quote:McCain is an abrasive guy. He's only nice to Hillary.
He's really not, you know. John McCain is by far the Republican candidate who has the most history of bridging political divides and "playing nice" with people on the other side. As much as I hate that he seemed to have given up his principles in favor of taking an easier path to become President, I can't deny that he is the best choice if you want a Republican candidate that is going to try to counter the divisiveness of the current political climate. He's nice to a lot of people.
He's not particularly nice to Romney, but the again, Mitt Romney has taken to making dishonest attacks on him, and I imagine that he's gotten really tired of that in the Republican primaries.
Hmm...I would have agreed with you eight years ago. I think that between his cozying up to the nastier base, his hawkishness, and his increasing cantankerousness, he has gotten pretty abrasive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have qualified that Hillary is the only other candidate I've heard him be particularly nice to. Gosh, I was just checking wiki and realized McCain is divorced. I can still support him as a leader, but I think it hurts his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage.
He and Romney just represent opposite styles of Republican character. He's the tough guy with the purple heart. Romney is the smooth guy with the silver spoon. The absence of military service in Romney's family was actually what turned me off about him. I can still vote for him, but again, I think it hurts his credibility as a potential commander in chief.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He and Romney just represent opposite styles of Republican character. He's the tough guy with the purple heart. Romney is the smooth guy with the silver spoon.
I think that's a pretty simplistic and incorrect dichotomy. John McCain is far more than just a tough guy with a purple heart. As I said, he's got the best record of all the candidates for crossing the aisle and working out compromises. He is not generally abrasive, but rather affable or (in some situations) restrained in person.
This is certainly less true now than it was in 2000, but it is still true.
quote:I should have qualified that Hillary is the only other candidate I've heard him be particularly nice to.
I'd suggest that this may reflect a lack of knowledge/exposure on your part and not a character trait of John McCain.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm simply speaking of temperment, not summarizing their whole political careers. I'm sure Romney would cross any aisle he needed to to get where he wanted to go.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I volunteered for his campaign in 2000. I wasn't by any means high up in the organization, but we've met. I've also seen/read about a substantial number of his interactions with people. He's a likeable guy and whip-smart (which, actually, I think, may make him less likeable to certain types of people).
He can get passionate and at least used to be firm in standing for things he believed in, even if it upset people, but his general temperment is, as I said, affable or possibly restrained. He also, in my experience, generally comes across as pretty reasonable.
---
quote:I'm sure Romney would cross any aisle he needed to to get where he wanted to go.
To me, there's a big difference between having principles but being willing to compromise and saying or doing whatever seems most expedient at the time. Mitt Romney has been presenting himself as more the latter type, at least to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, well cool then. I hadn't thought of trying to meet him, though he'll probably be in the area for the Feb 11 primaries.
I think Romney is just interested in what works, and not ideology so much. I guess that's what everyone means when they talk about whether we're ready to have a CEO as president. If the economy doesn't improve, he may start to make sense to a lot of people.
But I have reasons for supporting McCain other than liking his chances against Hillary. I'm less certain of Romney's chances.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think McCain might come to a bit of grief when his "straight talking" goes national. People are responding well to his truths that go against the grain...but if you're going to tell the people things they REALLY don't want to hear, you also have to have something good instead. Saying "your jobs are never coming back," might be true, but if you don't have a "but instead we'll have this!" and most importantly the specifics of how to get there, then people are only going to be turned off. Bill Clinton did that in the 90's and it worked flawlessly. McCain is doing the bad part without the good part, and it's even worse than if he had just gone along with the lies people tell.
And yeah, South Carolina's importance this time around is a hell of a lot less important than in years past, mostly because in years past there has either been an incumbent or an heir apparent, which makes the whole "we picked em!" thing a bit of a ruse to begin with, to say nothing of the fact that the field is still too crowded for them to be any sort of Kingmaker.
