Redstate

It seems that their is always some one who is reported rising or falling. But in the end, it still remains a two man race. Rudy and Mitt.

9. Selling out the base on judges through his shameless 'Gang of 14' deal. That was the day I called his office and left a message vowing that I would devote ALL my energy and efforts at ensuring that he NEVER...EVER gets the Republican nomination.

I loathe him.

n/t

So, his VP selection will be very, very, very important.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I supported the "Gang" and I think McCain can take some credit for the Alito nomination. With the filibuster neutered through the "Gang" agreement, Alito became a Justice with less than 60 votes.

The whole point was to defuse the escalation before a Supreme Court seat came up. And it worked.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Adam, the whole point of the Gang of 14 was to KEEP the filibuster for judicial nominations, but use it only in "extreme" circumstances. Had the Gang of 14 not been formed, the Republican Senate would have used the nuclear option so ALL judicial nominees would have gotten an up or down vote.

McCain SAVED the filibuster for the Democrats to use against judicial nominees.

Had the nuclear option passed, Alito would have easily been confirmed on an up or down vote.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

Adam, the whole point of the Gang of 14 was to KEEP the filibuster for judicial nominations, but use it only in "extreme" circumstances. Had the Gang of 14 not been formed, the Republican Senate would have used the nuclear option so ALL judicial nominees would have gotten an up or down vote.

McCain SAVED the filibuster for the Democrats to use against judicial nominees.

Not exactly.

1. The Gang of 14 (McCain included) saved the filibuster for anyone to use against future judicial nominees -- Democrat or Republican. Republicans are now in the minority in the Senate and are facing a possible Democratic president. McCain was correct in taking the long view, and not creating a precedent that would come back to bite the Republican party.

2. Are you seriously contending that, but for the absence of the nuclear option, President Bush would have proposed substantially better Justices than Roberts or Alito?

McCain was right on the war strategy from the start, as we're seeing. He was also right on the Gang of 14 from the start, as we are also seeing. He deserves a second look.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The Gang of 14 (McCain included) saved the filibuster for anyone to use against future judicial nominees -- Democrat or Republican.

So how many times in the past have Republicans filibustered a judicial nominee?

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

So how many times in the past have Republicans filibustered a judicial nominee?

Does it matter to my argument?

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Yes it matters. We have to start with the assumption that Senate Republicans are too weak to use it.

Yes it matters. We have to start with the assumption that Senate Republicans are too weak to use it.

Let's assume that Senate Republicans have filibustered a nominee zero times so far (that's not accurate, but let's assume it). Now that the Democrats have freely filibustered Bush's nominees -- thus setting a precedent* -- why wouldn't Republicans do so as well in an appropriate circumstance? If there was a truly objectionable nominee who was likely to swing the Court for a long time to come, would you be demanding that Republican Senators take some kind of action -- up to and including a filibuster?

*For this reason, I tend to think that the Democrats tactics were not in their long-term self interest, although perhaps the gang of 14 and subsequent confirmation of Alito pulled them back from the brink.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

If somehow the Republicans had the stomach to try this, the Democrats would immediately exercise the Byrd option (aka the nuclear option) and it would be all over before it began. The Democrats are in it to win. The Republicans seem to just be in it to make friends with the opposition.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Which Democrats are you watching? Surely not the whiny spineless bunch led by Pelosi and Reid....

When was the last R filibuster of anything?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

The GOP has only been the minority party in the Senate for 10 months. They don't need to filibuster because they have a Republican President to veto anything they need to kill.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

It is not a point it is a question.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

There was one on 9 Sept of this year blocking a bill on detainee rights. I don't know of any since then, but they are on track to filibuster 3x more bills than any previous congress and they have threatened filibuster on more bills.

than filibustering nominees. Two totally different subjects, there.

Trivia question, Tursiops ...

Of all these counting toward the filibuster record, how many were for filibusters of, essentially, the same bill - that being, the declare defeat and run-away bill the Demo "leadership" pushed to the exclusion of all else during the first half of the year?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

"McCain was right on the war strategy from the start, as we're seeing."

If you need elaboration, read my previous blog entries.

to the Democrats that is. The Gang of 14 in no way assures us that Democrats won't just change the rules (again) to suit them. They've done it before and I'm pretty sure that if given the chance, they will do it again.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Threatened filibuster of Fortis, admittedly, and with good reason. But the modern GOP would vote for Ginsberg rather than filibuster. Keeping the threat alive for the Dems to use was a no-win for the GOP.

