I can understand why some Democrats can't stand Hillary Clinton - she's on the right of the party, she seems to be a very calculating and false politician, and there's this strange 'Billary' campaign happening.
But why do some Republicans hate McCain so much? He's not particularly a left-winger is he?
But why do some Republicans hate McCain so much? He's not particularly a left-winger is he?
Apparently it's because 1) he is associated with three Acts which he promoted with a Democrat e.g McCain -Feingold, which limited donations to campaigns, and which was resisted by the conservatives in his own party 2)in their eyes,he's been too conciliatory/soft on immigration 3) he doesn't act like a sheep when the traditionalists of his party expect him to think/vote/ express himself like them
(The first two come from Fox News' analysts. The third is a 'poor thing, but mine own': let's face it, the 'core membership', the traditionalists, the ones who talk of 'the party's values', of any political party is conservative and reactionary and anyone who steps out of line is immediately condemned as being 'liberal' if the party is of the right or 'conservative' if it's of the left. And nobody likes a maverick, anyway.)
PS Don't know how it looks from North America, but the Republicans would be idiots not to pick McCain.If you want to win most elections it's the voters who are the undecideds and in the middle that win it for you.He must have the greater appeal to them. He comes across as a someone who is faithful to his own thinking and judgment.Anyone who is prepared to stand up against, and be different from, the 'establishment' of his own party must appeal to those in the 'middle' more than the 'establishment' preference would.That's how people like Sarkozy and Blair presented themselves, and it works.
Originally posted by newnickname: But why do some Republicans hate McCain so much? He's not particularly a left-winger is he?
If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, then I would cross over and vote for one. If John McCain is nominated, then I will be looking for a third party candidate that is deserving of my vote.
Here is a couple of excellent articles by David Limbaugh that explains why many Republicans feel the way they do.
Originally posted by FredPuli: PS Don't know how it looks from North America, but the Republicans would be idiots not to pick McCain.
I disagree. I look at a McCain nomination as a disaster for the Republican Party. I would rather lose the election sticking to our core values than win it by diluting them.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by FredPuli: PS Don't know how it looks from North America, but the Republicans would be idiots not to pick McCain.
I disagree. I look at a McCain nomination as a disaster for the Republican Party. I would rather lose the election sticking to our core values than win it by diluting them.
So, you'd be selling your political soul just to get a result in the general election ?Can't argue with not doing that.
Yes, I do know that that first question begs a question viz. that choosing a true conservative would mean losing.Polls do rather suggest that though, that neutrals,uncommitteds,are more likely to vote for someone like McCain.
What we have here is not new. Tony Blair, much to the right of his own, left, party used to tell the party faithful, in terms, that they had a choice: either they chose him and candidates who thought like him, however distasteful they found that, and got themselves a Labour Party government, their party in power, or they could stick with the old way, the old beliefs, their beliefs,their 'core values' , lose the election, and stay out of power for the next thirteen years [the Tories had been in power for thirteen years at the time]. He got his way.
Originally posted by FredPuli: So, you'd be selling your political soul just to get a result in the general election ?Can't argue with not doing that.
Yes, I do know that that first question begs a question viz. that choosing a true conservative would mean losing.Polls do rather suggest that though, that neutrals,uncommitteds,are more likely to vote for someone like McCain.
What we have here is not new. Tony Blair, much to the right of his own, left, party used to tell the party faithful, in terms, that they had a choice: either they chose him and candidates who thought like him, however distasteful they found that, and got themselves a Labour Party government, their party in power, or they could stick with the old way, the old beliefs, their beliefs,their 'core values' , lose the election, and stay out of power for the next thirteen years [the Tories had been in power for thirteen years at the time]. He got his way.
I can see where you are coming from. But I see a rather different scenario. I recall when we had Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, as President for four years. Basically four years of disaster in every way you could imagine. The Democrats did not get the White House back until twelve years later. If McCain were elected President, heaven forbid, he would be a one term President and the Democrats could very well have the White House for quite a while.
We already have one Democrat Party. We don't need another one. Right now the Republicans biggest problem is they are trying too much to be like the Democrats. And they have lost both houses of Congress because they have not stood up for the core values of the party.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Fred, many independents may look at McCain comments after the 2000 election (regarding the Religious Right and how they were dangerous and a threat to Constitutional government) and then look at how he has kissed up to them now and see a man whose political soul is for sale. Honor just doesn't come from being in battle, and McCain gave his up when he showed that being President is more important to him than having his code of ethics.
Posts: 17549 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by newnickname: Reading those articles Lighteningrodd linked to, I find myself with a new respect for McCain.
Yes. One argument was that controlling and limiting donations and campaign expenditure was an attack on freedom of speech.
That's like saying that giving the Giants a twenty point start before the game would be defending freedom of play and the principles of Football !We should expect the cliched 'level playing field'in sport, government and elections.
One complaint about democratic elections in some other countries is that the party in power grants itself unlimited access to the TV stations whilst restricting that of its opponents.Such behaviour is unfair and contrary to democratic principles. I'm at a loss to see how that, properly deplored, behaviour in a democracy differs in principle from allowing one candidate to buy as much airtime as his wealth, or that of his wealthiest backers, can afford while a rival worthy candidate cannot begin to match that exposure.It's no answer to say that the expenditure does not always bring the result: even the biggest advertising campaign won't sell a political Edsel.The point is that advertising provenly can and does make a difference. (That's apart from the fact that much of it may be misleading, if not downright dishonest, about an opponent who himself cannot mount an equal campaign in rebuttal or explanation)
