Posted on 08/09/2008 7:29:47 AM PDT by Will88
"Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee who has endorsed John McCain, is being vetted as a potential running mate for the Republican presidential hopeful, according to an adviser to Mr McCain’s campaign."
"Conservatives would be pissed as hell – I think you would have a revolt, but sometimes John does what John wants to do,” the McCain adviser said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
So what?
What evidence do you have that someone other than the Republican or the Rat nominee will win?
Go Ravens!
The same evidence that anyone without a time machine has. Zero.
You seem to be assuming that a majority (or even plurality) of the electorate will somehow give some supposed 'distance' from "partisan politics" some kind of priority when casting their ballots. Most Democrats won't; they'll vote for the Democrat nominee. Most Republicans won't; and a significant percentage will be offended, and some may even stay home (as they have before). Independents? Maybe someone can tell me when we last elected a President on the strength of the "independent" vote, when the candidate's own base stayed home. The best issue we have with "independents" is drilling, and if McCaine let's the 'Gang of Ten' nullify the issue, that won't matter.
I would rather swallow McCain's koolade, than Barack's and Micelle's koolade.
Personally, I'm not a koolaide drinker...
;>)
Your Paula Abdul quality analogy fell to pieces.
No actually, responding to an analogy by claiming it is not a fit descriptor is the first resort, not the last.
Doesn't matter that American Idol is all you said.
No actually, it does. I did "deal with the analogy" by pointing out that you are right, that it is nothing more than a circus that we don't have to honor.
Beyond that, of course, it's flawed, because you don't pick the winner. If we were all David Hasselhoff and Paula Abdul then you'd have a point. If that were the case, each of them could still damn well pick someone who hadn't qualified. Not a damn thing stopping them.
Your analogy would be more apt if you stated, "Well, I like this other show better, but nobody watches it, so I guess I'm just forced to watch Idol."
but that does nothing to take away from the fact that it's pretty stupid to sit in the stands and cheer for a team to win that is NOT EVEN PLAYING IN THE GAME.
And what if the team were actually in the game but just had a smaller but still non-zero chance of winning like, oh, a third-party candidate?
Nobody, least of all me, is trying to tell you how to think.
But you are happy to let other people tell you. Is John McCain your first choice?
>>There is no reason that it is any less possible for anyone to win this election.
>Yes, there is. It's called reality.
Then your reality is apparently different from mine, since in mine "difficult" and "impossible" are not synonyms.
You are right back where you felt prompted to post to me in the first place: cheering for the Ravens, so to speak, in a Super Bowl between the Giants and the Patriots.
And you're right back to me showing you the flaw in your analogy. If everyone in your hypothetical Super Bowl cheered for the Ravens, they would still not win. If everyone in November voted for Ross Perot, he would win. You seem incapable of understanding this critical distinction.
I'm not a slave because I realize and accept the reality that in a Super Bowl between the Giants and the Patriots, either the Giants or the Patriots are going to win.
No, but you're a slave if you think you have as much control over the outcome of a game as nothing more than a fan as you do as a voter fully exercising his rights in an election.
For my part, I would say that the "moment you decide that REALITY---the hand you've been dealt---is too hard," and therefore you decide to nurture fantasies such as someone other than the Republican or Rat nominee will win the presidential election in 2008, that's when you've got a problem.
My "problem" then, as you seem to agree with, is nothing more than the realization that my reality is what I make it to be, not what some higher powers beside God "deal" me. And God didn't create the GOP.
And I agree: in this world, feeling this way is something of a problem. But the power to change your own world... that is reality. And you're the one running from it because it's too difficult to consider.
It’s the faith I still have in the American people.
I imagine what it’s like to be in a high profile RAT internet forum...being a Hillary Clinton supporter and watching this FRAUD Barack Obama end up the Nominee of their party.
There has to be much fighting...just like we have fought in here since The Bugzapper Thread back in April, 2007.
They must have members who LOVE our country and aren’t like the ‘wacky LEFT’....just like we have Conservatives who refuse to align themselves with the ‘wacky RIGHT’.
Along comes a candidate whose resume is chock full of sponsoring legislation which pissed off many in ‘HIS’ party...but who exudes strong love for our country.
I refuse to allow my cynicism....crafted over 62 years...to think there aren’t MILLIONS of registered democrats that would pull the lever for John McCain...rather that allow the Obamas to lead this country into Marxist Socialism and possibly civil war.
To me the choice is no different than asking somebody if they would rather have a vanilla ice-cream cone with chocolate sprinkles...or be thrown into a vat of boiling oil.
Yes, you go ahead and make your reality as to who can and will be elected President of the United States in 2008 whatever it is you want it to be.
Don't let any facts about the process or history get in the way.
