No. Senator McCain might be able to win average Americans over and is arguably America's greatest statesman. But he can't win over the hearts of his own party.

Friday, April 6th Senator Orrin Hatch (UT) spoke to a government class at the University of Utah. When asked about campaign finance he said McCain-Feingold was "inexcusable". Hatch went on to say he I thinks "McCain didn't even know what was in the act."

Republicans have despised McCain's former maverick attitude. Although the Senator from Arizona has worked to mend ties with his party, they won't forgive him for McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.

He can't win the primary. The self-righteous right comprise a fifth of the total the parties voters. Once upon a republican nightmare, Big John let the self-righteous right have it with both barrels.

Wouldn't have been so bad, but he told them the truth.

Bill Clinton taught us all most Americans will eventually forgive you for a lie if you say ask forgiveness and act contrite. If you can get the Rev. Jesse Jackson to come to your house and pray over you, that helps too. The problem McCain has is, he did not lie.

Once you've called the right reverend mega-pastor Falwell an agent of intolerance, I don't think he's gonna turn the other cheek. Now, I'm sure Rev. Falwell believes that Jesus wants all them people to vote republican, just like I'm sure he believes Jesus don't want them people voting for THAT republican.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

I think McCain should dropped out now, anyone that has rode the cost tail of Bush and stood for Bush, and along side Bush, for this disgraceful adminstration of Bush, A disgrace to this nation, They are just like Bush and Chaney. They all need to go ahead and retire, so sadly at the tax payers expense, but get out of the public eye. McCain is no better than Bush and Chaney, he needs to resign and retire.

John McCain has decided to link all his political fortunes to Don Rumsfeld's military acumen. He is busy demanding that the entire country is wrong about Iraq, but he is only willing to support an upscaled version of the original Rumsfeld/neocon fairy tale for Iraq. Once the Neocons decided to fire General Shinseki because he wasn't a team player, and substitute their evaluation that we could win in Iraq with both arms lopped off as well as one leg, ala the persistant knight in Monte Python's Holy Grail, the Bush administration ceased to have a plan. We have gone more than four years in Iraq without ever considering securing all those thousands of tons of high explosives that we know are out there in the desert. We have never even attempted to get the right mix of military forces into country, and we have definitely never had a quarter of the forces we would need, at a minimum, to stand a chance. To even hope to succeed, now a certain impossibility, and even at the start probasbly impossible, we would need another 2.1 Million active duty Army, to permit a Viet Nam sized war, and to pursue that war for ten years. McCain can't possibly actually call for that, and the taxes and draft it would take to support it, so he has decided that we have to continue the current fairy tale that is being played out in Iraq.

Should the Republican Party be so fatuous as to actually nominate him for President, he will have to defend the extra 2000 dead and 20000 wounded that will have accumulated in the next 18 months, with exactly nothing to show for it, and no one will even then have begun securing the unguarded ammunition sites. Every Republican Senator running for reelection will be inextricably linked to John and George, and soon headed for a lucrative post-congressional consulting carrer. Most of the House Republicans will have equally compromised themselves as well. With John heading the ticket, the Republicans will be heading for the exits from Washington D.C. enmasse and permanently.

If John were a true Neocon insider those considerations wouldn't stop the party from using him to commit suicide, but since the neocons have never liked him, at the last moment they will nominate someone else.

That probably won't really help, but from the Neocon point of view it will be better than kowtowing to the Progressive Wing.

McCain is as close as the U.S. could get to reelecting Bush in 2008. They even like the same kind of photo-ops: wouldn't Bush have loved to do that "Mission Accomplished" stroll through that well-secured Baghdad market?

I am an Independent that "always" supported McCain. With 3 members of my family in the military, his grasp of reality lost me completely. But talk about a blast from my past! Fred Malek?? Is this the same Fred Malek that worked for the Nixon administration? As a Federal employee, I remember his handiwork during the Nixon administration. Namely, the Malek Manual on how to circumvent the Merit Promotion System. THIS........paragon of virtue is working for McCain?? Now I could just cry. Another hero bites the dust.

McCain has tied himself to the war in Iraq and to the failed policies of the Bush II Administration in Iraq. If nothing changes there between now and the Iowa caucuse and GOP support collapses, there will be no reason to support McCain. Who wants four more years of more of the same?

I always like McCain until he took all of his Bush criticismsn and trashed them to chase the Republican base.

He has become nothing but another one of those sold out politicians. Sold out his principles.

And now he has become even more so with his absurd comments about Iraq.

This guy is done.

lylepink: Sorry it took me so long to reply to your initial response. I was out of town for a few days and hadn't had a chance to do so. Anyway, here are the reasons I don't support Hillary Clinton for President:
1) support for the Iraq War
2) refusal to apologize for same
3) insistence that universal halth care can be provided without raising taxes
4) her version of universal health care isn't universal and too complicated to garner any actual support
5) seems to believe in the unitary executive
6) a centrist
7) surrounds herself with the DLC types who have screwed this party in the first place
8) unwilling to take a stand on most tough issues
9) tries to be all things to all people
10) confuses stubbornness with principle

There you go. Ten reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee for President, and they are all based on policy.

William: do you honestly believe that "all three seats should be GOP" in WV? Let me tell you a little secret: only two of our three seats in the House are Dem. The candidate who is always in the closest race of the three is Shelley Moore Capito, the lone Republican, who has only won more than 57% of the vote once.

Every election cycle this decade I have heard about how the GOP is going to break through and turn this state red. I remember hearing and reading for months about how Chris Wakim was going to defeat Alan Mollohan in the first district. Well, once again Mollohan won with ease, despite raising very little money through the first half of the year. Except for Captio, there has been no serious Republican candidate for the House since 1982 or the Senate since 1984. The GOP has very little orginization in the state, as can be noticed in the fact that Dems even *gained* a net of six seats in the state legislature last year (four in the House and two in the Senate) despite already having advantages of 68-32 and 21-13 in each house. The only GOP pick-up in the legislature was because an 80-year-old sitting Delegate was forced into a nursing home after a stroke with only four weeks left to go in the campaign and too late to replace on the ballot. The GOP can't win seats to major offices in this state because they have no bench.

Don't be fooled by Bush's two electoral wins in WV. This state has learned its lesson and we will go back to our solid blue ways.

no mccain cannot win. and if any of the other republican candidates do, we all lose.

My love has a red, bulbous nose
And a face that sags
And when she speaks construction folks
They hide in paper bags
That grating whine, it haunts me
And that 'do, it even taunts me
It will be mine, it will be mine
(something that rhymes with 'bags')

The sagging, bug-eyed Hillary
Demand, demand, demand
She thirst for power, hungers to
Be leader of the land
No new ideas, no special cause
No reason for her reign
But vote for my poor Hillary
Or else she'll go insane!

What McCain needs to do is withdraw from the election and stop wasting everyone time, energy and thought and we might be able to save some troops. You have to ask yourself why does he keeping backing this war. Let's put this into prospective: Our troops are involved in a civil war where there is no clear of win or lose, our troops are being used in a huge opium producing region of the world. It that today? NO that was Vietnam; McCain must think that he can correct the past by fighting the same war. Haven't learned anything? And before anyone thinks that I don't support our troops, I am a member of the military and have been for 19 years.