Blackblade -
Romney has a 66 delegates, that's 5% of the total needed to secure the nomination. A lot of the states coming up are winner takes all, and I don't think he'll be taking a lot of them, but he might, it's impossible to say. As of right now though, 5% isn't going to be any sort of a bargaining chip. Unless two candidates get into the high 900's (possible I guess) his kingmaking abilities are limited. It'd need to be a coalition of delegate holders.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not as though Romney is not going to win any other states, though. The northern portion of the west is likely to go to him. Utah brings 36 Delegates. Idaho has 32. Those are my very conservative sure bets. Is he likely to bring Massachussetts, which has 43? Of course, I don't know which of these is proportional off the top of my head.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: I too am waiting until Florida and until a greater extent Hyper Tuesday before I say who I think has got this. I know everyone else will know it by then but right now there is just too much going on that we can't see for a winner to be safely predicted.
I'm just pointing out that the media has some need to crown front runners, and they seem to keep missing that in terms of delegates Romney has the most, he polls better in states that have more diversity, and polls worse in states with large evangelical bases. He is in a tie with McCain and Giuliani in Florida. I think Florida will add some momentum to whoever wins it, but Hyper Tuesday is essentially where the whole country speaks at once.
Mr Squicky:
quote:He's not particularly nice to Romney, but the again, Mitt Romney has taken to making dishonest attacks on him, and I imagine that he's gotten really tired of that in the Republican primaries.
I think this is an accurate assessment. I wish Romney had taken a more Obamic, (yes I made that word up) approach to debating and advertising. Using negative ads, hurt his campaign overall and all he can do now is damage control in that regard rather then flip that into an advantage.
Conversely I think the charges of flip flopping that are basically painted over everything else Romney says and does is obnoxious.
I'm impressed you worked for McCain in 2000, I always thought and still do think that he would have been a better choice then Bush in 2000, it's too bad mudslinging worked in that election year.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, it is misleading for you to say Sen. John McCain is divorced, since he has been married to his current wife Cindy since 1980.
About a third of all Americans are divorced. Perhaps you belong to a religious group that does not recognize divorce under any circumstances, but even your faith does not entitle you to discriminate against people, and especially not to suggest that others should indulge in this kind of prejudice and intolerance.
Most churches, even those that do not recognize divorce, or that like mine only recognize divorce that is on "Biblical grounds" (unfaithfulness), also believe in forgiveness (like for every other sin), and do not think it honors God to add to the burden of people who may have sinned by heaping onto them their unending condemnation.
Here is what Wickipedia says about McCain's marital history:
quote:McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife Carol in Florida on April 2, 1980; he gave her a generous settlement, including houses in Virginia and Florida and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments, and they would remain on good terms. McCain and [Cindy] Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 in Phoenix, Arizona, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart as best man and groomsman. McCain's children were very upset with him and did not attend the wedding, but after several years they reconciled with him and Cindy.
quote:About a third of all Americans are divorced. Perhaps you belong to a religious group that does not recognize divorce under any circumstances, but even your faith does not entitle you to discriminate against people, and especially not to suggest that others should indulge in this kind of prejudice and intolerance.
Where did I suggest such a thing? It is the gay marriage advocates who say that people who engage in adultery and divorce have no business looking askew at them.
Yes, I am aware that Ronald Reagan was divorced.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gosh, I was just checking wiki and realized McCain is divorced. I can still support him as a leader, but I think it hurts his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage.
My point is why should that hurt his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage? He obeyed the law, he did not marry a man. Do you mean for us to believe that anyone who has ever been divorced, even if it were 30 years ago, is unfit to champion traditional marriage?
In political terms, this is a cheap shot. In religious terms, it is really obnoxious and contrary to the faith of any Christian denomination that also professes to believe in forgiveness.
I particularly find this offensive, because I was divorced about five years ago. It was not on my initiative. In fact, two weeks after the papers came back making our divorce official, my ex-wife went to Las Vegas and married the guy she had been seeing. But I chose not to be bitter about it, and have tried to make the best of things, and maintain as good as possible a relationship with my ex-wife, and even with her new husband. What would I gain by trying to make things worse for them?
But just because I have been divorced, does not mean I have any less credibility than anyone else to participate in the debate over the definition of marriage.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm impressed you worked for McCain in 2000, I always thought and still do think that he would have been a better choice then Bush in 2000, it's too bad mudslinging worked in that election year.
