What if McCain is shut out of the GOP Presidential primaries and also switches to Independent: McCain/Lieberman 2008?

Two "independent" Republicans on a ticket are a good way to give Democrats the White House.

McCain looks and acts like Homer Simpson's evil twin - snarling, petty, opportunistic, back-biting, nuts... and that's on a good day. No wonder so many in the GOP are taking a second look at this guy. I was telling my friends this guy wasn't right years ago.

I am an Independent voter who highly respected and favored McCain in 2000.
Since then, his "turn the cheek" attitude towards the Bush crowd that smeared him in South Carolina, has turned me against him. Apparently, he will say anything and do anything that will get him elected. His stand on several policy issues changes according to his audience. Also, it will be very hard for him to run on "family value" issues, having dumped his wife after she raised his kids while he was a POW in favor of a 25-year old. Of course,
that is not unusual for politicians on either side of the aisle. It's just that Republicans hypocritically claim they are on the high road for moral standards. They love families so much, they have three or four of them.

bhoomes - If I wanted your opinion, i'd beat it out of you.

Wow. Everyone is still writing on this one.

bhoomes. I am die hard "blue" but think Ohio Guy was a little over the line. But Robert's right to a point. Obama, but for president. I already have my bumper sticker.

I am going to new posting. As an activist of the 60's having a "George Wallace" on the ticket again brings back great memories of a time and place the Dixie Republicans were hoping would make a comeback.

The South didn't lose the war of Northern Aggression. It redefined its reality, commandeered a national party and appears to have diligently stuck to its message an tactics. And by looking at the house, senate and President, I might argue they won!

Ohio guy: Your opinions are really inflated at two cents.

None of this will matter anyway once HRC and Obama win the White House. They're articulate enough to see through and dissect the Republican party's sophistry.

Sorry for the typo in my last post. "Strength's" should read strengths.

I don't see what the big deal is about McCain. For all his talk about being a straight talker and an outsider, he's a fairly conservative politican from a deeply red state. It's difficult to play the outsider once you line up all the party regulars behind your campaign. If he gets the reds' nomination, I think it will come out in the general election that McCain is just another beltway insider who's far more conservative than people think. xxxx In reading this blog, one thing I am reminded is that some Republicans believe that it's better to deceptively redefine the other side's strengths than to tout the strength's of your own candidates. This strategy makes sense when your own party's platform only aligns with the self interest of large corporations and wealthiest 5% of Americans, and you run mediocre candidates who run from military service. So to take attention away from these fundamental flaws, your party calls the populist opponent the lacky of WalMart, and calls the war hero a coward. Shame on Democrats for allowing this to happen.

McCain is the center of the media lovefest, but he is not the "heir apparent". He is undermines President Bush and then thinks he is going to be able to carry on as the Republican leader. The base is up for grabs with George Allen, Condi Rice, and a few others. McCain is going to have to fight the competitiors, and no one is going to hand him the nomination. That is reality, no matter what Wash Post thinks.

Mike DeWine Rep senator from Ohio is so certain he will lose to Sherrod Brown he is pulling out all the Rove style attacks on Brown. The Dewine ads are reprehensible showing the destruction of WTT. It is a desperate ploy trying to say Dems are soft on terrorism. Weasle DeWine and criminal Blackwell are going to lose famously.

"Umn, have all of your bones broken, are tortured on a regular basis like McCain or shoot some kid in the back as he is running away like Kerry."

1) McCain did not have all of his bones broken.

2) John Kerry did not shoot someone in the back while he was running away, he rammed his patrol boat into shore and he killed an enemy soldier in hand-to-hand combat with a BAYONET who had been about to fire upon his crew with a ROCKET LAUNCHER in order to save his crew.

Any other wild and crazy BS stories you want to throw out there bhoomes?

bhoomes - you are lower than Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and dirt, I don't care if you served in the military for 20 years or 200 years that fact that you served and you have the disrespect to say the things about Kerry that you do is sick and speaks volumes about character (or lack thereof). It's one thing for a chickenhawk who never served like Vivian to spit out bile and drivel at war heroes like John Kerry and Jack Murtha, but for someone who supposedly served liek yourself to lower yourself to that level is inexcusable. You don't like John Kerry? Fine. Then make some argument of SUBSTANCE against him, don't just throw out mindless rants and lies.

As far as my two cents on the matter I don't think you are 1/2 the man John McCain is and I think you are 1/4 the man John Kerry is, for the simple fact that these two men possess important qualities that you do not - namely class and dignity.

Colin - good rebuttal to bhoomes' mindless rant about Hillary Clinton and Wal-Mart, although if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath thinking that he would actually READ it. To add to your arguemnt, Hillary recently turned AWAY a donation of $5,000 from Wal-Mart to her Senate campaign b/c of how much the company has changed since she left it, and b/c she does not approve of their labor practices and how it costs the American economy jobs. Kind of puts a huge hole in bhoomes' mindless argument that Hillary is a corporate slave, now doesen't it?