TSgt. USAF

What McCain needs to do is withdraw from the election and stop wasting everyone time, energy and thought and we might be able to save some troops. You have to ask yourself why does he keeping backing this war. Let's put this into prospective: Our troops are involved in a civil war where there is no clear of win or lose, our troops are being used in a huge opium producing region of the world. It that today? NO that was Vietnam; McCain must think that he can correct the past by fighting the same war. Haven't learned anything? And before anyone thinks that I don't support our troops, I am a member of the military and have been for 19 years.

TSgt. USAF

McCain can't even decide if he's a Republican or Democrat, much less win an election... His views are all wrong for his party. Giuliani or Thompson will win. The dumbocrats will probably put Obama or
Hillary on the ballot and 230 years of white male leadership will not end in 2008.

McCain, Romney, Guiliani.... talk about a Hobson's Choice. Really, these are not good options. Conditions are ripe for a candidate such as Fred Thompson, a "fresh" face.

McCain won't snag most right-wingers, has ditched his Straight Talk Express for a Bush sanitation truck and is on the wrong side of the Iraq war.

Since his $$ support is down, he may soon find he needs to spend more time with his family.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

no more republican propaganda they are destroying the heart of america

I think McCain is still very much in the race to win it. Romney has already started to spend in key early primary states and Guiliani's numbers are already fallen and Romney's are already raising. McCain's, however, has remained pretty constant. Again, were not talking about national polls. I'm referring to early key primary states that prove you belong to build momentum and encourage donors. As Guiliani loses some of his numbers, the question is will Romney gain enough of them to become the winner or will McCain gain some of them as well? I think the latter. McCain already has a base support as well as instant name recognition as a war hero. All this helps. Plus he has an independent streak a mile wide that may help him, plus his organization is great. He could pick off enough supporters of Guiliani to be victorious. Of course, Guiliani could keep enough supporters to win or Romney could really become the come-back kid and win this thing. Right now, it looks like a 3 person race.

Mike B - obviously it varies depending on where you find your statistics, but I have found plenty of sites that show that the level of gun violence has dropped significantly since the restrictions.
Here's a random example among many (this is a bit old but the restrictions came in in 96 so it is reasonable)
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

If you really think violent crime has 'soared' and 'more than doubled', I want proof. Homicide has definitely not increased since the restrictions, not sure what you class as 'violent crime'.
"The 2003 figure for homicide was 3% lower than in
1996 and 7% lower than in 2002."

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/facts_and_figures_2004.pdf

As for your 'final solution' claims, are you for real? I mean seriously, to compare whatever took place to that is quite sick. I would hate to stand between you and your gun by the sound of it.

CM: I notice you use the "liberal" word in your response, and that you are doing EXACTLY what I have been saying for such a long time now. When you folks lose an arguement you go back to "Liberal" as your your only reason for you having lost the arguement. For a person as uneducated as myself, having completed one year of high scool and got my HS GED while in The AF, at least try and show you are not a complete hostage to the right wing kooks.

CM - 1) How will leaving Iraq make the Middle East any less stable than it has been for over a half-century?

2) The Democrats don't propose to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts have expiration dates, put there by Republican Congresses. So, how do the Democrats get blamed?

3) That economic growth is funded by the Debt, most of which we now owe to whom? The Chinese. Not exactly good for national security purposes is it.

Patrick Henry

I guess you think throwing around the term "neo-nut" when speaking of Conservatives makes you sound sophisticated? Quite the contrary.

Because someone believes that life begins at conception does not make them a nut. You may choose to disagree with that position but talk intelligently about the social and moral dilemmas that the issue creates.

As for Rudy Giuliani's position, I may not agree with it but this is one Conservative who finds his candor refreshing. Hillary Clinton seems incapable of formulating a consistent position on this or any other issue.

By the way, when was the last time the Democrats proposed new proposals to address the serious foreign and domestic issues facing this country? They achieved narrow majorities last Fall by running conservative Democrats (not liberals) in key areas of the country, but have yet to display the ability to galvanize the various factions of their newfound majority status.

While some of the criticism regarding the way in which the so called neo-conservatives have handled the Iraq war is valid, I am still waiting for any of the Democratic candidates to tell us how leaving Iraq will stabilize the country or the Middle East.

What makes any of them believe that Iran (a country that has proclaimed its desire to wipe Israel off the map) and Syria won't use Iraq as a training ground for Hezbollah and Hamas?
That would not only serve to further destabilize
the Middle East, but will eventually create havoc on the European continent.

Furthermore, how do they propose dealing with an Iranian regime that is just a few years a way from having a nuclear weapon?

Once they answer those questions, it would be refreshing to get their views on dealing with the fact that come 2030 spending on entitlement programs will be upwards of 70% of the federal budget.

While they have shot down proposals to privatize Social Security they never have put forth a proposal to deal with the coming crisis in that program or Medicare. While everyone focuses on global warming, there is a pending financial Armageddon that is not being addressed.

Along those lines, how does repealing the Bush tax cuts-which have created a period of strong economic growth and new jobs (unemployment at 4.4%)- help the American people?

My bet is that the American people are waiting for someone to answer these and other questions. In the end, I think they will turn to a leader (warts and all) like a Rudy Giuliani or perhaps Fred Thompson over candidates who are either inexperienced, too liberal or trying to be all things to all people.

McCain's 'moment' was in 2000, possibly 2004 had he decided to come out and run a 3rd party campaign for President.

His problem now is that he's let himself get caught up in a political process that continues to spiral out of control in cost and time. McCain has lost his way and this coming from someone who wrote him in for President in 2004.

I would love it if he would simply drop out of the Republican race and declare himself as an Independent for President.

He'd never become President, but at this juncture of his career, McCain could be the conduit desperately needed for disaffected citizens of all political persuasions to vent their frustration at a system that has become inherently corrupt in big money special interests who dominate both parties.

I am not sure but the thought of McCain dropping out of the race, as I suggested. seems to be getting closer by the day. I can think of only a couple fundraising events these past few weeks and it just might be that he is looking for an honorable way, as he sees it, to get out. Even the trip to Iraq, and his statements from there, were nothing anyone can even start to believe, and when he drops out is now only a question of when and how he can "save face".

The terrorists are those that do not agree with this Administration on any matter, no matter how small the difference may be, and from the very begining it has been based on lies and more lies. When we have folks in the media pretending to inform the public of what is going on and doing the exact opposite, it is no wonder the public has such distain for them. This is in print as well as electronic.

Dan W--"If we can't have ammunition because the Constitution does not say we can have ammunition then turn off your computer because the Constitution doesn't say you can have one."

No, no. I am saying that you have no constitutional protection for possessing ammunition--unlike the weapons themselves for which there is a provision. This allows for possible legislation restricting it (on same grounds as controlled substances, for example.)

MikeB--"That is the dumbest comment I've head here."

I do notice a conspicuous lack of a provided line in the Constitution from you, though.

Jefferson clearly means that you should carry a gun because the additional weight adds to the effectiveness of your normal walk.

Besides, we are strict constructionists here.

Anguish Over Iraq Shakes Public's Faith in Military Solutions, Poll Finds

Trevails over U.S. involvement in Iraq has created skepticism among Americans related to U.S. military options overseas, according to a survey by Public Agenda, a poll opinion and policy organization.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/anguish-over-iraq-shakes-publics-faith.html

On Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden, the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "[P]hoto opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of terror.

That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal terrorist group, led by a former Taliban fighter and drug smuggler, which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings of civilians, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners.