Two emotionally charged issues that I did not follow closely enough to be able to discuss intelligently. I will say that I found the photos of Janet Reno's thugs in full battle gear rather terrifying, especially following events like Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Their [SoCons] stance on Comprehensive Immigration Reform sealed the deal for me, when they clung once again to the "Rule of Law".
It is not just SoCons calling for our laws to be enforced. You seem to attribute this to the same people calling for intervention in the Shiavo matter. My guess is those rallying for "life" (as in Terri's) are ordinarily more in tune with your position (and McCain's) on illegal immigration--you know, taking care of "God's children" and acting "humanely." (That term "humanely," as used by McCain, is really, really insulting. No one is suggesting that anyone be treated "inhumanely" no matter how much the Aztlan folks want to paint immigration enforcement as inhumane on its face.)
It was Huckabee's willingness to take SoCon positions to an extreme, by promoting big government solutions, that pushed him off my list. McCain is the same in wanting big-government solutions, he just doesn't package it with a SoCon label. His "save the planet" mantra, his assault on big tobacco, his fierce opposition to and call for regulation of Ultimate Fighting, his desire to intervene in professional sports on the steroid matter, and others, are all big government SoCon type positions that should have little place in Government, IMO.
You so aptly defined yourself as "hopelessly liberal" on immigration. McCain's immigration policies are just that--LIBERAL. Funny that you would consider that liberalism to define "perfection." ;-)
Once again...not all social conservatives fall into this category. But too many nonetheless. Enough to scare the hell out of the average voter.
Oh, puhleeze. You're reiterating the leftwing media spin that SoCons are a bunch of abortion clinic bombers. Get out and meet some more of 'em--you might learn sumthin'... or even like them! ;-)
It makes sense when there are no good positive choices to make. I don't begrduge the 'hold your nose' types that will vote for McCain. I just vehemently disagree with those who assert there will something positive coming out of his presidency and with those who refuse to acknowledge that a liberal Republican president who joins with the Left in advancing their policies (the Schwarzenegger model) could indeed be worse than a Democrat alternative who will meet fierce, unified opposition from the Right.
BUMP!
I think Lieberman is an honorable man--I don't agree with him on much but I think he is one of the most honest men in the senate.
No he hasn't. He has just aligned himself with the opposite party in advancing their agenda.
Thank you. Like these men, I have no intentions of it.
Just rather a shame that their spirit is so foreign to a forum like this that should be the among the first to understand it.
Just so you know (I assume you're a young person), the "wacky LEFT" is a lot more numerous & a lot more violent than the "wacky RIGHT." I might agree with you, apart from that apparently idiotic assumption.
Bottom line: so what?
Along comes a candidate whose resume is chock full of sponsoring legislation which pissed off many in ‘HIS’ party...but who exudes strong love for our country.
Who's that? Barry Goldwater (may he rest in peace!)? Paul Tsongas (may he rest in peace!)? By the way: did either one of them win the presidency?
Hmmm?
I refuse to allow my cynicism....crafted over 62 years...to think there aren’t MILLIONS of registered democrats that would pull the lever for John McCain...
Sorry, compadre, but you just 'jumped the shark.' Registered Dems? Maybe a few million, nation-wide. It will never be meaningful. REAL DEMS? Forget it! I KNOW Dems who will check off on the Republican side of issues, 9 out of 10 times, during an 'issues poll,' and STILL vote Democrat, even when you PROVE to them that the Democrat party is working AGAINST their priority interests. One of them is a petroleum engineer - and voting for the Dems means the literal destruction of his livelihood. Does he do it, every GD election? You betcha!
McCaine can play 'middle-of-the-road' all he wants, and all it will get him is a one-night-stand with the liberal media - and his "Edward's love child" will be a forgotten foot note in the history books.
Rather than allow the Obamas to lead this country into Marxist Socialism and possibly civil war.
We were not granted the last 'civil war' (Heaven help us!) by the extremists. It was a gift of the compromisers. If the basic, fundamental issues had been addressed early on, the war would never have occurred.
To me the choice is no different than asking somebody if they would rather have a vanilla ice-cream cone with chocolate sprinkles...or be thrown into a vat of boiling oil.
Thank you for your opinion. I do not view a completely compromised, McCaine-Lieberman (darkness & light - but it's COMPLETE GRAY SCALE - please do not assume anything from the wording) presidential ticket as a 'dessert item.' You're welcome to your opinion - it's (at least currently) a 'free republic.'
I think you just scored at least a TKO.
(Sorry if that came off as way too combative - not my intention, you’re not a bad person. But I WILL NOT vote for a Democrat, on any ticket. I know the history - I know the reasons why. If there’s a Democrat on a supposedly Republican presidential ticket - well, guess what, sports? That makes it a Democrat ticket...)
Thanks! Let’s just not go there again...
Well, I'velearned to like you. Guess, that's a start.
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.