Mccain continues nosedive toward conformity

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Maybe if you'd read more than every other paragraph I waste on you, your comprehension would be higher.

I (unfortuantely) read every single paragraph. Since you don't seem willing to respond directly to anything I say, why should I respond to every single word in yourtreatise.....?

And remember what I said a while back, preech-- It's not that we don't understand....we just think you're wrong.

I'll respond to War & Peace later.

[Preechr]

Do you really want me to explain that to you?

DO YOU?!

[Preechr]

Well, as I said, if you understand me, then stop pretending you don't and start arguing with my points instead of your strawmen.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Preechr, cut the shit. I get it. Bloated government. Conservative plan. I've heard it before.

I think you're wrong. Deal with it!

[Preechr]

Kevin, cut the shit. If you got it, you'd be arguing it instead of arguing stuff that has nothing to do with it. Where did you hear it before? I know I didn't cut and paste this from TownHall.com. If you've found some other people better able to discuss this, PLEASE let me know where to find them.

Start participating in the actual discussion or stop posting in the thread.

If you do wish to continue, feel free to re-post anything and everything you think I have failed to address and I will gladly respond to every single bit of it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Preechr, this is how you deal with people who think you are wrong. "You simply don't get me, see, I have a terribly nuanced idea, but you just aren't getting it."

Chill out. You've talked about your theory before, and I've heard it elsewhere (surprisingly, you may not be the only one who reads Townhall.com!).

I've responded to your points with facts, links, and reason. Your response has been "oh well whatever you aren't talking about what I'm talking about, I'm clearly too nuanced for you, rollyeyes emoticon."

like I said, I will get to it later.

And the word of the day is pithy, Preech.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

So, in the world of your silly little argument, the only option to McCain being a guaranteed nominee is that the world is run by a group of evil Republicans that I refuse to name for you. Any other explanation that I try to provide for you seems to get mutated into that, so why bother again?

You have utterly FAILED to explain what will derail McCain.

I have never once claimed him to be a lock for the nomination, however i've attempted to show to you and explain to you what makes him the most likely candidate RIGHT NOW.

You believe he will ultimately lose because *somebody* will prevent him from getting the nomination. When I asked you to tell me who they, him, her, or it was, you went on a diatribe about the history of the American welfare state, and the supposed Republican plot to bust the bank on federal programs.

if anyone is having difficulty getting a message across and comprehending the conversation, it's you my friend.

"You keep implying that some group of Republicans will eventually "make the call" on McCain, which will crush his state-by-state infrastructure, force the resignation of top Bush consultants and fundraisers from his team, kill his popularity, and annoint some TBD governor as the likely candidate.

I'd like a little bit more substance than that, sorry."

I'm not implying anything, Kevin. I tried my level best to methodically explain to you that McCain is not inline with the party's current strategic direction, and I explained to you what that direction is. I am not arguing with you that McCain is a good Republican. I am not saying he's bad, just that his preferred strategy is not the same as that of the larger party at this time.

You tried and failed miserably.

Where is this "strategic direction" enumerated? The party platform? I challenge you to find me ONE 2006 congressional candidate who is running on this supposed "strategic direction" you've mentioned.

Here's the bottom line-- This idea of cracking the welfare state before it can be fixed, it may be right. But this is politics. Politics is about messaging. Even if there were a plan to spend and spend and spend until the systems fail, NOBODY in the Republican Party is going to run on this idea. When it comes to campaigns and elections, Republicans are going to run on tax breaks and fiscal discipline.....whether they REALLY want it or not.

For example:

http:///www.hillnews.com/thehill/exp...06/mccain.html

"It remains to be seen whether McCain can execute a new Southern strategy, but Southerners have noted his presence.

“He’s been down there working hard. He’s got a lot of support,” said Republican Jim DeMint, South Carolina’s junior senator.

The two senators have collaborated on a campaign to cut federal spending, an issue that DeMint predicts will be front and center in the Republican primary. “I hear that more than anything else,” DeMint said."

Republicans will at least have to publicly cow tow to McCain's message in that sense, because they will at least play it off as inline with their own. Follow?

So, if no Republican will come out and overtly say that McCain is the wrong fit, then it would have to be a more covert, unspoken sabotage, would it not?