Today, Tony Blair called the attack that killed four British soldiers yesterday an act of terrorism. You didn't see that wrong. Yes, now attacking soldiers is also an act of terrorism. So, that's it. It's official. The word "terrorism" no longer means anything.

The whole point of labeling something a terrorist act was that it targeted civilians, and hence, was particularly heinous. Of course, this is a relatively recent definition since the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo targeted civilians, to say the least. And to say that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also targeted civilians is a dramatic understatement.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have used the weapons we did in World War II. And I'm definitely not saying that attacking the British troops was acceptable. The loss of those four young lives is a tragedy. But if you call it terrorism to attack our troops now, there is no conceivable definition of terrorism that makes sense anymore.

Unless, of course, we just wanted to confirm what has unofficially been true for some time now. We pretty much call our enemies terrorists. And if our allies do the same exact thing we call them militants or soldiers or even freedom fighters. Does there get to be a point when the hypocrisy is a little too much to bear? And if it does, can anyone really argue we're not at that point?

It seems that at least two of the three GOP frontrunners (i.e. McCain and Romney) are trying to pretend to support neo-nut causes they have previously opposed in order to try and appease the neo-nut conservatives. McCain's overall political support appears to be disappearing quickly as we speak. Romney's poll numbers have never been terribly impressive and seems to be banking on the fact that he looks and sounds good and has a lot of money. Both of these GOP candidates seem very weak and doomed to quick implosions. Also, with Guiliani's recent apparent change of strategy (giving his nod to public funding of abortions) he seems to have decided that he does NOT need to appease the neo-nuts, as this abortion position seems to put the nail in his neo-nut coffin. As I live in NYC, I have seen some of the many controversies that have swirled around him and his aggressive management style. Even before the various ones that have erupted recently (children not supporting him, thrice married wife working for group that harms animals), he has a LOT of skeletons in the closet that will NOT endear him to the neonuts or even humans. I could easily see his campaign exploding rather decisively. Thus, the Repubs have some interesting issues that do not seem to be matched on the DEM side. Who can they elect? Nobody, seems to be the existing answer.

PArt of the problem is we no longer have a true militia, the National Guard comes close but is not truly a Militia.

Frankly I would call the Guard to be the Army of the State whereas the Militia is the Army of the people.

Mark: I don't know that it has to do with him being a Repub president, merely that he is a president whose party controlled both houses.

The issue about Guns is a no brainer. No matter the position anyone takes, the other side can tear it apart. The only arguement about the 2nd that makes sense at all is in the "well regulated militia" part. Different opinions on that is where the real arguement is found.

'Specifically, if the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do something, then the Federal government can't do it.'

...unless a republican is president. then it's okay.

roo: If we can't have ammunition because the Constitution does not say we can have ammunition then turn off your computer because the Constitution doesn't say you can have one. Get rid of your car. The Constitution doesn't say you can have one. Get rid of your phone, the Constitution doesn't say you can have one.

The Constitution is not a permissions document for the people, it is a permissions document against the Federal government.

Specifically, if the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do something, then the Federal government can't do it.

1972 video of Karl Rove discussing his strategy to motivate youth in the campaign to reelect Nixon. Karl Rove was serving then as the College Director of the Republican National Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/04/06/karl-rove-discusses-work-_n_45131.html

That's the thing with True Believers. They all think no one but themselves is pure enough. Everyone that differs doctrinally even slightly is seen as apostate.

Colin,
Please accept my apologies if you took my remarks for being insulting. I was trying to be flipant and have a notable lack of talent, in writing, for that sort of thing. However, friends tell me I'm actually quite funny in person :)

Aussie,
I have freinds from Austrailia who tell me about what happened in your country when a small group of gun control nuts managed to dictate that debate. Doors broken dow, threats and intimidation, and government thugs taking guns and immediately melting them down so as to preclude even the possibility of someone else taking power and changing the laws. It was rather like the "Final Solution" and what the Nazi's did to the Jews or wha PETA would inflict on us if they gained control of government for a short while. Disguisting, despicable, cowardly, insane, and utterly without honor. As for the crime rate in Austrialia since....it has soared! The violent crime rate has more than doubled. You can "believe" in gun control all you want, just don't try and inflict your nonsense on us.

I want to leave an irrelevant comment too!

Colin, in William's estimation everyone is a liberal. He's said that McCain is a leftist. I think William considers himself to be the only real conservative in the world.

Whenever I feel that others are not respecting my penetrating analysis of R's, Dems and Libs, I retreat into my fantasy world, where I am the king of an imaginary country. (GRUNT)

MikeB -- not sure why you had to get insulting. I merely said I didn't think it was a constitutional right. In point of fact, i don't want to ban guns at all. You seem to have missed that part.

William -- Many conservatives still want to put Bork on the bench. He's been upheld as the perfect "textualist" judge by the right for 20 years. So comparing him to Stevens is just stupid. Nice try though. Oh, and Burger started the process of walking-back the most far reaching decisions of the warren court. Good to k now that in your expert legal opinion he's "liberal" as well.

William--"I just can't understand the people who want to ban guns. The only guess I can come up with is that they feel sorry for criminals and want them to have a safe work environment."

Hmmm....maybe because America has the highest rate of gun related crime in the Western world(and not coincidentally, it's the easiest place to get a gun)?

I am exactly the opposite, I just can't understand people who think it's a good idea for guns to be legal. I think it's sad that so many Americans feel the need to have a gun for self defence. Even sadder is kids bringing guns to school. Gun control works.

MikeB: We are on the same page. I have given this a lot of thought over the years, and it started when I was working in Racine, Wisconsin at a Steel/Mallable iron foundry as a timekeeper, 66-72. Close to America Moters which was in Kenosha and Mitt Romney's father became the head honcho, btw. At that time the labor market in the area was such that employers went hunting for workers in various states, WV for me. Latino workers were some of the best I have seen and if anyone knows anything about this kind of work, it is brutally hard. I am not sure, but I think the legal staus of workers started gaining strength in the 80's. Lou Dobbs of CNN has a daily show that highlights this problem, along with the shrinking middle class. Research appears very good.

lylepink - Oh, I agree we need to crack down on employers. But we're going to need to take some direct action against the illegals, too, The current estimates are that at least 60% of the construction trades have been taken over by illegals. We got into that mess when, back in the 1980's federal laws were relaxed that allowed constuction companies to hire subcontractors and not be responsible for their Social Security, Medicaid, and other taxes. That also was the demise of the small outfit and marked the beginning of these giant construction national corporations that are nothing more than some guy with a general contractors license and a mailbox. He subcontracts the actual work, the plans, everything, out to subcontractors. This was a custom designed loophole allowing these people to "innocently" hire illegals. No checks for citizenship, etc. necessary. So the home construction industry has been flooded with people who really don't know code, have no licenses, and are building a lot of shoddy homes all acoss the country. As with all corporations taking advantage of cheap labor, the savings go into the pockets of the corporate officers and investors. And, thanks to the laws passed by the unlamented Repblican Congress and George Bush, the corporation assumes all of the responsability, not the corporate officers, so here are going to be a lot of unhappy home owners in years to come with nowhere to turn to. The exact same thing has nt passed the notice of other employers. So we are witnessing a repeat of this subcontractor nonsense with janitorial, landscaping, and other outfits. Even some of the larger truck and RV manufacturing firms are getting into the act. You can't o after hose employers, but the employer IS the illegal immigrant. By now, we have pretty much figured out that we cannot afford them without doing grave harm to our own citizens and those citizens come first for jobs. The only solution is to round up the illegals and deport them. After that, we need to have the Congess back out the lunatic laws passed by Bush and the Republican mobsters, but that is going to take a lot of time and a lot of work. The corporate swine that were the beneficiaries of this largesse have amassed a fortune becasue of it and are/will use that money to defend it. In coming years, we are going to see Democratic and Republican politician's convicted of taking bribes and kickbacks that is going o shake this country. It is all due to the vast amounts of money in the hands of a few greedy and immoral individuals and the corporate entities they use to do their dirty work.

roo - That is the dumbest comment I've head here. And, besides that, comments from Jefferson about shooting being the sort of sport that build character wouldn't be possible without ammunition.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature,
are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk."

