McCain is seen by 'conservatives' as not conservative enough. Some American commentators say that McCain must have a conservative on the ticket.

Why? What choice have 'conservative' Republicans got? They won't vote for the Democrat. If they don't vote at all then the Democrat may win by default.So the second name on the ticket makes no difference there.

Is it a question of what support the newly elected McCain would get from Congress? If he is opposed by some wing of his own party there his life might be more difficult. So if he appoints a conservative VP that might be seen as a gesture indicating that he'll listen to and accomodate the views of his conservatives?

Just guessing...

I think elsewhere you've compared the right of the Republican party at the moment to the die-hards of the Labour left in the UK pre-Blair. The Republican right is maybe not interested in compromise and accommodation anyway. No amount of Bible-thumping, gay-bashing or sabre-rattling on McCain's part could appease them.

The issues that seem to motivate those to the right of McCain (no gay marriage, no gun control, no abortion, suspension of the constitution when it comes to suspected terrorists...) are often presented in black-and-white terms; they seem to be issues which support "not an inch!" kinds of attitude. I don't think they want McCain to listen - they want their man in.

The right seem to have gotten themselves into a mess though - their votes split between Romney and Huckabee.

quote:

The right seem to have gotten themselves into a mess though - their votes split between Romney and Huckabee.

Mitt Romney to Suspend His Campaign

Contrary to what many think, the Conservative wing of the Republican Party is not dead. Some may compare the state of the Republican party with the Labor Party in England, compare all you want. Personally I don't see them as being the same. England is England, The U.S. is the U.S.

So why is the Republican heiarchy backing McCain??? My thoughts are by doing so, they are already conceding the White House to the Democrats. Backing McCain, because, "It's his turn." He' lose the election and ride off into the sunset of history.

As for picking a conservative VP candidate, that will not help him a whole lot. After all the Presidential candidate is the main focus. And McCain's past record on the issues WILL come back to haunt him. This election will show just how powerful the Conservative element of the Republican Party really is.

quote:

The right seem to have gotten themselves into a mess though - their votes split between Romney and Huckabee.

That seems to be popular and sensible thinking but is questionable. Some recent polls suggested that McCain would fare better than Romney absent a Huckabee candidacy.

It is a moot point, of course, with Romney folding his tent. When the whole campaign started, Romney was thought of as an intelligent businessman turned politician who was generally moderate with some liberal positions. That all changed, of course, as he re-molded himself to appeal to the right. I don't know why people bought into that. Maybe they didn't.

Romney should have been true to his real colors. The guy may have been the most intelligent candidate for either party (based on academic record) and had the type of management experience needed to effectively run the Executive branch. Too bad he wasn't smart enough to just be himself.

And Fred, your point is great. I don't think McCain needs a right wing Veep running mate. He does need a good one, given his age. A Dan Quayle is not going to cut it.

Still just thinking aloud...

'In an effort to assuage the fears of conservatives within his party, who have often attacked him for being too liberal, Mr McCain stressed his opposition to abortion, his support of the "surge" in Iraq, as well opposition to banning assault weapons.

He also called for making President George W Bush's tax cuts, which he strongly opposed in 2001 and 2003, permanent.

However, Mr McCain was booed by the crowd when he discussed the topic of illegal immigration, which has placed him at odds with many Republicans, especially conservative talk radio show hosts.' news.bbc.co.uk

I guess it's kind of difficult for some of us to understand the idea of wanting to assuage those who think every civilian has the right to an assault rifle.

Bush was elected, in part, by anti-abortionists, wasn't he? He had the luck of being able to nominate supreme court judges, and tinkered with stem-cell funding, but what did (or could) he actually do about Roe vs Wade, for example? What more could either McCain or Huckabee do? Surely those voting for any candidate in the expectation of seeing a blanket ban on abortion enacted are being a little naive.

Immigration: "Few of their children in the country learn English ...The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of the importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious." Ben Franklin, circa 1750. Developed countries with aging populations need immigrants. Immigration is inevitable - walls and xenophobia are not the answer.

Tax-cuts will surely depend on the state of the economy which is heading into recession, if not a depression. Everyone has surely learned by now not to trust any "Read my lips..." kind of statement on taxes, from any politician.


Is McCain just paying lip-service to a few positions held dear by 'ideologically pure' party activists (as if Tony Blair had said, yes, he still liked the idea of nationalising the means of production)? But in doing that, is he being so very different from the others? Actually most people must know that these ideas stand little chance of arriving intact into the real world, under any candidate.

McCain made no reference to campaign finance reform . Now, that was tactful, in the circumstances.Their own campaign expenditure must be a sore point with some candidates in both parties, at the moment

' Romney said he did not want the US to go the way of Europe "facing a demographic disaster. That's the inevitable product of weakened faith in the creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life, and eroded morality" ' [The Guardian, 8th February '08]

Just at the same time as some smug Europeans are fearing that their people will go the way of America: failed families [divorce rate, teen pregnancies,abortions], disrespect for the sanctity of human life [homicides, gun laws].....

Seriously, what is Romney talking about? What's a "demographic disaster" and what is it that Europe has that constitutes it ?

There are a few possibilities.