What I don't understand is why people ever thought McCain was anything but what he says he is and has repeatedly said he is: A CONSERVATIVE! He is especially so on social isses [gay marriage, abortion]. The guy is the son of one of the most decorated admirals in WWII, he grew up military. He is military.

The leopard has not changed his spots. His conservatism is not something that is going to go away. He may moderate to some minor degree, in tune with his political goals and the reality of his Arizona constituency, but he remains a CONSERVATIVE, A VERY CONSERVATIVE CONSERVATIVE and he is out to reiterate that to the right wing of the Repugs. He may be a more ethical one [anti-torture] and that would be an improvement over Dubya, but it is not enough in my book to offset his other politcal failings, which include his despicable sucking up to Fallwell, Jones and their ilk.

Centerist dems and moderate repugs will be sadly shocked and dismayed to find that, despite the difference in personal style, Dubya and a President McCain would be a lot more alike than they want to acknowledge.

I certainly hope the nation doesn't elect an octegenarian president, especially with his short temper and POW torture experience on top of that. Reagan was bad enough, this would be worse.

bhoomes:
You are a walking Mehlman/Rove Swift Boat Vet Limbaugh Hannity Coulter Echo Chamber! How about some independent thought for a change- just turn off your conservative talk radio and Faux News for a week and you will start to feel better, I promise.

Oh, and that bit about Kerry shooting that guy in the back has been proven totally FALSE. All this "who suffered more in battle" stuff rings a little hollow. Do you think these losers in office now are somehow more worthy of respect that Kerry just because they stick a flag pin on their lapel every day and "claim" to be strong on defense?

Jake,

No, you aren't following "my logic." First of all, you've chosen a sentence of my comment that contains a relatively minor point and are harping on it as if it was far more important. And for someone who writes in complete sentences, you're surprisingly slow-witted -- you also seem to have great difficulty in comprehending what you read. The parenthetical comment about Kerry stated the position that it was his weakness that helped Bush get so many votes. "My logic," as you put it, wasn't that you can determine the quality of a candidate by the number of votes he gets. It would be more accurate to say that the number of votes a candidate receives is influenced not only by his own quality but also by the vehemence of opposition to the other candidate. Both Kerry and Bush benefited from intense feelings against the other, but Bush probably benefitted more -- the Dem GOTV campaign was expected to be successful (and was), but the Republican GOTV campaign far exceeded anything they had previously accomplished. Bush's performance in the campaign couldn't have produced those results. W was about as vulnerable as an incumbent could be in 04, and he's a marginal performer in front of the camera, not doing particularly well in the debates. But Kerry, even though he might have won the debates had they been scored, lost big time because he handed the Bush campain the "global test" comment, among others. The Dems pulled out the stops to beat Bush, raising lots of cash and putting it to pretty good use (except in recruiting and supporting better candidates). The problem for the Dems wasn't that Bush was so strong, but that Kerry was far weaker. Many Bush votes, particularly those from the center, were probably more accurately characterized as votes against Kerry, but Kerry's support was even more shallow, except in a narrow band of the political specrum (does the slogan "anybody but Bush" ring a bell for you?). It was Kerry himself who was the Republican GOTV campaign's best asset. I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you like this.

RC-

Following your logic, "that one who did still managed to win more popular votes in '04 than any candidate has ever received before" actually had the smallest winning margin of any sitting president in history. John Kerry, oddly enough, had the second largest number of popular votes that any candidate has ever recieved. It is interesting that this "effete, JFK wannabe who was tone deaf enough to suggest "global test" actually came within three percent of defeating a sitting president during wartime. Kinda makes you think. About your idiocy.

'Mandatory service only for the military in times of peril. Anything else you have a Big Nanny Government intruding on individuals pursuit of happiness. This concept might work in sissified Europe, but never with fiercely independent americans'

--clearly one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. Even knowing it's from bhooms, this blog's village idiot, it's hard to believe. But then, the idiocy of the Right always boggles the mind.

They have national service in Israel. Are you calling them 'sissified'--cause I don't think you would do that to their faces. But I do agree with you that it won't happen here. Too many rich, spoiled republican kids would whine about having to contribute something to their country. You know, because the world owes them a living. That's what the wingers motto is -- something for nothing. Take, take, take, but never give back. Don't pay your taxes, don't volunteer, just keep on going gimme, gimme, gimme.

RC: You make some good points...I wonder, however, if McCain is going to be able to keep his temper in check during the election process. It only takes one gaff to throw a candidate under the bus. (see Dean scream)

bhoomes: I don't see mandatory service as some kind of FDR social program, I see it as a way of bringing Americans together and possibly making decisions like war a little less abstract to those charged with making such decisions.

>>>If McCain is the Republican nominee -- and it's highly likely he will be -- he'll win more Dem votes than the Dems' own candidate.

Did you really mean to type that, or was that an accident?