And Colin, if you don't understand the importance of guns and shooting and character and citizenship after reading what I have posted, then you need to find some of those liberal gun nuts (conseratives, too, but start with the liberals) where you live and spend some time with them. I's not just fun, it really does build character.

"That's a good one buddy. Judges hand picked by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are now officially too liberal for William."

Um...David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Conner, John Stevens are/were all REPUBLICAN appointees and LIBERAL!

Just b/c a judge is appointed by a Republican doesn't mean they are conservative.

McCain can definitely win, but only if he acts now to name Sanjaya for Vice President

MikeB -- the DC Circuit case you're thinking of was decided by three REPUBLICAN appointees. There were no democratic appointees on the panel. Before that decision, there has been exactly ONE federal circuit court that has upheld an individual rights interpretation of the second amendment. Ever.

Believe it or not, I respect the fact that reasonable people can argue in favor of an individual rights reading. It's a legitimate argument. But it's not a slam dunk by any stretch. All of that, however, is actually besides the point for me. What I don't understand is why this is such a HUGE issue for you and William when allowing gun control to be decided on a state by state basis has worked out quite well.

William -- Lopez was decided on commerce clause grounds and as such is a completely unrelated case. It had nothing to do with the secon amendment. I realize you don't respect supreme court precedent at all, but please leave the legal scholarship to those of us who have actually read the cases you're citing.

Also, Warren Burger and Robert Bork are now Liberals, eh? That's a good one buddy. Judges hand picked by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are now officially too liberal for William. Good god.

Patrick Henry, I don't think McCain will win either, but I find it hard to picture Romney as the nominee. As for Guiliani, the polls have made him over-confident and he is getting arrogant. He's too liberal to be nominated. If he's nominated, the GOP will have gone the way of the British Tories, and become a slightly more moderate version of the Democrats.

That will turn off millions of grassroots voters that even the most oily pseudo-conservative snake oil salesmen (Sean Hannity in particular) will not be able to prevent.

I cannot see Guiliani being nominated. That would destroy the Republican Party as we know it. Already the delicate alliance of social conservatives, libertarians, economic supply-siders, fiscal conservatives, free traders, and neocons is starting to crack.

Evidence of this cracking is, for example, out West, where Republicans have been losing ground as Democrats rapidly make inroads. Colorado, New Mexico, and, to a lesser extent, Nevada and Arizona, or trending blue rapidly, partially due to Hispanic immigration, and partially due to the fact that these states are libertarian leaning, and are upset with Bush policies.

Down South, until the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, and in some places, even until the 1980s or 1990s, most elected officials were "conservative" Democrats.

Indeed, even today, some states, such as AR and WV and LA prefer conservative Democrats to Republicans.

After the Republican Revolution in 1994, the GOP made tremendous inroads in the South, which last to this day.

But in some places, conservative Democrats are making a comeback. The South has been badly hurt by free trade policies like NAFTA and CAFTA, and Southerners are mad at the GOP for ignoring illegal immigration.

Indeed, there are quite a number of senate, governor, and congressional seats held by "conservative" Democrats that should be held by Republicans, and would be, if the GOP returned to its conservtaive roots.

In TX, there are at least 3-4 seats that should be GOP, including Chet Edwards' and Nick Lampson's.

In LA, Charlie Melancon's seat should be held by the GOP, considering that Bush got 67% of the vote in his district.

TN: 3-4 Dem seats should be GOp

GA: 4 seats should be GOP but are Dem

NC: 4-5 seats should be GOP but are Dem.

AR: at least 2 Dem seats should be GOP.

SC: John Spratt's seat should be GOP.

VA: 1 Dem seat should be GOP.

WV: All 3 Dem seats should be GOP.

MS: Taylor's seat should be GOP.

AL: Cramer's seat should be GOP.

FL: 203 Dem seats should be GOP.

MikeB--Hey! Can YOU point out where the Second Amendment says you are allowed to have ammunition? :)

McCain has lost the one thing he could not afford to lose: his credibility. Once lost, such is nearly impossible to recover. To win the Republican nomination, he has given up his soul. At the same time, although he started down the same neo-nut pandering path as McCain initially, Guiliani has apparently astutely realized recently that he does NOT need to sell his soul to the neo-nuts to win the nomination (when he stated that he would support public funding of abortions). This abortion funding position is a major, unforgivable slap in the face to the conservative Repubs all three have been chasing. However, McCain and Romneys' failures to dent Guiliani's poll numbers despite his anti-conservative positions, among other things (e.g. many states' change to earlier primaries), have convinced Guiliani to "not try to wear someone else's suit." I think this is smart. Guiliani is too bull-headed to convincingly pretend that he's something he is not. He is also new to this national spotlight -- without the same kind of indelible record as McCain -- so he does not face the same problems as McCain by giving up on pandering now. By being himself, he does not need to try and figure out how every particular political issue insults or pleases the desired target. He's a much stronger candidate using this strategy of truth in advertising. On the other hand, McCain is toast I believe. He has made his pact with the devil and long ago committed himself to pandering to the unpopular Bushies and their tragic war and other neo-nut causes. The recent Iowa interview where he was about to have a melt-down on the issue of free birth control because he could not come up with an intelligent neo-nut response is but one example. Inconsistently, McCain still blurts out anti neo-nut statements (e.g. about the many failures of Cheny and Rumsfeld and other Bushies in prosecuting this war). However, he has been in the national spotlight too long (e.g. publicly smooching Bush at the convention) to back off now from supporting the neo-nuts without major political backlash. Most conservative Repubs are going to run, not walk, from McCain, as the Independents and Democrats have already done. I do not care whether McCain raised 50 million dollars in this first quarter (instead of the $12.5 mil), because of the failure of this war and the continuing meltdown of the Shrub Administration, McCain has little chance of winning this election.

