Johnny (would) be good:

[BarbaraGordon]

This sums it up:

In fact, McCain has always been far more conservative than either his supporters or detractors acknowledge. In 2004 he earned a perfect 100 percent rating from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and a 0 percent from NARAL. Citizens Against Government Waste dubs him a "taxpayer hero." He has opposed extension of the assault-weapons ban, federal hate crimes legislation and the International Criminal Court. He has supported school vouchers, a missile defense shield and private accounts for Social Security. Well before 9/11 McCain advocated a new Reagan Doctrine of "rogue-state rollback."

"He's a foreign policy hawk, a social conservative and a fiscal conservative who believes in tax cuts but not at the expense of the deficit," says Marshall Wittmann, a former McCain staffer and conservative activist who now works at the Democratic Leadership Council. McCain's ideology resembles an exotic cocktail of Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan--a conservative before conservatism was bankrupted by fundamentalism and corporatism. His centrist reputation simply proves how far right the center has shifted in Republican politics. "The median stance for Senate Republicans in the early 1970s was significantly to the left of current GOP maverick John McCain," write political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in their book Off-Center. "By the early 2000s, however, the median Senate Republican was essentially twice as conservative--just shy of the ultraconservative position of Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania."

link.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

This sums it up:

In fact, McCain has always been far more conservative than either his supporters or detractors acknowledge. In 2004 he earned a perfect 100 percent rating from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and a 0 percent from NARAL. Citizens Against Government Waste dubs him a "taxpayer hero." He has opposed extension of the assault-weapons ban, federal hate crimes legislation and the International Criminal Court. He has supported school vouchers, a missile defense shield and private accounts for Social Security. Well before 9/11 McCain advocated a new Reagan Doctrine of "rogue-state rollback."

"He's a foreign policy hawk, a social conservative and a fiscal conservative who believes in tax cuts but not at the expense of the deficit," says Marshall Wittmann, a former McCain staffer and conservative activist who now works at the Democratic Leadership Council. McCain's ideology resembles an exotic cocktail of Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan--a conservative before conservatism was bankrupted by fundamentalism and corporatism. His centrist reputation simply proves how far right the center has shifted in Republican politics. "The median stance for Senate Republicans in the early 1970s was significantly to the left of current GOP maverick John McCain," write political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in their book Off-Center. "By the early 2000s, however, the median Senate Republican was essentially twice as conservative--just shy of the ultraconservative position of Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania."

link.

According to a Romney email today (via the Corner), McCain's ACU rating was 65% in 2006. I'd like to see it corroborated somewhere else before putting much stock in it, but if true, it puts a dent in the 82% lifetime figure we've been hearing.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...M0MDBkMGE5N2Q=

Corroborated. He had an 80% rating the year before. Seems maybe he veers left in election years?

http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#AZ

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

No, it's true that this is his Achilles Heel. He's not a true conservative.

But I'm tired of both parties treating these matters as a dichotomy. According to the GOP, either you're as conservative as the party ideal, or you're labeled a not-conservative, or worse, a liberal. Just because McCain is not as conservative as some of the other candidates does not mean he's not conservative. He's still a lot more conservative than Hillary or Obama. And the GOP would be wise to consider what's the worse case scenario: winning the White House with a candidate that's less conservative than they'd like, or losing the White House altogether, to an all-out liberal.

Well said, Babs.

I have always liked McCain. I admire a guy that can tell the party where to stick it on occasion. If he can get through the primaries, I think he would be tough to beat. In any case, it would be interesting to see how a centrist candidate would do in a general election. It has been a long time since that has happened.

[Archaea]

In order of candidates capable of winning, I place Giuliani first, McCain second and Romney third.

Giuliani's philosophy of waiting until Florida may not pay off. I submit McCain is likely to be the Republican nominee but he's not a very good speaker.

Guilian would hand Clinton her lunch.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well said, Babs.

Well, thanks, but you might want to check your avatar. It appears to be upside down.