So this once again leads me to the question-- who/what will bring down McCain, and how will this be done???

was the only advantage a potential candidate could have, I'd agree with your projections, but it's not. If it were, Dean would have been running against Bush in 04.

There were many, many, many reasons the Dean campaign fell apart, and it had nothing to do with DNC sabotage. Nor was it's Dean's failure to "be in line" with the party faithfuls. The Dean campaign was poorly structured, and it finally culminated in Iowa (to put what would otherwise be a very long discussion short).

I am trying to explain to you is that McCain's media advantage, though considerable, does not guarantee him a spot on the ticket. Yes, the base likes him well enough, but if the party doesn't agree with his strategic view, he might as well try to use his media advantage to get the nomination from the Democratic Party.

Okay, so we're getting there!!!

"The Party" Who is this????

And the name recognition the media gave to McCain will also assist his base turnout. It's actually quite remarkable. You can see it slowly happening, but the Lefty bloggers and the media are starting to get pretty nasty towards their favorite Democrat. So, they gave him all of the unearned media, advanced his name, and now they're going to start trashing him like they do the president. The base will love that.

McCain will save money on their rhetoric.

Now, while McCain's message will resonate with the Republican base, his methods do not jibe with the methods the party has been employing successfully so recently. Why would the other also powerful and influential members of the party accept his leadership if it does not match their current direction?

They have and will continue to adore McCain because he is popular, respected, admired, and draws in bi-partisan support. This is often the face the GOP likes to put forward.

And again, you've actually failed to explain how McCain's message conflicts with "the party's" (whereas I've provided you a quote showing that officials in the south actually embrace his message)

No, he decided to wait for his turn to come back around. He has continued to vote on his principles, but if you ever listen to the conservative talk shows or read the GOP biased opinion pieces about McCain, he is considered a spoiler rather than a leader of the party.

I think that's debateable, and I'd like you to back it up. I know that Republicans are often critical of him, but those same hypocrites will gladly have him stump for them in their districts and raise money. McCain doesn't need them to like him, he needs them to shut their mouths and work for him. He is working on establishing the latter, and if 2006 doesn't go well for the GOP (which all premonitions are saying) you will see these people at the state level (elected officials, party operatives, big party supporters, campaign staffers, etc.) flock to McCain like he were Moses.

Please note, as well, you just said that the GOP favored Bush in order to regain the White House. Is this where I'm supposed to start harangueing you to give me the names of the supposed black robes cultists that made this evil decision while scrying through their unholy crystals in their hollowed out volcano?

The GOP in certain states favored him. The GOP in places such as New Hampshire had a different opinion.

And what I ACTUALLY said was that the party (RNC and respective campaign staffs, as well as elected officials) wanted to put the primary behind them and beat the Democrats. McCain staffers ended up on the Bush team, and state officials who endorsed McCain PROBABLY endorsed Bush. This isn't some "strategic initiative", it's just obvious.

"McCain will run as a tax cutting fiscal conservative. Let's not get into what he'll actually have to do once he's president, because that rarely has to do with elections."

Wow. I didn't realize he'd already run and won.

Stop being dense. My point (and I think it's pretty clear) was that McCain will run as one thing, and would potentially govern as something else entirely.

Ok, well at least now you're trying to play along. I understand your admiration for McCain. I disagree with you on your projections, as I have explained in detail, but I'm willing to let you be proven wrong.

Well if you intend to do that you had better catch up.

I don't give a shit about McCain. I study politics. I know campaigns, I've worked on several campaigns, and I'm getting a friggin degree in campaigns. Remember, the twisted attraction blah blah blah stuff????

The only thing I've done here is to point out the strategic steps McCain has taken to secure the nomination. Again, I've NEVER EVER said he had the nomination locked. I was in fact the FIRST to point out the difficulty senators have in this whole thing. You are the ONLY one making guarantees here, and doing it without any relevant citation at that.

I've said it before, if it's McCain/Hillary in 2008, I will probably vote McCain. Maybe Hillary can impress me, we'll see. If my ticket of Warner/Feingold could happen I will not vote for McCain. But much like McCain, Clinton is taking steps to remold the party in her own image. They have opposite problems with the electorate, but are doing very similar things in order to make themselves the frontrunners.