WILLIAM, JOHN EDWARDS HAS PUBLICALLY AND REPEATEDLY SAID HE OPPOSES GUN CONTROL LAWBEYOND WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW.
COLIN - The Supreme Court, to my knowledge, hasn't a direct challenge to gun control based on the Second Amendment. I truely believe they would toss out bans in places like New York if that did happen, however. In a recent case, challen ging the gun ban in Washington D.C., the descenting judge was a Bush appointee. The majority were Clinton appointees and they threw out the gun ban. The people challenging it were liberal gun owners like myself, not the NRA.
Something a lot of people don't recognize is that lots of Republican's are THE gun control nuts. Gonzales has actually advocated confiscating all privately ownd handguns. The Brady's are Republican's, too. Opposition to gun control runs across Party and conservative-liberal lines. William and I might disagree almost totallly on most politics but we would agree almost completely on guns. (If you read any of the forums on hunting and target shooting, too, you will find as many liberals as conservatives that are active and will oppose any candidate that is for gun control. We even have competitions and the tease is that they liberals usually win becaue we woukld rather target shoot than hunt! True, by the way. I do prefer target shooting.) That is one of the reason the control nuts don't like Second Amendment challenges. We WILL win. That would toss out New Yorks ban and that scares them. The only hingey have left are the lame, and obvious unconstitutional "let the individual states decide" garbage, or a Constitutional Amendment, which has no chance whatsoever.

MikeB: I forgot to mention these visa's are greater in the computer business as a percentage with wages around 12 to 16.000.00 $$ less. The farms and hotels/motels, resturant and domestic help make up a great deal of the illegal workers and small construction outfits are very hard to estimate. Many ways have been suggested to curb the flow, but the only way I can see is to crack down on the employers.

William--"That was about the dumbest thing I've heard this year."

William, please point out to me where in the constitution it says that you are allowed to be in possession of ammunition for firearms. Or, for that matter, that you may discharge a firearm.

Strict constructionism.

Anyways,

The thing that separates the Repub. and Dem. fundraising is the more compassionate platform the Democrats are taking over the Republicans. The sheer amount that has been raised by Hilary and Obama alone contests for the need to rework our government. It's definitely time for our leaders to lead us in the world and face the problems that are before us by addressing the international issues that cause them, specifically global poverty.

The poverty in America alone is astounding, but when viewed in a global perspective, something really needs to be done. Our leaders need to support the UN Millennium Development Goals to end poverty, and only the Democrats will try it. The fact that only the Democrats appear to be willing to do something besides stay the course is probably why they are leading. Imagine how different this world would be without poverty. There would probably be no war on terror. On the Borgen Project Website, it states that it costs $19 billion annually to relieve starvation and malnutirtion. Seems like a lot right? Well, not really. We have already spent $340 billion on the war in Iraq to "fight terrorism."

Steve, I agree with you that ending the judicial filibuster would have been extremely stupid and foolish, as well as set a dangerous precedent for all filibusters to be abolished.

Unfortunately, dumb people like Mitch "Messed up teeth" McConnell (R-KY) don't seem to realize this.

McMoron still wants to throw away Congress's check on the executive by giving the president a line-item veto, something a Democratic president would benefit from, especially with Bush's term almost over.

Honestly, don't these people think 3 months ahead of the present?

It seems that several of the posters on this board are slightly (or in some cases) grossly misinformed.

If money was equal to free speech then it was taken away a loong time ago by the USSC when they ruled that limits on campaign contributions were constituional.

In the past, if you gave your money to an outside organization with the assurance that they would attack your candidates, you could circumvent the intent of the ruling.

Soooo, what M-F CFR says is that organizations can still run ads up to the time of the election but the money spent on such ads are subject to each donors hard money cap. Not exactly what you hear from the clowns at Redstate, but true nonetheless.

As far as the gang of 14--who are you kidding? What happens if Hillary wins and the Republicans don't win back the Senate. That fool Frist wanted to destroy the only option that we would have to stop her from appointing bad candidates. None of this would even have been necessary if the Republicans had followed the same procedures for approving judges that were in effect under Clinton (ie,Senators able to veto judges from their own state)

Frankly, I think McCain is going to win. No way Rudy will make it through the primaries. FlipFlop Mitt?--give me a break, Hillary would rip him apart.

Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, the War--there's virually no difference in any of the top 3's positions (although I admitantly haven't checked current Mitt's position as of 7pm) The only differences are experience and abortion. McCain's record speaks for itself.

I am still waiting for someone who knows to inform me of John Robert Edwards' beliefs on guns.

Obviously, Clinton and Obama and Dodd and Biden are reliably anti-gun, but what about Edwards?

Someone please inform me.

Interestingly enough, Richardson is a very pro-gun governor, who expanded concealed carry rights, and carries a concealed handgun himself.

But while he was in Congress, he voted for the Assault Weapons Ban, as well as a National Waiting Period and Registration law (which failed to pass.)

"By the way, I agree. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms. What it does NOT authorise you to do is to have ammunition."

That was about the dumbest thing I've heard this year.

William--"I just can't understand the people who want to ban guns. The only guess I can come up with is that they feel sorry for criminals and want them to have a safe work environment."

There are many reasons why people want to ban guns to varying degrees but that is not one of them. Generally we want the same as you: a safe country. Our methods may differ but misrepresenting our motives is just reprehensible.

Some want to ban guns altogether, believing that it would make the country safer (criminals would be less likely to carry guns because of reduced availability and risk to them.)

Some want to ban carrying guns, concealed or not, outside one's home where they are less likely to be necessary due to increased presence of authorities and more likely to cause fatal misunderstandings.

Some want to ban weapons unnecessary to domestic protection or legitimate hunting (handguns, shotguns and rifles) such as assault rifles, machine guns and grenades.

Some want stricter controls over who is allowed weapons such as training courses or that all guns are kept under lock.

By the way, I agree. The constitution gives you the right to bear arms. What it does NOT authorise you to do is to have ammunition.

MikeB - If you don't think there's ambiguity on the 2nd Amendment, check out the following.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508_pf.html

You may not fully agree, but it's not a slam dunk either way. Yet!

"the far-left burger"

You can't be serious, boy!

polls for canidates on 4/4/2007
Dem canidates
Hillary Rodham Clinton 41
John Edwards 19
Barack Obama 17
Other 1

gop canidates
Rudy Giuliani 34
John McCain 17
Fred Thompson 10(no annoucement)
Newt Gingrich 9(no annoucement)
Mitt Romney 6

www.pollingreport.com
note, the recent numbers are from the Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll so please dont have a cow on where i pulled those numbers from.

also this is interesting if if this poll holds up for 2008
"Regardless of how you might plan to vote in your own district, which party would you like to see in control of Congress after the congressional elections in 2008: the Democrats or the Republicans?" If other/unsure: "Well, which way do you lean -- more toward the Democrats or the Republicans?"
ALL reg. voters
Democrats Republicans Other Unsure
52 36 4 7

Change "illegitmate government" to "oppressive government" in the post above.

Is it such a big deal to "regulate" which arms the people can bear?

Does anybody (other than law enforcement) need an AR-15, and AK-47 or any other assualt weapon for anything other than competition?

When you connect "power residing in the people" and the "right to bear arms" doesn't that imply the "people" using those weapons against an illegitimate government?

Yet many of the "rights people" who are so adamant about not regulating such weapons are the ones who become apoplectic when "revolutionaries" on the Left talk about overthrowing governments.

Same weapons philosphies just from different ends of trhe spectrum. When you come down to it The NRA types aren't much different than the Trotskyites.

There are way too many unsigned posts on this site and there are way too many posts which are used to broadcast columns from elsewhere, whether those writers get any attribution here or not.

If you want your fellow Fix Fans to read something, use your post to recommend it or post a link to it, but not to publish it in its entirety or near entirety.

To all who continue to repeat, like a parakeet that has never learned to say anything else, that Senator Clinton cannot win a General Election, here's a reminder to print and paste onto your computer: Saying something over and over again does not make it true. If it did, Fox "News" would be known for facts instead of fiction.