Alito would have been confirmed with or without the Gang of 14.

You can argue it will be good to keep the filibuster for judicial nominees if we have a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate, but that's not what Adam is arguing. He's saying McCain is the reason why Alito was confirmed, and I don't think the facts support that argument.

Also, if the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and control the White House, and Republicans have the spine to start filibustering their judicial nominees, count on the Democrats using the nuclear option for themselves.

Also, a Supreme Court nominee has only been filibustered once to my knowledge in American history, Abe Fortas nomination to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was denied on various ethics issues.

Alito would have been confirmed with or without the Gang of 14, and with or without the nuclear option.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

Alito would have been confirmed with or without the Gang of 14.

You can argue it will be good to keep the filibuster for judicial nominees if we have a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate, but that's not what Adam is arguing. He's saying McCain is the reason why Alito was confirmed, and I don't think the facts support that argument.

Maybe, maybe not; my point is that the costs imposed by the Gang of 14 did not include the rejection of a highly-desired nominee.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The Gang of 14 neutered the Kossack wing of the Dem party.

There were not 50 votes for that. Thus the options were the status quo or preserving the filibuster for true extreme nominees.

Bush would not have nominated Alito if the Gang had not taken the filibuster off the table for qualified nominees.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The votes weren't there in the Senate because McCain and his Republican pals formed the Gang of 14 in order to secure the votes to derail the "nuclear option".

So McCain created the problem to begin with, and then came up with a "solution" that threw some judges under the bus, and gave the Democrats a way to continue to block future judicial nominees.

You can't have it both ways.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

Rs who "supported" the Nuclear Option were not happy about it. There was a lot of bluffing going on and a lot of reticence about doing it. Frist actually did well to keep more people quiet (see Specter, not a Gang Member). But a lot of Rs were happy when the situation defused without having to "go Nuclear."

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

that no senator has the spine to be president esp republican senators they just cant help themselves from trying to get along.

If there were less than 50 votes for the Byrd Option, this presents two problems.

(1) Why didn't John McCain attempt to offer his vote as the 50th vote for the Byrd option on the judicial filibustering of conservative judicial nominees?

The argument that McCain wanted to keep the judicial filibuster as a option in case of a Left-wing nominee by a Democrat White House doesn't hold up when we consdier McCain's 1993 vote to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg, someone who was on record at the time in supporting Co-ed Prisons and reducing the age of sexual consent to age 12.

Hello?

(2) If the Democrats had suspected that there was less than 50 votes for the judicial filibuster, how do we explain the Democrat party's lack of willingness to continue judicial filibusters, given that they worked perfectly in the previous Congress against Bush's conservative judicial nominees to the US Court of Appeals?

The Demcorats' filibuster strategy regarding the Federal Courts was working. McCain tried hard to make sure that the Democrats could continue applying their wrecking ball to the US Federal Courts by not taking the filibuster option away.

Think of it. You are Harry Reid in the spring of 2005. Your party only has 45 votes in the US Senate. Finally it looks like all of the tactics designed to prevent Bush's judicial nominees from getting to the Federal Courts are going to be insufficient, given Bush's reelection and the increase in Republican US Senate numbers from 51 to 55.

But then John McCain rides in on his white horse to save the day for the Left-wing Democrats. He appears on Chris Matthews' Hardball show and becomes the first Republican US Senator to announce that he would vote with the Democrats on the issue of retaining/ending judicial filibusters.

Consider that McCain doesn't represent Maine (like Snowe and Collins), Pennsylvania (like Specter), Rhode Island (like Chafee).

No. McCain represents Arizona.

If you are a Left-winger, you want McCain to be the Republican nominee for president in 2008. He has spit in the eyes of the Republican party on tax cuts, immigration, freedom of speech, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (McCain called them "dishonest and dishonorable" when the Swift Vets were attacking John Kerry in 2004).

How much do you want to bet that McCain gets a primary challenge in 2010 assuming (a) McCain lives that long, (b) McCain decides to run for reelection in 2010?

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

He represents - and effectively, at that - the portion of Washington DC that is employed by the federal government.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

the Dems win the White House and retain control of the Senate? What if then more justices retire during a Democratic administration? I suspect that then you wouldn't be howling for the Dems to pull the trigger on the option. McCain helped confirm two solid SC justices and scores of conservative circuit court judges by joining the Gang of 14. It's pretty much that simple.

