Consistent with my prediction of a Romney victory, John McCain has won the Florida Republican Primary.
Rudy is in third at the moment, and is giving an extraordinarily classy concession speech. He's expected to drop out as soon as tomorrow, and endorse McCain. His campaign has been such a disappointment.
Ron Paul is at three percent in the returns I'm watching. I guess the Revolution hasn't started quite yet, and maybe his supporters' habit of being as insulting and antagonistic as possible is being reflected in the returns.
I deleted my Blog on this issue.
Glock, Dan Feilding had said to sign him up to help John McCain.
The rank-and-file have spoken. This is an interesting election year.
Rush Limbaugh is probably livid right now.
"Rush Limbaugh is probably livid right now."
One could only hope this is true.
At least your constant giggling at the lack of the "Ron Paul Decade" balances out the "insulting and antagonistic as possible" Ron Paul supporters.
Hell, Ron Paul managed to campaign in more than just ONE state, even if there is no chance of a Ron Paul Landslide...
I realize that Florida is populated with New Yorkers and Canadians, but did Rudy really think a week or so in Florida would propel him right to the convention?
Here's hoping you support the eventual Republican nominee, thereby sealing his doom.
Cheap "Not voting for Ron, BTW" Engineer
P.S. Obama was just down the road from me in ElDorado (KS) today - and yet, I felt no tingle.
<shrug>
"At least your constant giggling at the lack of the "Ron Paul Decade" balances out the "insulting and antagonistic as possible" Ron Paul supporters."
Really? My taunting them for not meeting their own boastful expectations balances out their saying things like 9/11 was an inside job and homosexuals should be executed? Interesting.
"I realize that Florida is populated with New Yorkers and Canadians, but did Rudy really think a week or so in Florida would propel him right to the convention?"
Apparently. And stupidly, as I've been saying for weeks. He should have made a stand in NH.
Now we see what Rudy does.
"Now we see what Rudy does. "
It appears he's not going to endorse Romney, which means his campaign won't have been a total disaster.
I supported Thompson until he dropped out. Ron Paul is pretty cool, but mostly a distraction at this point. I'm going with McCain on the grounds that he's done something on the national stage other than run for President. I don't agree with all of his views, but I'm pretty sure that I can trust him when he says something I do agree with. I don't want to support someone just because they're "electable" but the Lieberman endorsement will be a really big deal in November.
I am not particularly disappointed that Rudy's likely to drop out of the race.
Superficially at least, I ought to have liked him more since his socially liberal and fiscally conservative views are inoffensive to me.
But there's something about the man I don't like – maybe it's his condescension and arrogance – do we really need more of that after two terms of Dubya? And though I'm pretty much a "live and let live" about people's private lives, there's something about Rudy's private life that grates on me.
I would have rather seen Romney drop out than Rudy, but that wasn't a very likely scenario. I'm not sure who my #2 pick would be now... but since there aren't any other elections between now and our voting day with McCain looking strong, I don't really need a #2 pick anymore.
It was still a pretty hard fought race in Florida and the rhetoric got a bit more than I appreciated from both McCain and Romney on the below the belt crap. It could have been much much worse though. I'm pretty excited about next Tuesday now. Hopefully the Rudy endorsement will help give McCain an even bigger bump tomorrow.
I'm curious as to whether or not Huckabee will keep fighting on through Super Tuesday as he currently claims. At this point I'm not sure if that would help or hurt McCain in further primaries or if his strong evangelical support is really sufficient in some of the upcoming states considering how much it split in this one. Should be yet another interesting week. I need to find a yard sign or two.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
So, Republicans approach super-duper-tuesday with a clear frontrunner and presumptive nominee and it's the Democrats who may be slugging it out for months to come. Not many people predicted that.
I'm actually starting to get a little optimistic (although it's a long time until November).
Old Elephant... I'm not sure we can write off Romney so easily... McCain's warchest pales in comparison and Romney also has three State wins under his belt, though two were for all intents and purposes uncontested, and is only slightly behind in overall delegate count. Romney can and probably will run a full national advertising blitz to bolster himself and try to hack away at McCain's lead in States where he's polling ahead. I see no hope for Huckabee and continue to see no hope for Paul if they decide to stay in, though.
I think it is safe to call McCain the front runner, in delegates and actual contested States, especially considering his national and Super Tuesday states' pollings. But I think Romney is going to make him work to keep it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
McCain's the Republican frontrunner eh? Might as well give the White House to the Democrats.
Yeah because he has one of the best records in the Senate on fighting spending and a lifetime tax cutter rating very near Fred Thompsons, has been against abortion his entire career, and would appoint Justices of the mold of Clarence Thomas and John Roberts...
y'know... just like a Democrat.
There's a good chance that the issues you dislike him on are issues that Democrats hold or hold even worse positions on, on top of being Democrats on all other areas above.
But let's not let facts get in the way of hysteria.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock...you're forgetting a couple of important facts.
