From
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7347

"Monday, April 2, 2001
By: Robert Tracinski
McCain's act of treason is to fight against liberty in the Senate.
It is time to put the John McCain myth to rest.
For years, the national media and a gullible grass-roots following have glorified McCain as a man of integrity who deals in "straight talk." They have promoted his image as a hero who fought bravely for his country in Vietnam and who is now fighting to save politics from corruption by special interests.
I don't dispute McCain's war record. In Vietnam, he endured beatings and torture for the sake of his country. But the hero has since become a traitor. Today, for the sake of his own populist self-aggrandizement, McCain is betraying one of his country's most basic principles: the freedom of political expression.
The most obvious form of this betrayal is McCain's proposed ban on political ads by independent groups within 60 days of an election."

I wholeheartedly agree with your observations, for what it's worth! McCain is as much a lying politician as his Democratic counterparts and Richard Nixon. I'd like to think his brutal war experiences make him more aware of the *actual* needs of our soldiers; that somewhere beneath the slippery slickness of this war-hero-turned-career-politician there lies *some* conviction for those on the front lines is all I can hope for, though its still not enough for me to support him. And the Democrats were never an option.

Well observed -- and HEAR, HEAR!

You're inadvertently echoeing my sentiment. We might be able to look at who most frequently toed the liberal party-line when it came to voting. We've got a lot of ineffectual people in congress who don't do much more than cast a "yea" or a "nay", which is precisely what Hillary has done. What scares me is that McCain has accomplished more for the liberal side of the Chamber than Obama and Hillary put together. They may have voted this way or that, but they've accomplished nothing. McCain has been able to achieve results that have leveled staggering blows to such consequential little things as the 1st amendment to The Constitution!! What has McCain accomplished for the side of the isle that he supposedly stands on? I'm sorry, but when your name is paired beside the likes of Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy as co-sponsor of a bill, you've done more than reach across the aisle- you've taken a long stroll to the far-left side of the chamber.

Ee gads -- it's the same difference as that between Japan and North Korea?

I hardly think so. It's more like the difference between throttling industry entirely or just mostly with some Global Warming insanity.

I'd rather capitalism not get the blame for either result, thank you.

You're right. Votes don't lie, and your measure does much to establish his party loyalty on certain issues. Indeed, venturing off the Reservation as dramatically as McCain does when he does it requires him to stick to his instructions most other times. It is those dramatic departures from his GOP colleagues' positions, I submit, which define the legislator.

Here are a few numbers that may interest you; http://ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2006.pdf

Clinton a pathetic 17%, Obama bin laden a measley 16%, compared to McCain's 88%. I would say that these three are quite different. Votes don't lie.

And that's just an economic comparison. Sure, I am mad as hell with McCain-Feingold and for the fact that McCain did not support making the Bush tax cuts permanent, but compared side by side on all issues there is no comparison on who is a better defender of liberty...it's not even close.

As I have stated a legion of times, McCain has several drawbacks that disgust me, but to use a comparison of sorts I would rather live in Japan than North Korea.

"... raises taxes, extolls universal socialized healthcare, supports complete socialized education, mandatory 'volunteer' programs for youth, bows to the alter of the UN, wants government control of the economy, etc...."

Were you just describing McCain or Hillary?

McCain had to run back to Capitol Hill this week -- to vote "aye" on the "Economic 'Stimulus' Package."

If it weren't for the "universal socialized health care" part, and we all recall how successful Mrs. Clinton was on that score as First Lady, I wouldn't have been able to tell...

   Jody, are you saying that Hillary Clinton has a better record than John McCain in the US Senate when it comes to voting for lower taxes and less government, as well as having the knowledge to understand the threat of Islamism better? Surely, you jest. You would vote a liberal into office for the mere fact that they call themselves a liberal outright and act as such?-to what end? If you examine McCain's and Clinton's Senate voting records (ntu.org) you will see two VASTLY different candidates. A vote for Hillary is a vote for statism, which as I stated below, will then require untold years or generations to undue, if it can even be undone. I would much rather vote for an imperfect candidate who is closer to defending limited government and can engage America's enemies wholesale, than I am with a crying socialist who unabashadly; raises taxes, extolls universal socialized healthcare, supports complete socialized education, mandatory 'volunteer' programs for youth, bows to the alter of the UN, wants government control of the economy, etc.....Not to mention she remains married to her cheating spouse, Bill, after the countless affairs known and unknown.