Regarding the emergence of a viable third party, Mikepcfl, certainly the conditions would seem ripe for someone to stand up and say, "Perhaps now is a good time for another option." As a political science major, though, you are surely aware that the emergence of another national party is hindered by far more than popular sentiment. Most importantly, the United States' democracy functions under a pluralistic system of elections, meaning all votes that are not cast for the winner of an election are discarded. Third parties are hard-pressed to win elections because their support is generally decentralized and smaller than that of the two major parties. For this reason, a candidate like Ross Perot can garner 19% of the popular vote but not receive a single electoral vote because he didn't poll a plurality in any given state.

Parliamentary democracies operating under a system of proportional representation are much friendlier to multiparty dynamics. In these democracies, if Ross Perot's Reform Party polled 19% of the vote, it would receive 19% of the seats in their legislatures.

For this reason and complicated financing rules, third parties are seldom competetive here. In the United States, they serve generally to split the vote of a major party in order to establish the prominence of whatever issues they deem important at the time. Maybe now could be the time for a moderate third party to stand up and pull votes from each major party; I think it would be refreshing in some measure or another. But ultimately such a party would either be only temporary or would ultimately replace one of the major parties (as the Republicans replaced the Whigs, for instance).

There's a lot of confusing "we" for "I" here -- projecting the "I" onto the we, when there's not really any justification for it. Of course the Republicans will jump on the McCain bandwagon -- McCain is the one Republican that will beat any Dem even in the blue states -- he outpolls Hillary in Massachusetts -- and Republicans, even the conservative base, understand that beating the Dems is more important than ideological purity (the Rs are the big-tent party now -- it's the Dems who eat their own young these days). Unlike the present-day donks, the Republicans understand that in a 2-party system, you don't get your policies adopted unless you can put up candidates who can appeal to a broad enough group to win a general election. Hasn't always been that way -- the Dems put Clinton up in 92, but they've let the vocal left wing of the party run things since the 2000 campaign, to their detriment and, if they don't turn things around, to the country's (gotta have a viable, loyal opposition in a 2-party democracy).

McCain isn't without his flaws -- McCain-Feingold, for example -- but they're far outweighed by his strengths -- he's pushing an immigration policy that most of the country will support (even though the Republican base doesn't like it, they won't scuttle the ship over it), he's in favor of policies that will win in Iraq (which is what most of the country wants -- much of the disapproval of Bush's policy on Iraq is from those who want to see more forceful action, not less), and he'll continue internationalist and free trade policies that have linked the US with the other future superpower, which happens to be the world's largest democracy (India, not China) and will continue to make the US economy the envy of the world.

I would differ with Chris in that I don't think McCain has changed his approach. His political reconciliation with Bush is old news, and one need only consider his membership in the gang of 14 to confirm his "maverick" bona fides (vindicated, at least according to some, by confirmation of 2 S.Ct. nominees, although some Republicans think -- mistakenly imo -- their party could've done better but for McCain's actions).

What's different is that the MSM -- and Chris, your forum is called a blog, but your MSM DNA is showing here -- won't have George W. Bush as a lightning rod this time. It'll be fun to watch the media go into contortions trying to reconcile their urge to support a hugely popular John McCain with their long-standing opposition to any candidate whose name is followed by an "R." The Republican candidate in 08 won't wear a "kick me" sign. Consider that one who did still managed to win more popular votes in '04 than any candidate has ever received before (aided, of course, by the Dems, who for some reason put up an effete, JFK wannabe who was tone deaf enough to suggest "global test").

If McCain is the Republican nominee -- and it's highly likely he will be -- he'll win more Dem votes than the Dems' own candidate. If that's not a loud enough wake-up call for the Dems, then the patient isn't just sleeping.

I served 20 years in the miltary and in two war zones but I won't puff my chest out like you IraqiVet. Umn, have all of your bones broken, are tortured on a regular basis like McCain or shoot some kid in the back as he is running away like Kerry. I don't really think you need to be in the military to make a judgement like that.

I have read this blog for the past few months without commenting because I thought that almost any thought would be attacked by either the extreme right or left and I did not want to add to the acrimony. So now I will be an idiot and throw out something that will probably be attacked from both sides.

I have heard moderate Republicans (like myself, some of us do exist) and moderate Democrats talk about how they feel the extremes of each party is running things. Many of us in the middle have to choose from one extreme or the other in the general election because moderates can't (generally) win primaries. Being a former PoliSci major, I know the history of failed third parties, the Reform party being the latest. I just want to hear some thoughts, is there any chance of a new party being formed from the middle of American politics? With so much frustration being felt at both extremes, it would seem to be now or never. Any thoughts? Please be kind!

Ok, i'll be the first to say it "GEORGE ALLEN FOR PRESIDENT"!!! now excuse me while i go throw my guts up for the rest of the afternoon...