1. Immigration/Amnesty bill.
2. McCain/Feingold...aka...limiting free speech
3. voting against the Bush tax cuts.
These are HUGE problems for real conservatives.
Yes they are big issues for Mccain. McCain Feingold has been changed, He has said he has changed on Immigration and wants the wall built first, He keeps saying that he voted against the tax bills because he wanted spending cuts at the same time, then voted for the tax cuts later when he was sure he couldn't get them. What other choices do we have? Convince me on Romney, he's has real problems for real conservatives also.
It would be impossible to forget any of those as they are brought up constantly throughout the day in the media, the talk radio, blogs, etc etc.
I didn't forget them, I just continue to see evidence they aren't as relevant in this primary as many are making out...
Especially since McCain's big rival on immigration issues, Romney, has noted several times now in the debates and other national interviews that his plan was neither technically nor legally an amnesty, but that's what people tend to call it. Other fellow candidates, Giuliani and I believe Huckabee also noted that it wasn't an amnesty either. More importantly the dictionary, Merriam-Webster, as well as the more relevant Black's Law Dictionary show this term to be inappropriate in spite of the common misnomer.
Especially since the bill that limited free speech is constantly derided as being totally ineffective to stop any speech thus far in spite of its absurd provisions.
And especially since the big complaint against the GOP has been their neglect of the other side of the fiscal conservative coin... cutting spending. McCain proposed an alternative tax cut plan at the time of the Bush tax cuts... he was never against tax cuts in general, just that specific set of tax cuts since it didn't seem to appropriately address the military and other mandatory spending issues to pull off in full without causing large deficit/debt problems. He was right. His plan would have focused more on the middle class with fewer breaks for the upper class... but would have been open to larger cuts for the upper class with appropriate spending cuts. IE, without spending cuts the middle class taxcuts got priority for him. As much as this has been painted as classwarfare rhetoric in out of context quotes, it is hardly the big deal many make it out to be except in cheap shots and drive-by talk radio campaigns.
That's the way I see it anyways.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
McCain is at least "likeable". There has been a lot of talk this campaign about who is "likeable".
Obama, yes; Hillary, no.
Huckabee, Yes; Rudy, No.
It is so telling that Rudy's very own children are estranged from him. That is unimaginable to me as a parent. Rudy is egocentric and narcissistic. Asking to extend your term as Mayor because NYC needs YOU? Gimme a break. Serial marriages, including one to your cousin?
As soon as Willard Romney goes the way of the Nash Rambler, there will no longer be any negative talk about McCain and Republicans will rally around him. Then when the 70 plus years old candidate starts telling us how we need more wars, the weary American public will be inspired by Obama and the rest will be history.
And if we could survive 8 years of a former cocaine snorting, DUI convicted, language-challenged cowboy, we will do just fine with a former cocaine snorting senator from Chicago.
" ...9/11 was an inside job..."
Despite the public's perception inspired by MSM reports, I cannot find a structural engineer who believes the buildings in NY fell only from the impact of two airplanes. -----an engineer who will never vote for Ron Paul
I sincerely doubt that McCain is going to tell us that we need more wars. He will fight the one that we are in, because he understands what war means, but he's not bloody likely to engage in frivolous commitments with our troops. Has he actually said or done anything that makes you think he's likely to do this?
I went Nader-Gore-Kerry in past elections, but McCain will get my vote in the general if he gets the nomination-- it's largely based on my trust in his ability to think and speak clearly without relying on the polls to dictate his conscience, and his first hand experience with the horrors of war.
The last thing this country needs is another "Mission Accomplished" president, and right now, that's exactly what I'm seeing in the Democratic offerings (and, for that matter, from Romney). I want someone who won't bs me too much in his bid for the White House, and who has both the experience and the vision to get things accomplished once he gets there. McCain's the only guy on either ticket who looks good.
Kem
Mollie said she's worried about this election. She's pretty sure if the goody-goody Mormom cultist gets elected he'll somehow put a crimp in her Studebaker back seat rental business. McCain, she thinks, will simply go on to be the next poster boy for ED medicines, a la Dole. She said she's happy with Hillary and Obama because she knows she still be getting f*cked.
It's far from over.
*
I came back to this country after a 5-year stint overseas.
I turned on the TV and there was BobDole for Viagra.
I thought I was watching Saturday Night Live, and no kidding, the
actor looked almost exactly like BobDole. Bad taste for sure but
funny in a sick-surrealistic sort of way.
It was even more surreal when I found out that the joke was unintentional. Sheesh.
*
IP looks more and more like a Demo*rat to me.
"IP looks more and more like a Demo*rat to me."
The Republicans I work so hard to elect don't seem to mind.
And I know (and most readers here know) that I am way more libertarian than the Republican Party. That leads me to disagree with the national party frequently, and causes me to focus on local races where I can have more impact anyway.
And having you disapprove of anything I say or do is a badge of honor, honestly.
IP I see the results of your efforts
in the IL Governor and US Senators from IL.
tis so Nice to make another friend, IP.