Nice win over the Sun Devils, btw.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Well, thanks, but you might want to check your avatar. It appears to be upside down.

Nice win over the Sun Devils, btw.

(rim shot) good one

Mike forced my hand. His avatar was making me kind of nauseous.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

No, it's true that this is his Achilles Heel. He's not a true conservative.

But I'm tired of both parties treating these matters as a dichotomy. According to the GOP, either you're as conservative as the party ideal, or you're labeled a not-conservative, or worse, a liberal. Just because McCain is not as conservative as some of the other candidates does not mean he's not conservative. He's still a lot more conservative than Hillary or Obama. And the GOP would be wise to consider what's the worse case scenario: winning the White House with a candidate that's less conservative than they'd like, or losing the White House altogether, to an all-out liberal.

I agree that the GOP would be wiser to nominate McCain if it wants to win. I disagree with the characterization that the party requires you to be the perfect conservative as a candidate. W as a candidate, and as well as president, was far from conservative on some fronts. He is anything but a fiscal conservative but the party made the compromise in 2000 because he was electable.

Certainly he has been a hawk on foreign policy, a conservative on judicial appointments and conservative on tax cut. In exchange, as a conservative, you put up with him enacting the largest entitlement in history (prescription drugs) and expanding federal interference with state matters through unfunded mandates (no child left behind). I feel confident that the GOP is capable of making that compromise again.

I don't mind McCain. As important as foreign policy is at this time in history I think that he and Clinton are best qualified.

As a footnote, the fact that the economy seems to lead all polls as an issue in the election is, IMO, a case study in the difficulty the average person has in identifying his/her own self interest.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I agree that the GOP would be wiser to nominate McCain if it wants to win. I disagree with the characterization that the party requires you to be the perfect conservative as a candidate. W as a candidate, and as well as president, was far from conservative on some fronts. He is anything but a fiscal conservative but the party made the compromise in 2000 because he was electable.

Certainly he has been a hawk on foreign policy, a conservative on judicial appointments and conservative on tax cut. In exchange, as a conservative, you put up with him enacting the largest entitlement in history (prescription drugs) and expanding federal interference with state matters through unfunded mandates (no child left behind). I feel confident that the GOP is capable of making that compromise again.

I don't mind McCain. As important as foreign policy is at this time in history I think that he and Clinton are best qualified.

As a footnote, the fact that the economy seems to lead all polls as an issue in the election is, IMO, a case study in the difficulty the average person has in identifying his/her own self interest.

What credentials did Madame Hell possess to make you write that? I just threw up.

She has not served in the military nor actually served in any significant foreign policy capacity. Let's face it most have little or no experience

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What credentials did Madame Hell possess to make you write that? I just threw up.

She has not served in the military nor actually served in any significant foreign policy capacity. Let's face it most have little or no experience

8 years in the Senate. Military experience is nice, but there is a 20 year old I know who served a tour in Iraq. Trust me that hes not qualified.

I'm not saying that one of the governors might not do a good job, but I do think that she and McCain objectively do have the most experience having served in a branch of the federal government which touches on and has oversight over foreign policy.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

8 years in the Senate. Military experience is nice, but there is a 20 year old I know who served a tour in Iraq. Trust me that hes not qualified.

I'm not saying that one of the governors might not do a good job, but I do think that she and McCain objectively do have the most experience having served in a branch of the federal government which touches on and has oversight over foreign policy.

Eight years in Senate as a minor Senator makes her experienced?

Heck, I'd favor a governor of a major or middle state over a minor US Senator.

McCain has been involved in foreign policy for some time, but you're really over-rating senatorial experience. Face it, none of them are that fantastic on that issue. McCain eats everybody else's lunch on this issue as Romney does on economics.

Clinton's major appeal is feminism and Bill's group but she's not as likeable as Bill.

The Dems are out to lunch in terms of experience. They'll have to hide from their lack of meaningful experience.