From Rasmussen:
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds McCain earning 34% of the vote while Romney is eight points behind at 26%. The survey was conducted on Monday and Tuesday, finishing just before results from Florida’s Presidential Primary were known. Mike Huckabee finished a distant third at 16%.
Since the poll was completed, Rudy Giuliani has withdrawn from the race and endorsed McCain. America’s Mayor had picked up 9% of the Illinois vote in the poll.
Illinois elects delegates directly within each Congressional District, and the Presidential Preference vote is meaningless, so I'm not sure how much this means.
please tell me you are predicting a McCain victory in our own 15th Cong. district :-)
Who knows? Romney has the barest of organizations in Illinois, but it's light years ahead of McCain's.
Rudy was the most organized in the 15th, and he wasn't all that organized. I could see McCain winning the popular vote, with a combination of delegate candidates winning.
you think people will split their delegate votes? (I like McCain but I am going to vote for Chapin Rose as delegate...)
"you think people will split their delegate votes? (I like McCain but I am going to vote for Chapin Rose as delegate...)"
I think some will, just because they'll know the names of some delegate candidates but not others: Chapin Rose, Dan Rutherford, Brady, Roger Eddy, etc.
I have never heard of the eight McCain people.
I agree about spliting votes Bill Brady, Rutherford, Rose, Eddy or if Mark Sheldon could go I think that would good. Then you have the Alternates
We could send Jimmy John too, they could use some good munches for there road trip. :-) No he is a real leader of party.
I'm going with Romney--apparently McCain thinks Alito is too conservative, which along with all the rest of his nonconservative views, is a deal breaker for me.
The rumor that McCain thinks Alito is too conservative based on backroom chatter that can't be substantiated doesn't seem to hold much water since he considers Thomas, Roberts and Alito to be the mold for appointing Justices. I'm not even if sure if you can find a more strict constructionist than Thomas on the Court.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
So what if McCain thinks Alito is too conservative? Were he to be elected president, he's not constitutionally empowered to unseat Alito.
It doesn't really matter, does it?
This is predominatly a "blue" state. So no matter what GOP canidate you vote for, the democratic candiate will win handily, and take those electoral votes with them.
Jonathan... this is a primary election. The dems/repubs vote in separate elections. If you want to have a say in who the choices are in November... this is the time.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I know that, Glock. :-).
McCain has this wrapped up. The rank-and-file have spoekn. No problems with that.
it's just that in the presedential election, it doesn't matter. Too many blues, not enough reds to swing it.
On what issue of public policy, is McCain an improvement over Romney?
The only thing I have heard from some of my Republican friends is 2nd amendment. "McCain is for more gun laws that would improve the right to bear arms." But those laws are public safety issues that home rule units like Chicago can control. I think we have enough laws and ought to enforce the ones already on the books before we enact more laws.
And please don't insult my intelligence by telling me military, unless you want to discuss his Naval Academy Experience. He only got in because of his 4 star admiral father and then disappointed him by finishing at the bottom of his class. All four military acadamies try to get students strong in math for engineering spots. Math components are necessary for most weapons systems. When you are on the bottom, about the only thing you can do is be a pilot. I am not being a snob about this, I am just saying that the man is a lot less intelligent than W , with a whole lot less education.
He would be easy pickins for either Hillary or Obama. They had a question tonight on the debate (Hillary and Obama) about how they would answer the question about their executive experience running against Romney. Neither could answer the question and both essentially said-Bush had an MBA and look at him. Romney scares the hell out of most of the democrats. It really scares me to hear both Hillary and Obama singing the praises of John McCain.
Compare that to Romeny who was at the top of his class at BYU and then cum laude harvard law and honors in an MBA from Harvard. He then became a billionaire through his own effort. Saved the Olympics from scandal after 9/11 while working for free. Even donated a million for the effort. Then became a Republican Governor in the most liberal State in the Union. (as a Mormon) and took no pay.
Romny has commanded a lot more troops, serving in foreign lands, than McCain ever has. The Governor of the State is the head of the National Guard. The best way to find out what he was like as a military commander is to ask people that worked in the National Guard in Massacusetts. They liked him. In Massacusetts he is leading McCain despite the lack of endorsement from the NY times and the two Boston papers. This is usually a good sign.
Now I ask again. What is there about this 73 year old man on policy issues that makes him a better candidate than Romney. And give me policy, and issues that are real, not the bs word games that McCain has tried to play on both "torture" and "time tables".
Another thing that I forgot to mention about the McCain-Romney race. A lot of people think that you have to position your candidate to the left because you cannot go as far left as Hillary/Obama. I was Topinka's County Coordinator before Romney. Unless you can start out by having a solid core of conservatives, Republicans will never win. You start with that and then explain how you can improve health care, education, and the economy by doing it smarter. We win by being smarter and Romney is the best and brightest we have ever had.