Glock21 says: "It would be impossible to forget any of [the associations of McCain with immigration "amnesty," voting against the Bush tax cuts, etc] as they are brought up constantly throughout the day in the media, the talk radio, blogs, etc etc."
Anecdotal evidence, but I turned on WLS last night in the shower around 10:15PM, and boy howdy, you're not kidding. The host (Levin, IIRC) went on and ON and ON about how liberal McCain is, how he wants to throw open the borders, how he wants to give rights to terrorists, and if the New York TIIIIIMES endorses him, well, you just KNOW he's tainted goods!
I don't spend all that long in there so didn't hear where the program went, but made me wonder who Levin prefers.
Young Righty-I'am sorry I wasn't being flippant about Romney I did want you to try to sell me on him. I think he has a lot of positives money being one. Romney's people are smart he could pull this out depending on the delegate count but it will be tough.
I would hope Rudy's endorsement will have strings attached like what Rudy talked about in his speech, those IP liked Rudy for.
And I'm sure you've performed a thorough polling of the nation's structural engineers.
Speaking as a materials engineer, I can't understand how anyone believes that structural materials under that kind of heat and shock load would retain all their mechanical strength.
"IP I see the results of your efforts in the IL Governor and US Senators from IL."
Yes - I worked on none of those races, so that does show you the effect of my efforts. :-)
But that doesn't mean I've never lost anything I've been involved in, either. I know too well that feeling.
But I do think it's funny that you think I'm a Democrat, as it's just another demonstration that you have no interest whatsoever in accuracy or evidence.
Narc, I remember it the same way, I thought they referenced engineers who said that the fuel oil (jet fuel) super heated the structural materials and the material folded under the weight.
You didn't predict Topinka would win did you.
Popular Mechanics: Debunking the 9/11 Myths.
It's sad that it's even necessary to post this.
"You didn't predict Topinka would win did you."
I don't think I did any predictions in 2006, local or statewide.
thanks for the Romney prediction yesterday, IP - you are killing me here.
On the bright side, I am happy to see that apparently the GOP won't have to deal with the prospects of nominating a pro-choice candidate.
ip i am not a "9-11 truther" so Its not for me you post this but
all discussion and information is potentially useful.
I don't know what I'll do if McCain gets the nomination. From my perspective, there isn't much difference between Hillary, Obama, and McCain when it comes to domestic issues. I think the difference is degree--Hillary and Obama will probably try to take more of our money for social programs than McCain, but McCain likes taxes too. There's no difference on immigration. The only real difference is on the war, and I'm not a big fan of it right now.
Didn't we have a hard time finding a local contact for the McCain campaign not that long ago? And now it is his race to lose - wow!
Despite the public's perception inspired by MSM reports, I cannot find a structural engineer who believes the buildings in NY fell only from the impact of two airplanes. -----an engineer who will never vote for Ron Paul
Hi.
I sincerely doubt that McCain is going to tell us that we need more wars. He will fight the one that we are in, because he understands what war means, but he's not bloody likely to engage in frivolous commitments with our troops. Has he actually said or done anything that makes you think he's likely to do this?
Yes, he has. Pretty much word for word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns
As a pre-emptive measure, I'll post this, too: Yes, We Really Did Go to the Moon!
There is no belief so crazy that no one believes in it.
"There is no belief so crazy that no one believes in it."
Heh. Funniest thing I've read all day.
while we are posting crazy conspiracy theory sites.....
http://www.bariumblues.com/
This makes me leary of McCain...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/03/cafferty-rips-mccains-safe-stroll-through-baghdad/
I actually have a question. My political instinct, as limited as it is, seemed to suggest to me that this election would be all about change. Now I know that theme has hit the big time since Iowa, but we were talking change back in the summer. Unpopular President, dragged out war, trashed economy. What wouldn't America want to change?
If it turns out to be Clinton v. McCain, I'll have to ask myself what the hell happened. It just doesn't make any sense historically or strategically for the voters to endorse candidates who represent the Washington establishment. What is going on?
Anyone?
I am not counting Obama out, and I have to say that if he gets the nod from the Dems I think he will destroy McCain or Romney, but neither Hillary or McCain are agents of change. They are agents of the status quo. Hugely disappointing.
There you go great sources CNN and Time; they haven't had stories on Iraq since things have improved. Has Cafferty ever been in the military, combat or to Iraq himself? Of course there not going to let a Senator wonder around without security you know they won't even let the general travel without security. All it would take is one combatant with a rifle or IEB, which they can set off with a phone a block away. The difference between now and before is that there was a heck of a lot more shooting going on a few months ago and walking down the middle of the street would be out of the question. It’s funny they make Iraq such a big issue then they don’t want a senator with a lot of experience to find out what’s going on in Iraq.
Looks to me like people like to talk about change, but they vote for the steady, safe choice.