A McCain Administration would be much different than Bush's, though Max would still hate him. I really do respect the guy for his integrity, and I really do think that would shine through in his presidency. I just don't think he's going to get the chance because his party won't support him.

"his party" being?

I think McCain would try to govern the way he thinks, but get crushed by reality. However, as I said before, he would certainly veto spending legislation.

And yes, Max will hate him, but probably with good reason.

McCain is not bullet-proof, and without the full support of his party, he can be taken out just like any other politician. Just like he was in 99, or just like guys like Rove and Carville have done to sooo many other generally decent guys.

Okay, now you're starting to show some clarity and make some sense.

Rove and Carville are not their parties. in fact, truth be told, guys like Carvilel and Rove care very little about the actual party structure. They are in the business of winning and electing candidates. McCain didn't lose in 2000 because he lost the intellectual policy debate, he lost becasue the Bush team was craftier, smarter, and yes, dirtier.

THIS is why McCain is trying to deal with that early, and is building PARTY support at the grassroots, rather than the populist sort of support he had in 2000. He isn't going to have idealistic college kids and true-believer conservatives and independents running his canvassing and outreach. It's going to be local party leaders, donors, campaigners, and officials. He's going for the Bush people, to put it short.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the GOP will rally around him and everything will go off without a hitch. I don't see why you are so hung up on him, honestly. It's obvious by now that I see it as just as much a no-brainer in the other direction, but thanks for forcing me to go into such detail as to why.

Please remember that you're the guy with his poster on your wall. You're the guy who really believes that he's "the maverick", even though I showed you that he has governed and voted almost staunchly conservative.

Elections are not about having one cohesive unit supporting you 100%. You've seen what classifies as a mandate, right? It's about splitting the electorate, and finding the combination that gets you 50 +1. That's it. He doesn't need the RNC, or every single GOP member of Congress, or every single Republican in every single state to support him.

"Preech, you should go talk to some folks at the DNC. Go out to the bar with them. If such a complcit plan truly exists, they are totally unaware of it."

It's tactics, Kev. Strategy. It's not conspiracy. It's not nefarious. The end result of the Republican plan as I have outlined it will be a distinctly Republican political victory resulting in a much more conservative America. I have also explained why such a strategy is necessary and why the more direct methods fail.

I get the latter, and I think that's a different thread.

You have completely failed to explain or support the former. Sorry.

asked you to explain what your version of the GOP strategy is, and you have yet to do that. Try. Tell me about a strategy that follows strict adherence to the GOP platform and yet allows for the observable events of the Bush Administration, making it all make sense.

Elections and policy are two different things. I'll staple that to my head for ya if you'd like.

Elections, ESPECIALLY House races, are more commonly run as local campaigns. There have been historical exceptions to this rule, and 2006 might prove to be one of those examples, if the Democrats can bring Bush and DeLay's troubles down to the local races.

But GENERALLY there is no cohesive strategy. If you need examples, look at NM-1. I'm not going to go on about it any further, unless you'd really, really like to.

[Preechr]

This is a big waste of time. I'm pretty sure you are fully capable of understanding the difference between strategy and conspiracy, yet for some reason it suits you to act as if you aren't. You are actually demanding that I explain to you what I mean by "his party" when I refer to McCain's party? Hint: HIS PARTY IS THE REPUBLICAN ONE.

"You have utterly FAILED to explain what will derail McCain."

You have utterly failed to read then. Damn, man. This is not that complicated. There is no reason I should have to explain it again, as I have already done that four different ways. If you are really that concerned about what I think, just go back and re-read the thread.

What is remarkable about your entire method of continuing this discussion is that the more you type, the more you answer the questions you are asking of me.

"Where is this 'strategic direction' enumerated? The party platform? I challenge you to find me ONE 2006 congressional candidate who is running on this supposed "strategic direction" you've mentioned..."

"This plan can't be stated publicly. Nobody who walks around with an American flag and their 'I'm a conservative!' badge would agree to this. So, Republicans are still forced to run like McCain and govern like Bush. Bottom Line..."

Both you. I keep asking you to look at HOW Bush is governing. I keep asking you to offer up an alternative strategy that could be driving the Republican Party while including the things the Party has actually accomplished, and that's just one more thing you are choosing to ignore.

