Posted on 03/13/2006 9:38:25 AM PST by presidio9
The political landscape may be shifting in ways that would make it easier for Sen. John McCain of Arizona to win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. He's among several potential candidates courting Southern and Midwest Republicans this weekend in Memphis, Tenn., in the first chance that party insiders have had to look at several would-be nominees in one place. Conventional wisdom — that McCain could win the general election but not the Republican nomination because conservatives oppose him — may be changing. A convergence of three new forces could be reshaping the landscape just as Republicans begin deciding who will lead their party: • First is a rising contempt in the heartland for politics as usual in Washington, D.C. That could help the maverick senator, who frequently reaches across party lines. • Second, many economic conservatives are shifting their emphasis from tax reductions to spending cuts, a McCain strength. • Third, charges of corruption against Republicans in Congress could cost the party seats next fall and add luster to McCain's carefully groomed image as a reformer. The most significant change in Republican politics, of course, is the decline of President Bush's standing in the opinion polls. Not only does that help explain the growing willingness of congressional Republicans to defy the president on some questions, it also underscores why McCain — often Bush's nemesis — may benefit from the president's shifting fortunes. McCain can play both sides of this phenomenon.
-snip-
Some conservatives also take issue with McCain's role in a bipartisan "Gang of 14" senators who let Democrats retain the power to filibuster judicial nominees, even though they facilitated Senate approval of several nominees who previously had been blocked, and his proposed restrictions on lobbying.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
"Vile" is a good word for McCain.
There is such a drastic falloff from the principled candidate to the "can win" alternative most of the time, I cannot support the 'winner'.
We agree in principle, but not on strategy. Thanks for the civil disagreement.
I guess that would be '3rd' after the 8 who tied for first.
Either way, I don't know a lot about him because I haven't looked that closely. The thing that got my attention -- and my dander up -- was his going back on a committment to oppose some hate crime law. Thought crime laws really bother me and I don't think that Allen has a deep understanding of liberty if he wants to punish people based on thoughts. Punish the criminal for the crime, not the motive, especially one that must (or may) be devined. Isn't all crime based on hate for -- or disregard -- for the victim?
Right now my list is 1. Allen 2. Romney 3. Any other Republican 4. Mccain and I'm only kidding about the first two.
Dream candidates at this early date: Mark Sanford and Mike Pence. Either or both in any order.
It won't be pretty, and McCain won't get the nomination.
The "Republican Wing" could deny him the nomination, rather. McKook will embarass himself again and again by his impulsive and irrational behavior. Just sit back and enjoy the show.
Actually its not 3rd its more like 5th or 6th, some of those guys had a 100 rating, but their overall ACU rating was lower than ALlen's.
As for that hate crimes legislation, to be honest it looks kind of strange that he voted for it but he has always been consistnetly opposed to it and it was a part of some larger bill. For a while Allen's cheif of staff(i think or some high up position) was gay and i think he didnt tell him the truth behidn that legislation because after allen found out that he had voted in favor of 'hate crimes', he issued a statement saying it was a mistake. Of course he didnt include the stuff about his gay staffer but thats just my deduction.
Gay staffer sees oh hate crimes against me, why not? Tricks his boss into voting for it and the boss doesnt think much about it. You'd be surprised how many congressional staffers don't tell their bosses the whole truth when it comes to bills(congressmen/senators can't realistically be up to date on all of them). If you want egregious, read coburn's book. IT talks about how some approprations commitee staffers insert pork into some bills.
if thers a crowded field mccain could sneak by. His advisors admit this openly. If two conservatives are splitting the republican primary voters vote, while rinos stay true to their man, MCcain is very likely to slip by.
I fear who evers in third, will be so stubborn he wont drop out causing the 2nd place not to get the traction he needs to beat Mccain.
Right now, any of them. They are all bad news.
The problem with the "sending a message" strategy is that we all have short attention spans. Was the election of Clinton, "sending a message"? Perhaps but I'm not sure anyone got that message but I supppose it could be argued that the Contract With America wins were a result of getting the message. I'm not sure I buy that, I think the message was the "Contract With America" and disatisfaction with Congress not disatisfaction with GW Bush a few years previous but I'm sure some will argue otherwise.
I believe you on how bad it is. It's time to clean house from top to bottom. If you ever had a job in government, you're disqualified. It doesn't take years of experience to do the jobs that are constitutionally mandated. It takes time to learn how to play the games that screw us all.
I hope so, but you have to remember alot of these guys(and i know we like them) do have egos. Like rush always says, if you want to be president you've got to have an ego that says the country can't function without you. Do you really think if they thought they were close to the presidency they would give up?
What party have you been watching? It has never been ideologically unified in my lifetime or even during the day of Lincoln. It was other Republicans who gave him the most grief.
Giuliani and McCain would split votes too, but Giuliani would probably not run unless he was sure to win.
I've been worried about DemoRats who vote in GOP primaries, but I don't really know if that is a realistic concern. Like, how many GOP primaries have open voting and how many require that the voter supported the GOP Presidential candidate in the last election? And do they check?
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.