Truth be told. I would like the Republicans in the US Senate to maximize the use of US Senate rules when they are in the minority and minimize the ability of the Democrats to use them when Republicans are in the majority.

But if I am asked, in the abstract, to write a certain set of US Senate rules regarding judicial nomination into stone, I prefer one that only require 50 votes plus the Veep's tie breaker over one that gives 41 US Senators a veto power over judicial nominess.

Why? Well, McCain's 1993 vote for Ruth Bader Ginsberg is an excellent example of why.

When the Republicans were a minority in the US Senate and the Democrats held both the White House and the US Senate majority, the Republicans played like gentlemen and allowed Ruth Bader Ginsberg, former ACLU General Council, advocate for CO-ED Prisons and reducing the age of sexual consent to age 12, to get over 90 votes for confirmation.

When the tables are turned, however, the Democrats start denying cloture to Republican judicial nominees to the US Court of Appeals.

And how many votes did Alito get? Less than 60. But Ruth Bader Ginsberg got over 90.

You tell me that the current rules regarding judicial filibusters are really to the advantage of the Republicans/conservatives and I'll tell you to quit smoking whatever it is you are smoking unless it is for medical use.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

I've pretty much said my piece on the wisdom of the Gang of 14 (in that, I think it was wise), but I should note that Ruth Bader Ginsberg was pre-approved by the Republican leadership before she was nominated. Maybe that was a mistake, or maybe not, but the process by which she was nominated was different from the process by which Alito was nominated -- making this less than an apples-to-apples comparison.

Just sayin'.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

But in return, the continuing threat of filibuster cost us half-a-dozen or more good origionalist court and appelite judges.

Despite all of our issues with him, he will be an effective commander-in-chief against the war on terror, appoint strict constructionist judges, and fight excessive government spending.

As much as a I despise him at times, without question he has my support in the general election if he gets the nomination.

Our country is too important to have an attitude of "my way or the highway." That impulse is immature and selfish.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

a younger man, and he gets results.

Now one may disagree with the results (I do some of the time), but I agree with you - he would make a good president.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

n/t

that have been through matrimony almost as often as Henry VIII.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

as standard bearers for monogamy.

I go with Mitt on this standard!

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

"No one thinks he is serious about doing whatever it takes to secure the border ..."

I do.

absentee

Unfortunately, his actions say he will not secure the border, and will support making illegals legal. If not for this issue coupled with his "independent" streak (read: not acting as a conservative), I would support him right now. Let him take an actual action to secure the border and punish employers of illegals, like introducing a bill that has just those items in it, no amnesty type stuff. I just don't trust his words at this time due to his prior actions.

His talking has resulted in him making progress, but he needs to do some demonstrative walking before the voting.

No one thinks he is serious about doing whatever it takes to secure the border - and that is an issue that hits home with Republicans, independents, and Democrats alike.

McCain says that he has realized that an enforcement first framework is the only framework that will work with the American people. I do not see him changing that position.

I also don't see how, from your perspective, McCain is "worse" on this issue than the likely alternatives.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Does any polling support your hypothesis? Everything I've seen has McCain running way ahead Fred and Mitt and even or slightly ahead of Rudy.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

Right now they aren't all that meaningful. An argument could be made that McCain and Rudy are both near their maximum because the electorate knows them fairly well. Everyone else in the race will poll a lot less because most of the country doesn't know who they are.

I meant to say McCain, Rudy AND Hillary

Republicans have been wrong

the Republican Party has been stupid on a lot of things, and deserved a "shiv". E.g., earmarks (one of McCain's longest battles) and overspending generally.

absentee

You couldn't be farther from right. John McCain is a military hero who managed to transform himself into a self serving media whore who is utterly unfit to hold elective office.

If you want to plan a celebration of his war on earmarks, you could plan it to coincide with the Sandra Day O'Connor building in Phoenix that McCain earmarked last term.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Was it McCain's idea to name a building after one of the most miserable failures in the nation's hisotry? That alone would keep me from voting for him even over Hillary.

He considers her to be an Arizona icon.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

McCain is to Arizonan Repubs what Schwarzenegger is to Californian righties.

I never really thought that I would end up trusting one of the candidates even less on judges than Rudy. I have just changed that position.