And, with McCain trumpeting the war effort so loudly, it also looks like maybe Iraq is not a non-issue after all.
axiomata... there's a big difference between saying there will be more wars versus saying that we need or want more wars. I know there are some hysterical hawk types out there but most of those who support specific military conflicts wish they weren't necessary. But wishing they weren't necessary doesn't make them any less necessary.
Champaign Dweller... if you honestly can't see any signficant difference between Hillary, Obama, and McCain, I'd strongly recommend looking beyond whatever issue(s) have got you riled enough that you could ignore all of the stark differences in defense, taxes, spending, judicial appointments, etc.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"If it turns out to be Clinton v. McCain, I'll have to ask myself what the hell happened. It just doesn't make any sense historically or strategically for the voters to endorse candidates who represent the Washington establishment. What is going on?
Anyone?"
Change is overblown as a campaign theme. In the eyes of most Americans, all the candidates are a change - a change in President after eight fatiguing years of seeing the same guy on the news every day. It's a (overblown) theme in every presidential campaign in which a two-term President is replaced. Americans say they want change, and the media (wishfully) interprets it as a craving for massive policy shifts, when in reality I think most Americans are just ready for somebody new. Who they prefer is still about personalities and policies, as every single candidate running this year is a major change for most Americans.
That's my opinion, anyway.
axiomata... there's a big difference between saying there will be more wars versus saying that we need or want more wars. I know there are some hysterical hawk types out there but most of those who support specific military conflicts wish they weren't necessary. But wishing they weren't necessary doesn't make them any less necessary.
So then the wars that he claims there will be will not be necessary?
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference. Let's try and get this straight. First things first, neither you, McCain, nor I claimed that we want more wars. So I'm not sure why that was thrown in there.
You: "I sincerely doubt that McCain is going to tell us that we need more wars."
McCain: "There's gonna be other wars."
So either these wars that McCain says will be either will be needed, or will be unnecessary. If they are unnecessary then they shouldn't be, and if they are needed then they should be. Thus, unless McCain is a nutjob that thinks we ought to fight unnecessary wars, then the wars that he claims will be, will be needed and your original doubt was proven wrong.
I think an admittance that as president, there will be more wars is a telling weakness. McCain may be a good commander in chief in a time of war, but he'd be a horrible president to get us out of Iraq and horrible at using diplomacy to prevent future wars. Not much of a visionary if all he sees is more wars in our future.
Just received this in my email inbox. Thought you'd be interested.
http://www.committeetoelectdelegates.org/15th_Congressional_District.pdf
--M
run- CNN ran that story because McCain gave them the story. He admitted himself that he mis-spoke on 60 minutes so save me the Rush MSM media is all liberal bull... http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10446.html
Anon; sure McCain sent it out, it's the MSM that has twisted it into looking like McCain is an idiot when the MSM does not have a clue what's happening in Iraq. Who’s Steve Benen? He does a blog and bash’s McCain and that proves something.
Finally McCain was right about Iraq, unless someone is going to tell how much worse it is now. He was right when everyone else was running away from the war and helped to change the policy so that we could succeed in Iraq. When he made this quote about more wars which many of you seemed to not understand and even some republicans spinned negatively. You really think that we won’t some day be in another war; unfortunately we always get into a war. I don’t think in the video he was talking about more wars as much as he was talking about the Iraq war and the sad realities of its casualties. I hope we aren’t going to start attacking a war hero as out of it, because of his service to his country. Especially when those attacks are taken out of context and sourced off of blogs by people no ones heard of. I think McCain unfortunately knows war to well, from his time in the senate and his experience leads me to believe that he would be the last one to want to go to war. He is also the most experienced candidate to be Commander and Chief.
"I think an admittance that as president, there will be more wars is a telling weakness."
It's a telling of the truth. There will always be more wars, no matter how diplomatic we are, no matter how reasonable we are. Even if it is never us making those future wars necessary. The problem is that it isn't exclusively up to us whether or not there will be more wars. We don't hold the power to prevent others from starting conflicts. We can try, but history has shown we will not always be successful. Was the Iraq war necessary? Absolutely not. Saddam should have never invaded Kuwait. Was it necessary that we respond to his unnecessary actions? Yes. Was further conflict necessary? Absolutely not. Saddam should have abided by the ceasefire agreements. Was it necessary that we respond to his violation of those agreements? Yes. Other wars will occur in other places, often having nothing to do with us at all. Let alone the wars that may actually involve our interests. There will be more wars. They will rarely be necessary. But our involvement in those conflicts may very well be necessary.
Admitting that there will be more wars is accepting reality based on humanity's long history. Perhaps some day humanity will change to a degree that this will no longer be true. That day isn't today.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Americans say they want change, and the media (wishfully) interprets it as a craving for massive policy shifts, when in reality I think most Americans are just ready for somebody new. Who they prefer is still about personalities and policies, as every single candidate running this year is a major change for most Americans.
Ugh. I am starting to think you are right. Honestly, I intellectually understand that Hillary Clinton is a more progressive candidate than Obama. She has a better chance to conceive and push through major policy shifts, especially in the areas of health care and the economy. Obama is really a moderate – very conservative on some issues, in fact.