OK, I'm not saying much of the skepticism above isn't warranted, but here's a reason to be hopeful about John McCain: unlike Mr. Bush, he rejects fringe "sound science" for real, peer-reviewed science, and therefore understands that global warming is an imminent problem. Hence his co-sponsorship of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act currently before the Senate, and NOT supported by GOP generally. This is also legislation, incidentally, that won't win the man many friends among major corporate donors. It shows chutzpah.

With his election, leaders in both parties (not just the Dems) would recognize the importance of this issue.

Want to be a stoic optimist like me?... I know you do. Then consider writing your senator an email in favor of this bill. You can learn more about the bill on Sen. Lieberman's or McCain's web pages or at www.climatecrisis.net (Gore's Inconvenient Truth page) And no, tragically I did not get paid to write this. My dog told me to do it (he's a stoic optimistic too, although mostly concerning squirrels).

Bhommes,

Unless you have served in a war I suggest you know "Dick" Cheney about suffering and are not in a position to say who suffers and who does not.

>>

Bhommes,

Unless you have served in a war I suggest you know "Dick" Cheney about suffering and are not in a position to say who suffers and who does not.

>>

I think the 2008 election will be a referendum on the Bush administration and on the Republican leadership of America. The personalities of the candidates will take a back seat.

McCain? H. Clinton? It won't matter in the end. The election will be about which party is "in power" and which party "is to blame." The standard-bearer for the blamed in-power party will lose, ragardless of who s/he is.

Eddie

He may or may not be bringing in Bushies, etc., to help him out. But these pols are professionals - once they sign on to McCain and his vision, they are McCain Republicans.

John McCain will begin to define the Mainstream, whatever that is. And at this point, he can run as a uniter, promise to govern out of principle, take Democrats on when need be, and bring them in when he has to.

As for the social issues, while relevant, the social conservatives will understand and appreciate that getting McCain will be better than getting Feingold, Clinton or even Warner.

Of course, everything hinges on the Nov elections. If the GOP keeps both Houses, then the Bushies will brag and run like they always have...the more maverick and independent minded candidates (McCain, Hagel, etc) will probably be shut out. If the GOP loses one House, it's a jump ball to define what the GOP should be doing in the next four years.

I was amazed to hear of McCain's speaking at Liberty U, seeing him kissing up to Bush and abandoning any semblance of being middle of the road. Watching rhe antics of Santorum, Liebermann and now McCain do any of these people stand for anything? Are we at a point where "Throw the rascals out" applies to both sides?Aside from the Congress people who have exposed themselves as just plain stupid windbags is there anybody down there trying to look out for the American public?

bhoomes

beg to differ. Everytime the idiotic concept of uniform national service comes up in serious discourse, the conservative Republicans are at the helm, have huge unfulfillable military dreams, and know that the Rank and file American kids would never get involved voluntarily.

Last major discussion was 1964 with Goldwater and company.

RCD: You seem to [set the record straight], however, these right-wingers are so set in their thinking, they are watching us on the stove and cooking on their TV.

Well its nice to see (Colin) somebody else on this blog has a sense of humor and don't take themselves so seriously. Mandatory service only for the military in times of peril. Anything else you have a Big Nanny Government intruding on individuals pursuit of happiness. This concept might work in sissified Europe, but never with fiercely independent americans

Poor Richard.

C'mon. They'll "Swift Boat" him figuratively speaking. Too much is at stake and the conservatives will not stay home and sit on their hands.

The boat has already pulled out of port. Frist and company ran flag burning, are ferreting out the weak sister Rebpulcians this week on stem cell. (W gets his first veto on a cause near and dear to the conservatives and lets the true Repubs show off)

Never Romney though.

WIll

You are dreaming. Ref. the unsigned 2:20 post. It is right on the money.

McCain will not be the conservatives patsy. When he shows his independence they will pop him in the chops.

FH -- I think mandatory service is a wonderful idea and really wish ANY politician had the guts to actually introduce something like this. Of course, a good idea like that will NEVER actually catch on among folks on the left or the right. Sigh.

bhoomes -- I'll run down to the Senator's office and let you know what she says. She's been awfully busy addressing the "important" issues that Republicans in congress have brought up though (gay marriage, whether the next tax cut should be for a cagillion, trillion dollars or just a trillion cagillion), so it may take awhile to get an answer. Maybe as a return favor you could actually address a few substantive issues? I know that goes against the talking points, but who knows - it might be fun.

McCain, like the GOP, are so over.

Smell the wave, feel the wave, ride the wave. DC will be washed clean, because America no longer cares about excuses.

I'm not American, but I'd gotten the impression over recent years that in the US lexicon, "politics" means fundraising, mudslinging, gerrymandering etc - in short, everything except policy.

I rather like Chris Cilizza's tight focus on money and influence, while ignoring supposed opinions, ethics and higher motives. I think it's a truer reflection of the way Washington minds really work.

It's not what you think that matters to these people, it's who you know.

Having seen first hand how really vile and dirty the Bush campaign was to McCain, I wonder how he can now embrace them so closely. Political accomodation and false smiles, yes, of course. But only a man with no scruples, who'll do anything to be president, could stomach the kissing. He'll never be president.