His folksy manner and his (nearly) pure conservative record make him attractive to the base.

But it's far from clear he can appeal to the middle. Nor is it clear that he could handle the Clinton machine.

I disagree that he wouldn't have some appeal to the middle. I think his landslide wins in Tennessee showed that, especially since Clinton won Tennessee while Thompson was winning in the biggest landslide in Tennesee history.

That said, I do agree that he can't handle the Clinton machine. His inept campaign so far has proven that.

Frankly, I just don't think he has the fire in the belly enough. He doesn't really want to be President. The more I look at it, the more I think that it's just because his wife thought he should run that he did.

Jindal/Palin '16

Giuliani: "America's mayor." Some moderate/liberal issue positions.

McCain: "Maverick." Some moderate/liberal issue positions.

Romney: "Executive." Leadership experience, intelligence, results-oriented.

Huckabee: "Populist." Charm, some moderate/liberal issue positions.

Thompson has no appeal to the middle. He is folksy, but that plays best in the red states anyway.

of course, whether landslides in TN equal crossover appeal in michigan and ohio is an open question.

but it's a good point.

Huckabee supports building a fix on the Mexican border and heavy fines for companies hiring illegals. Just because he's not like Tancredo on the issue doesn't make him soft on it either. I'd put him below Thompson on the issue, even with Romney, and ahead of McCain or Giuliani.

I meant "building a fence" not "building a fix" little typo there...sorry

Why would you say a strong anti-illegal immigration Republican nominee is going to get swamped in Arizona? The opposite would be true in that state. Same goes for Colorado, though possibly not New Mexico.

The Clinton plan is to have 20+ million latinos, legal and otherwise, go to the polls to beat the evil, bigoted Republican if he's named Guiliani, Thompson, Romney, etc. Hispanics will be told to ignore the issue of abortion and homosexual marriage and vote for Hillary because she "loves" you and the Republican "hates" you. PERHAPS McCain's nomination offsets that strategy. But, again, I only throw that out for consideration.

that matters in the general election, and it matters when trying to run a war, and it matters when getting a bill through congress.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Who says we trust any? It still comes back to picking the least imperfect one. The top four are solid major leaguers but we don't have a Barry Bonds (with or without the "enhancements").

absentee

Rudy has a long history of doing exactly what he said he'd do. Rudy has spent his political career fighting liberals and winning on conservative issues.

McCain has a long history of finding a new creative way to jamb his thumb in the eye of the base. McCain's history is that he finds liberals to work with on programs that are near and dear to their hearts.

McCain can continue the fight against Islamism in the Senate. As POTUS, he's utterly wrong on just about everything else.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

as a fellow AZ "native" 40+ years there are few pols i loathe more than John , lucky for him one is Hillary so if i have to i will vote for him and spend the rest of november in the shower.

want to ignore this reality.

"This reality" is exactly why we won't vote for the sob.

You want a vision of a McCain administration, just think of Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and Russ Feingold. McCain will work closely with them to insure that legislation and nominees are "bi-partisan" and that we truely do have a New Tone in Washington.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Hillary has wanted the presidency her entire adult life, and will go to great lengths to attain it.

Fred doesn't have the same hunger and determination.

NOBODY has the same hunger and determination! It is her destiny, her God-given right, her ultimate goal--well, unless she can have herself declared Queen of the Universe one of these days.

the same drive

...I don't buy the idea that the presidency should go to the hungriest, most obsessive campaigner. By far the best, most driven campaigning machine in recent history was Billy Jeff Clinton -- he went at it in '92 like a bull after a cow in heat. Why should that be the determination of who makes the best president? Fred should not be trying to pretend he's all excited, but rather play up his disinterest in campaigning as a clever counter-strategy. Remember that our first president, Washington, didn't want the job either.

there's no disagreement here

Thompson hasn't caught on and won't either. He peaked in September. He also couldn't win the general election. He would lose in a landslide. Don't get me wrong, I like him, but I just know he has no appeal outside the hard-core Republican base. Democrats or independents would never vote for him, and he has a real problem appealing to women voters. I wish it wasn't true, but it is.
In order to win this election we need someone who comes across as genuine. That's what people liked about Bush and why he won in 2004. Of the top 5 candidates, Thompson, Giuliani, Huckabee, and McCain all come across as genuine. Giuliani, Huckabee, and McCain could attract independents and Democrats; Thompson couldn't. Romney would also lose due to the perception of him saying whatever he has to say to win. Giuliani would lose because a large part of the base would sit out the election or vote 3rd party. This is why only McCain or Huckabee can win the general. We should be supporting either McCain or Huckabee. Anyone else is going to lose to the Clinton machine.

confused McCain with Ron Paul. :)

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Ilegal immigration is going to break the backbone of this country and John McCain will give them amnesty. Oh, he'll build the fence first - but then what. Any Rep. who will side with Ted Kennedy on anything is out for me.