Compare that to Romeny who was at the top of his class at BYU and then cum laude harvard law and honors in an MBA from Harvard. He then became a billionaire through his own effort.
As much as I decry how the Oval Office's current occupant lacks an understanding of history and geopolitics, and is therefore compelled to rely on others, I would not go so far as to say that an intellectual of either party would be a successful president. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton were both intelligent men who had presidencies that were largely disappointments. Ronald Reagan is on no one's list of intellectuals, but – whether you like him or not – he was an extremely successful president.
A successful leader will have a mix of intellect, charisma, common sense, the ability to know when to delegate and when not do do so, will be true to his principles and those of our land, and will know when to compromise. Sheer academic ranking has never been a sure mark of a candidate who will be a successful president.
John,
All due respect, but your slobbering over Romney is making me gag. "Best and brightest ever" and "best debate performance ever" are just ridiculous hyperbole.
The way to win is by starting with principles, and Romney has none. Yes, he's smart. Yes, he has an impressive resume. But nobody knows what he'll do because he's been so inconstent on every major issue. Romney is our Bill Clinton - he's so smart and so polished that he thinks he knows what everyone wants to hear, and so he tries to tell it to them, regardless of what he's said before. He's been caugh in contortion after adjustment after clarification.
I would rather have someone with principles with which I disagree than someone who has no principles and thinks he's so much smarter than me that he can fool me into thinking that we believe the same things. I honestly don't know how anyone can think the guy is sincere - he's completely transparent to me.
John... funny you should ask. I just got done with a blog post on Why McCain: Judges and Taxes. Which points out and links to articles on his long and strong record on both subjects while Romney was still flailing wildly on the subject all of a few years ago.
And factcheck.org just released a new laundry list of Romney's misleading claims from last night's debate shooting his record on jobs and taxes full of holes: Simi Valley Showdown
I'd also point out that Romney was appointing pro-choice judges even after his "epiphany" announcement on the subject that seemed mysteriously close to another article out of the Boston Globe that he was eyeing the white house. If that's an issue that matters to you on judges, it's worth noting.
On issues of public policy McCain is an improvement because he has a record to back his good policies, even if one may disagree on other policies. And in spite of the exaggerations I've heard trumpeted from talk radio, there's far more good than disagreeable. Romney's actual record shows him to be closer to what they fear even though his current rhetoric frequently matches their hopes... though sometimes not in every state he's campaigning in.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
On January 31st, 2008 at 09:14 PM, John E. Maloney said: "Romny has commanded a lot more troops, serving in foreign lands, than McCain ever has. The Governor of the State is the head of the National Guard."
Except, if any National Guard unit is serving in foreign lands, they've been Federalized (last I checked, the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, not Massachusetts). So the President actually commands them, not a state governor. The moment a National Guard unit is Federalized, the state governor has as much say in their deployment or command as the guy, in a van, down by the river.
Please see the following links, as support:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, US Constitution (wiki)
National Guard of the United States (wiki)
H.R. 5122 (wiki)
PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (FindLaw)
HG
John- Good then what is Mitt's stance on ANWR, KEOTO. I have real problems trying to understand Romney’s website on basic issues. Like is he for federal funding of fetal stem research?
Going back to some of your above statements on the Gun issue the point of the decision in regards to Washington D. C. Cities won't be able to regulate gun rights because if the Supreme court agrees with the lower court Gun rights will be a personal right not a state right. There will be no city home rule. Romney's response on his website and his response in the debate really concerned me because he either does not understand our constitutional rights or as many people have said he is trying to have it both ways. He was saying I am for Gun rights and against gun rights at the same time.
I agree Romney was governor for National Guard Troops but Military Officers under him lead those troops, to me that pale in comparison to commanding troops in battle and being shot down captured and being a POW as McCain did. McCain then spent 30 years in the senate fighting for the troops.
That's alright John I have a lot of issues with McCain too I wish I could figure out which one had more negatives the gun issue is an indicator for me. Of course it's easier to stand up for gun issues in gun slinging Arizona then it is out east were they thinking they are the weapons of the devil.
I like Romney and think he is more conservative then his Mass. Gov. time were he became pro-choice. I just have not been convinced by his campaign what he will do that is so conservative.
McCain is 71
Judges--Your own article suggests that "Gang of 14 on judges was obviously controversial about judges." It was an op ed piece to boot. It was not so much about the abortion issue, but about whether judges should "legislate". Roe vs Wade was legislation from the bench. Not their job. That would be the legislatures. To rule on abortion based on privacy is just plain wrong.