There's a temporary demographic problem , in most developed nations, caused by the baby boom, and subsequent declining birth rates. There are going to be more retirees than workers, and more elderly people in need of care than young care-givers. But this 'disaster' will only be a headache for the next fifty years or so, by which time the baby boomers will have died off. It's also solvable by drafting in workers from developing countries which have a different demographic. Declining human birth rates are actually good news for the planet, which brings us to the next point:

The real demographic problem is over-population. But there's light at the end of that tunnel too - huge families are associated with extreme poverty, superstitions about birth control, and unfair treatment of women, among other things, but those factors are generally on the decline. The forecast is for the world population to stop growing at such a crazy pace, although maybe not before hitting nine billion. However, in any case, like the baby-boom 'bulge', overpopulation is not particularly a European problem, so it can't be what Romney meant.

What does that leave? It couldn't be that Romney is referring to what only racists could possibly interpret as a 'demographic disaster', could it? The idea that, because of differing demographic trends among certain groups and ethnicities, the human race is likely to end up homogeneously coffee-coloured at some point in the future is conceivably a disaster only if you have a certain - none too pleasant or smart - point of view.

What else could it be? Is there some Mormon belief about families of less than twelve or so being a 'disaster'?

"It couldn't be that Romney is referring to what only racists could possibly interpret as a 'demographic disaster', could it?"

Clear your cards; we have a winner. Remember that it was less than 40 years ago that Romney's church officially felt that blacks (and by extension, brown people, too) were not quite human. Then, however, the state university wanted a winning basketball team....

Below from Wikipedia -

After the death of Joseph Smith Jr., the Prophet Brigham Young Sr. taught that “Negroes” were black due to the mark of Cain, which also meant they were Canaanites and were under the curse of Ham. For this reason, most blacks of African descent—along with a small number of white Canaanites—were ineligible to be ordained to the Priesthood. They were also barred from entering the church’s temples to participate in the Endowment or celestial marriage. While this policy existed for over a century, it was always with the understanding that at some point in the future, the Lord would allow the Canaanites every blessing available. In 1978, church leaders received a revelation that this long-promised time had come.

"Demographic disaster" .The quoted lines about Europe follow a paragraph about American culture being superior to any other, then one in which he says American culture is suffering from an attack on faith and religion, tolerance of pornography , sexual promiscuity and the twisted incentives of welfare. To illustrate this, he then tells us that 68% of African-American, 45% of Hispanic and 25% of White children "are born out of wedlock". Don't know why he chose to split the figure into racial origins: isn't there a national average of all American children? He says that a child should have a mother and a father in its family.

'Out of wedlock' is 'unmarried', isn't it? He's right to think that some Europeans don't think a wedding is necessary before a birth.If he's comparing Europe it depends which European country he has in mind. In Greece only 4% of children are born to unmarrieds. In Sweden it's 56% but in Sweden 70% of these parents go on to get married.In Britain the births to unmarrieds is 42% and in France 48% but again its common for these parents to marry. In Britain 66% of dependent children are with married couples, 11% with unmarried couples and 23% with single parents .Contrast us with the USA. There 26% of under 18s live with single parents.So if Governor Romney thinks that a child should have a mother and a father in its family he might try looking at Europe for a model

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Vice President Rice?

Interesting...While I do like Condi, I DO NOT like John McCain. Doesn't matter who the running mate is, I'm not voting for John McCain.

Is this the line Romney was taking?

'...The white Christian West, in this telling, is in danger of forfeiting itself through sheer lack of numbers to an onslaught of Muslim immigrants and their purportedly numerous offspring. In other words, Mosher and his colleagues aren't really concerned about wolves.

Another profamily soldier banging the drum about demographic winter, Christine de Vollmer, head of the US-funded Latin American Alliance for the Family, says that thanks to "obstinate antifamily policies, the end of European civilization can be calculated in years." Such predictions are winning the ear of top US conservatives, with Mitt Romney taking time during his campaign exit speech on February 7 to warn that "Europe is facing a demographic disaster"...' Missing: The 'Right' Babies

If so, maybe it's just as well he's dropped out.

McCain’s Very Own Farrakhan

Is Hagee really as bad as Farrakhan? How far can McCain go in courting the 'religious right' without turning everyone else off?

One example that contradicts the characterization of Hagee in your link.

This does not mean I endorse Hagee! Nor do I believe he is embraced by the entire religious right. He is simply a powerful clergyman in a very large non-denominational church.

'Facing potential electoral fallout from pivotal Catholic voters, Mr. McCain quickly changed his tune, saying late last week that he repudiates “any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.”

The political-religious box in which Mr. McCain finds himself provides little room for maneuvering: He needs the support of the millions of highly motivated religious conservative voters but has risked alienating Catholic voters who will be critical in the general election. His rightward tack further risks turning off the many Hispanics and independents who admire him.

Such is the fate of a man running for the White House in reverse. And you can bet the Hagee-Donohue flap is not the last time between now and November when the Straight Talk Express will start weaving from lane to lane.'
Running in reverse: from the middle to the right

...we have a Secretary of State who chaired meetings on specific torture techniques...

As the article says, maybe she won't be vice-president. Still, it'd be an interesting ticket - the torturer and the torture victim.