Are the actions of the current Republican Party dominated government in line with their platform? Freakin NO. Obviously not. How the hell do you explain that, Kevin? I really don't want to hear anything else you have to say on this issue until you can appease me with that. I understand that you are focusing your education on campaigns alone, but surely you have to see, when you tell me over and over that what is said in campaigns has basically no bearing on the actual governance produced by campaigning, that there is something other than just campaigning to politics, right?

That something is strategy, buddy. Strategy lives a much more robust life than do campaign promises. Even the best campaigns of mice and men will never elect a dead possum, and even the most electable candidate ever will not receive campaign support from a party that disagrees with his or her strategy for it's future.

Part of the campaign support I'm talking about there is that thing that was missing for McCain when Bush's campaign started hitting below the belt in 99. His party, the Republican one, did not help him to overcome the attacks and win. His party, the Republican one, chose instead to allow and thus support the Bush campaign's "dirty tricks." Why? They preferred Bush's compliance to the greater party's general strategy for governence.

I submit to you that the strategy I am talking about here is evident in the record of what the Republican Party has actually accomplished since Bush's election. I have clearly explained to you in this thread what I believe their long-term strategy is, and you have yet to explain to me what it is you believe their long-term strategy to be... so far.

Contrarily, it appears to me that I have repeatedly acknowledged your contentions regarding McCain's efforts so far in his campaign efforts. Funny how I am responding to all of your points, but somehow the one point I am trying to add to your one-sided and unfocused ("I have never once claimed him to be a lock for the nomination, however i've attempted to show to you and explain to you what makes him the most likely candidate RIGHT NOW...") point that is essentially about as interesting or relevant as exclaiming the time of day is being completely ignored by you in your responses. Why do you think that is?

How's McCain doing now, Kevin? How bout now? How bout now? What's the point? You can do better than Matt Drudge or another sort of political Swatch Watch.

I'm thinking the root of your difficulty in this is that we have different views of governing and politics. It seems you see governance as random masturbation of public whim where I see it as a persistent struggle to control private activity. We both admit, however, that campaigns have little or no effect on governance. Campaigns are actually the fakiest part of politics. See why I jumped to the strategy part of the conversation so quickly? There's the meat of the formula that allows us to make real predictions. I'm just trying to help you by adding some relevance to the conversation.

So, again, explain to me your conception of the current Republican long-term strategy that allows your earliest comments regarding the wonderful and interesting McCain campaign that makes them seem in any way at all relevant to anything. I am so on the edge of my seat that I could fall asleep.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

"Where is this 'strategic direction' enumerated? The party platform? I challenge you to find me ONE 2006 congressional candidate who is running on this supposed "strategic direction" you've mentioned..."

"This plan can't be stated publicly. Nobody who walks around with an American flag and their 'I'm a conservative!' badge would agree to this. So, Republicans are still forced to run like McCain and govern like Bush. Bottom Line..."

Both you.

.....and!!? Both of those statements are completely consistent. Here, I'll put them in a paragraph for you:

Where is this 'strategic direction' enumerated? The party platform? I challenge you to find me ONE 2006 congressional candidate who is running on this supposed "strategic direction" you've mentioned. If Republicans are so obviously and decidedly behind being big spenders, than show me a candidate who is running on it. This plan can't be stated publicly. Nobody who walks around with an American flag and their 'I'm a conservative!' badge would agree to this. So, Republicans are still forced to run like McCain and govern like Bush. Bottom Line..."

There's rhetoric and there's policy. You seem to think that the Republican Party (without ever fully addressing who made this deicision) has decided to bust the bank, tap it dry, and start from scratch. Let me sa this one more time-- I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENT THREAD, AND I'M NOT EVEN SAYING THAT YOU'RE NECESSARILY WRONG.

However, as I will show you below, Republicans at the federal and state level still need to campaign on conservative rhetoric, generally.

So, here we are again-- Your theory on why McCain can't win. According to you, he can't win, b/c the GOP has decided to be big spenders for the time being. I have shown you (and will continue to show you) that the Republicans can't attack McCain's fiscal conservatism in rhetoric, b/c they themselves at least PUBLICLY embrace it. I think this argument is irrefutable, and unless you can prove me wrong with public statements and platforms from campaigns, than don't bother.