   Either McCain, Clinton, or Obama bin laden will be the next Pres. of the USA and be integral in directing future events for our nation. I'll Gladly take McCain, thank you.

Huckabee on remaining in the race: "I didn't major in math -- I did major in miracles."

Jesus jumped-up-a-fiddlin' Christ! James and I agree.

What a bizarre logic to think someone a patriot because he is defending abroad what he is destroying domestically.

Bullet points:

-Hillary is pandering to the far left, just like McCain is pandering to the right. Once elected, they'll both return to the familiar unprincipled liberals we are familiar with. James is right. Ask yourselves what the real differences will be. If there is a difference, it's that Hillary did not have the political shrewdness to sponsor and pass the bills that McCain did. She merely cast her "yea" vote.

-Someone once said something to the effect that in order to get a Reagan, we had to suffer a Carter. Be it Hillary or McCain, we will suffer. Come the 2010 Congressional elections and even the more important 2012 Presidential election, I want people to at least realize that they suffered under a liberal who had the balls to call herself such. Given McCain's label of Republican, if he caused the suffering, they may be confused, and we may not get another Reagan, but instead an irreversible 4 more years of liberalism, which could truly sentence us as we stand on this brink, to that "thousand years of darkness" that Reagan spoke of.

Three bags full!

Yeah, and Clinton was elected on a promise to cut taxes for the middle class. Bush the Elder promised us that we could "read his lips," too -- while Nixon said we would leave Vietnam with honor.

Politician promises -- and a couple of bucks -- will get you some coffee at Starbucks.

Instead of deciding things by determining who the "traitor" is based on the empty wind blowing from the mouths of politicians, how 'bout asking yourself what the real differences are likely to be.

Okay, I'll make a prediction: in every way that we found Nixon objectionable, McCain will make Nixon look like a boy scout.

McCain is not evil. Hillary is. McCain is a patriot, Hillary a traitor. Anyone who publicly advocates a timetable for withdrawal, effective immediately, while the boys and girls are on the ground is a traitor. I couldn't vote for her and live with myself.

Think Rand, Nixon and McGovern. And McCain is way better than Nixon.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity ...

That is the most salient part for me, making the point that it is those who would pull out of Iraq who are without compassion, utterly. The morality around going in (which I agreed with) and the morality for now staying in, are two completely different issues, which the Left, especially, seem to deliberately avoid.

One thing I've not really been able to get to the bottom of is why Coulter considers McCain a Democrat? And pity, as with all Republicans, that he is mired in the God Squad muck, but best of them all, in my opinion.

(If the Democrats have to get in, and I suspect a landslide unfortunately, then I suspect Clinton will at least be the pragmatist and not pull out of Iraq, whereas Obama has completely backed himself into a corner on the issue.

EDIT: after posting on your post, I've now cleverly gone back and read your whole post, including the Clinton quotation. Take back everything I just said above about her: I 'thought' she would be the pragmatist, perhaps not.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

John McCain

______________________________

Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today. We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever. Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now.

Hillary Clinton

Notice how US government welfare, education, healthcare, and peacenik policies really took off and expanded massively after women were given the right to vote circa 1920? I wish I could see the numbers of which sex voted for which party since 1920.  In my experience and research it appears that most women vote based on emotionial appeals to fairness and getting along and other 'nurturing' instincts and not so much on objective logical solutions. By nature they are nurturers. Ayn Rand appreciated the distinction between the sexes, but inderstood the BS of the feminist movement. She was 100% correct in saying in effect that while women are competent to be President, no rational woman should seek that position and that it is psychologically damaging to women. Well, here we are now with Hillary Clinton. I do not find any solace with my president crying so much in public like a fragile soul, which Hillary has done so much of late. Call me pretentious or a male machismo, but emotionalism like that (wether real or contrived)  emboldens enemies and makes the commander-in-chief look to be a coward who bends under any pressure.

