Posted on 05/30/2005 10:28:41 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Having helped broker the Great Senate Compromise last week, Sen. John McCain is back in the media limelight, winning the usual accolades for bucking his party. But the deal by 14 "moderates" doesn't just preserve the judicial filibuster and allow confirmation of a few of President Bush's "extremist" nominees. It also reveals that the myth the McCainiacs hoped would propel their man into the Oval Office in 2000 still endures, despite evidence of successive elections to the contrary.
The myth is simply that the only way to win elections is to draw voters from the other party by bucking a few of your own party's principles. Call it "maverick moderatism," but this belief has been the foundation for Mr. McCain's strategy for achieving national office and has given us great ideas like the recent iteration of campaign finance reform, opposition to some tax cuts and dogged attacks by Mr. McCain on some military expenditures. It's also the foundation of many pundits' advice to the president that he pick more "moderate" judges, give up on using payroll taxes to create private Social Security accounts, and trim his sails on fighting terrorism by spreading freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I always vote. Even given the wretched choice between McCain and Hitlery, I'd still vote: Libertarian (or possibly Constitutional).
If it does come down to a competition between these two twits, I think we'll see a record number of Libertarian votes.
As a corrolary to my earlier post, I think the only opponent that could give Hitlery a chance of winning is McCain.
Personally, I don't fear a Hitlery presidency nearly as much as a lot of people here do. With the Klintons out of office for eight years, a lot more of their shenanigans are coming to light. Big Media no longer has its monopoly. I seriously think Hiltery will be "SwiftBoatVetted" (from many different directions) long before she gets withing sight of the Oval Office. Kerry will have gotten off easy by comparison.
A lot also depends on who Hitlery might choose as her running mate. Even if (God forbid) Hitlery wins, I personally don't highly rate her chances of surviving more than two weeks as president. Regardless of what the polls say (and the polls always say what Big Media wants them to say), I can't think of a possible presidential candidate as seriously hated as Hitlery (except possible Boxer or FineSwine).
Not that I am or would be personally planning or intending anything (for all you secret service personell now joining this thread). I am merely speaking from an actuarial position. I strongly suspect there are quite a number of less than level headed Hitlery haters out there who are or would be planning something.
What does that (one of the minimum 11 or so states to elect) mean? You define a state with 12 electoral votes as large or important?
In 1976, there were 12 states with more than 12 electoral votes and three with 12, i.e., GA, VA, and Missouri.
There are a varying number of states that would elect a president if all of them voted for the same candidate regardless of who what the rest of the country does. In the last election that number was 11 and the states were CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, and NJ. They total 271 electoral votes.
It turns out I was wrong about GA in 76. One of the two states with 13 Electoral Votes was in the minimum that elect. The 3 with 12 were not. Still a state that is that close, 1 EV away from the minimum that can elect is not a small state.
BTW, if my quick calculation is correct, the minimum number of states in 1976 was 12. By my count 35 states and DC had fewer EVs than GA in 76 and only 13 had more EVs than GA. That is not a small state in my electoral calculations.
I just checked AZ currently and based on another quick count AZ has 17 states that have more EV than it, three with the same number of EVs and 30 with fewer EVs. So I guess you could argue that I am saying AZ is smaller than it really is. That is a matter of opinion. What we can says is that GA was more important in EV terms in 1976 than 35 other states, while today AZ is more important in EV terms than 30 other states.
Georgia was not a pretty big state electorally in 1976. The cut off of 12 electroral votes is pretty arbitrary in any event. States with 10 or 11 would be roughly the same as those with 12 13, or 14. Georgia was a second tier state with 12 EVs, along with Missouri and VA. States with 10 included LA, MD, Minn, and Tenn. Wisconsin had a 11. North Carolina and Indiana had 13. Mass had 14.
I consider "pretty big" to in at least the top ten.
I don't really care what you consider. I don't think I asked you.
GA at 12 EVs compared to MA at 16 EVs in the two elections is some difference. If you don't want to consider GA an big or an important or any thing else, that is your business.
One could argue that it takes a Southerner to win as Dim. One could argue that Dim successful nominees seem to come from moderate sized states although AR at 6 is pretty small.
None of that changes the fact that recent successful GOP nominees come from large states like CA, CA, Tx and Tx. That is not in my mind AZ.
Care to elaborate?
I agree. I would rather see a DemocRAT in office that John McCain.
None of that changes the fact that recent successful GOP nominees come from large states like CA, CA, Tx and Tx. That is not in my mind AZ.
Trying to devine some sort of pattern using a relatively short period of time is meaningless. FDR was elected to four terms so I guess you could draw the conclusion in 1944 that the Dems win if they have a polio victim from NY.
Hillary Clinton will more than likely be the Dem candidate and she is from NY. If George Allen, McCain, or Hagel is the GOP nominee, who wins using your analysis? In politics, the exception is more often the rule.
Hillary Clinton will more than likely be the Dem candidate and she is from NY. If George Allen, McCain, or Hagel is the GOP nominee, who wins using your analysis? In politics, the exception is more often the rule.
__________________________________________________
Well the more than likely Dim candidate a year or so out has a long history of not being the eventual candidate. So I am not going to worry about any Dim until they are nominated.
As for your list of potential GOP nominees from the Senate, Allen is an interesting situation since he has been both a governor and a Senator. As I posed this question on another thread, do governors become president because the public likes administrative experience or do senators always lose because they have long list of votes and compromises to use against them? If it is the latter, Allen may not be a great candidate. If it is the former, then being an ex-governor of VA makes him a good candidate. As for McCain and Hagel, neither will approach getting the nomination no matter how much the media loves them.
I don't really have a comment, other than I really, really, really like the title.
He's nasty, bad tempered, and vindictive.
He was censured by the ethics committee as one of the "Keating Five" for his crooked involvement in trying to fix banking regulations and investigations into S&L's.
He rides around on corpoate donors private jets and takes vacations at dors expense while decrying the corruption of money in politics.
He is a close friend of disgraced, crooked, ex-Governor Symington who is a thief and a con artist.
He tried to secretly strong-arm the FAA into dropping it's objection to his friend, Bill Bidwell's crooked proposal for a stadium at the end of an airport runway in Phoenix.
He is the co-author of the biggest assuault on the constitution in twenty years (McCain Feingold)
He undermines Republican goals and Bush's power at every opportunity he gets.
He goes out of town when Bush visits the state.
He's a close friend of Tom Daschle who he invites to his ranch up near Prescott.
He denounced the Swiftboat Vets as liars without ever reading their book.
Heard enough??
McCain is a man of principle in the mold of one of our greatest conservatives, Barry Goldwater. This is why he probably won't get past the partisan hacks in the primary.
I could never support a Republican that the media liked. McCain is an evil piece of work, no wonder he is a media darling.
You owe Dean an apology!
The Base will do everything it can to defeat Senator InSane.
Pray for W and Our Troops
the nightmare scenario for 2008:
Dean vs. McCain, under the original rules for electing POTUS and VeeP (the loser becomes VeeP)
How about a McCain/Dean 2008 ticket? YeeHaaaaaaaa
I thought the nightmare scenario was Clinton/Dean...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.