The idea of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama being associated with any kind of "lunatic fringe" is the flat-out funniest thing I read all day.

Colin -

"That, combined with the fact that the US SUpreme Court has NEVER overturned any gun control legislation,"

Part of the Brady Law was overturned, IIRC the case was Lopez v. US, or something like that.

In any case, the Supreme Court has never overturned slavery as being unconstitutional. The last SCOTUS ruling on slavery was, IIRC, 1854, the Dredd Scot decision. At one point, SCOTUS upheld the internment of Japanese during WW2, and segeregation, as well.

The Supreme Court justices follow their own political ideologies, not what the constitution actually says.

As far as I can see, there should be no place for unelected judges in a free society. If not abolished outright, SCOTUS justices should at least have to be re-approved by a majority of state legislatures every year or every 2 years.

"there's genuine ambiguity regarding the scope of the second amendment and what type of right it provides"

If you look at the quotes and intent of the Founders and consider that, there is NO ambiguity. There is only ambiguity because leftist college professors and "intellectuals" and activist judges have concocted out of thin air the "state militias (national guard) view."

Weird, considering the Guard wasnt created until over 100 years after the COnstitution was written.

Any honest person with half a brain will admit that the Founders wanted every American citizen (then, free males) to have a gun to prevent government tyranny, their greatest concern.

Anyone who argues otherwise is either stupid or lying, usually the latter.

"My only point is that I don't understand what's so terrible with letting states decide the issue for themselves."

And the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 were letting the states decide how, exactly?

Conservatives would LOVE to make EVERY issue a state issue, from abortion to the sanctity of marriage, to guns. But leftists and their activist judges are never content to do so, and insist on forcing their views on everyone else.

So, we have to fight attacks on our values that occur at the federal level by defending ourselves on the federal level.

If a "states rights" amendment to the Constitution was proposed, granting state control over all key issues and forbidding COngress and the SCOTUS from intervening, you would see a TON of conservative support for that. But not much liberal support, since liberals feel obligated to force their views on others. Which is what started the Civil War in the first place.

Re: Bork - Bork is a statist neocon who thinks the 9th (or was it 10th) amendment is "an inkblot." What a fascist. George Bush and Cheney and Co must love him.

Re Burger: You're kidding, right? Quoting the far-left Burger on key issues to support your view?

That's like quoting George Wallace when discussing race issues.

The fact is that the Founders wanted every citizen (in the culture of their era, only men fought) to own a gun to deter government tyranny.

That means that EVERY individual American is entitled to own guns.

Any opposing viewpoint has no evidence to support it, and those who try just look foolish and dishonest.

MikeB: I am getting a better take on you as time goes on. These visa's will never be stopped when the control of MONEY is what this is about. What most folks do not understand is the stockholders are the ones to blame. When anyone puts money in the stock market they expect, and even demand a good return. The decline in union members is yet another way to decrease the average workers pay. I am not a big union fan myself, but it does help and also hurts in many ways. Each of us would like to have a little more than we now have and that could be refered to as greed. We must do what we can to make it better for those that cannot do it themselves and by getting all the information about Hillary from her childhood to this day, she has always been, at least trying to do what she can to help. Hillary has been potrayed as something she is not for so many years that folks tend to believe what is not true.

Chris Cilliza is right - counting John McCain out would be fool-hearty and short-sighted. He's far too smart, his organization is too strong, and he's hungry. Campaigns run through peaks and valleys - a solid candidate understands that, makes adjustments when necessary, while never taking his eye off the prize. That is John McCain.

MikeB -- The Supreme Court and courts generally seem to disagree with you on the second amendment. As does that noted "liberal," Robert Bork, who thinks an individual rights reading of the second amendment is crazy.

Guess what though? From a policy perspective, I'm not disagreing with you. I DON'T want to take anyone's gun awawy. If I was in a legislature, I would be very unlikely to vote in favor of any gun control legislation. My only point is that I don't understand what's so terrible with letting states decide the issue for themselves. Since the courts have traditionally agreed with that perspective -- without Oregon, NM, Utah, etc. passing any crazy gun control legislation -- I have to wonder what exactly it is that you're so worried about.

Oh, here's are some statements by Bork and other "liberals" on the Second Amendment:

"[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks it protects their right to have Tefloncoated
bullets. But That's not the original understanding."
--Robert H. Bork, Former Federal Appeals Court Judge
(3/14/89, Distinguished Lecture Series, UC-Irvine)

The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to
ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia', "would be
maintained for the defense of the state.... The very
language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument
that it was intended to guarantee every citizen
an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or
she desires."
--Warren E. Burger, Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

"[T]hat the Second Amendment poses no barrier to
strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition
in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation
of this phantom right continues to pervade
congressional debate."
--Erwin N. Griswold, Solicitor General, Nixon Administration
(11/4/90, Washington Post)

That, combined with the fact that the US SUpreme Court has NEVER overturned any gun control legislation, at the very least suggests to me that there's genuine ambiguity regarding the scope of the second amendment and what type of right it provides.

MikeB, another good post.

I can never understand liberals' irrational fear of guns.

Don't they understand that people want to be able to effectively protect their loved ones from criminals?

The "ban guns" mentality just doesn't make any sense to me. Any rational person realizes that banning guns will not make the country a safer place.

I just can't understand the people who want to ban guns. The only guess I can come up with is that they feel sorry for criminals and want them to have a safe work environment.

By the way, I was wondering, what is Edwards' position on guns. I went to his website, but there was no mention of it. Does he support the AWB?

zouk

What do they say about 'sticks and stones'? No one has ever called me liberal

This election will be about us folks in the middle. Not the conservative crazies who hijacked the Republicans.

kingofzouk--Hey, you did not give your thoughts on this:

I believe it is constitutional to disallow *paying* to air a political message.

This way, a law could be devised that guarantees groups equal access to advertising.

You bring up the "incumbency protection" that financing restrictions would cause. I am therefore sure you will happily admit that having the organisation with the most money to speak the loudest is also the same since an incumbent person or issue is likely to have better funding.

We, Purge Congress, believe that McCain is a hero, but clueless regarding mainstream America.

Seems that McCain, a republican, sought the Vice President position with John Kerry, a democrat.

We believe that McCain is nothing more than another wannabe president that seeks millions in donor's dollars in order to continue his elite self-serving activities, direction and ideology that we believe is bad for America.

In addition, we believe McCain is primarily focused on careerism in Congress rather than America and his home state Arizona.

Again, we believe McCain is a hero, but clueless.

Respectfully,
Purge Congress

Colin. Gun control is a deal breaker for me and for millions of other voters. If you care to check the various forums, you will find about as mnay liberals opposed to gun control laws as conservatives. No candidate can hope to win the Presidentcy if they are for Brady style gun control laws. They will be defeated and there really isn't much chance of their hidding their stance on into the general election.

As for the Second Amendment being "confusing", the confusion is a purposeful twisting on the part of certain activists. Thomas Jefferson was asked about the Second Amnedment and here is what he wrote:
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

And, how about John Adams:
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States

And Tenche Coxe:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

All of this is pretty plain stuff. There really isn't anything to argue about here and I am amazed that some people still try.

States do their own gerrymandering, congress has nothing to do with it peabrain.

MikeB, GOOD post about the Second. There are a number of other quotes as well, making the intent of the Founders crystal clear.