BTW The war is one of my main reasons for supporting Hillary. The election of a Democrat will change the whole debate and leave us free to argue for a proper response. How long will it be before Hillary alienates the Peacenik Left? Minutes? And, in any event, the election of McCain won't get you the response you want, Linz -- but it will keep silent any voice of reason the subject.

About a century ago, all that lip service to "progressive ideals" was just a bunch of "hoo-ha" to get votes, too.

A few decades ago, mountains of lip service to "Nature" was such "hoo-ha," as well.

In any event, the Huckabee campaign itself -- and Huck's unwillingness to end it -- shows that evangelicals are "tired of being taken for granted." They want more than "lip service" now.

All this talk of religion by the GOP candidates, other than Huckabee, is in my opinion just a bunch of hoo-ha to garner votes. In all reality, does anyone honestly think that these men are truly religious (besides Huckabee) like the average joe from the deep south? I very highly doubt it. It's kissing the rear end of the electorate. With conservatives its 'religion' and with Democrats it's 'socialism'. I think that the form of their collectivism is irrelevant, because it's still just that; COLLECTIVISM. It's like saying who is worse; Iran or North Korea.

If a Democrat gets elected you can bet your bottom dollar, if history is any evidence of the behaviour of the body politic, that he/she will do what they can to establish statism as swift and as monolithic as ever. It's what they do and who they are. So now the USA will have ANOTHER major problem to deal with if a Dem becomes President, which will be heaped on the shattered dreams of present and future generations; deconstructing the government monster, reclaiming lost rights, rebuilding the American Dream (if such a thing is even possible). At least with McCain he will be agressive with the USA's sworn enemies and at worst will slow the bleeding of our freedom's the which a Democrat would go straight for the jugular.

When Rudy was in it, I thought that he was the only tolerable candidate!

I can't resist.

I asked: "So, he was your only option, Linz -- what now?"

You replied: "It certainly ain't Dem-scum across the board. At this point I think I'd sit this one out. It's exactly what I've been calling it—American Airhead."

Mitt's "logic" can be addictive, it seems.

No, you can take full credit, then, for "Sacrifice-for-something-greater-than-Self"-McCain's evangelical environmentalism, anti-abortion judges, and censorship.

At such a cost, I hope you appreciate whatever you manage to get on the security-side. But don't expect a whole lot, my friend.

I do have to say that I paused for second when I heard that "Focus-on-the-Family" Dobson is rejecting McCain, just like he did Rudy. But, given the Senator's anti-abortion stance, I imagine the right V.P. pick might fix this...

Oh, and I'm for Hillary.

No brainer.

By itself, the rejection of Rudy has shown that the Republicans are every bit as bad as Peikoff said they were. However aggressive Rudy's pro-business economic plans, his positions on the "social" issues simply rendered him unelectable in the early states -- and left him without support in Florida. Blame "strategy" all you like -- that "strategy" was borne of necessity.

This election's unprecedented focus on religion shows Peikoff to have been right, as well. Reverend Huck attacks Mitt's Mormonism -- Mitt responds that faith is a prerequisite of the case for liberty. More significantly, Christianity now forms the explicit theoretical basis for both McCain's Green and Huckabee's Compassionate versions of statism. And they were the only survivors of the contest. Commentators have announced the birth of a new Republican Party freed from Reaganesque anti-government rhetoric and goals. (Hey, maybe the Huckster will get the nod for Veep -- it would shore up support in the south and get that army of evangelicals working to get the vote out in November!) Obama's powerful (if bromidic and empty) speech-making style -- not just his "this is the Lord's Day" observations -- comes straight from the pulpit. Not in my worst nightmare would I have predicted all of this...

Peikoff is prescient.

So, you are supporting McCain, after all?

Yes, now that he's it. I certainly wouldn't be rooting for the remaining Republicans, Hickabee or Saddamite Ron, and of course, unlike Peikoff, I wouldn't be seen dead voting for Hillary or Obama. McCain's stance on the war trumps all else in the absence of any proposal by him to set up a Christian theocracy. I don't mind that conservatives hate him on gay marriage and immigration. I do mind that he's into the Global Warming bullshit, but there isn't a candidate who isn't. I mind that he opposed the Bush tax cuts and appears to need educating about the goodness of business. But in the context of the War on Terror I couldn't abstain when the alternatives were Obama or Hillary. They are too disgusting for words, and have become more so during the campaign.