Honestly, as much as the Rovian dirty tactics that Bush used gets played up, I really think it was the Republican voters that preferred and still prefer George Bush to John McCain. John McCain was too smart and too independent. He didn't toe the party line and, as I said, stood for and against things (like, for example the agents of intolerance) [edit:]even if they were unpopular with the base[/edit]. I just don't know that a candidate like that will ever get through the Replubican primary process with the electorate the way it is now. There are too many people who want to have their culture war, too many pundits who rely on nastiness and name-calling.
John McCain would have continued Bill Clinton's style of working for consensus and intelligent moderate decision making. I don't think that was what a large chunk of the Republican base was looking for right then or now.
I am sure that the country and the world would have been much better off if John McCain had been elected in 2000, especially if he actually was what he appeared to be then.
He could have been great. I think he had the potential to be every bit as good as the fantasy version of George W Bush that OSC writes about.
posted
MrSquicky, I think you may be right about the country and the world being better off if Sen. McCain had won election in 2000. I contributed over $100 to his campaign then, and he remains the only political candidate to whose campaign I have ever contributed money.
My only qualm about supporting him this time around was his age--he is 71, and if elected, would be 72 when he takes office. But then he started taking around with him to various campaign stops his 95-year-old mother, who still seems to be clear-minded and able, and I think that maybe he has longevity in his genes, and may not be too old to be president.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky, I think you may be right about the country and the world being better off if Sen. McCain had won election in 2000.
I don't think that's all that much praise, though. "Would be a better president that George W Bush" easily describes somewhere between 15-20%* of the U.S. population.
To me, however, John McCain sold his integrity back in 2004 and he didn't get all that good of a price for it. That didn't stop him from selling it though. Of course, it seems like he has a much better chance this time. Isn't democracy grand?
---
* These numbers are totally not made up.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Pooka, what you said was:
quote:Gosh, I was just checking wiki and realized McCain is divorced. I can still support him as a leader, but I think it hurts his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage.
My point is why should that hurt his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage? He obeyed the law, he did not marry a man. Do you mean for us to believe that anyone who has ever been divorced, even if it were 30 years ago, is unfit to champion traditional marriage?
In political terms, this is a cheap shot. In religious terms, it is really obnoxious and contrary to the faith of any Christian denomination that also professes to believe in forgiveness.
I particularly find this offensive, because I was divorced about five years ago. It was not on my initiative. In fact, two weeks after the papers came back making our divorce official, my ex-wife went to Las Vegas and married the guy she had been seeing. But I chose not to be bitter about it, and have tried to make the best of things, and maintain as good as possible a relationship with my ex-wife, and even with her new husband. What would I gain by trying to make things worse for them?
But just because I have been divorced, does not mean I have any less credibility than anyone else to participate in the debate over the definition of marriage.
One of the talking points against gay marriage is that it lowers the value of traditional marriages. With the divorce rate as high as it is, it is hard to see how much value traditional marriage actually holds in the first place.
EDIT [removed last sentence of original post]: As other have people have pointed out, McCain seems to be at fault for his divorce.
quote:Do you mean for us to believe that anyone who has ever been divorced, even if it were 30 years ago, is unfit to champion traditional marriage?
Specifically, anyone who ditched his wife for a younger, hotter woman is unfit to champion marriage of any kind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even more specifically, someone who did the following might be considered unfit to champion traditional marriage values:
quote:During the time in Jacksonville, the McCains' marriage began to falter. McCain had extramarital affairs, and he would later say, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." His wife Carol would later echo those sentiments, saying "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."
His actions might be forgivable, but I think, given the particular reasons his marriage dissolved, he has to be very careful in what he says in order to not be a complete hypocrite.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So what happens in LA on Tuesday?
And turning from SC to FL, if Thompson were to drop out, to whom would his 7% go?
You mean what kind of election is LA and how does the delegate apportionment go?
I'm not sure if candidates are allowed to GIVE their delegates away to a certain person, but, I think when they drop out, they generally endorse someone and that person gets the majority of their delegates, but otherwise they're officially uncommitted I think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone else watching the South Carolina debate?