But Obama represents what many of us feel in our hearts: that the partisanship needs to be set aside. Kennedy, the one who is being brought up a LOT these days, was a pretty moderate guy and a staunch anti-communist. Looking at his policies, it would be hard to pin him into the Democratic or Republican party at this point. Yet he is remembered for the way he brought the country together. I guess my sense is that 49% of Democrats really want that kind of vision and 51% want to make sure they win. It is disappointing.
Was the Iraq war necessary? Absolutely not. Saddam should have never invaded Kuwait. Was it necessary that we respond to his unnecessary actions? Yes. Was further conflict necessary? Absolutely not. Saddam should have abided by the ceasefire agreements. Was it necessary that we respond to his violation of those agreements? Yes.
As usual this makes zero sense and, as usual, you've failed to support these mind boggling opinions with even a scrap of evidence beyond your own opinion. You and Dick Cheney might be the only people left on the face of the earth who still believe the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Good golly, can you imagine where we would all be if we hadn't invaded Iraq? They might have allowed Al Qaeda to start a branch there! Something like Al Qaeda in Iraq! Or it is possible that thousands of Americans might have been killed by now from terrorist attacks! Maybe Iran would have increased in strength! Maybe oil would be at $100 a barrel!
Thank goodness our leaders had the vision and courage to fight this necessary war. Who knows where we would be right now?
Yes, enforcing our ceasefire agreements makes no sense... which is exactly why Congress authorized the President to use force towards that goal after the first intervention 1991. An authorization used by Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr, prior to the 2002 authorization that widened the goals and incorporated some of the 1998 goals of regime change, etc.
Just crazy talk, I know. The conflict in Iraq is some brand new thing that is all Bush/Cheney's doing!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed: Happily making zero sense to partisans for years!
"But Obama represents what many of us feel in our hearts: that the partisanship needs to be set aside."
I don't mind partisanship as much as most, I guess. But when I see this, I can't help but feel that you want the Republicans to set aside their partisanship and agree to Democratic ideas, but that the reverse is unacceptable.
On what issues do you think it's reasonable to expect Democrats to compromise in order to set aside partisanship?
And how has Obama demonstrated a willingness to do this during his four years in the US Senate?
D Boon wrote:
Obama is really a moderate – very conservative on some issues, in fact.
Now I haven't been watching the Dems real close, but I was under the impression Obama was a pretty pure liberal. What are his conservative policy positions - maybe I'll vote for him :-)
Glock 21--on the issues that matter, there isn't much difference between McCain and the democrats: immigration, taxes, judicial appointments, etc. not to mention McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, The Keating 5, etc. Why do you think he's having such trouble among conservatives? Even his mother said that conservatives would have to hold their nose and vote for him.
"Glock 21--on the issues that matter, there isn't much difference between McCain and the democrats: immigration, taxes, judicial appointments, etc. not to mention McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, The Keating 5, etc."
The war isn't an issue that matters? The fact that he's been pro-tax cut his entire career doesn't rate him better on that issue? Even his "big sin" of opposing the Bush tax cuts was tempered with the fact that he was offering an alternate tax cut proposal. Spending didn't rate either? One of the biggest gripes of the GOP on their Congress and President over the last several years? The issue that almost everyone agrees McCain is great on... nada? The other half of fiscal conservatism gets dropped like a rock to conveniently ignore one of the big issues of the day so you can equate him with Hillary?
On Judicial appointments he supports strict constructions in the mold of Thomas (one of my personal heroes), Roberts and Alito. Oh yeah... just like Hillary would!
And then throwing in Campaign Finance Reform (something both Fred Thompson and George Bush supported too... must mean they're no different than Hillary too?) and the Keating 5... as if that was a conservative/liberal issue... let alone the fact that he wasn't found of any wrong doing, censured, etc. People bring up the Keating 5 like it is some watergate level sin... even though McCain's part involved no wrong doing but using poor judgement to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Even John Glenn got caught up in that mess.
And though people seem to think that McCain gave the Democrats everything they wanted and there were no Republican issues covered by the bill, that's simply not true. The Congressional Record shows otherwise.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I don't mind partisanship as much as most, I guess. But when I see this, I can't help but feel that you want the Republicans to set aside their partisanship and agree to Democratic ideas, but that the reverse is unacceptable.
And which president is known for the statement "my way or the highway", and which president has the audacity to demand that a co-equal branch of government do his bidding?
JRR... are you talking about veto threats? A Constitutional power of the Executive Branch?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'm not saying that the war doesn't matter. I'm just saying that McCain isn't conservative, not on taxes, not on judges, not on immigration, and not on a lot of other issues that matter to me. His supporters and staff include the like of Juan "open borders" Hernandez, and Lindsay "we'll tell the bigots to shut up" Graham, among others. I don't particularly like him, and I certainly don't trust him. I think he likes the term maverick too much to ever be a candidate I can support.