So James, whom will you be supporting?

I dislike McCain for a legion of reasons, but will be voting for him over the Democrat candidate without batting an eye.

So, you are supporting McCain, after all?

But I did think that you'd appreciate the "argument."

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

Well, this prediction proved accurate.

Romney just quit. He explained that staying in the race would only assist a Democrat and that the war trumps all other issues. He suggested that, unlike Reagan in '76, "going all the way" would be only dangerous for America and the world, given the Dems' approach to Iraq.

This "logic" should sound familiar, right?

So, McCain has it pretty well locked up. Huckabee did take several southern states on Tuesday, but he can't realistically hope to win.

[edit.: Anti-abortion McCain is getting some serious grief from conservatives -- Coulter already says she's voting for Hillary and Rush Limbaugh says that without conservative support, McCain is doomed -- but can you imagine the attack if Rudy was on top now?]

[History books note: Obama is looking stronger than ever, so the fight among the Democrats is still on. He even took white southern men(!) on Tuesday. Think about it: are you white, male, southern and Democrat? You probably just voted for an African-American. Just a few decades ago, some would have thought this an impossibility.]

..said while campaigning at a New Jersey fire station today "I can lead this nation and motivate all Americans to serve a cause greater than their own self interest."

Isn't that what ALL of these clowns try to get us to do? Pure excrement, and no points for honesty.

Mike

Ze Ein Rant beetch, I haff bin talkink to herr, unt she sez ze Objectivists shutt not vote butt shutt go to ze Gulch, butt zey don't haff ze gutts.

K

Unt she hass converted me from ze Marxism. Vat could I do? She vud not shut ze fuck up.

MoveOn.org has officially endorsed Obama bin laden for President.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/moveon-endorses-obama/index.html?hp 

You beat me to it. Hearing that just really put things in perspective.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

Ann Coulter endorses Peikoff's fatwa...well, sort of...she is probably bummed that the theocracy is not imminent - says she will campaign and vote for Hillary if it is Hillary/McCain.

Has a point. McCain is just Hillary without balls, but atleast with Hillary as President, the Republicans in Congress may fight back.

The one I just saw, at least, promises that McCain will "keep taxes low."

Okay, doesn't that imply:

1. He thinks that taxes are currently "low"; and,

2. He's not about to make them any lower; but,

3. He'll do his darndest to keep the increases modest.

How comforting.

Sorta "straight talk," at least.

Here's something McCain said during the recent debate at the Reagan Library in California on the difference between his experience and that of businessman Mitt's:

"I led the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy -- not for profit but for patriotism."

The Republicans once vaguely stood for something, but "oh, how are the mighty fallen!"

If you must vote, there is once again living proof that the flawed American political system will only generate MAJOR PARTY candidates of varying degrees of socialism (McCain and Obama - which I am guessing will be the two major party candidates) or fascism (Clinton and just about all the other Democrats and Republicans with exception of Rudy and Ron).

The Libertarian Party here in the US (of which I was a member through the 1990's) is completely useless nowadays unless you want to use voting for their candidate as a 'middle finger' to the blatantly socialist or fascist alternatives. Other 'independent' candidates here in the US belong to parties that are simply more overtly socialist or fascist than the watered-down presentable socialism/fascism of the Republicans and Democrats.

...quite fancy McCain's chances of winning the Presidency. If that doesn't send out warning signals about McCain - I don't know what else should!

..................................................
McCain's gain proves the need for cross-party appeal

After the Republican senator's triumph in Florida, it is clearer than ever which candidate the Democrats must choose

Jonathan Freedland
Thursday January 31, 2008
The Guardian

This should be the Democrats' year. That's what the conventional wisdom holds anyway, citing a Republican presidency that sputters towards its end saddled with some of the lowest poll ratings on record. President Bush's State of the Union address on Monday was a non-event; even his fellow Republicans barely mention his name. One survey last week showed seven out of 10 Americans believe their country is on the wrong track, a political landscape that has to favour the challenger party. Meanwhile, the Democrats are energised, their turnout in primaries doubling as they pack out public meetings with, at one rally this week, young voters queuing around the block to get in. Surely 2008 will belong to them.

