For anyone who thinks I'm exaggerating, this is from his official website, in his own words, under the "on the Issues" section:



Fact of the matter is, 'social crusader' or not, there are old judges on the Supreme Court bench and they're not holding off another eight years. McCain doesn't have to go looking for it, and just like any 'social crusader' who could be president, its going to come to him. All he needs to do is find judge replacements that want to overturn federal protection of a woman's right to privacy/choice. Then, we're stuck with the new judges for the rest of their careers.

If you want to say I demagogue because I want to be a first-class citizen and be entitled to equal control over my own privacy, choices, health, and especially my own body as a man, than yeah, you're right.

To think that Hillary is as likely as McCain (who has actively fought for and supported this war and still does) to keep troops in Iraq is ridiculous. Hillary may not pull out all troops immediately, but she sure as hell won't have the same strategy as McCain.

Beeble-You are a not a liberal. A real liberal makes pragmatic choices when faced with less than the ideal. You act like a spoiled brat, who has to take his ball home when no one else wants to play his preferred game. You need to realize that this isn't a game.

Too many self centered "liberals" like yourself stated the same thing in 2000, that Gore wasn't liberal enough and there wasn't any difference between him and Bush. That worked out great. I never get the nominee that I want to head the Democratic ticket, but I get over being outvoted and get on with life.

Could you please link the radio ad you are referring? Even the Jackson's are supporting both nominees.



http://thestatecom.typepad.com/ygatoday ... ksons.html

Can't you heed Mrs. Jackson's call to do what is best for our families in the general election or are you too self absorbed?

Hey, I though Bill Clinton would ruin the Democratic Party, but I voted for him in the GE in 1992. He beat the shit out of Bush Sr. and the country did much better under his two terms of flawed progressivism, than it has done under the five terms of Reagan Bush I, II.

Exactly what criteria do you use for evaluating McCain has higher principles than Clinton?



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Look, I see no point in talking about pragmatism yet. Since my preferred candidate is winning, there is no need to start "lesser of two evils" talk.

Holy shit guys. Leave the mud-flinging to the politicians.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I just don't think Hillary is the pragmatic choice. What she is is the "I'll vote for a Democrat no matter what" choice. That's not pragmatism - it's blind loyalty. There's nothing liberal about that. So I guess you're not a liberal mdana, right?

You wanna talk pragmatism? You wanna talk party loyalty? What you guys don't seem to realize is just how bad Hillary will be for Democrats. She will reside over an all-Democratic government as one of the most hated and reviled figures by the Republicans. She will come to power just as the country hits a recession, just as the military has become exhausted to the breaking point, just as oil prices and interest rates are starting to drive inflation through the roof.

And either she will be thrown out of office in four years or the Dems will be thrown out in two. I simply fear that her divisiveness and inability to bring the other side to the table will set back liberal causes and the Democrats for years.

I know I'm right. You are demagoguing the issue, and not even that well. If you had simply said what you said just now without the ridiculous nonsense, then we could have a discussion about it. But you're not really interested in that, are you.

The fact is that we have a conservative bench right now. But they can't just decide one day out of the blue to overturn abortion rights. A case has to meander its way through the system and end up in the SCOTUS for them to rule on it. And so far, the anti-abortionists have had zero luck doing this. They tried in South Dakota, about the best place for such a circus stunt they could find, and it was DOA.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be vigilant about your rights, but out of all the Republicans candidates, they are the least in danger under McCain. The right to choose isn't going anywhere.

And I'm not convinced, honestly, that the anti-abortionists actually want abortion to go away anyway. What would they stand around screaming about if not for abortion? Gay marriage doesn't exactly have the same gravitas.

I'm sorry, but I don't dislike Hillary so much that I can actually think that McCain would be better for the country, with his love for war, vow to fill the Supreme Court with radical conservatives, pledge to make abortions illegal, and sucking up to the Bush administration.

One thing we don't need is a sequel to the Bush years, which gets a zero on the Rotten Tomato score.

It isn't blind party loyalty, Beeble. I've voted for Republicans before. It's a balancing of who can do the more harm.

Well, aside from the court justices and abortion, you could be talking about Hillary.

And I simply said, btw, that I'm LEANING toward McCain. I don't like Hillary, it's true, and I do like McCain as a war hero and principled politician (again, a sliding scale). The question to me is who would be better at bringing both sides together and getting things done on behalf of the country. Hillary has shown she can do that on behalf of BUSH. But McCain has shown he can do that on behalf of campaign finance, global warming, and fiscal responsibility. They are both for the war, so that's a wash, IMO.

But it ultimately depends on how they both run their general campaigns and who they pick as their running mates. The jury is still out.

And I'm certainly not accusing you of blind-party loyalty, Groucho. That was a response to the two ad hominem "you're not a liberal if you don't support Hillary" attacks from dolce and mdana. That's what they're reduced to. Accusing me of being a conservative is exactly like the nuts on the right who say that McCain is too liberal.

Who? I voted for an experienced [incumbent] County Coroner that was a Democrat, but I think that is the only one.

As far as policies go, do Hillary and Obama really disagree on many things?

Let me be the first to say, welcome to the growing McCain coalition.

If Beeble ain't a liberal, then I ain't a man. That was one of the most ludicrous accusations I've ever seen.

Pragmatism is voting for the candidate that consistently fares better against McCain than his opponent. Clintonistas that disagree on that point are basically calling the sky green.



I went Bush in 2004 and am not shy about going Republican again if Democrats once again nominate their worst candidate. Most of the conservatives I know that currently waver in their support for McCain would agree with me.

Hillary has to win the nomination first, and I'm not yet convinced that's going to happen. Obamamentum is pretty powerful right now. And then I really want to see McCain's veep choice. If it's Christie Todd Whitman, that's pretty compelling. If it's Fuckabee (which would be an uncharacteristically stupid choice for him to make), then not so much.

I'd consider wasting my vote on a third-party if that dickweed Huckabee was nominated. Huckabee seems antithetical to McCain's base of moderates and independents.

I vote for JohnAnderson (running as an independent against Reagan and Carter in 1980)
and William Weld (Governor of Massachusetts) for the big races, and a lot of republicans for local races for commissioners and judges and so on. (In local races, party alignment isn't as important as competency)

Hillary and Obama's positions are very close compared to the vast gap between the two of them and McCain. But as I have said before, it's not just about positions -- it's about leadership and trust. I agree with Kucinich on a lot of issues but I think he would make a terrible President.

Yes, but regardless of who wins, his wife should definitely be First Lady.

I would love to watch Christie Whitman and Kathleen Sebelius debate each other.