RE: McCain takes Florida

Mac will probably tap Huckabee, because he needs the evangelical creds. They also get along very well.

By the way, how is McCain a defacto Democrat?

Because he doesn't think it's feasible to deport millions of Americans who are already integral parts of our economy? He's pretty close to Bush in this regard. (I actually think that Bush's pathway to citizenship is the smartest thing he ever proposed--too bad his presidency was already over.)

Or is it because he voted against the Bush tax cuts? He opposed the tax cuts because he felt that they should be accompanied by spending cuts. This makes him one of the most fiscally conservative members of congress.

Is it because he opposes torturing detainees? That doesn't make him a Democrat, just a human being with a conscience.

Historian wrote:

Where are all you Ron Paul freaks these days? Too bad you people only wear his buttons instead of pushing the button for your boy. He's as relevant as Kucinich.

He may not be, but his ideas are.

i dont think mccain can win the presidency. he is not a conservative and i think many conservatives will simply sit out the election if he is the nominee.

i really dont see much difference b/t mccain and clinton/obama on most issues (other than iraq). none of them take strong stances on securing the border, they oppose tax cuts, they are all big govt big spenders. mccain is not a social conservative and is not pro life. whichever of them gets elected will be this decades jimmy carter. i would just as well have that person be a democrat.

carter helped give us reagan and if we have to suffer through a mccain/clinton/obama period to get the next one, then that will be the price.

i wont vote for mccain if he is the nominee. i wont vote for clinton/obama either.

i think rudy dropping out helps mccain, but in the end the only way he gets elected is if he runs against clinton and conservatives come out in big numbers to cast an anti-hillary vote.

it is hard to win anything though if people are simply coming out to vote against something, people want to vote FOR something.

800 dude wrote:

Mac will probably tap Huckabee, because he needs the evangelical creds. They also get along very well.

By the way, how is McCain a defacto Democrat?

Because he doesn't think it's feasible to deport millions of Americans who are already integral parts of our economy? He's pretty close to Bush in this regard. (I actually think that Bush's pathway to citizenship is the smartest thing he ever proposed--too bad his presidency was already over.)

Or is it because he voted against the Bush tax cuts? He opposed the tax cuts because he felt that they should be accompanied by spending cuts. This makes him one of the most fiscally conservative members of congress.

Is it because he opposes torturing detainees? That doesn't make him a Democrat, just a human being with a conscience.

First of all, I'm not saying being a Democrat is a bad thing, BUT, I am certainly opposed to a Democratic philosophy occupying BOTH the Congress and the White House. The pendulum swung way too far to the right, and now it's going to swing way too far back to the left. Balance is what matters and is what's lost on most voters. Secondly, you asked what makes McCain a Democrat (which, obviously I was labelling him as in jest) and then you go and list a bunch of stances that are allied with the Democrats.

And it's funny how we always try to play the compassion card isn't it? Frankly, I think Republican tax-cutting policy is MORE compassionate, because it ultimately brings MORE revenue into the government coffers for social programs, it creates MORE jobs, and it attracts MORE repatriation of American capital hiding overseas for investment in America.

As for immigration, you've got no argument from me that we shouldn't up and willy-nilly deport a vital part of our economy. BUT, I sure as hell want to authenticate these people, get a much better handle on the border so that nothing else besides illegals are slipping in, put more pressure on the Mexican government to actually DO something besides collect funds sent home from America by Mexican citizens, and punish corporations in violation of American labor laws.

As for less spending, again, you've got no beef from me that less spending and holding the government accountable for achieving the same productivity-enhancing standards as the private sector are good things, BUT, tax cuts are important no matter what we do with spending. Pay go is ridiculous. Dynamic, not static, scoring is what matters, but this is lost on the vast majority of economically-illiterate Americans.

Torture? Well, I don't know what to say. I'm not a fan, but if it helps save lives in the long run, well, then, what's more compassionate???

The funny thing is, the epicenter of McCain's campaign seems to be largely his stance on Iraq, which is puzzling, because it is in direct oppostion to the Democrats on one of the most divisive issues over the last five years. But the NY Times gave McCain the stigma with that endorsement.