I'm not saying that the war doesn't matter. I'm just saying that McCain isn't conservative, not on taxes, not on judges, not on immigration, and not on a lot of other issues that matter to me. His supporters and staff include the like of Juan "open borders" Hernandez, and Lindsay "we'll tell the bigots to shut up" Graham, among others. I don't particularly like him, and I certainly don't trust him. I think he likes the term maverick too much to ever be a candidate I can support.
JRR... are you talking about veto threats? A Constitutional power of the Executive Branch?
Nope, has nothing to do with the veto power which, as I am well aware, is a presidential power granted by the Constitution.
My statement pertains to the attitude that prevails through the Bush administration that their executive power trumps the other two branches of the federal government, each of which are also granted powers by the Constitution.
This president thinks that the 535 members of Congress convene in Washington to do his bidding, when in reality they are elected by constituents to do our bidding, which may often differ from George W. Bush's perception of what should be done.
My underlying point is that this administration doesn't believe in compromise and consensus. That's why I got a small chuckle at IP's comments about the Democrats wanting Republicans to set aside their partisanship and agree to Democratic ideas.
"That's why I got a small chuckle at IP's comments about the Democrats wanting Republicans to set aside their partisanship and agree to Democratic ideas."
I'm sorry. I wasn't asking the question in the context of President Bush, but I do think that he has compromised with Democrats on a number of key issues - federal funding of education, Medicare Part D, campaign finance reform, immigration reform.
That said, I'm not defending his use of signing statements, either.
But my question still stand, regardless of the revulsion at the current occupant of the White House. For those Democrats who want an end to partisanship, on what issues would you support Democrats compromising (i.e., agree with a Republican position) in order to reduce partisanship? Are there any?
he has compromised with Democrats on a number of key issues - federal funding of education, Medicare Part D, campaign finance reform, immigration reform.
Some might also argue that these weren't really compromises by Bush - these were quite consistent with his (thought not conservative) positions. All the more reason why I am not yet warming to the idea of President McCain.
IP:
Your mentioning of signing statements is right on. This is an example of the arrogance and, dare I say, autocratic attitude of Bush and his senior officials.
Note that compromise is "settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions", not Democrats agreeing with a Republican position or vice-versa. For a true compromise to exist, each participant must give up some of their initial goals; the idea is that an agreement acceptable to both sides is better than no agreement at all.
I think there are a variety of issues (both domestic and international) that could be dealt with by compromise. Exactly which issues are settled this way is a matter of speculation, but anything is possible with a new President and new Congress who understand that they both have constitutional roles, and that neither side has a monopoly on sound ideas.
I fear that the well has been poisoned by the Bush administration on one side, and by the revulsion to Bush's tactics on the other side, so I don't expect anything positive to happen until the next President and new Congress are seated.
I wonder what President Bush's legacy will be, particularly among the Republicans who support him now. In a number of respects, he's a failure by some conservative metrics. It's interesting to watch many Republicans – particularly the candidates – want to distance themselves from Bush without looking too much like they're doing so.
Just as many staunch Democrats defended the Clintons while they were in office, only to breathe a sigh of relief once they departed, I wonder how many Republicans will look less than fondly on the eight years of George W. Bush once the book is closed on his presidency.
"Note that compromise is "settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions", not Democrats agreeing with a Republican position or vice-versa. For a true compromise to exist, each participant must give up some of their initial goals; the idea is that an agreement acceptable to both sides is better than no agreement at all."
Point taken.
My point is still that many Democrats want to see the end of partisanship by having Republicans adopt Democratic positions. I have not seen any Democrats who lament partisanship urge Democrats to adopt Republican positions, nor have I seen anyone urge Democrats to compromise to move closer to Republican positions.
On which issues would you (or D.Boon, who I think stated he wanted an end to partisanship) support the Democrats moving closer to or even adopting the Republican position in order to eliminate partisanship?
"I fear that the well has been poisoned by the Bush administration on one side, and by the revulsion to Bush's tactics on the other side, so I don't expect anything positive to happen until the next President and new Congress are seated."
I think the well was poisoned in the 1990s, by a combination of factors.
"Just as many staunch Democrats defended the Clintons while they were in office, only to breathe a sigh of relief once they departed, I wonder how many Republicans will look less than fondly on the eight years of George W. Bush once the book is closed on his presidency."
I've written prevously that I already look less than fondly on the last eight years, but especially on the last four, as a giant squandered opportunity for conservative governance. Both Bush and Congressional Republicans are to blame.
IP wrote: I've written prevously that I already look less than fondly on the last eight years, but especially on the last four, as a giant squandered opportunity for conservative governance. Both Bush and Congressional Republicans are to blame.
I'm glad to hear someone on the right saying what many on the left have been saying for years. And no, I'm not gloating. It is amazing that we have reached a point where members of the president's own party decry the administration's "arrogant bunker mentality" and the dominance of U.S. diplomacy by an "our way or the highway" stance.