And yet politics is rarely that straightforward. When pollsters ask voters to say whether they will favour a Republican or Democrat for president, the Democrat has a handsome lead. Trouble is, there will be no generic Democrat on the ballot in November. There will be an actual person, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, against an actual Republican. And that changes everything. As one pollster puts it, this race will "be about the candidates, not the climate". Judged by that standard, it is Republicans, not Democrats, who now seem to be making the right moves.

Of course, in this of all years, we know things can change. But, as of today, John McCain is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, thanks to a clear, hanging chad-free victory in Florida. He did that despite having much less money than his immediate rival, Mitt Romney - who saturated the Florida airwaves with 10 TV ads to every one of McCain's - in a large, complex and diverse state where the one-voter-at-a-time, retail politics of tiny New Hampshire did not apply.

Obstacles remain for McCain, starting with the fact that ultra-conservatives can't stand him. Having spent more hours than is healthy driving through South Carolina and Florida this last week, listening to talk radio throughout, I was struck by the fury McCain arouses: the special contempt for an ideological traitor. King of the genre Rush Limbaugh warns that a McCain nomination is "going to destroy the Republican party", that rightwingers will stay at home in November rather than vote for him.

I watched Romney tell a dawn rally in West Palm Beach that McCain's would be a "liberal Democrat" administration - no greater insult for the American right - citing McCain's soft line on illegal immigration and his bill to combat climate change. Romney warned Floridians that the latter would put $1,000 on their energy bills to combat a problem that should be solved by the rest of the world. "They don't call it American warming," Romney said to cheers, "they call it global warming."

If these are the grievances the Republican hardcore has with McCain, perhaps the rest of the party realises these are also the issues that might let him win the general election, when a Republican has to win over everyone else.

Given the climate, it might be smart to propose for the White House a Republican who is not too Republican. The right may lambast McCain for failing to vote for Bush's tax cuts or for seeking restrictions on guns, but that makes the senator appealing in the eyes of moderates. Liberals could not hope for a better advocate against Guantánamo and the use of torture than this former war hero and PoW. It's true that he is a serious hawk on foreign policy, an unwavering advocate for the war on Iraq, but he is no Dick Cheney - a hate figure who would scare Democrats into doing anything to stop him. As for his position on climate change, which seems sincerely held, I encountered a green activist in Florida who once voted for Al Gore and who has now come over to McCain.

From now until Super Tuesday, the Limbaugh/Romney assault that insists McCain is not a true conservative could hurt - though McCain need only hit back by pointing out his opponent's inconsistency, especially on social issues such as abortion. "He has made a consistent point of taking both sides of every issue," a smiling McCain told me when I caught up with him in Orlando. (One reason why the senator enjoys such a good press is that he takes, and answers, reporters' questions.)

But if McCain does indeed wrap things up next week, the rightwing critique becomes a positive asset. It also leaves the Democrats in an uncomfortable position, especially if February 5 delivers no such clear verdict. First, the Republicans will have a head start in closing ranks and marshalling resources, while Clinton and Obama will still be taking lumps out of each other. Second, McCain can get on with the business of making a national case for himself as president, while Clinton and Obama will still be obliged to tailor their message for a Democratic-only electorate. That will give McCain a chance to define himself before his eventual opponent can do it for him.

The Democrats took a first step in the direction of resolution yesterday, as John Edwards closed out what had been a brave campaign: how exhilarating it was to hear a mainstream centre-left candidate use the phrase "extraordinary economic inequality" in his stump speech. It would be good if Obama and Clinton were to adopt more of that message as they compete for Edwards's voters. What would be even better is if Democrats were to show some of the sense exhibited by their Republican counterparts, and choose a candidate who appeals beyond the party and can win over the unconverted. That surely has to be Barack Obama.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2249540,00.html

Depressing, disgusting, but I'm for stopping socialized healthcare at all costs (personal reasons) and the Pub-scum are pretty much the only chance at that.