You are quite correct.

I'm a Paul guy and, frankly, I'm pleased he isn't wasting his time/money in a winner-take-all state like Florida. And just seeing him outlast Rudy brings a smile to my face (I truly believe Rudy was the worst candidate in the race). People bitch and call Paul supporters annoying when they call for his message to be heard. But when we are silent, people ask where the Paul supporters are. You can tell me that my vote doesn't count but that's fine by me because I won't be to blame when McCain or Hillary takes control with complete support of a corrupt Congress.

This Ron Paul supporter is sending in his absentee ballot, finishing his degree, and applying with firms that have independent international offices (as a precaution). And anytime someone stops me and asks about my Ron Paul shirt, I answer any questions that they have with honesty and discretion. Don't get me wrong, ideally I care about personal freedoms and low taxes and reigning in the federal gov't -- but my foremost concern is federal spending. It's out of control. There is no money to fund the boomers when they retire. There is no money (currently) for universal health care. There is no money for open-ended military operations. There is no money for safety gear for the troops. There is money for bridges in Alaska, foreign aid to the nations that were dancing in the streets on 9/11, and new camouflage uniforms for our military who wants to be seen doing provincial reconstruction. There is a tax code that doesn't collect from businesses, collects too much from individuals, not enough from illegals, and promotes the export of our industry. Our debt is out of control as a nation and even as individuals we aren't taking care of our finances. Maybe America will stay propped up even with these spending habits. Maybe we are so powerful that we don't have to acknowledge our debts. Maybe we can continue in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere without a draft. Maybe this talk of China holds all our debt and they need us to buy their exports on Sean Hannity really will work and everything will be alright. Maybe the powers that Bush has claimed as head of the executive branch will be cleared up and not abused by the next administration. Maybe the US has a direction to go other than down. I hope it all does. I've not heard the other candidates address any of these issues, but I hope they have a plan for them.

I'm saying we're going to crash and burn. I'm not saying we're all going to starve. I'm not saying "the terrorists win." I'm not panicking. I just don't see any other candidate addressing my concerns and I simply don't think any of them have worn nice enough ties to get my vote as of yet. So this Ron Paul supporter is proceeding with caution (as many American's should have been doing for decades).

it is better to have zero foreign policy experience than to sing Bomb Iran for fun.

I specifically chose issues on which he is not aligned with the party majority. I was trying to show that failure to toe the line doesn't mean that he's not still a Republican. The core of his domestic policy is still small government. The core of his foreign policy is that he's never wavered in his support of the war.

It's kind of amazing to me that he's able to do so well with independents and democrats, considering his Iraq record. I think that he's really been able to get some traction with his message that the real problem was HOW the war was conducted. Basically, there are two reasons that there was/is insurgency and civil war:

1. Abu Ghraib provided all the recruiting material that was necessary. McCain's stance on torture MAY have prevented this. I'm not saying that the Commander-in-Chief is directly involved in this kind of thing, but he does set the tone for the entire military. Furthermore, McCain understand how Muslim psychology leads to such behavior. They have a deep sense of shame over the fact that practitioners of an inferior religion are able to dominate them militarily and economically. If you understand this, then it's easier to avoid stoking the flames.

2. The focus of the occupying forces was to locate WMDs, rather than to secure the country and establish order. Does anybody remember the photos of the day that Baghdad fell? It was probably the happiest day in Iraq in decades. Instead of capitalizing on that positive energy, the military essentially ignored the people and let the country fall apart. Disbanding the Iraqi army (when they were ready to help build a new country) also led to greater chaos, especially as many of those troops became insurgents. McCain was talking about this from the beginning.

So McCain was on the right side of the fence on those two issues, which I think allow him to escape a lot of the anger that is directed at Bush. Remember that the war was overwhelmingly popular at first. For better or (probably) for worse, most Americans get excited about war, as long as we're successful. McCain offers moderate voters an alternative narrative about the war: you weren't wrong for supporting the war, Bush was wrong for screwing it up. This narrative is appealing.

Finally, McCain has earned a lot of credibility because of how successful the surge has been. He backed it even when it didn't look promising.