Because we do not know "when a baby gets a soul", we can argue that this is based upon our religion. The pope suggests that life begins at conception and therefore anything having to do with conception (other than sex through marriage) is wrong. But to rule based on some made up "right to privacy" is just legislating from the bench.
Under the law, we follow "stare decises" which is a doctrine that says that judges must follow precedent. This does not work well on "consitutional issues" because there is nothing about this kind of "privacy" in the constitution.
The gang of 14 was all about appointing judges to the federal bench that would not make stuff up. (Strict constructionists) This scared the abortion crowd because they knew that any strict constructionist would recognize this. It is a little complicated, but I will try.
If you are willing to say that a baby is not human until a fetal heart beat (does not have an immortal soul), then you can legitimately allow contraception and abortion during the first 3 months. We know that this is really a religious issue since no one can prove this one way or another. Thus under "freedom of religion" abortion is legal- constitutionally- during the first tri-mester. If you read all the opinons in Roe vs Wade, you will see al concurring opinions based on this.
Assuming that this was the majority view, then it follows that it is also a "health and public safety issue" which are regulated by the States after the first tri-mester.
This is Mitt Romney's view- This is my view. This is Topinka's view. But try to explain that in a sound bite-good luck.
One cannot rationally permit most late term partial birth abortions except under the theory of privacy. If a previous supreme court made up some stuff, does the court have to follow "stare decices" -not if they are "strict constructionists"
Thus McCain was basically for judges that made **** up (privacy). This is the objection to Gang of 14. It wasn't so much that he didn't side with the Republicans, it is that he is too stupid to understand the policy problem.
Mitt has my view. I think a candidate represents people of all religions and people like my wife (Protestant) believe that life does not begin until the fetal heart beat. Thus I believe that abortion should be legal (as Mitt does) during the first Tri-mester. (based on freedom of Religion). I am Catholic and believe something else by virtue of my faith.
I also agree with Mitt that the individual States have a right to regulate when it gets past the first tri-mester. This is where all his vetos came about. He stated that he always sided on the right to life. Was that spin. They pointed out that he was inconsistent on this issue since he supported (and did not veto) some legislation that concerned contraception. But only because that was consistent with our view which I have just expressed. Does that mean that Mitt is against abortions during the first tri-mester? No. Does that mean he is in favor of abortions after a fetal heart beat except under certain defined circumstances? No. Does that make him a flip flopper? No, not unless you live in a black and white world. This explains how I can realistically be County Chairman for both Romney and Topinka (pro-choice). Hope this helps understand my views on the Gang of 14 and Judges.
(EDITED by IP to remove profanity.)
John,
Please stop using profanity.
Thanks.
Pro-choice this is what kills me and makes it so hard and why we are in such a pinch? I have real problems with McCain and some of his statements last not on Leno, while I think the environment is very important and I know McCain is in California trying to win that state but last night he sounded like an environmental wacko that would overly restrict business to protect the spotted owl. Which is of course why IP was foaming at the mouth last week? The problem for conservatives like me who believe that the right life issue and the 2nd amendment are big issues what are we suppose to go if Romney is for gun control and pro-choice even in the first tri-mister. Couple that with the fact that the congress can moderate McCain on regulating business then who knows. There is one thing I have learned about McCain which I think I miss read on his website which is that he is for Fed Funding of Embryonic stem cells, I did find a video from 2995 of Romney discussing the funding of Stem cell research in a Mass. budget but they never ask if it includes embryonic stem cell research just all stem cell research.
Obviously Ann Coulter is right. Hillary is better than a Republican we might not be able to trust on absolutely everything.
"Trust everything' is there something in my post you question Dan Fielding?
My point simply is that Romney is the best overall choice for President. He may not be perfect on every issue we identify with, but our views have to allow for gray areas. He has the right combination of issues (Republican issues), character, and the type of experience that is needed as an executive. This is without regard to his age.
Gordy keeps beating me up on the flip flopping, but I argue that is just in the understanding of his positions. The stem cell issue is a moot one anyway. We have enough gun laws. We have enough legislator selling us flim flam.
If you want to know the absolute truth, I am disappointed because I think Romney could save us a lot of money advancing a non-government children's health care. He would build clininc's and attach to them to the schools for real health care, not just some insurance card. No other candidate will be able to do this. This sounded too liberal for Topinka, but it is as conservative as you can get.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007
Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 03/28/07 07:39 PM [ET]
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.
In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.
Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.
At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.
Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.
“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”
“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.”
He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: “We certainly didn’t discuss in any detail about the senator’s political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats’] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007
IP you are such a ****ing wimp-ite