I have lived under several presidents whose policies were more conservative than my own, and while I have been annoyed, irritated, and distressed from time to time by past presidents, nothing has prepared me for the rage I have felt as a result of the Bush Administration's arrogance, deceit, divisiveness, and its contempt for the American people, the rule of law and the fundamental principles of our form of government. And don't forget occasional incompetence. It is not an issue of political party; I loathe our governor too – and for many of the same reasons cited above.
Though I was not a supporter of the man during the tainted election of 2000, I adopted a "wait and see" attitude. Bush had a firm but dignified tone after the horrific 9/11 attacks that won my grudging respect – until he rapidly squandered the respect of many of us at home, and the sympathy and support of most of the rest of the world. I find it embarrassing to have to apologize for my president, and I find it truly tragic that this administration has virtually destroyed my country's diplomatic and military position in the world. So it's not just an opportunity for conservative governance that has been squandered.
The anonymous poster at 5:32 PM mentioned "people who rely on fear and ignorance". Yes, that too has been a hallmark of the past seven years. I believe the poster was right to point out that a Guiliani presidency would bring more preying on people's fears, and a continuation of the arrogant bunker mentality.
I'm honestly concerned about our nation's well-being. Regardless of which party wins the presidency and control of Congress in November, they have their work cut out for them. For the good of our country, I'd love to see less finger pointing and dirt-slinging and a lot more willingness to settle for policies that have strong support across the political spectrum, even if everyone has to give up a little bit to make it happen.
Yet we are so polarized – especially after the past seven years – that this will be a struggle.
Glock21 Op/Ed: Happily making zero sense to partisans for years!
Yes, your defense of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is something that could only boggle the mind of a staunch partisan. Welcome to the mainstream, my friend!
Of course I wonder if you really believe that a trillion dollars (that's one thousand billion dollars, btw), the lives of thousands of our troops, our diminished international prestige, and the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was really worth it to enforce a cease-fire treaty? I mean, could you imagine what would happen if we had invaded the USSR every time they violated the terms of our treaties with them? Could you imagine what kind of world we would be living in right now if we invaded North Korea every time they violated the cease-fire agreements? It boggles the mind why you think Saddam's small violations made this fiasco "necessary". Or did you forget to mention the WMD? No doubt we'll be finding those any day now!
Damn, I am such a partisan!
On which issues would you (or D.Boon, who I think stated he wanted an end to partisanship) support the Democrats moving closer to or even adopting the Republican position in order to eliminate partisanship?
I am sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on this, IP. Busy day. I would love to see an end to partisanship. but I don't think even the mighty Obama Train could kill that natural entity. What I admire about Obama is that he can cast traditionally Democratic positions into unifying themes. He is a great Democratic leader and he is uniquely positioned to use a mandate from an election to make real changes. But yes, those changes would (I hope) be in the direction of the "Left".
But to answer your question, I would suggest that there are a lot of areas where the Democrats could and have come your way. NCLB comes to mind. Let's kill it. The Department of Education? I'm somewhat convinced that you could get the teacher unions to support the death of this monstrosity. Elimination of the Department of Homeland Security? Done. Tighter border security coupled with an organized and effective admissions process for aliens? Done. Tax cuts for the middle class (note: NOT the upper classes)? Done. Should we go on?
I'm glad to hear someone on the right saying what many on the left have been saying for years.
No offense, but I don't think you understand what IP is saying. He is actually saying that Bush was not conservative ENOUGH. It is arguable (let's not go there) whether the things you find so offensive about Bush are actually conservative tenents, but most on the Right see Bush's failures as just that: HIS failures, not the failure of their ideology. It is an important distinction to make.
"I'm honestly concerned about our nation's well-being. Regardless of which party wins the presidency and control of Congress in November, they have their work cut out for them. For the good of our country, I'd love to see less finger pointing and dirt-slinging and a lot more willingness to settle for policies that have strong support across the political spectrum, even if everyone has to give up a little bit to make it happen."But do you have any specific policies on which it would be OK with you if Democrats moved towards the Republican position in an attempt to make this happen? :-)
I keep hearing Democrats talk about how we need less partisanship and less mudslinging, but I've not found any who will say, for example, "You know, the President really should be able to appoint whomever he chooses, and Democrats should confirm his appointees as long as their no reason to suspect misconduct." Or suggest that Democrats should compromise on any number of other issues, either.
Social Security reform is a great example. When Bush was actually still somewhat popular, right after the 2004 election, he pushed to allow some younger workers the choice of opting for private retirement accounts. The response from Democrats was more of the same old venom about how Republicans want to starve seniors to death, and that the problems with SS had been fabricated. No hint of compromise, no hint of less partisanship.
Just an example, and certainly Democrats aren't only to blame. But I've yet to see any Democrats suggest any specific compromise by Democrats while they're busy decrying partisanship.