I'm sorry, but I don't get those of you claiming that Fred has no passion. Do you define that by the volume of his voice or the merits of his positions. Contrary to Eric B's opinion, FDT proved in Tenn. he can attract independents and women. That's the only way you win a state in a landslide that is voting simutaneously for Dem president.

Before it's all said and done, I truly hope everyone will begin looking at substance instead of style. IMHO, FDT would kick Hillary out of the ball park. She's running a 50% negative with people saying there is no way they will vote for her. She can be had by several of our candidates, not the least of which is FDT.

nt

It's the false dichotomy that simply won't die.

absentee

Well i guess you can't support Fred than, because he sided with Ted on CFR and No child left behind.

Have always wondered why Thompson gets a pass on CFR when McCain doesn't.

Sometimes it seems that McCain's sin was being cast by the MSM as a "Maverick" while Thompson was lucky enough to be portrayed as a traditional "Reagan Republican".

Shoot, Thompson chaired McCain's 2000 campaign.

too nuts

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Rudy, Fred, and McCain all oppose the FMA. It's not really a differentiating factor.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

in your lifetime (assuming you are a very young man). Of all the reasons to oppose McCain, those are the two dumbest.

Just exactly how will Huckabee get these two gems passed?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

HTML Help for Red Staters

will not veto it. I will bet good money on that.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I find two matches on Google:

Econommic, Social and Cultural Rights

or

Electronic Social Care Records.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

the [Escape] key on a Cyrillic keyboard.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

ahead of Fred in 3 out of the last 6 polls on RCP, and within 1 point in one other.

The question has to be at some point, if Fred is so right on all the issues, why hasn't he caught on? Why is falling?

Passion and personality DO count. If they didn't Al Gore would have been president the last 8 years.

OK, at best they are tied. That hardly argues that one didn't catch on but the other did.

Of course passion and personality "count". I'm just not that sure that they count as much as not switch hitting on a major issue.

McCain is 3rd in the latest Rasmussen, and he trails Thompson by less than the margin of error.

Looking at all the recent polls together, McCain looks slightly ahead of Thompson.

Here's your fact check verbatim:

"In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Rudy Giuliani remains on top. Among likely Republican Primary voters nationwide, Giuliani is preferred by 24% while Fred Thompson is in second place with 17% of the vote. Mike Huckabee earns support from 13% while John McCain and Mitt Romney are tied at 12%. No other Republican attracts more than 3% support"

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
link

It's exactly as I orginally stated.

And the point remains the same. Thompson leads McCain. How specious is it then to argue that "Thompson hasn't caught on" while plumping someone tied for fourth?

My point remains the same, though. Thompson does not lead McCain by more than the margin of error. Don't talk about specious arguments when you're cherry picking daily tracking and ignoring margin of error.

Just try McCain Lieberman.

Here's a hint - the P-U Center on Global Climate Change loves it.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Here.
Links refer to positions of the 5 GOP on AGW.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Available here... in an OpEd co-written with Joe Lieberman on February 13, 2007.

IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.

[snip]

Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren.

[snip]

Finally, Congress must move forward in a bipartisan fashion. Democrats will not enact a strong new climate law without the help and support of their Republican colleagues. Working in a bi-partisan fashion, Congress will enact a law that curbs global warming even as it strengthens the economy.

The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.

This is typical, vintage McCain. Find a problem that's been defined by the Left but that they will not act on because they'll take too much political heat. Form a "bi-partisan coalition" with them. Sign on to legislation that is an absolute anathama to conservatives and bring enough other fans of bi-partisanship with him to pass legislation that would otherwise have never, ever seen the light of day.

I have to go puke now.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

bwaaaahahahaha nice allusion... blinded by the light of opinion polls he knelt and reconsidered his position...

on this promising avenue of biological research?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/lifestyle/designer_cats/index.htm?postve...

