink eye, McCain has shown a predeliction to actually and by force of law restrict free speech because it's coarse of unseemly, a big difference in my book.

oldandslow
04-19-2006, 11:31 AM
McCain can certainly win the nomination. All he has to do is emphasize his positions on the party's core issues.

McCain should come out with the same abortion position as he had in 2000 - against abortion with 3 exceptions. And just last fall he supported a gay marriage ban.

According to liberals, those are the reasons why 'southern conservatives' won't vote for him. But he has the right answers on those. What do you people think that the 'southern conservatives' are going to have to complain about?

Cochise - hypothetical -

Let's suppose Allen and McCain are on the ballot in the 3rd primary in South Carolina...wanna make a bet on the winner???

'cause I guarantee you it ain't gonna be the AZ Senator.

Baby Lee
04-19-2006, 11:34 AM
Cochise - hypothetical -

Let's suppose Allen and McCain are on the ballot in the 3rd primary in South Carolina...wanna make a bet on the winner???

'cause I guarantee you it ain't gonna be the AZ Senator.
And nobody was gonna stop the Howard Dean steamroller, until he 'Yeargh'ed himself into irrelevance.

Unless, of course, Dems are more wishy-washy, blown by the prevailing winds, than Repubs. ;)

Cochise
04-19-2006, 12:04 PM
Cochise - hypothetical -

Let's suppose Allen and McCain are on the ballot in the 3rd primary in South Carolina...wanna make a bet on the winner???

'cause I guarantee you it ain't gonna be the AZ Senator.

See what I mean, no one has a real reason why McCain can't get conservatives to vote for him. You haven't put one forth either. It's just the prevailng 'wisdom' coming from the media and liberals who really, really hope he doesn't get to come slaughter their candidate.

Bush wasn't a real conservative. We've had 6 years to see it in action, in all its free-spending glory. He still won the party over people in the race who were closer to real conservatives.

Maybe it will be Allen. But all the conservatives won't vote for McCain drumbeat is in the category of "maybe if I say it enough times, it'll become true".

I'd vote for him. I don't care all that much for McCain, but he's acceptable on essentials and guarantees not losing the White House to someone like Gore or Clinton.

oldandslow
04-19-2006, 12:09 PM
Yes I do have a reason...

McCain is percieved "more liberal" than say Allen or Frist. Hell, he was percieved more liberal than Bush in 2000. And we all saw what happened.

Further:

1) Limbaugh bashes McCain nearly daily.
2) McCain/Feingold
3) Who votes in primaries (far edges of both parties)

Reaper16
04-19-2006, 12:09 PM
It helps Gore that he won the first time around, but had it snaked out from under him in a political coop.
Well, the Democrats are a bunch of chickens.

patteeu
04-19-2006, 12:20 PM
Yes I do have a reason...

McCain is percieved "more liberal" than say Allen or Frist. Hell, he was percieved more liberal than Bush in 2000. And we all saw what happened.

Further:

1) Limbaugh bashes McCain nearly daily.
2) McCain/Feingold
3) Who votes in primaries (far edges of both parties)

There is some truth to what you say, but if it was determinative, why didn't a real conservative like Steve Forbes or Gary Bauer beat Bush in 2000?

Cochise
04-19-2006, 12:21 PM
Yes I do have a reason...

McCain is percieved "more liberal" than say Allen or Frist.

That is a legitimate beef, but it's nothing that can't be overcome. The campaign is meant for changing perceptions and defining yourself where you want to be.

That's not a reason why conservatives will not consider him. It might end up being a reason why they don't end up picking him and choose someone else, but it's not like the base hates McCain with a passion and he has zero chance. He has a very good chance.

His whole campaign will work on quelling these fears. There's a whole lot of time for him to do that, and at worst he will always benefit from "he's a lot better than the guy the libs are putting up".


1) Limbaugh bashes McCain nearly daily.