Here are what Republicans say about spending, both at the federal level and the state:

"The Senate emergency spending bill represents a huge spending spree, but the big losers will be the American taxpayers stuck with the tab. President Bush requested $92 billion for the War on Terror and some hurricane spending. The House used fiscal restraint and stayed within the President's request for true emergency spending. We support the President's threat to veto the wayward spending bill. The American people don't deserve a special interest shopping cart disguised as a supplemental." LINK

MADISON, Wis. - "A proposed constitutional amendment to limit state spending, passed last week by the Assembly, ran into trouble on two fronts Monday.

A fiscal report said it would have produced virtually no change in state revenue growth over the last decade, and a Senate committee hammered it for not going far enough.

The limits would have capped annual revenue growth at 4.6 percent between fiscal years 1995 and 2004, the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau report said. Actual annual revenue growth over those years was 4.5 percent.

"It's just like saying nothing," said Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, who chairs a special Senate committee formed to deal exclusively with the amendment. He is crafting a new, tougher version the Senate could see later this week.

Republicans who control the state Legislature have been pushing for caps on government spending for years in hopes of holding down taxes and giving themselves points on the campaign trail." LINK

"The good news is that the Assembly Republicans have decided to say no to Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger said he wants to spend $7 billion more than the state receives in revenue. The Assembly Republicans said no, the state should only spend what it takes in.

Schwarzenegger said he wants to expand government as fast as Gray Davis. The Assembly Republicans said no, they want to slow down the growth of government.

The Schwarzenegger budget did not resolve the state's debt issues, particularly the $15 billion debt that Gray Davis created. The Assembly Republicans said they want to make sure that debt is paid, before we spend another dime in new state programs." LINK

"Sen. Brad Burzynski, R-Clare, noted that the budget includes $30,000 for Governor's State University for a display to honor legislators who attended the university.

"My understanding is they've been whistling people in all week to make deals and give people the pork that they want in order to sign them on (to vote for the budget)," said Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, the Republican candidate for treasurer.

Radogno also said the state only expects to collect about $900 million in additional taxes next year, but the budget increases spending by $1.4 billion.

"We're still spending more than we are taking in," Radogno said." LINK

I keep asking you to look at HOW Bush is governing. I keep asking you to offer up an alternative strategy that could be driving the Republican Party while including the things the Party has actually accomplished, and that's just one more thing you are choosing to ignore.

No, it's your diversion. You're answering my question with a question. Bush hasn't vetoed a spending bill, true. If you believe his argument, it's because he doesn't have a line item veto at his disposal. I dunno, that's probably bullshit.

However, you have overlooked the fact that A. his fellow Republicans HAVE criticized him on this, and B. Bush governs the way a politican slapped with the reality of entitlement governs. He tried that whole "ownership society" stuff, remember? Did he really intentionally make an ass of himself, stumping on revamping Social Security? The American people weren't too responsive to that.

According to your logic, he intentionally must've done that, all so we could ACTUALLY keep the SS system the same, so that it BREAKS! MUWAHAHA!!

You contradict yourself. All the time you critize members of both parties of being greedy, incompetent, and lacking vison. Yet you somehow believe that the Republican Party, starting all the way at the top with Bush and going down to the local county parties, can manage a hush-hush plan to break the bank. How do you reconcile this?

Are the actions of the current Republican Party dominated government in line with their platform? Freakin NO. Obviously not. How the hell do you explain that, Kevin? I really don't want to hear anything else you have to say on this issue until you can appease me with that. I understand that you are focusing your education on campaigns alone, but surely you have to see, when you tell me over and over that what is said in campaigns has basically no bearing on the actual governance produced by campaigning, that there is something other than just campaigning to politics, right?

The platforms are meaningless, and they have been since the democratization of the conventions. It's debateable whether or not they ever had a huge impact.....

I've given you my opinion on why Republicans say one thing and govern another. I'm of the opinon that ideolouges will say a whole lot of things, and voters will either cheer or boo respectively. They'll do this, up until the point they want their road fixed, or more cops on their street, or they want their social security check, or they want their military to go to war, etc. etc.

Voters ant it all. Hav you ever seen some of th data on general public opinion regarding government? Americans contradict themselves al the damn time. When Americans vote and also EXPECT those that they votefor to govrn a certain way, then you might see less double-speak. Maybe then.