>>>what do you think about 2-year mandatory federal service starting at 18-years of age?

FH, nice to see ya bud. It is not only a good idea... It is SORELY needed. We shouldnt be forced to show our American pride by killing the A-rabs or keeping out "those mexicans"... We have no American identity at this point in time other than political strife. And a Federal Community service plan would go a long long way towards reconstructing that identity.

How about a Service Exchange Program sending blue staters to central Idaho, for example, or Missisippian yats to inner-city Boston?

Let's face it, our government on BOTH sides of the aisle are completely failing our next generations.

Poor Richard

Do you think the Republicans are going to let this get away without a fight? They have Karl Rove running the reelection strategy and he is in the clear since W pulled the rug from under Fitz's boss.

Never in a Million Years will they run Mit. The RNC will galvanize their conservative base and pull out the stops for someone they know they can control.

Romney is too independent.

Thanks Cal Gal for realizing I have plenty of love to go around.

I hate to say it, but it's driving me insane. All this talk of "Wall" Mart is crazy because it's WAL Mart. The founder's name was Sam Walton, not Sam Wallton. I feel much better about that.

as a life long Republican....

with regard to the 2008 candidate, I have only one word. MitRomney.

The conservatives stay home and drink coffee if McCain runs.

"The Clintons are the biggest corporate lackeys in History."

More loving thy neighbor from bhooms.

Hey, McCain is doing what he needs to do if he wants to win the nomination...how can you blame him for that?

As for a policy debate, Fair and Balanced, what do you think about 2-year mandatory federal service starting at 18-years of age? Not necessarily military service, but peace-corps, border security...etc.

FairAndUnbalanced: Then go back to your Daily Kos, nobody is twisting your arm to check out this blog. I believe the Fix is more about politics than policy. Go to a policy blog if that is what you are really interested in. (I somehow really doubt it)

"I believe Drindle ought to change her nom de plume from Drindl to a angry middle age white female."

Boy, when will bhoomes stop loving!

Drindl, thanks for gettin my back.... But the description is D.C. and the "wider world". Unless they define "wider world" as "the wider world as seen ONLY by D.C. politicians". Granted there is some coverage of Govs races and some local races, but even that is limited to surface "coverage". I would love to have a debate about flag burning or gay marriage or some of the inane policy provided by the GOP. At least that would allow US (the people for whom this blog was created) to have an outlet for real political discourse. And not this "Condi will be a great VP" "I think Hillary is a Nazi" b.s.....

It seems like every rare once-in-a-while Chris posts something substantive and we always have a healthy debate on those issues. But why so rarely? And why ignore things like the economy? like oil/gas? like corruption? like a zillion issues in POLITICS that are being ignored on The Fix for whatever reason.

If I was to grade this blog on substance, Id give it a D+. A D- or F if you consider it without the occasionally informative (but typically incomplete) Fri Line posts.

"The Clintons are the biggest corporate lackeys in History."

More loving thy neighbor from bhooms.

"I am happy to see Drindl finally got religion but I suggest she work on love thy neigbor.

Posted by: bhoomes"

Pretty ironic statement from someone who smears a genuine Vietnam war vet who had the stones to come back home and tell everyone what a royal cock-up it was.

The part I love about this new storyline of the MSM is that McCain is so strong behind Bush on Iraq while Democrats can't agree on anything, but if McCain is so behind Bush on Iraq, why has he repeatedly and loudly called for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's top adviser on Iraq. That's a pretty significant split. Much more significant than whether troops should start pulling out in July 2007 or January 2008. But I guess this doesn't fit nicely into a cute storyline, so the mainstream press is happy to write ad nauseum about Democratic disagreements, and smooth over GOP divisions so they can simply rehash the same information over and over.

Now this ain't just another attack on the MSM, because I hate it when they come from the Right. I'm simply pointing out an oversight on the part of journalists, and criticizing how mainstream journalism is conducted in the era of large corporate news entities.

John McCain is NOT qualified to lead the American people, and We will never vote him into office. So rather than harboring Walter Mitty fantasies of wish-fulfillment, regarding the Manchurian candidate--or Rudy Giuliani--this nation needs to elect Patrick J. Buchanan president, and Tom Tancredo as vice president.
John McCain--along with the 62 pro-amnesty senators-- will be removed from power, for selling out the American people, and betraying his country, with his unbridled support for the forces of Aztlan.

I agree with much of your sentiment, FairandBalanced. But how can Chris write about legislation and critical issues if he's writing about DC? There's nothing going on there EXCEPT the same old crud and mudslinging.

Should he write about the flag-burning amendment brought up unsuccessfully for the 300th time? Should he talk about the non-action on immigration? Should he talk about the earth-shatteringly important gay marriage ban?

Sure, the world is burning down. But none of the republicans in washington really give a damn, do they?