CD said: "I'm just saying that McCain isn't conservative, not on taxes, not on judges, not on immigration, and not on a lot of other issues that matter to me. His supporters and staff include the like of Juan "open borders" Hernandez, and Lindsay "we'll tell the bigots to shut up" Graham, among others."
I don't see how his record on taxes is not fiscally conservative. About the only thing people can point to is he supported smaller tax cuts over bigger ones a few years back, but otherwise has a full career and record supporting tax cuts and opposing tax increases. The only fluke on this was some boneheaded vote to increase the federal cigarette tax, which I disagree with him on, but was hardly enough to discount the other decades of votes that completely differentiate him from the other side of the aisle on this issue. Same with judges, he's voted for, worked behind the scenes for and continues to support strict constructionists. I know some disagree with the compromise Gang of 14 stuff but his intention was to help push through as many Bush's appointees as possible, not oppose conservative judges. Outside of that I've never seen any evidence he opposes conservative judges.
With the Juan Hernandez yahoo, he was the immigration honcho for the Mexican government. Probably someone who was interested in immigration issues would want to be in contact with for immigration issues with Mexico for both security issues and possible reforms. Last I heard he wasn't some paid staff member, nor has there been anything beyond conjecture that McCain shares his views. To imply that McCain's bill or current rhetoric is for open borders seems like a gross exaggeration. And the proof is he has contacts with people who understand Mexico's policies? If he had an advisor for Chinese affairs who used to work for the Chinese government would that make him a communist?
And the rhetoric during the immigration debate got pretty heated on both sides... and part of the reason why the Hispanic vote which was 44% for Bush in 2004 fled to the Democrats in the last few years. Was everyone on the other side of the argument a bigot or xenophobe, etc? Of course not, not even most. But there were certainly some hotheads... the worst case being Tancredo who compared pressing 1 for English to ethnic cleansing (among his other notorious gaffes).
I can understand some of the complaints people have about McCain, I share some, though not all of them. But a great deal of the complaints seem exaggerated and/or based on speculation more than record.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
D. Boon wrote: No offense, but I don't think you understand what IP is saying. He is actually saying that Bush was not conservative ENOUGH. It is arguable (let's not go there) whether the things you find so offensive about Bush are actually conservative tenents, but most on the Right see Bush's failures as just that: HIS failures, not the failure of their ideology. It is an important distinction to make.
I'd actually like to hear IP say himself what he meant.
One could certainly say that Bush has failed at acting like a true conservative (witness the federal deficit), but one could also say that the arrogance and incompetence of this administration have tainted conservative governance in the eyes of more moderate voters who were willing to give it a chance.
Again, it's not Bush's politics that offend me so much as the attitude cited in my post from 6:18 PM, and the abject failure to be "a uniter, not a divider". I will leave it to conservatives to judge in more depth Bush's adherence to traditional conservative values and whether he has left that cause stronger or weaker than when he took office.
Thasks, D.Boon.
You were posting suggestions just as I was lamenting that nobody was posting suggestions.
"I'd actually like to hear IP say himself what he meant.
One could certainly say that Bush has failed at acting like a true conservative (witness the federal deficit), but one could also say that the arrogance and incompetence of this administration have tainted conservative governance in the eyes of more moderate voters who were willing to give it a chance."
Both. My biggest disappointments with this administration have been when they've deviated from conservatism - expansions of federal government, mostly. But also just issues of general competence - while I hate the overaching involvement of the Federal government into vast areas it doesn't belong, as long as it's going to acquire such powers, I would hope that it would exercise them efficiently and competently. And this administration has been severely lacking in that area, almost from the beginning. Efficiency and competence just haven't been a focus - look at education, Medicate, FEMA, TSA, etc. Some of that is inherent Federal incompetence, but we (and especially conservatives) should be able to do better.
And I'm not sure there's a liberal or conservative way to conduct foreign policy. I think Iraq could have been handled more competently - I've wondered on here why partition wasn't an option from the start. But all the major candidates remaining will admit, even if only under their breath, that American troops will be in Iraq for the next few years. But there are certainly better ways to conduct foreign policy than this Administration has - but there are also much more constructive ways to criticize American foreign policy than have happened over the past seven years.
IP, I'm glad I asked.
We are in complete agreement about the efficiency and competence point, and though I don't fashion myself a true conservative, there are elements of the conservative philosophy that have merit (like fiscal responsibility), so if someone's going to run and win office as a conservative, I'd like them to actually do that right!
The whole Iraq thing typifies the failure of the "my way or the highway" approach, regardless of the underlying political belief of our Chief Executive. I think our Administration was too hasty to go to war without the same partnership as succeeded in the 1991 Gulf War, without good intelligence, and without contingency plans. Our armed forces, the Iraqi people, and the federal budget are all bearing the burden of poor decision-making.
As for whether there's a liberal or conservative way to conduct foreign policy, I'm with you that it's difficult to quantify.
Perhaps the Marshall Plan could be considered something a typical liberal Democrat might do, but who would've expected Richard Nixon to be the one who opened doors to the People's Republic of China?