Now he find himself in a position as the only candidate who doesn't have to backtrack or admit any mistakes on the biggest boondoggle of the past decade. Ironically, Iraq is causing lots of problems for Hilary, because she voted for it. Either she apologizes and says she's wrong, or she takes the McCain stance (which she won't be able to do as well as the man himself, and she'll also risk alienating the far left).

Ron Paul supporter here, too. It should come as no suprise that Paul didn't do well in Florida. But he outlasted Guiliani, and now there are four candidates left. Paul isn't going away until his supporters lose faith in him. And that's not going to happen any time soon.

Ron Paul 2008.

Didn't McCain and his family used to live in Florida. And I think some of them still do. This sort of cancels out Romney's win in Michigan, where his father was Governor years ago.

This thing isn't over just yet. A big day for McCain for sure, but a decent showing on Super Tuesday by Romney could turn the whole thing around yet again.

I rate Romney's understanding of econonics, business, international markets, etc. a higher asset than anything McCain brings to the table. McCain's military experience is certainly helpful. But if Americans truley want change like they say they do, Romney is clearly the least "status quo" of these two.

I also agree.

Horace Clarke wrote:

Victory for the indefinite war in Iraq.

Whatever it costs the USA and however long.

McCain can beat Hillary, Obama and McCain will be a toss up.

_______________________________

odds are, you will see this. McCain will prevail, because Hillary stepped on too many toes, and insulted too many people.

I though you "McCain is too liberal" idiots would shut up after he won a closed election in Florida, but I was wrong. McCain may be more moderate than the other top conservative candidates, but if you think that any of them have a chance in the general election (even against Hilary) then you're worng.

McCain is pro-life, he has supported the repeal of Roe v Wade for many years.

You also might want to take a look at some of Mitt Romneys records as governor of Mass. before you criticize McCain because he cares about the environment and understands that we cant round up all the illegal immigrants and throw them back into Mexico.

800 dude wrote:

By the way, how is McCain a defacto Democrat?

Because he doesn't think it's feasible to deport millions of Americans who are already integral parts of our economy?

Nobody has ever talked about deporting "millions of Americans". As a matter of fact, no one has mentioned deporting even one American. I am in favor of deporting millions of lawbreaking illegals. Don't give me this crap that it's not "feasible". How do we know that, we've never even tried!

I was raped every day wrote:

I was raped every day too when I was in prison so I have sympathy for McCain and all U.S. POWs.

You were probably asking for it! Be honest.

Another Poster wrote:

Sagarin wrote:

You are quite correct.

I also agree.

I concur.

You did a pretty good job here covering the major points, with which I agree, but, the Democratic Party, save for one ex-pat Joe Lieberman, still wanted and continue to call for a "timetable." In this regard, McCain is still on the wrong side of the fence. I do admire his character, but I also find it curious that so many Arizonans do not like the guy.

By the way, this is what I have been eluding to all along. The fiscal crisis is going to get so deep and likely exacerbated by a Democrat policy stance that ultimately, whether it's in four years or eight years, Newt Gingrich will be be POTUS. He retrecnhed and is strategically biding his time. And while I do not like the man's character one bit, I'd still rather have a TRUE fiscal conservative who has implemented necessary and draconian legislation in the face of strong opposition at the head of the government. So, in that regard, as an independent, I may still vote to the left this time to bring that scenario home to bear.

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't think that the support for a timetable was overwhelming. Everyone, myself included, loves to rail about what a mess the war is, but if it's a question of leaving total chaos behind us, my understanding was that most people were in favor of staying.

"Timetable" seems like a word that Democrats have cooked up so that they can differentiate themselves from Republicans about the war. They're in kind of a tough spot, because approval ratings reflect anger with past policies, but I believe that people will vote based on proposed policies.

Regarding the economic vs. foreign policy experience:

I'd pick foreign policy from my President. I think that's where it's important that the ability, character, and vision are concentrated in one leader. Economic policy can be written by a top notch team. I also am not convinced that Romney would be such a strong economic leader as he claims. He may be able to bring his business experience to bear in the management of the executive branch, but that doesn't mean that he understand macroeconomic policy (few politicians do--it's incredibly complicated in the 21st century).