Colin, If this is true why is she running away from her service at Wall Mart? And if she is really sincere, the first question to ask "How many minorities does he employ on her staff? Is it represenatative of the state she represents? I don't know the answers to these questions, but being on her staff I know you can get them quickly and share them with us. PS: I glad your not thin skinned and angry like Drindl.

'Making your point'? You're losing it, son, you're incoherent.

Sorry to disappoint you Colin, he's not interested in addressing serious issue. Just in parroting dittohead talking points. None of his ilk knows how to think. Just don't have the capacity.

I really cant stand how trashy this blog has become. The same posts, the same topics over and over again, eliciting the same reaction over and over again. Hillary. McCain. Condi. I mean come on, really.

Chris, how about something OTHER than THIS insider vs. THAT insider. Or are you that brain-dead that you cant come up with something new?

How about a positive piece about legislation that politicians are offering. How about an informative piece about different opinions on crucial issues in politics? How about anything other than the SAME OL' CRUD and mudslinging?

Here is the description of the blog as provided by WaPo.com:

"...aims to serve as a one-stop shop for political junkies in Washington and the wider world."

One-stop shop? With ZERO policy debate? The "wider world"???? WHA? As in like what? Gimme a break. The Middle East is in uproar (foreign policy), Bush is about to veto a stem cell bill that is supported by 70% of the US population (domestic policy)..... and all you can write is ANOTHER haggard piece on a pathetic pandering blowhard like McCain?

Just like the GOP, you are completely off target with the state of politics and policy in this country.

Politician. Stop and think. McCain has jockied and put himself in the right light so many times. Remember he is a politician. A professional speaker that has no other abilities or suitable qualities.

Thanks Drindl for making my point. You are just like McCain in that regards, just can"t help yourself.

bhoomes - Wow, what an interesting response. You completely failed to address the substance of my comment and instead labeled me an operative of Hillary even though: (1) I don't particularly like her; (2) Won't vote for her in the primaries; and (3) Only comment on her when people throw out ridiculous and unsubstantiated attacks against her. At one point I thought you were interested in engaging in serious political dialogue. Given your growing unwillingness to even address substantive issues, that's clearly not the case. That's a shame in my book.

..and you, bhoomes, ought to change yours to unemployed, semi-literate middle-aged buffoon and loser. You're just jealous of Colin because he's so articulate he can debunk your crude simplistic claims without breaking a sweat. All you do here is embarrass yourself.

For years now I have had nothing but dislike and contempt for every politician of both the Democratic and Republican party. Then a few years ago I thought I'd found a ray of sunshine. A small but very bright beam of light and with it, hope for the American working men and women. John McCain was that one small light or ray of hope. It is truly unfortunate that Mr. McCain tossed aside his integrity and honesty when he sold out all of us and I'm sure there were many, many more than just I who felt then and now as I do. Mr. McCain, I hope the price was worth it. I heard these next words somewhere, many many years ago. "The only causes worth fighting for are the lost causes. Mr. McCain the plight of the American working class is such a cause. I'll never vote for you. Matter of fact. Now, I'll only vote to keep my homestead exemption. From now on I will write in Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck or Abraham Lincoln.We the people will receive as much aid from the dead and those two cartoon characters as we will from you or any of your political brothers in this country today. Every one of you has abandoned the American people in favor of Corporate America who in reality, own all of you, body and soul. I'm truly glad that Hell has unlimited seating capacity.

Colin, I now have no doubt that you now a paid Clinton staffer. I hope she is paying you and other campaign workers more than minimum wage. But I gotta warn you my friend, don't ever be caught even being slightly critical of her or you will be quickly unemployed. I believe Drindle ought to change her nom de plume from Drindl to a angry middle age white female.

McCain will not win the nomination. The religious right just doesn't trust him, and you can't win the nomination without their support. I have seen the argument that he only needs "enough" of the religious right vote, but in 2000, he got less than 20% of that vote. I don't see that changing. His only chance is that there are three or four religious right candidates who split the vote. I think that Brownback is the Gary Bauer of this election cycle. He won't get any votes because the only thing he has is his fundamentalism, and I don't think that the Republicans will vote for an out-and-out theocrat. (Well, enough of them, anyway.) Mike Huckabee has religious right credentials, but I don't think that his increase of the minimum wage or his health care bill will go well with the economic conservatives.

I think that, if he wins re-election this year, George Allen is probably the best positioned Republican to win the nomination, but then again, I would love to run against a neo-Confederate who used to keep a noose in his office and has a history of bullying his siblings as "the man of the house."

If McCain does win the nomination, the very reason he has such cross-over appeal in the first place will go by the wayside, because he will no longer be the maverick, but nothing more than a partisan hack. The Democratic nominee (who won't be Clinton because her negatives are way too high, which puts her into a similar position to Howard Dean) will have a field day with this. Short of renouncing his crowning achievement (McCain-Feingold), I don't see how he makes it through the primaries, and if he does, he will lose in the fall.