If Limbaugh were as powerful as liberals think he'd be president himself.


2) McCain/Feingold


Noble but stupid. Remember McCain losing before though? Campaign Finance reform was his pet issue, and if I remember right, it couldn't even crack the top 10 of issues that mattered to voters in 2000. It's a non-starter. The average voter doesn't understand or care that much about it.


3) Who votes in primaries (far edges of both parties)


The 'far edge' is a lot more worried about the keys going over to Howard Dean's party than they are about having some small gripe with the guy who's name is on the ticket.

I'm not predicting he wins, but I think his chances are as good or better than anyone else's and everyone who is pronouncing his campaign DOA are doing so out of wishful thinking.

oldandslow
04-19-2006, 12:23 PM
Because Forbes and Bauer do not have the second part of the equation - charisma. Bush did.

conservatism + charisma = winner in southern primaries.

McCain has the 2nd part, but is not percieved to have the first.

patteeu
04-19-2006, 12:45 PM
Because Forbes and Bauer do not have the second part of the equation - charisma. Bush did.

conservatism + charisma = winner in southern primaries.

McCain has the 2nd part, but is not percieved to have the first.

I agree with Cochise that Bush isn't a real conservative and that all the signs were there from the very beginning, but I agree with you that he has charisma and he was perceived to be more conservative than John McCain.

I used to think that McCain had no shot at the Republican nomination in 2008, but I really think the combination of his relative loyalty to Bush, his pandering to the right wing of the party, and the concern Republicans might have of losing the White House to the dems (especially someone like Hillary) might be enough to get him through a primary that, at least at this point, doesn't seem to have a uniquely high stature candidate.

Cochise
04-19-2006, 03:01 PM
I agree with Cochise that Bush isn't a real conservative and that all the signs were there from the very beginning, but I agree with you that he has charisma and he was perceived to be more conservative than John McCain.


You know, back in 2000 I heard him mention a few times that he wanted to use the veto to reduce government spending. Who knows what he would have done once in office, particularly with all the unexpected challenges that were on the way, but that kind of thing works for me. People who at least talk about reducing spending, and who don't run on platforms of "eleventy billion for this, eleventy billion for that, goodies for you, goodies for them..."

Baby Lee
04-19-2006, 03:19 PM
Proof?
Gosh I miss banyon.

Cochise
04-19-2006, 03:45 PM
Gosh I miss banyon.

"We need to send out a search party! Search party!!"

Logical
04-20-2006, 02:21 PM
The question that you and jAZ should ask yourselves is what is the difference between the judges a mainstream conservative would nominate and those that a RRWNJ would nominate? I know it's hard for the two of you to see to the center from your far left vantage points, so it's a little unfair for me to expect you to have a clue about the difference between mainstream conservatives and your nutjob counterparts, but if you could you'd realize that the three judges/justices mentioned (Alito, Roberts, and Owens) are all mainstream conservatives. You two are so used to liberal courts and so dependent on them to preserve your antiquated ideas of social justice that any tiny reversal of the pendulum must seem like the end of the world. It's OK, I understand.
Cmon patteeu Sandra Day OConnor was middle conservative. Alito and Roberts appear to be far, far, far to her right, maybe not Clarence Thomas far but almost Scalia in epic proportion.

BIG_DADDY
04-20-2006, 02:26 PM
If I was forced to vote for one of these two it would probably be Gore. At least he wouldn't go after offshore gambling, MMA and cigars. Besides Al invented the internet.

patteeu
04-20-2006, 03:36 PM
Cmon patteeu Sandra Day OConnor was middle conservative.

That might be what a liberal would call her. Most conservatives would call her a "sometimes conservative" or an "unreliable conservative."

Alito and Roberts appear to be far, far, far to her right, maybe not Clarence Thomas far but almost Scalia in epic proportion.

If SDO is a "middle conservative" and Scalia/Thomas are further than far, far, far, to her right, who are some of the conservatives on the far, far, far left of her?