Holy crap, they are HAMMERING at each other. Compared to the last debate, where they might as well have been sipping tea for all the niceties there were, this is a boxing match. They're landing big punches.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Verbal blood. Hillary and Edwards are ganging up on Obama a bit, and he's clearly been flustered. I really don't think he's doing well on his feet here, and he made a REALLY bad answer to a credit card interest rate question, I didn't get it at all, and they jumped right on it. He's getting some damned good jabs in on Hillary though.
They all seem REALLY off balance by this kind of fighting. I have to say though, Hillary is looking the best of the bunch.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to give the delegates, just musing on who people's second choice would tend to be. I guess we won't have polls reflecting McCain's SC victory for a couple days.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just turned it on, and they're being nice now.
I thought he was caught off guard by the "Was Clinton the first Black president?" question. He was clearly having to think on his feet. And, in the end, I thought he did a very nice job answering the question.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Hillary is a little better than him at at off the cuff on the spot answers. But I think he blows her away at prepared speeches. He takes a little time to rev up with on the spot answers, which isn't bad, it's just as smooth as she is, but she has a LOT more practice at it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help hearing in his speech the fact that he had to overcome a pretty serious speech problem when he was young. He had, if I recall, a very severe stutter. I think that this still hampers him when he is speaking off the cuff.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN just rebroadcast the most contentious part, and I don't agree at all that Clinton came off the best. I think Obama acquitted himself quite well.
Could be my bias talking, but I don't think so.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I was flipping back and forth between the Pistons game and the debate, so I might have missed some parts.
I think you can still hear his stutter a bit, but to me it sounds less like a speech impediment and more like he's just taking a moment to gather his thoughts but doesn't much want to stay silent (unless that's all the speech impediment is). Nothing wrong with that at all.
I think he acquitted himself well too. I just think she came off a little bit smoother. She might do the "uh" thing more, but his stutter his noticeable. Might be six of one half dozen of the other though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, except Bloomberg has a theoretical chance of actually winning. It all depends on who actually wins the nominations.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just an explanation of changes. I'd read on Wikipedia that Lousiana would be holding their caucus tomorrow, but apparently they are on February 8th. On the flipside, apparently Maine is holding theirs on February 1st for the Republicans. Either way, no more Republican contests until Florida, so all eyes on South Carolina for the Democrats
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate Edwards' conviction and heart, displayed in last night's debate. He talks about ending poverty the way I'd like the candidates to talk about education, character, and criminal justice.
In general, I'd rather live in a country of people with lower individual net worth but fantastic communal ties and public sensibilities. My nightmare situation is to live in a country whose national goal is to create rich, property-holding, college graduates with colonial sensibilities.
posted
In that year, it was enough to tip the election.
Just this morning I was recalling someone's comment that Nader cost Gore the election, and Nader said something like "possibly but it's certain he cost me the election."
Though really, any of the minor parties that year drew numbers larger than the split between Bush and Gore. Final Certified vote countPosts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crap, I just learned that Maryland's primary is closed and my husband can't change from unaffiliated to Republican because party changes are excluded for 12 weeks before the election. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the debate, Clinton said that if McCain were the Republican nominee, the main election issues would be the War and National Defense, and hers would be the best campaign on those issues. I thought to myself, "You are running for one of the most important offices in the world, if you don't like your opponent's central issues, you make him speak to yours." That's what I appreciate about Edwards.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is her position on National Defense, and how does she think she can look better than McCain in that area? Is she going to taunt him for not making Admiral or something?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish there were a good way for Senator Obama to point out that, while Senator Clinton is a tough, smart, fierce fighter, sometimes fighting is not the way to accomplish things.
I was a fan of President Clinton, but there were a lot of things that didn't get done because of the fighting. Including healthcare reform. She and the president lost that battle. The things that did get done were compromises.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she was referring to her foreign policy experience. She wasn't in a POW camp or anything, but she strikes me as just as corrupt/savvy as any of the rest, and maybe more so than Obama and Edwards. I'm not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