That something is strategy, buddy. Strategy lives a much more robust life than do campaign promises. Even the best campaigns of mice and men will never elect a dead possum, and even the most electable candidate ever will not receive campaign support from a party that disagrees with his or her strategy for it's future.

ugh.....you do realize that the parties have less actual control over elections now than ever, right? I just can't even continue with this. You can't substantiate a damn thing you're saying.

Is the party the RNC, the Bush administration, the Republicans in congress, the Republican governors, the republican state committees, the republican county committees, the individual registeredrepublicans of every single state....!!?? WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!?

Seriously, answer this, or don't respond. When you can tell me who has this power to axe mcCain,onl then will Ibe able to tolerate any more of this.

Part of the campaign support I'm talking about there is that thing that was missing for McCain when Bush's campaign started hitting below the belt in 99. His party, the Republican one, did not help him to overcome the attacks and win. His party, the Republican one, chose instead to allow and thus support the Bush campaign's "dirty tricks." Why? They preferred Bush's compliance to the greater party's general strategy for governence.

You mean the Republican Party in New Hampshire? Did they allow it? Republicans in Michigan?

When you say "His party, the Republican one, did not help him to overcome the attacks and win", do you mean the primary voters in the southern states that chose a seemingly more conservative candidate.....please, I could live with that! REAL PEOPLE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT!

And speaking of McCain, if you're talking about southern republicans, than you and him might be on the same page. This is why he's courting southern officials, securing southern campaigners and fundraisers, and stumping like mad for House and Senate GOPers. THAT'S why he's all of sudden best friends with Jerry Falwell. Seriously, you should check out the infrastructure he's building. He's trying to re-build this party you keep mentioning in his own image. And again, as I've said previously, they will only flock to him more of 2006 goes as poorly for the GOP as anticipated.

EDIT: Here's an interesting story on McCain's stumping in Nebraska (and by default Iowa). The mcCain that ran and lost in 2000 had a lot of ideas on how to govern. That's great and all, but in the era of the permanent campaign, it's getting votes. That's it. McCain has learned his lesson, and he knows that you play this game if you want to get in the door and make some change.

I submit to you that the strategy I am talking about here is evident in the record of what the Republican Party has actually accomplished since Bush's election. I have clearly explained to you in this thread what I believe their long-term strategy is, and you have yet to explain to me what it is you believe their long-term strategy to be... so far.

Men and women trying to keep their jobs don't have national plans. Period.

okay, so here's where we are...once again. The entire basis for your argument is Republican spending in the United States Congress (irregardless of what's happening in state houses, county governments, towns, villages, etc.). You believe that high Republican spending is a "clear" indicator of a cohesive, national strategy to spend, spend, spend.

But there's a problem-- No Republican can publicly attack McCain for espousing fiscal conservatism. No Republican can publicly say "HEY, YOU'RE FUCKING UP OUR PLAN, ASSHOLE!!!"

So, in order for the GOP to derail him, they'll need to be clever (whoever "they" are). They'll need to publicly say the same things he says, al that jazz about pork, and balanced budgets, etc., but they'll ALSO have to subversively sink him.

So we come back to this-- HOW WILL THIS BE DONE, AND WHO, WHO, WHO WILL DO IT???

How's McCain doing now, Kevin? How bout now? How bout now? What's the point? You can do better than Matt Drudge or another sort of political Swatch Watch.

Matt Drudge at least has sources and pretends to be a journalist. At this point, I'd love Matt Drudge.

I read a lot of things. Apparently you do too, although we wouldn't know it. I back up my arguments, whereas you just type and type and type. You're like the Kerouac of message board trolls.

[Preechr]

I honestly have no idea of how to continue this. The only thing I can think of doing here is to once again re-state things I've already said.

How about we just wait and see what happens with McCain. If I'm right, you'll just have to trust me from now on. I told you my ideas are not stuff I'm cutting and pasting off Townhall.com, and you misunderstood that to mean that I was getting my ideas off Townhall.com. I am presenting you a logical argument, and your requirement for further discussion is that I only use regurgitated material from someone else's mind.

