Moderate positions I agree with McCain

[MikeWaters]

1. Torture, as a policy for the United States, is a bad idea.
2. Drilling ANWR, bad idea
3. Rolling back mileage requirements for vehicles in the USA (CAFE standards) as Romney supports, bad idea.
4. Not giving some serious thought to global warming, bad idea.
5. Kicking out all illegals, regardless of circumstance, bad idea.

I see McCain as arguably stronger that Romney on the 2nd amendment, and arguably stronger on abortion.

What I don't like about McCain

1. His personality
2. His vindictiveness
3. His hawkishness

McCain is strongest on deficit issues, pork-barrel, and special interests. He has a long record in the Senate, fighting against these things. Which builds his conservative credentials in the economics arena.

When Romney took a strong anti-illegal-immigrant position, he made a calculated choice that winning the nomination was more important than winning the general election. Anyone with Tancredo-views is unelectable, in my opinion. McCain was wise, and now he goes forward as the candidate who can proclaim that he is electable. And we see that the immigration issue quickly dropped off the radar, and won't put any of the border states in the win column for Romney. Another bad calculation on Romney's part.

[Tex]

I don't think anyone is really saying #5, Mike.

But of all your points, the one I truly do not understand is #2. This attachment to an oil-less ANWR is truly perplexing and illogical.

[jay santos]

Romney's stance on immigration is dumb, but at least it seems to be what majority of Americans want. Everyone seems to be pissed off at immigrants except for the Latin population.

McCain's dumb stand is on Iraq. "We'll be there another 100 years". How stupid was that? The Dem's will kill him over it.

[Archaea]

I don't understand Mike's stance on ANWR, as I don't believe those drillable sites were pristine places of environmental beauty. Environmentalists like to cry for freedom from foreign oil but discourage all domestic attempts. Even if we wean ourselves from oil dependency, it will be over a long time, and oil or petroleum will always be part of our lives as every single modern product has some connection to petroleum.

[MikeWaters]

We shouldn't be raping our parks and preserves, period.

Why aren't you drillers upset at the Florida GOP, which has fought off-shore derricks in Florida?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We shouldn't be raping our parks and preserves, period.

Why aren't you drillers upset at the Florida GOP, which has fought off-shore derricks in Florida?

Florida has pristine areas. The areas for drilling in ANWR are NOT pristine, beautiful areas, but limited, desolate areas. The Alaskan pipeline has been engineered to avoid a lot of environmental impact.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We shouldn't be raping our parks and preserves, period.

First, the label of "park and preserve" is arbitrary, so that's not a reason. Second, why is it "raping"? Everyone always wants to cite Exxon-Valdez, but by and large, oil can be extracted without exceptional damage to the surrounding environment.

And to boot, the area the pro-ANWR folks would like to open is about the size of Washington Dulles airport.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why aren't you drillers upset at the Florida GOP, which has fought off-shore derricks in Florida?

I am. It's equally illogical. But don't change the subject.

[Tex]

On this point, George Will writes today:

ANWR's 10.4 billion barrels of oil have become hostage to the planet's saviors (e.g., John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama), who block drilling in even a tiny patch of ANWR. You could fit Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware into ANWR's frozen desolation; the "footprint" of the drilling operation would be one sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport.

Sorry, had it wrong. 1/6 the size of Dulles airport.

And about not "raping our parks and preserves"?

Bill Clinton, by executive edict, declared 1.7 million acres of Utah to be a national monument. Under those acres are the largest known deposit—more than 60 billion tons—of low-sulfur, clean-burning coal. The second largest deposit, the value of which rose because of Clinton's action locking up an alternative supply, is in Indonesia and is owned by a member of the Indonesian Riady family, of fragrant memory, which was generous to Clinton's 1992 campaign.

A rose by any other name ...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107575/page/1

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

1. Torture, as a policy for the United States, is a bad idea.
2. Drilling ANWR, bad idea
3. Rolling back mileage requirements for vehicles in the USA (CAFE standards) as Romney supports, bad idea.
4. Not giving some serious thought to global warming, bad idea.
5. Kicking out all illegals, regardless of circumstance, bad idea.

I see McCain as arguably stronger that Romney on the 2nd amendment, and arguably stronger on abortion.

What I don't like about McCain

1. His personality
2. His vindictiveness
3. His hawkishness

McCain is strongest on deficit issues, pork-barrel, and special interests. He has a long record in the Senate, fighting against these things. Which builds his conservative credentials in the economics arena.

When Romney took a strong anti-illegal-immigrant position, he made a calculated choice that winning the nomination was more important than winning the general election. Anyone with Tancredo-views is unelectable, in my opinion. McCain was wise, and now he goes forward as the candidate who can proclaim that he is electable. And we see that the immigration issue quickly dropped off the radar, and won't put any of the border states in the win column for Romney. Another bad calculation on Romney's part.

At least three GOP candidates (Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee) hardened their position on immigration because they thought it was what they were supposed to do to get nominated. It failed, even among Republicans. With half the country supporting the democrats and the GOP nominating the only guy who isn't so hard-core on the issue, I think it's pretty clear the country wants a middle ground. I don't think the Tancredo approach would be wise anyway. Unless you think the country is going to hell ala the Great Depression, and that's not the America I think I live in right now. Things are pretty good for me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels that way.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Romney's stance on immigration is dumb, but at least it seems to be what majority of Americans want. Everyone seems to be pissed off at immigrants except for the Latin population.

I don't think so. I live in Texas and probably the majority of people I know are pretty moderate about the issue. It's only what the most conservative elements of the GOP wants. I think the results of the elections so far show it's not what most Americans want. Or at the very least it's not as important as we're being told by the conservative talk show hosts it is. The GOP is nominating the only candidate who is moderate on the issue and the democrats are talking middle ground on immigration as well. That has to mean something.