If Dems simply ended and renounced their efforts to implement more gun control, such as the "assault weapons ban", they would get a lot more support.

Quite a number of socially conservative districts and states are represented by pro-gun Dems.

For example, Jim Webb.

Now.

McCain doesn't have a chance.

If there are still boots on the ground in Iraq in 2008 any candidate would be detached from reality if he/she held Mr. McCain's "Stay the Course" mentality. Actually I don't think the Republicans would nominate him at that point. They'd be too scared of getting voted into irrelevance.

But then, that would mean Newt gets nominated and most Republicans but Bush's what, 33% this week, would stay home.

Give credit it to Tom Delay. If he hadn't done such a good job of gerrymandering the House, the Republicans could be as obsolete as the Whigs.

MikeB: I'm deeply, deeply concerned about negative pressures on wages, and I respect your concern.

I'm wondering if you've considered the immigration position currently advanced by the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition (the rival labor group most commonly associated with the SEIU.) These labor organizations argue that the principal reason illegal immigration drives down wages is not that it's immigration but that it's illegal. If Mexican workers weren't concerned about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, they could insist on fair wages, labor and safety standards, benefits, FICA contributions, and other protections. With these protection, negative wage pressures could be ameliorated without criminalizing a large group of people.

Guest worker programs, including McCain's, are particularly bad, because they make it easier for employers to hire immigrants while making it harder for immigrants to respond to mistreatment from their employers.

Poor richard - that was certainly well-thought out and original. but how was that on topic? how is it not mindless partisan rambling with the inclusion of "No wonder your guy, the Current Occupant, is is so detached from reality."

your poverty seems to inflict your intellect and your soul.

"You will alienate anyone with any level of sanity from contributing to this blog" - your conclusion then must be that you have no sanity. you have succesfully talked yourself in circles and made no sense. I bet this happens to you all the time. Maybe your friends are too polite to say anything.

why post this pointless drivel? what has it contributed. you may not like what I have to say - then challenge it, don't insult, don't pull a Jane and re-invent me to make yourself look good. You libs are pitiful when you can't defend your weak positions.

Tarheel, Al Gore is not going to run.

If he were going to be annointed as the Dem nominee, he might be convinced to run, but he is in a lucrative position right now as Official Global Warming Prophet And Forseer Of Doom, so why would he give that up to run in a highly competitive race when most big donors have already picked their candidate? Also, the liberal base, who would ordinarily be yearning for Gore, have their dream candidates in Obama and Edwards. Hillary is the "moderate" candidate while Richardson purports to be the "redstate" Dem. Not sure what Dodd or Biden think their role is.

In other words, there's no real niche for Gore to fill. He's swung out too far to the left since 2000, is a past loser, and is probably unelectable.

Liberals like Gore but he is a highly polarizing candidate.

I strongly doubt he will run, unless Obama and Clinton stumble BADLY.

Then, he may get in the race and try to compete.

But unless that happens, I doubt it. I don't think he has the will to run.

sorry folks, my ears were burning when someone mentioned my screen name. anyway to the topic at hand

can mc cain win? my prediction he wont make it out of the 2nd quarter fundraising.
i guess its going to be romney(fun fact he's already airing ads in michigan trying to re-introduce himself)

zouk-here's the deal, we both stop using wikipedia for sources, fair enough?

mikeb-i happen to agree with you with illegal immigration and free trade. im willing to vote for any canidate who will stop either one. just out of curiosity, what do you think of lou dobbs?

tarheel-no thank you i dont need that image in my head.

proud to be gop-just wondering if none of the current crop impresses you then who would you like to run?

Colin - The Seocond Amendment is not at all ambiguous, it is distorted by people who want to pick and choose what ought to be American's rights. Gund frighten some of them and, so, they want them banned and to heck with the consequences. And, "YES", as an issue IT IS more important to me than virtually anything else and is the deal breaker for me in choosing between a McCain and an Obama or Clinton. It WILL BE for millions fo other voters, ordinarily liberal voters like me, who will abandon the Democratic candidate over that one issue. Like it or not, that and jobs will cost the Democrats the Whitehouse if they stand on the wrong side of the issue.

As for ambiguity of what Mr. Jefferson meant. He was asked about the Second Amendment and here is what he said:
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

And Samual Adams, 1788 -
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."

Those quotes are pretty self explanatory. Anyone, no matter how ell meaning the claim to be, no matter what "social good" they claim to represent, who adocates restrictions on gun ownership, is an tyrannt and has n business being president (nor even in Congress).

Blarg, you must have missed the other citation I provided in tandem with the FEELINGS result. It was an honest university study of media news reporting that verified the major news outlets lean left. It was not feelings, it was fact based on sourced articles and mathematical methods. I think it is on the other blog over. there are many more that support this conclusion. Is this really up for grabs, can't we at least agree on something so obvious that even 84% of the people see it? why not try to explain it instead of denying it?

tarheel stains my brain with
"Strange to see them all sharing the same bed, so to speak. Now there's a mental image none of us need!"

Thanks.

zouk

go crawl back under you rock. You are always off topic with that mindless partisan rambling.No wonder your guy, the Current Occupant, is is so detached from reality.

You will alienate anyone with any level of sanity from contributing to this blog.

bsimon, yes, Romney is a completely disgusting, repulsive, and despicable character.

Every time I see his slick, deceitful face on TV I want to throw up.

One day he is pro-choice, the next day he wants to ban abortion, the next day he is somewhere in the middle.

And he somehow does it all with a straight face. I guess lying to people is a skill that Mormons have perfected over the years.

Romney was extremely liberal when he ran for MassGov, and now that there is no niche conservative in the race he is trying to fil that role.

If Allen was running, ROmney would be posturing himself as the moderate.

He has no moral values and simply says anything he thinks will get him elected.

If he immediately began trashing liberals once they elected him in MA, why would he not immediately begin trashing conservatives when elected president?

He can't be trusted, and is a proven liar.

He was extremely liberal until about 6 months ago.

The only reason he raised 23 million is because he has a lot of corrupt, conniving Mormon buddies who want a Mormon in the WH.

Romney also uses other dishonest, sleazy and corrupt fundraising practices like allowing people who raise money for him to keep 10%. Isnt that illegal??? People give money thinking it will go to Romney, but instead it is kept by the people who convinced them to donate?

Slick Mitt and his Mormon buddies can keep on dreaming.

Neither I nor any other conservative Southerners I know (Catholic or Protestant) are willing to vote for a Mormon.

The only person who Romney could beat in the South is Obama.

Aside from that, the South would go for Edwards, or Biden or Dodd, before they went for Romney.

Not so sure about Richardson or HRC though.

That would be interesting.

If Romney is the GOp nominee, there will almost certainly be a 3rd party challenge Ross Perot style.

Except unlike Perot, it would actually take some states.

BaLANCE thanks. Someone actually followed a link and verified the information. You are a rare bird on this site. Just to reinforce the Harris poll, the three candidates (or potential candidates) with the most negative ratings are listed. The candidates in order with the highest percentage of negatives are:

Al Gore 51% negative rating.
Newt Gingrich 49% negative rating.
Hillary Clinton 44% negative rating.

Strange to see them all sharing the same bed, so to speak. Now there's a mental image none of us need!

William, is there anyone you don't think is a Democrat and/or guilty of treason?