I thought you'd enjoy thinking something through for yourself. I understand every point you've made, and I can see where this discussion has hardened and softened some of your points, but I didn't start into this to trade links. I am glad, though, that you find my idea of Republican strategy not only worthy enough of FINALLY recognizing, but also also at one point something you might even agree with (before you got back on your tirade demanding names despite all my efforts to explain to you how it works) and maybe even deserving of it's own thread. I don't think I've ever felt so validated.

By the way: Those two quotes of yours were not meant to show that you weren't being consistent, but that you have an annoying habit of answering the questions you keep demanding of me for yourself.

PPS: If I'm a troll, I really don't advise you spend so much time on me. A mod should be more judicious with his time, IMO.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I thought I told you not to respond unless you were going to contribute something of substance???

Seriously, how much time have i spent on you? i allowed this thread to drop for weeks, up until you had a tantrum over how nobody understands you.

How about we wait and see if you can come up with an argument, and then we'll pick it up again.

[Preechr]

Ok... That's better.

Let's both starting holding our breath... NOW!

[mburbank]

I hate to get back to what this thread is about, but now Mccain is saying he thinks Mr. I Ran The Illegall Warantless Wiretapping Dealio is a GREAT choice to head the CIA! And besides, it's the Presidents choice and we are at war! OH MY GOD, next thing you know there will be an internet video of a smling Mccain getting boned up the fudgey by W!

There's being a politicasl pragmatist and then there's SELLING YOUR SOUL TO THE DEVIL! I think they killed Mccain and replced him with a robot.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

He's very pro-military, supports the war, and votes very conservatively.

I'm not saying you shouldn't disapprove of him, but the John McCain originally presented by the media is a myth on many levels.

[mburbank]

The John McCain that thought W was beneath contempt for concidering slurs about the potential blackness of his daughter was a legitimate political tactic was not an invention.

The John Mccain who's support for the military and conservatism led him to publicly disrespect a gang of Chickenhawks and think their attacks of Max Cleland and John Kerry were hameful was not an invention.

John Mccain is and always has been a lot of things I don't like. But he isn't stupid. He knows better. And he has decided that a shot at being the President is worth cozying up to this gang of lizrads is worth it.

I think that's disgusting.

I always disliked Mccains politics. I used to admire his candor. I find his eagerness to juggle lumps of Bush excrement deeply repulsive.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

The John McCain that thought W was beneath contempt for concidering slurs about the potential blackness of his daughter was a legitimate political tactic was not an invention.

So are you suggesting it would be more noble of McCain to dismiss every single person nominated by the president, regardless of qualifications, out of political spite?

I think McCain truly supports this guy, for better or worse. Besides, what does McCain have to gain for being so supportive of the president? The guy's poll numbers are in the toilet.

The John Mccain who's support for the military and conservatism led him to publicly disrespect a gang of Chickenhawks and think their attacks of Max Cleland and John Kerry were hameful was not an invention.

First off, how is that inconsistent with him suporting the new CIA chief?

I don't think he ever referred to the president as a "chicken hawk", btw.

I always disliked Mccains politics. I used to admire his candor. I find his eagerness to juggle lumps of Bush excrement deeply repulsive.

Again though, that would seem counter-productive to me. Maybe he's playing some kind of reverse psychology game, anticipating that everyone will turn on the prez but him, and aww shucks, sure I'll allow my campaign staff to work for ya, John.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=6901

"John McCain is a strong conservative," Falwell said. "He's pro-life. His view on family is just where most conservatives Christians' views are. And he and I are friends now."

[Preechr]

It's a poll, so it must be valid. That's what they taught Kevin in school. Lots of Southerners in Minnesota. Yep.

Newt Gingrich Wins 2008 Straw Poll

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who engineered the Republican takeover of Congress a dozen years ago, got a boost tonight from Minnesota conservatives who want him to run for president in 2008.

Gingrich was the top vote-getter in a straw poll of G-O-P activists at the state party convention.

But the vote is at best a limited reflection of Republican sentiment in the state - the ranks of the 12-hundred-plus delegates had thinned down considerably by the time the poll was taken, and 540 valid votes were cast.

That was about ten hours into the second day of the convention, hours after the day's marquee event - the endorsement of Governor Pawlenty.

Gingrich got 210 votes in the straw poll, or almost 39 percent. That's more than twice as many as Senator George Allen of Virginia, who came in second.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was third, followed by Arizona Senator John McCain, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

© 2006 Associated Press.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

It's a poll, so it must be valid. That's what they taught Kevin in school.