I agree that Alito and Roberts are to O'Conner's right, but Souter, Stevens, O'Conner, and Kennedy (all nominated by Republicans) are widely seen as disappointments (some more than others) to conservatives not reflective of the mainstream of the movement.

banyon
04-20-2006, 04:58 PM
Gosh I miss banyon.

That's sweet BL. I missed you too.

Maybe you missed this thread:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=137272

I promise I'll get on it ASAP. :p

patteeu
04-20-2006, 06:51 PM
That's sweet BL. I missed you too.

Maybe you missed this thread:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=137272

I promise I'll get on it ASAP. :p

See there. My confidence in you was warranted. You are obviously getting more conservative since a liberal wouldn't let the responsibilities of a job stop him from jacking around on the internet. :)

Chiefs Express
04-20-2006, 07:33 PM
See there. My confidence in you was warranted. You are obviously getting more conservative since a liberal wouldn't let the responsibilities of a job stop him from jacking around on the internet. :)

It has been said that 99% of lawyers make it bad for the rest of them.

Now it has to be 99.00000000001% of the lawyers make it bad for the rest of them.

Now I know which law firm not to select if the need ever arose.

banyon
04-20-2006, 07:51 PM
Proof?

OTOH, what spanked McCain in the SC debate was not the rumor of illegitimate babies. It was this. (http://www.dailyhowler.com/h022200_1.shtml)
It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

There are desciptions like this in a variety of books about the campaign and interviews with Senator McCain's campaign manager.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

patteeu
04-21-2006, 05:29 AM
banyon:
"Bush campaign staffers"

source:
"Anonymous opponents used "push polling"

banyon
04-21-2006, 11:03 AM
banyon:
"Bush campaign staffers"

source:
"Anonymous opponents used "push polling"

Right. Probably just some overzealous supporters who financed their own fraudulent pollilng company. I do it all the time.

Among sources, you forgot:

Bob Jones Prof,

and Former McCain campaign director (I would think he would qualify as a decent source on this issue)

besides, covering their tracks with front groups is a tactic employed by both parties as you well know.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 11:05 AM
Right. Probably just some overzealous supporters who financed their own fraudulent pollilng company. I do it all the time.

Among sources, you forgot:

Bob Jones Prof,

and Former McCain campaign director (I would think he would qualify as a decent source on this issue)

besides, covering their tracks with front groups is a tactic employed by both parties as you well know.

There you go again, attempting to convince us that you have the ability to think.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 10:20 PM
Right. Probably just some overzealous supporters who financed their own fraudulent pollilng company. I do it all the time.

Among sources, you forgot:

Bob Jones Prof,

and Former McCain campaign director (I would think he would qualify as a decent source on this issue)

besides, covering their tracks with front groups is a tactic employed by both parties as you well know.

:shrug: Hey, I'm just pointing out the disconnect between the part of your first post that Baby Lee asked you to back up and the article you used to back it up.

Taco John
05-14-2006, 03:41 AM
I think it's pretty clear that Gore plans on running... (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/05/14/president-gore-addresses-the-nation/)

This was the match-up I was hoping for the first time around... If it turns out this way, I might actually vote for a mainstream candidate this time around... I like both guys, and feel either would be superior in every conceivable way to the leadership vaccuum we have now.

CHIEF4EVER
05-14-2006, 06:57 AM
I think it's pretty clear that Gore plans on running... (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/05/14/president-gore-addresses-the-nation/)

This was the match-up I was hoping for the first time around... If it turns out this way, I might actually vote for a mainstream candidate this time around... I like both guys, and feel either would be superior in every conceivable way to the leadership vaccuum we have now.

Gore is a complete retard and McCain flipflops almost as bad as Kerry. How would that be a good pair to choose from?

Cochise
05-14-2006, 07:09 AM
McCain would destroy Gore or any other member of the liberal establishment.