At the rate things are going though, he's probably going to take things further than Obama or Hillary ever would've thought to.

I think my new signature says about everything I want to say about the coming election.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

They actually say things like that on the Beeb? I remember being when I was over in England and 13 years old being tickled pink that you could watch a program explaining the thermodynamics of different combustion engines on TV. I wonder what the ratings of that show were .

Jim

Killer funny -- while in this country, the media is hailing the alleged end of Reagan conservatism and the rebirth of "socially conscious" Christianity!

I catch BBC news on BBC America sometimes -- those guys make the Left-leaning American media look like Tories!

After attending to politics, and getting predictably depressed, all I have to do in order to cheer up is to look abroad. Scary.

The New Era for Republicans is that Individualists, who once had a welcome place at the table because of Reagan, no longer do.

Thus, when people (and THE most typical reason), say they support McCain, it is because He can win. I'm not buying it.

Who here sees their grandfather as a great agent of change? No one. Hence, McCain will loose. Besides, a 25 year-long member of the world’s most exclusive club (ie, the US Senate) is normally a serious disqualification for the Presidency. That, combined with the fact that it has been 48 years since the electorate elevated a mere Senator to the Presidency. Clear Romney edges!

There are not many consolations in the outcome of a Democrat or McCain presidency. Save for the fact that presidential powers are limited. This saved us from Clinton’s worst excesses before, and will have to again.

...I just saw on the BBC news that McCain is a "Reagan-Era" candidate who is proposing large tax-cuts. Wow!

However, according to the BBC, probably any Republican candidate is a bit too pro-capitalist for their liking

I'm not sure that you ever did, either, but the fellow you quoted ended: "But another, much more important factor, may be in play. It could be that we are witnessing the end of a political era, the domination of conservatives, at least those who have hewed to a traditional social and religious line, in the Republican party."

It's THAT stuff which is unfortunately mistaken.

"And, Marcus, do not confuse McCain's famous "maverick" status with anything secular."

James, I am not sure I did. I never considered anything positive about McCain's candidancy nor did I suppose him to be secular.

I plan to sit out this election. Having learned more about McCain's views, I cannot support him, even against Barack Obama who I think will win the Democratic nomination. This election will be a doozy. Grab some Alka-Seltzer, this election will cause major stomach churn.

Jim

P.S. I should have said not vote in the Presidential and Congressional elections and primaries. I will try to vote to kill off as as many ballot initiatives as possible and I am curious to see how the process works in my first election in Arizona.

McCain is a socialist and an evangelical all rolled into one grumpy senior citizen.

Oh goody!

So the choice for Prez is Socialism or Socialism with an Amen.

Who are the independents for Prez this year?

No, Rudy campaigned where he thought he could win. Early Iowa -- which went for Huckabee -- was never possible, just like South Carolina. He campaigned in New Hampshire, that is, until it became clear he couldn't win there, either. He fought hard in Florida, the 4th most populous state -- and came in a distant third.

Word on the street is that he will endorse McCain, so all you Rudy voters out there -- your delegates are voting for McCain at the convention -- how do ya like THAT?!

And, Marcus, do not confuse McCain's famous "maverick" status with anything secular.

It was Rudy who was intolerable to the evangelicals, and some of these threatened to boycott the Republicans if Rudy was nominated.

Not so for McCain who reminds us that, unlike Mitt, he's always opposed legal abortion.

Here is McCain reassuring both Christian conservatives and the Global Warming crowd (he's an aggressive "believer" in both) -- at the same time and in the same respect:

"A very large portion of the evangelical community is becoming more and more concerned about climate change because of our biblical obligation to be good stewards of our planet... That clearly is an issue that I’m in complete sync with the evangelical community on."

This is the exact parallel to Huckabee's use of Christianity to justify more socialism.

Here is McCain reassuring us that America is specifically a Christian nation -- and how he might undergo full immersion baptism.

Mr. Sacrifice-for-Something-Greater-than-Self McCain thinks that abortion laws are necessary, opposed Bush's tax cuts, and sponsored the biggest censorship legislaton in the U.S. since the Alien and Sedition Acts.