Trying to insult me won't better enable you to make up for the ground you lost in this thread.

But the vote is at best a limited reflection of Republican sentiment in the state - the ranks of the 12-hundred-plus delegates had thinned down considerably by the time the poll was taken, and 540 valid votes were cast.

Yeah, and Preechr appears to have learned what every other internet crusader on the web has learned-- bash polling until you find the one you like......especially when it's a 540 person vote conducted during happy hour at some meaningless convention.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's sort of interesting and pathetic all at the same time that Gingrich would lobby so hard for support at this particular convention.

in the long run, it's meaningless, because it's a poor reflection of the overall electorate (even the primary voters). However, maybe Newt could use this as some kind of catalyst, since it's clearly getting harped on by Newters all around the web.

He doesn't have a prayer.

http://www.politics1.com/

"What is more interesting is that convention delegates all received a two-page letter that boasted "no one can articulate a Republican vision for America better" than Gingrich -- and it warned of "a significant risk that a moderate candidate will get the Republican nomination in 2008." The letter went on to attack McCain and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, saying "between them they have supported tax hikes, free speech restrictions, amnesty for illegal immigrants, gay marriage and abortion." The letter was signed by Republican National Committeeman Brian Sullivan, former State GOP Chair Chris Georgacas, former Republican National Committeeman Jack Meeks and several other leading state GOP activists. Former Congressman Vin Weber (R-MN) -- a close Gingrich ally -- also remains very influential in the Minnesota GOP."

[Preechr]

I told you he would be working toward these ends. The main reason I posted that was because, though pretty much meaningless, it in some small way validates my predictions. You said you wanted sources and links and whatnot, so if I can find some, I'll post them for you.

I say what I think. What I think is influenced by all the things I have read and heard. I can't link you to my mind. Please remember, the only times you will generally see me linking anything is when I want to stir up some poopy and I'm too lazy to sit down and pick a fight in my own words. It's even more rare to see me referencing a poll.

I thought you could play on that level. If you want to trade links, I'll give that a shot. So far, all I've basically said here is that McCain won't be the Republican candidate in 08, and that though Newt would likely throw his hat in as well, he'd likely not make it. I predicted a governor will get the nod.

You asked me why I thought those things, and I tried to explain that to you. As I said, I cannot link my mind. I honestly have no idea how many books and articles I've read in the last fifteen years, which is the time during which I've been interested in politics, so I'm just not gonna be able to help you retrace my steps. Really, all you have to do is prove your own case. I'm willing to listen.

At this point, you've already said you don't believe McCain's a lock. My question to you is why is it that the efforts he's made (and you catalogued) to that end are so important? You tend to spend most of your typing time in this thread challenging me rather than advancing your own ideas. Where do presidents come from in your world? Don't link stuff, just make sense and I'll get it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't think you can follow sense, or reality for that matter. Presidents come from hard fought campaigns, good circumstances, money, support, anf fairy dust.

What bothers me about your whole perspective on campaigns is that you seem to think it's still a bunch of men smoking cigars in a back room making the call. it hasn't been like that for a long time, but to make matters worse, you can't even tell me who these mythical cigar smokers in the room ARE!

Name a popular campaign forthe presidency,or for congress, and I can probably tell you about the work and sweat that person put into it to win. That doesn't make them a good person, or the right person, or my favoritest person. it just is what it is.

I think Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton are fantastic examples. Both of these men, despite whatever negative things they may be remembered for, never had any victories (with the exception, maybe, of '72) handed to them on a silver platter. Both these men were tireless campaigners, and not always very popular even within their own parties. They still clawed their way towards what they wanted.

This doesn't make them good people, good leaders, or even people that I would vote for. It again, simply is what it is.

As for Newt-- he interests me. I think the Right is screaming in 2008 for a Dean-type of personality to mix up the deck, and perhaps reshape the debate (if anyone can recall, prior to Dean, not too many Dems were quick to talk about Iraq and withdrawal possibilities).

I personally think someone like Brownback could also be this niche darkhorse, bt he would need to do a lot b/f that could happen. Newt already has the policy ideas, I just think he lacks any rea support beyond very small sub-groups and ideologues.