24 March 2008
Still, Democrats were stunned one Saturday in late March when, by their account, John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s longtime political strategist, reached out to Thomas J. Downey, a former Democratic congressman from Long Island who had become a lobbyist with powerful connections on Capitol Hill. In Mr. Downey’s telling, Mr. Weaver posed a question to him over lunch that left him stunned.
“He says, ‘John McCain is wondering why nobody’s ever approached him about switching parties, or becoming an independent and allying himself with the Democrats,’ ” Mr. Downey said in a recent interview. “My reaction was, ‘When I leave this lunch, your boss will be called by anybody you want him to be called by in the United States Senate.’ ”I've long said that McCain would be more honest to change parties and it would improve the quality of both.
Mr. McCain, who has rarely spoken publicly of his talks with Mr. Kerry, said last month that he had dismissed the vice-presidential offer out of hand. “He is, as he describes himself, a liberal Democrat,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Kerry when he was asked about the episode by a participant at a public forum in Atlanta. “I am a conservative Republican. So when I was approached, when we had that conversation back in 2004, that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”
Yeah, and I'm an X-man. He's not a conservative, he's not a Republican except in name only, and nobody has multiple talks about something they're not even considering. That John McCain can't be trusted on this type of thing has been demonstrated time and time again. The only thing I trust him completely about is for him to do what he wants... no matter how it impacts others.
Ugh. No matter what, I'm going to hate our next president.
That's so depressing.
Posted by: S. Weasel at 24 March 2008@09:19:58 (rasT+)
Seriously though, although it's probably around 99.9% sure to be one of these three, we still have both conventions to go. If one or both become brokered, things could get even more interesting.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@09:26:00 (Q5ggV)
This is the nightmare;
Obama is nominated. McCain offers the VP slot to Hillary.
(Saving grace: I think she wouldn't take it. She has no wish to be anybody's second fiddle.)
More nightmarish, but less likely because I think Obama will be nominated: Clinton is nominated, and McCain offers the VP slot to Obama. And Obama just might take it.
All three of them can wrap this poison up in nice sounding justifications.
Does that sound possible to you?
Posted by: kishnevi at 24 March 2008@18:03:42 (aOQZ3)
The Dems are too polarized right now and the leadership knows it. Hillary will pursue a "scorched-Earth" policy and completely split the party to punish it for abandoning her. The Dem leadership will test her and she'll convince them that she's willing to go all the way. Look for Hillary to get the nod and Obama to strongly endorse her to keep the party together. Obama will be promised the next shot after Hillary (whether he gets it is another story, the Dems aren't very good at keeping those kinds of promises... hence the problems they're having now).
The sad thing is, Hillary will beat McCain in November after Obama swings his supporters over to her because then the MSM will have the clear choice they're looking for and every story/poll/editorial will be slanted for Hillary and against McCain. They've mostly held off on McCain so far because any weakness they attack is shared by one or both of the Dem candidates. When it gets down to one Dem, they'll focus on the McCain faults where the Dem looks strong (or at least neutral).
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@19:05:21 (Q5ggV)
Finally, Bush often talked the conservative talk but most of what he did was talk, not act. He rarely used his veto except on war-related matters. His position on illegal immigration is much like McCain's. Who knows what McCain will do on taxes but, frankly, who knew what Bush would do either?
Frankly, I'm not happy with everything Bush did but I'll probably never be happy with everything an elected official does. But I know I'd be more happy with someone like Bush than I would be with Clinton or Obama.
Posted by: DRJ at 24 March 2008@22:50:57 (wE7Og)
1. out of party loyalty when that person doesn't reflect your beliefs,
2. because of their race (or against another person's race),
3. because of their gender (or against another person's gender),
4. anything resembling 2. or 3. that doesn't have anything to do with their political positions or character.
If the Democrats have a spiritual and intellectual awakening and start representing conservative ideals, I'll join the Democratic Party. If the Republicans have a spiritual and intellectual re-awakening, I'll rejoin the Republican Party. Right now, neither major party represents my ideals so I'll be an Independent. I'd rather have a much smaller voice in support of what I believe than help represent something I don't believe in. It's about being right, not about being in office.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@23:05:19 (Q5ggV)
In theory, I agree with everything in your last comment. In practice, however, my opinion is colored (no pun intended) by my experience with juries.
Juries make decisions for all sorts of reasons - some logical, some cockamamie, and sometimes a little of both. However, in my experience, they almost always end up doing the right thing even if it's for the wrong reason. I look at voting the same way.
Posted by: DRJ at 25 March 2008@23:22:36 (wE7Og)
I would have a problem with any juror who rendered their verdict based solely on the defendant's nationality, race, gender, etc... anything beyond the physical and circumstantial evidence and their understanding of the law. I expect the same from a voter.
You are absolutely correct that juries do the right thing more often than not. They are also cautioned prior to deliberating that a responsible juror renders their verdict in good faith, not based on any preconceived stereotype of the defendant. Shouldn't voters receive the same caution? That's the point of my rant above. If someone honestly believes that voting for McCain is the best use of their franchise, they have my unreserved support. If they're voting for him because he's the "only white guy running", they deserve nothing but contempt.
I don't like crossover voting to influence another party's candidate, nor do I like party-line votes just because "I'm a Democrat/Republican", so I don't do it. If somebody else chooses to, that's their choice. I'm just throwing out my reasons for being against it for whatever worth they believe my opinion holds. Barring some kind of brokered convention miracle, I am not going to like whoever wins in November. Tough cookies for me, but I'll be fine... the military lived on cookie crumbs during Clinton's administration and survived.
Despite what people say about McCain now, our military is going to be getting some more crumbs even if he's elected. That will be the "bipartisan" bone he throws to try and placate the Dems. I don't think we'll have a chance to see if that's correct though, because once the Dems decide a nominee, we're going to see a media blitz against McCain that makes Bush Derangement Syndrome seem mild. We've got at least four years of "Socialist Lite" coming and I'm hoping that the phrase "It took a Carter to give us a Reagan" has some truth to it.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 26 March 2008@00:36:35 (Q5ggV)
Number of Unique Visits Since 08 March 2008
59 queries taking 0.0812 seconds, 92 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.