Colin, I now have no doubt that you now a paid Clinton staffer. I hope she is paying you and other campaign workers more than minimum wage. But I gotta warn you my friend, don't ever be caught even being slightly critical of her or you will be quickly unemployed. I believe Drindle ought to change her nom de plume from Drindl to a angry middle age white female.

bhoomes -- Despite Republican talking points to the contrary, Democrats and progressives don't hate corporations or business , so any connection between the Clintons and segments of the business community aren't troublesome at all. The term corporatist instead refers to individuals and politicians who support business at the expense of consumers and individuals.

While on the board of Wall Mart (an Arkansas based company which supplied a large number of jobs to the State), Senator Clinton worked to increase minority and female hiring and advocated in favor of higher wages and health benefits. Since entering the Senate, she's continued to push for an increase in the minimum wage and other pro-consumer measures. Accordingly, in the few instances where there actually is a divide between the interests of middle-class consumers and business (which is far more rare than Republicans argue), Senator Clinton has clearly been on the side of the consumer. Which is quite different than whoever emerges as the eventual Republican nominee.

After what the Bush campaign did to him in 2000 I'm very disappointed to see McCain kiss up to George while destroying his own integrity. As a fellow Vietnam combat veteran i gave him the benefit of the doubt on certain issues but cannot abide his current thirst for the nomination at any cost.

Least we forget what happened to McCain in 2000, the same seems to being started very early for him as well as Rudy. The far-right controls the process in the GOP, that is why most people I talk with are really seriously thinking og leaving the party. I'm a supporter of Hillary myself and am glad to see the early squabble.

I didn't 'get religion' bhoomes -- I've always believed in the teachings of Jesus. Just not in the hateful, lying, unchristian, fraudulent and delusional bigots of the so-called 'religious right'.

As for 'love thy neighbor' -- even Jesus was infuriated by the moneylenders in the temple, and those who use people's religious faith for personal gain. And that now includes John McCain. And it certainly includes most of the republican party.

Dick Rogers, I don't think anybody meant to imply that the far-right will vote Democratic instead of a moderate Republican. I'll tell you this though, your average ultra-conservative votes when s/he is impassioned about one particular person or idea. If it comes down to a moderate Republican (as McCain claims to be) and a moderate Democrat, they probably just won't vote. I know this, because I used to be into voting only when I really had a fire lit under me by a particular issue or candidate. I only went to the polls when I really cared. Then I started taking more of an interest in politics. My friends continued voting as I had. You'd be surprised at how many people won't care to vote if they aren't really impassioned. It's kind of like Kerry v. Bush in '04 - I know a lot of people who were sick of picking the lesser of two evils, so they just didn't go to vote. If it's a couple of moderates in the '08 race, extremists from either side may stay away from the polls in alarmingly high numbers. It's not definite, but it's a definite possibility.

Dick Rogers, McCain is a bigger warhawk than even Bush or myself, so I am little confused on how you could be such a big supporter of McCain., but in all fairness to McCain who I would never vote for, you don't get to the Oval office by alienating a large chunk of your party's base. Yes, the social conservatives can also annoy me because I like Rudy and the social conservatives would never let him get the nomination. But you have to be pragmatic enough to know like it or now they are part of your coalition and you have to work with them.

I think you guys are missing the fact that McCain already Has the support to win the general election. Folks like us who watch politics care about him talking at liberty University (and I use that term loosely) but the general public doesnt' care. Also liberals like myself aren't gonna vote for McCain no matter what so why should he try and get our votes? It is a lossed cause. He can win the middle of the road 10% with his military expereince and his record of bipartisanship (McCain Feingold, immigration reform etc).

Now the nomination is a Totally different situation. The right wingers don't trust him for the reason's bhoomes pointed out. Therefore, his number one priority is to limit their pull by courting that voting block. Also don't underestimate that folks in NH love him and he can and will beat Romney in the Granite State. Now if a Hagel/Sanford/Romney pulls out a Iowa win then it would be McCain verse the non-McCain when you get to south Carolina, and in my opinion McCain loses because the Christian right holds too much power in SC.

McCain doesn't strike me as one patient with criticism. He has a sagely, pragmatic demeanor to be sure, and he would come out looking all the better in a mudslinging campaign. But if ever he were cornered in an intense, intellectual debate, I think we would see a very nasty side of John McCain.

The age issue is probably a nonstarter because he looks ten years younger than he is.