1. No federal funds will be budgeted, allocated or spent on such foolishness.
2. If private parties want to spend their own money, The Prince could care less. He understands the concept "A fool and his money are soon parted."
3. If the cost can be reduced substantially, they would make nice doggie treats.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Are you referring to my original post? I am explaining why it seems many people are rethinking a vote for McCain. There seems to be at least some (and it seems many) who expected more from Fred. And some of those people are still up for grabs.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I was referring to several of the comments criticizing Thompson for a lack of "fire in the belly," or having "no passion" and noting that, by requiring some unstated level of "passion," they were in effect saying that Abraham Lincoln would not be an acceptable candidate for President today, as Lincoln and Thompson seem to share the same personality traits.

Nobody seems to accuse McCain of not having "fire in the belly". When I Google "McCain Temper", I get 256,000 hits.

Whether that temper is an asset vs Fred's calm demeanor is a reasonable question. I'm not sure McCain wins on either of the above. I can well imagine a videoclip in the general of McCain snarling about something followed by a "who's finger do you want on the button" question along the lines of the daisy commercial they used against Goldwater. Although "McCain Snarling" only gets 80,500 hits.

Maybe the McCainiacs should find a different selling point.

I guess you'd fall into the camp that villified Reagan for joking about bombing the USSR or embraced stereotypes of one of our greatest presidents as a disengaged simpleton.

I've been watching McCain carefully for signs of his "temper," and it's pretty clear to me that this storyline is as credible as the one about him having lost his mental stability in Vietnam (a shameful smear.)

The general election will be tough on any nominee. Let's not make our decision on how Democrats will tar our candidate; let's decide based on leadership and credentials.

an dolt in one of his tirades against those who favor enforcement of immigration laws, so I think there may be some fire with that smoke.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The comments he made about building the "g*dd*mned fence if they really want it" weren't made that long ago. Then there was his playing the victim for all it was worth in 2000 after the election was stolen from him by dirty Republican tricks. I'm also not getting what a joke the Reagan made has anything to do with it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

OMG he said g*dd*mn! Wow. I guess he's the only politician in our history to curse (actually not; our very own vp gave a deserved tongue lashing to a member of congress recently). Get serious and focus on real issues. (My apologies if you're actually a child. If that is the case, please know that such words as g*dd*mn are for adults only.)

is not that he cursed its that he will have to have a gun to his head to do anything the base wants. He would rather make out with teddy than even pretend to give a flying _ _ about the way the people he represents want him to vote. He is just as much of an elitest as the worst dem you can find HE knows whats best and will force it down our to use his word g----m throats.

I would rather have voldy than he at leasst voldy is always crazy, and maybe he would accually gut the ex branch.

who publicly declared his willingness to spend taxpayers' money on something he believes to be of no value. That is way, way, worse than making a misjudgement about the value of something.

I can respect someone who votes for a project believing it to be right, even if I think they are mistaken. But someone who votes for something they believe is wrong? That says a lot about personal integrity, and none of it good.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

McCain's personality may be more of a target than Thompson's. Thus Thompson's personality ought not be automatically considered a liability.

Pointing that out now makes me "fall into the camp" of those who attacked Reagan? Oh no, not the dread "camp". I don't fit there at all. What prompted that little ad hominem?

Lincoln was an excellent orator. Also, he expanded federal authority enormously under his tenure. Don't get me wrong, I like him as a historical figure, but in today's times, he would not be a conservative.

Why not hold both offices at the same time?

Maricopa County Animal Control Officer.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

he's up to the task? I shudder at the "bi-partisan" schemes he would concoct.

The Surge is either working or coinciding with the recent drop in all violence in Iraq. McCain is the obvious beneficiary.
McCain/Petraeus is the ticket we really want, if clear progress continues.

for some time to come yet

I thought I hit "Reply To This" before I typed it.

and the chances of hillary clinton are different from those of bill clinton

HTML Help for Red Staters

n/t

This will change in a heartbeat if McCain is the nominee.

The media will eat him alive.

mccain was hardly involved in that scandal, and it was a long time ago

the media will eat him alive for his position on the war, and for his pro-life stance, and for wanting to reduce the size of government.

they won't have to grasp at straws like keating 5 (although i can see them bringing it up a few days before the election as a last-ditch attempt to backstab him and bring him down).

He was right in the middle of it. Think about Abscam and Jack Murtha. McCain skated because he basically figured out that he could whore himself out to media, do a tearful mea culpa and beat the drums for "reform".

