> daveparks wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 5:50 pm, Mickey <mickey_and_ed...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> daveparks wrote:
> >>> On Feb 5, 4:18 pm, Mickey <mickey_and_ed...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> daveparks wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 5, 3:45 pm, Mickey <mickey_and_ed...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> daveparks wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 5, 1:27 pm, Mickey <mickey_and_ed...@sbcnomorephishglobal.net>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> daveparks wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 12:54 pm, "Cure_Ewan" <karrde_smuggl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Aaron" <aaron...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:270747f5-f09c-4dcb-8152-d74cab678b9d@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22943524
> >>>>>>>>>>> Article about how many Republicans are coming to accept that it's
> >>>>>>>>>>> McCain or a Democrat in 2008, and becoming less critical of him over
> >>>>>>>>>>> time. It also features a counter to Rush's statement that McCain would
> >>>>>>>>>>> destroy the Republican Party that I enjoyed, though it was just a
> >>>>>>>>>>> short comeback.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I especially hope that TC reads this and finds a way to accept this
> >>>>>>>>>>> reality with more grace than he has in the past.
> >>>>>>>>>> Those who know where I stand politically may be shocked to hear this, but I
> >>>>>>>>>> would never, ever, ever vote for McCain. I would throw my vote to the
> >>>>>>>>>> Libertarian candidate and hand the election over to Obama or Clinton. The
> >>>>>>>>>> way I see it, McCain is a carbon copy of either of the Democratic
> >>>>>>>>>> candidates. When the country goes down in flames over the next five years
> >>>>>>>>>> as it undoubtedly will under McClintbama, I know who I want to get the
> >>>>>>>>>> blame.
> >>>>>>>>> I'm guessing there are going to be a lot of "Let's Have Some Drinks &
> >>>>>>>>> *Not* Vote for McCain" parties come election day. No, really.
> >>>>>>>> My advice. Keep your powder dry. Once the internecine warfare is over
> >>>>>>>> and more realistic comparisons are made of Whoever and Whatever, some
> >>>>>>>> folk might want to rethink their commitments to go in the corner and sulk.
> >>>>>>>> The Other Mickey
> >>>>>>> I don't know Mickey - a LOT of the Pugs with whom I've spoken aren't
> >>>>>>> or haven't been all that thrilled with what Bush has (or hasn't) done
> >>>>>>> lately; what with the southern border, spending, not to mention the
> >>>>>>> Iraq mess - seems to me that many are just getting tired of holding
> >>>>>>> their noses.
> >>>>>> Hey, I'm not crazy about the Southern border situation, I'm not crazy
> >>>>>> about the budget bloat, and the Middle East was a problem before Bush
> >>>>>> and will be for the foreseeable future. None of this persuades me to
> >>>>>> ignore the other issues that are still in play.
> >>>>>> I just voted and, as has been too frequently the case, I voted against
> >>>>>> someone, i.e., voted the lesser evil. I will continue to do so as often
> >>>>>> as necessary, waiting for one of those rare occasions when I feel I am
> >>>>>> voting for someone. It is my civic duty. Think of it as providing a
> >>>>>> delaying action while the forces of civilization prepare for a counter
> >>>>>> attack.
> >>>>>> The Other Mickey
> >>>>> Good take, and one with which I pretty much agree - especially now
> >>>>> when we still have a choice; but as former Democrat, Ronald Reagan
> >>>>> stated, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me."
> >>>>> With all the "voting for the lesser of two evils" and "holding my nose
> >>>>> while I vote" comments I've been hearing, I can see the same thing
> >>>>> happening with Pug conservatives.
> >>>> They don't really have anywhere to run and it's doubtful that all that
> >>>> many will persist in their "my way or the highway" notions once the real
> >>>> choice is revealed. Pick your issue and the choice is really pretty
> >>>> clear. The thing that is pissing off the wingnuts is that the election
> >>>> this cycle is about the "middle," which is where it belongs.
> >>>> I heard some radio nut job today talk about traditional Republicans,
> >>>> when it was abundantly clear she was talking about the right wing of the
> >>>> party. Barry Goldwater would have had about as much use for them as he
> >>>> did for Al Gore.
> >>>> The Other Mickey
> >>> I see your point - and while we've seen McCain's idea of working
> >>> "with" the Dems to center the party, in what ways are the Dems doing
> >>> the same?
> >> Other than the gang of 14 participants, we haven't seen any.
>
> > Exactly - and it's been that way for decades, seemingly strengthened
> > duing the Clinton years; the whole "WE against the mean ol' Rich White
> > Uncaring Republicans" - it seems that the Dems idea of compromise is a
> > Pug agreeing with their position - with McCain doing exactly that.
>
> I don't think you're being quite fair to McCain. His voting record over
> all is on the conservative end of the spectrum. In a twenty five year
> Congressional career, his opponents point to only 3 pieces of
> legislation he sponsored that the right wing of the party finds
> troublesome, one of which he has repudiated. As for the fiscal
> questions, he is conservative, but more inclined to be a deficit hawk
> than a tax cutter. To some degree, he is right. Tax cutting without
> spending restraint only delays the reckoning.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The leadership of the Democratic party in Congress are from the left end of
> >> the spectrum. The centrist Democrats need to take back their party every
> >> bit as much as the Republican middle did (and does). (During the last 12
> >> years a lot of moderates from both sides lost their seats, to more
> >> extreme candidates from the other party, thus increasing the polarization.)
>
> >> In Congress, the solution is to resolve the splinter issues, disempower
> >> the extremist constituents of both parties, and get to real work. While
> >> splinter or wedge issues, like abortion rights, could be resolved to the
> >> satisfaction of most folk, there is no reason for the leadership of the
> >> two parties to come to such an accommodation, since it would immediately
> >> disempower them.
>
> >> To encourage, blackmail, or flog Congress toward such activities, it
> >> would be useful to have a President who isn't worrying about a second
> >> term, who is willing to play dirty with Congress and honest with the
> >> public, and who is not beholding to the leadership of his own party. I'd
> >> happily settle for two out of three.
>
>
> > Good points -
>
> > - "a President who isn't worrying about a second term"
> > - "is willing to play dirty with Congress and honest with the public"
> > - "who is not beholding to the leadership of his own party"
>
> > Seems to me that an very successful independent businessman with
> > proven experienced in the private and political sector is much closer
> > to those suggestions - than a stale 20yr career politician who's
> > biggest claims to political fame are agreeing with and being courted
> > to join the opposing party.
>
> McCain is only really courted by the most moderate Democrats, other
> mavericks like Lieberman, if you will - folk more interested in
> advancing the people's business as they understand it, rather than their
> party's political agenda. (I really have to discount any stories
> suggesting he seriously considered crossing the aisle to run with
> Kerry.) I do find his immigration stance troubling, but without a full
> explanation from him of what he expected to accomplish, I will to give
> him the benefit of the doubt. In any event, he repudiated that piece of
> proposed legislation.
>
> (Don't be fooled by the present mayor of New York. He's a Democrat in
> Independent's clothing. I also don't think we can afford a total naif in
> defence and foreign policy issues right now, which is why I favor
> Hillary over Obama.)
>
> As I've stated, McCain is not my first choice, but of the bodies still
> standing, he is the best of the lot, given the times.
>
> The Other Mickey