When asked my party affiliation, I reply that I am a McCain republican. I am ashamed of the arrogant and myopic foreign policy shoved on the world by the current administration. I see myself as a middle-of-the-road realist who bitterly despises the partison climate that paralizes the Congress.
When I saw McCain and Bush on the same stage during Bush's 2004 campaign, I quickly surmised he had sold his soul for the 2008 nomination. In 2000, it was clear that the GOP bigwigs had already picked their candidate and the primaries were just window dressing.
His appeasement of the far right wing distresses me some, but not anywhere near enough to make me vote Democratic.
The realist in me tells me McCain knows he needs the Republican machine to reach the oval office in 2008, but does anyone really think the far right is going to abandon the Republican party (if they nominate a moderate) and vote for the Democratic ticket, especially if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee?
Perhaps the thinking is that the neo-cons will not make the effort to vote if the Republican candidate does not meet their right wing standards.
My thought is that they will get out and vote Republican simply because they would be scared of a Democrat in the White House (especially Hillary). If Hillary Clinton is the candidate I will contribute my hard earned dollars to whomever is her oppostion, even if it is not McCain.
Perhaps the plan is to pay his right wing dues now and drift back to the center as 2008 approaches and we moderate Republicans will forget(or forgive)his courtship of the far right by then.
I do not have all the answers by any means, but it is clear that for us to make meaningful progress we need to have a president that has friends on both sides of the aisle. If this means leaving the far right and far left wingers screaming their protests on the sidelines, so be it.
I am proud to say I voted (write in) for Senator McCain in both 2000 and 2004 and I hope to be able to cast my 2008 ballot for a Republican ticket topped by him.

Whatever happened to intellectual honesty, the same people who critize McCain for being a corporate lackey will be the first ones to vote for Madam Clinton. The Clintons are the biggest corporate lackeys in History. I believe our Beloved Hillary even sat on the Board of Wall Mart. The very corporation that can undersell everybody because to earn a decent living working there you have to be at least be middle management and willing to work 100-120 hours a week, 51 weeks a year.

Whatever happened to intellectual honesty, the same people who critize McCain for being a corporate lackey will be the first ones to vote for Madam Clinton. The Clintons are the biggest corporate lackeys in History. I believe our Beloved Hillary even sat on the Board of Wall Mart. The very corporation that can undersell everybody because to earn a decent living working there you have to be at least be middle management and willing to work 100-120 hours a week, 51 weeks a year.

Right you are, gentlemen--being President is a young man's game.

The same thing is happy time for the pundits. Listening over the weekend I found nothing to even come close to being new. Anyone out there have something I'm missing?

George Allen--HA..good one....

bhoomes -- That's wild that the GOP will still nominate Allen after he loses his Senate seat. I had no idea the GOP was that forgiving...

McCain will not be our nominee for this I am positive because McCain cannot help himself and his media friends will bait him on the cultural issues that separate him between the social conservatives. Thus reminding social conservatives why they don't like or trust him. Unlike Kerry, McCain actually suffered during the war, but just because he was a better man and officer than Kerry will not be enough in the end. The convential normally is always wrong so forget about a Clinton/McCain matchup and try a Allen/Fiengold matchup. I am happy to see Drindl finally got religion but I suggest she work on love thy neigbor.

If your compromises result in failed policies - then what good is a compromise? A rehashed McCain is still a McCain - I hope he runs and wins because America will not vote for a rehashed washington insider - Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II all Governors - exception is Bush I who was a vice president running for president.

The presidential candidates remind me of the American press - has anyone ever met a report who actually reads newspapers?

Someone needs to remind McCain and all of the US Senate candidates about the last 30 year history or presidential candidates

BObby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

McCain...where to start? Really liked him in 2000 when he seemed to be the anti-establishment everything...Strange how a lost presidential bid will change a man..Strike moderate/independant/free thinker/maverick in describing him please as it doesn't fit anymore..Insert panderer/shill/hack/flip flopper in there places..

While McCain claims he is a compromiser, he still appears to be less the compromiser he seemed in 2000. He courts the rightest of the right-wingers and vows to "ferociously" fight the Democrats on issues of fundamental philosophical disagreement. He has put himself in a terrible situation - if anyone asks him about Issue A, he'll say he'll want to compromise. Then the neocons and crazies on the extreme right will abandon him, labelling him as "soft." If he refuses to compromise, the right-of-center moderate Republicans will abandon him, leaving him only with the extremists. You can usually have one or the other, but with extremists being so, well, extreme, they are frequently unwilling to compromise. You can't be the next Henry Clay, the next "Great Compromiser," if one of your strongest bases is unwilling to compromise.

That said, he's a very strong candidate, but he has a lot of flaws, including what I just mentioned above. They include, (a) his age; (b)his age; and (c) his age. The people want someone young and strong in the White House. He is too old. I wish him good luck, and I'd love to see him nominated, so my youthful Democratic hopefuls (Warner, Vilsack, Bayh, Feingold) can get into a televised debate with him, further highlighting his age and giving the Party of the People the White House.

Too bad McCain is just another partisan hack. Too bad he now regularly and hypocritcally embraces people like far-right pseudo-christian billiionaires like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that he used to condemn.

And too bad he ain't fooling anybody. The fascistic, chickenhawk 'conservatives' still hate him cause he's a genuine war hero and those of us who admire his war service still can't vote for him because he's way too far right and too much a lackey of the corporatists.

'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' Matthew 19:24.