I don't know why this Zogby poll is such a big deal. All it reports on is whether people feel there's media bias. (Translation for Zouk: Whether people FEEL there's media bias.) That has nothing to do with whether media bias actually exists. Conservatives have been whining about liberal media bias for decades; even if liberal media bias doesn't exist, everyone is aware of the stereotype.

Jane so sorry to go against your world view. care to support your nonsense with anything but your opinion and speculation?

FYI - I am independently wealthy and don't work anymore. I made a killing as hillary's cattle broker but now must live outside the US to avoid prosecution. I founded the kingdom of zouk on a private island and created a market driven utopia. Our nearest neighbor is the island of the elephants ruled by Babar. they always beat us in sports but like our food.

I guess you can identify with this story since the liberal world you would like to live in can never exist.

CC asks "Can McCain Win?"

He could, perhaps, win the general, particularly if the Dems nominate HRC. But McCain can't win the GOP primary. Though that opinion begs the question: who can? Given the pending implosions of the Giuliani & Romney campaigns, the GOP is starting to look like a party without a frontrunner. Perhaps William is correct, above, in his prediction that the DA from New York will run.

lylepink - And I supppose Hillary's readiness to continue to allow the outsourcing of American jobs, her allowing millions of illegals into the country that are bankrupting taxpayers, her cozy relationship with multinational corporations, her supporting INCREAED H1B visas and other guest worker visas, are all excuses, too. Huh? Ms. Clinton is a dud and all her nomination will do is split the Democratic Party apart. I wont vote for her unless she comes out and swears that she will flat out end outsourcing and end *all* guet worker visas at the very least. Not "limit", not "study", I want them gone for good. ANd I want corporations taxed until they bleed. If Ford can pay their CEO $24 million for four months work, Ford can afford to pay at least that same amount in federal taxes. But they don't. Hey, there's an idea. How about the minimum corporate tax being 100 times the executive par plus bonus rate? Apply that to any corporation doing business in the U.S., even they set up a Dubai Post Office box. More than anything I can think of, THAT would reign in the obscenity of some of these excesses.

The long post above that is unsigned was by me.

speaking of misinformation, what's the consensus on Romney's claim of being a 'Lifetime Hunter' who's hunted twice? Just another irrelevant fact to be categorized with "I was for abortion and gay marriage before I was against them?"

I don't have the time to read all of the posts on this thread, many of which are unsigned spam from Che copycats, so I'll just give my two cents.

- Re McCain: He's betrayed us on too many issues, which are too numerous to mention. There's nothing conservative about him except the R next to his name. While he served honorably in Nam, he has become a traitor and a leftist since being elected to office. Conservatives hate McCain and will not vote for him. People like Terry Nelson who signed on with McCain underestimated how much conservatives hate him. All the conservatives I know plan on staying home on election day if McCain is the GOP nominee. If he is elected, he'll do nothing but triangulate with Dems for 4 years. He is a closet Dem himself.

ProudtobeGOP- Why, exactly, are you a Republican? BY your own admission you don't care about social issues, and your favorite candidate is a leftist who supports Big Government, fosters class warfare, and opposes strict constructionist judges and taax cuts. McCain is strongly pro-amnesty, and anti-gun.

So why don't you just become a Democrat? That party would seem to be a better fit for you.

And after all, your hero McSh-t almost became a Dem, and even approached Kerry about becoming his running mate.

McSh-t is nothing but a shameless, greedy, opportunistic, selfish, treasonous self-promoter.

--------------------------------------------

I expect Fred D. Thompson to get in the race and win the nomination.

He's moderate enough to be electable, but conservative enough that the base can live with him.

If FDT doesnt run, and no other high profile conservative does, then I will vote for Tancredo, Hunter, or Paul in the primaries.

-------------------------------------------

Jefferson was not a Dem, he was a Democratic-Republican IIRC. Correct me if I'm wrong.

------------------------------------------

MikeB, I'm glad to see that you are concerned about illegal immigration and outsourcing, and that you realize HRC and Obama are far-left.

But why do you believe that John Edwards will address these issues?

I find it hard to believe he will do anything about either problem.

The only candidates currently running who would do something about it are Tancredo, Paul, and maybe Hunter.

There seems to be a proliferation of copy cat zouks. Am I the source of all contrary opinion. are you that paranoid? do any of you mimics even know what a zouk is? I am considering promoting myself to Lord Zouk to leave my kingdom and wordly posessions behind. My subjects will probably not allow me to go since our society is ideal under my leadership.

Shaun, don't bother. You're trying to reason with a world-class idiot who thinks Bush is a good president -- but Thomas Jefferson was not... give up -- it's just a waste of time, which apparently he was WAY too much of. But then I guess he's too obnoxious to be hired anywhere...

'Jefferson was a Democrat. a great founding father but not so hot at President.'

MikeB -- Just curious, but why shouldn't gun control be a state-specific issue? The text of the Second Amendment is -- at the very least -- ambiguous. Until this year, the Courts have ALWAYS interpreted it to provide a collective right rather than an individual right. Assuming that no one tries to pass federal gun control legislation (and trust me, democrats have learned their lesson on that one), what's wrong with letting Utah (and Oregon apparently) be Utah and New York be New York? Seems like a pretty obvious solution to me.

Also, are you really saying that guns is more important to you than all the other differences that exist between all the Dems and McCain? Is that difference really enough for you to pull the lever for someone who (1) wants to keep us in Iraq indefinitely; (2) supports trickle down economic policies, which hurt the middle class; (3) unabashedly supports free trade (Obama doesn't, so that's just untrue); and (4) wants to privatize social security and gut medicare.

Some of that stuff seems more important to me, but what do I know. Oh, and Rudy is worse than McCain on all those issues AND is a huge proponent of gun control. So if you vote for him, then god help you.

Demsda facts - you forgot to say the 2/3 think the bias is beneficial to Liberals. since you linked directly to the poll and are a Dem, you may proceed without question. The poll must be true.

'CONCORD, N.H. - A spring storm brought more than a foot of snow to parts of the upper Northeast, closing schools, tangling traffic and knocking out power to more than 180,000 homes and businesses on Thursday.

If it weren't for global warming, it might snow all summer.'

ahh, the corporate climate change misinformation campaing out in full force. everyone wiht a brain [altho that doesn't include tha tparticular poster] knows that global warming overall causes climate change, which leads to more erratic weather, unusual storms, more precipation, and in certain places, cooling.

too late, fool, even the oil companies admit it's real now...

harris is unamerican and shaves his cat. that poll is worthless

you spelled zogby wrong so that poll means nothing

Hillary's money means nothing. She's going to be all dressed up with no place to go, particularly not the White House. Just read tarheel's link to the Harris poll. 50% of voters won't vote for her including 21% of her own party. In case you missed the earlier post here is the link to the survey. It's around 10 pages. Maybe the most thorough survey of one candidate I've ever seen. And it contains nothing positive. Even 52% of married women say they won't vote for Hillary.

The survey can be found at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744

Did anyone else see this Zogby poll? Very interesting. The headline is: Released: March 14, 2007, Zogby Poll: Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real.

Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet/Zogby Poll shows American voters are skeptical political motivation may be behind blogs run by mainstream news organizations. The vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well - 83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11% believe the media doesn't take political sides, a recent IPDI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.

Here's the link if anyone is interested. Very interesting survey. If this link goes back to the search box just type in media.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

Dan W: Like I said, excuses.