It's been his model ever since.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

mccain did say those things. he said them for only a few days during the 1999 presidential campaign in an effort to appeal to Americans in the middle. the protest was great and immediate, and he went back to his strongly pro-life position.

it was a failed maneuver to build support for his campaign by welcoming those who were not adamantly pro-life. it did not represent his convictions, and it lasted only a brief time.

it did not represent his convictions, and it lasted only a brief time.

You mean the convictions he was willing to completely betray in the hopes of scoring some additional independent and democrat voters in his run for the nomination? Some comfort those are.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Do you ever support compromise on ANY issue, even to build a coalition so we can actually win?

that someone who will change his mind 'for a few days' for the sake of popularity cannot be trusted on anything. How long does it take to sign or veto legislation?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

as for your position, it's extreme. winning elections is about popularity. you have to make some compromise to gain that popularity.

if not, you'll stay on the fringe like goldwater and taft.

reagan understood this. he didn't try to govern like goldwater. he constantly compromised his positions - in fact, much more than i would have liked. but that didn't make him "untrustworthy" or a "flipflopper".

I am extreme on a lot of things, but on this one, I suspect, I am with everyone except you.

All I said was that it is hard to trust someone who will change his mind on a topic 'for a few days' just to court popularity.

It is a plain example of someone who lacks both integrity and judgement.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

have you noticed that McCain seems to be able to compromise in a leftward direction?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

As usual, Zuiko, you stand for electoral defeat Do you ever support compromise on ANY issue, even to build a coalition so we can actually win?

So if we needed to "compromise" on life to win elections and being a NARAL pamphlet quoting pro-choicer was the way to do it, why did he reverse himself a few days later? What kind of coalition did that build, eh? Was he trying to build a coalition of people that won't vote for McCain?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

of a flip flop and pandering that has been so vilified by the posters of this site? Come on gideon, that is a really bad explaination.

More of a "soul seller".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

it's the truth of what happened

y'all don't remember the 2000 campaign very well. it was all about appealing to the middle. that's why the gop establishment wanted a "compassionate conservative" like george bush, remember? there were more conservative candidates available, including jeb bush, but the party thought they wouldn't appeal at a time of peace and plenty.

in this vein, mccain was trying to moderate one of his staunchest positions in order to move toward the middle. he took one step in that direction in a couple media appearances, and then stepped right back when it didn't work. instead, he used other issues to appeal to the middle, particularly campaign finance.

but the 2000 election wasn't in a time of war and stern decisions. there was never anything about flip-flopping. all the pressure was toward winning the middle, not toward being solidly in the conservative camp.

He signed higher taxes. He was against higher taxes before he signed them and after he signed them. Unfortunately, he was in favour of them long enough to sign them.

I cannot believe that you actually offer this account as a defence of McCain. It is simply staggering. Saying, "yes, this was appalling, indefensible, and shows him to be untrustworthy, but I am willing to overlook it in the light of a, b, and c" would be, I think, naive. But to actually suggest that there is something to be said for this position is mindblowing.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

what i outlined is grounded in the political circumstances and in the political necessity of winning elections.

you have responded to neither one of these points.

you should think more about them, once you get done staggering around and once your mind is finished being blown.

The reason that no-one agrees with you is that your position is indefensible.

If you think that the way to win win elections is to show yourself to be feeble and dishonest then I think you need to pay more attention. Do you really think this sort of pandering can be kept secret these days.

Sorry, but your position is nonsense.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

McCain just lost interest in winning elections a few days after he made the pro-choice conversion, eh? How is he planning to win this time now that he's trying to run as a real conservative? Seems like you should be supporting someone further to the left than McCain if you really believe this is the key to success.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And you must have been on Mars.

With respect to McCain, the whole thing is very simple. He wandered around South Carolina selling himself as a "pro-life" candidate. Then he went to California and pandered to the middle as someone who thought Roe shouldn't be messed with. He got caught talking out of both sides of his mouth. He got blasted in SC by the religious folk he had been pandering to there and he blew up and went on his now infamous rampage about how the religious right is ruining his party.

It wasn't about "winning the middle", it was about being able to pander to everybody about anything.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

after he went off on SC he lost me.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

nuff said

he's now back to pandering to Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson/etal and is doing what he can to be "pure" on SoCon issues so he can pick up the Rudy fall out.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.