As I have written elsewhere: McCain isn't the new Goldwater, he's not even just a warmed over Nixon -- he's an idealistic Bismarckian collectivist. His next book could be titled, "It Takes a Regiment."

I'm more concened about McCain's mental stability than anything else. Economically only Paul and Giuliani scored better. the http://www.ntu.org/images/2008pres_total.png

didn't help either.

I'm sure that Rudy would have campaigned everywhere had he the money, but he didn't. Romney has the ability to fund his campaign out of his own wallet until his wallet runs dry.

But well heeled supporters of other candidates can only contribute a few thousand. Any more than that and the cops come round to haul you away. Chuck Norris had a few choice words to say about that on Fox the other night. He is (I seem to recall) a Huckabee man, and is lamenting the fact that he can't contribute more financially.

So basically you have to announce a few years ahead of time that you are going to run and start accumulating a war chest.

Rudy didn't do that, and maybe it wouldn't have mattered if he only had to run against one other Republican, but there were too many in the field sucking up the cash.

Then, as Ben said, there is the abortion issue -- Rudy is pro-choice -- so he won't be supported by the churches. Marcus is right too about the skeletons. It seems that although the US divorce rate is through the roof and being faithful to your spouse is considered sissified by pop culture, everybody wants their president to be a happily married man who was a virgin right up to his wedding night.

Then there is the fact that Rudy isn't a great speaker. Like Thompson he mumbles and says um a lot and he isn't particularly witty. That's true of all of the candidates I think, but to be heard above the herd you'd have to be a real live-wire personality like Reagan was...

Oh well. At least you Americans can be assured that Helen Clark won't be on the ballot. Thank all that is holy for that!

...or he lost the appetite to fight after a few skeletons came out of his closet to haunt him. Anyway, the US Presidential election seems all now in favour of the liberal left.

In the Times, Gerard Baker writes:

"But what about those conservative voters? They have always been – or at least since 2000 when he first ran for president - Mr McCain’s Achilles Heel. Put bluntly, they don’t like him and don’t trust him. His views on such issues as immigration - where he sponsored an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants - and campaign finance reform, which conservatives see as a restraint on free speech, have made them openly hostile to him despite his personal record of heroism and his strong national security credentials.

In typical Republican primaries these conservative voters have been numerous enough to deny the nomination to “mavericks” such as Mr McCain. But not this time. Why not?

One reason is that there has been no “perfect” conservative candidate in this election. The right wing has decamped in the end, by default to Mr Romney, but many ordinary voters do not seem to trust him much more than they like Mr McCain, fearing he has changed his position too many times to be credible. Another factor is that Mr McCain for all his faults, still looks the most electable. In what promises to be a tough year for Republicans, Mr McCain still polls well against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

But another, much more important factor, may be in play. It could be that we are witnessing the end of a political era, the domination of conservatives, at least those who have hewed to a traditional social and religious line, in the Republican party."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections...

in campaigning for the early states so he could concentrate on the big states in strategy widely regarded as the worst in primary history. Also voter focus has shifted from Iraq to economy and for some unknown reason the republican voters don't seem to get that a Giuliani presidency would do wonders for the US economy.

Also despite being a clear fiscal conservative in many ways he is seen as liberal and so many (not so well informed) voters would throw him straight in the loony left bin. From a libertarian perspective he has a bad record on gun control (his only major fault over other candidates) which despite claiming to have changed his mind on gun following 9/11 in still mustn't go down well with ether the core conservatives or libertarian republicans. Giuliani's failure is a real shame as he could have chased the evangelical social "conservatives" back from were they came (the democrats) and attracted more moral people to the party in there place.

Now that Fred the next Ronald Regan Thompson is out of the field the only other fiscal conservative left is Dr. Ron the right wing hippie Paul. This really is no good I wounder how many people will write Ronald Regan on the be-lot paper in protest.  

"Government works best when it empowers people to take responsibilities for their own lives.” Guiliani following pulling out of the GOP

Giuliani was leading for quite a while. What the hell happened!?

This is so depressing.