I saw this yesterday, and while it's only one poll, (and it's Gallup), I thought it was worth discussing.
Interesting tidbits:
McCain came roaring back, winning the New Hampshire primary and then clinching the Republican nomination. His current favorable rating represents a gain of 26 points since last summer, including an 11-point increase since he won enough delegates to ensure his nomination on March 4.
And:
Both Obama and Clinton have slightly higher favorable ratings among Democrats now than they had in February, suggesting that the negative infighting that has characterized the Democratic campaign in recent weeks is not damaging either candidate's image in the eyes of the party faithful.
And:
McCain gets an extraordinarily high 52% favorable from Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, while Obama gets a 39% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners. Clinton, on the other hand, receives only a 20% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners.
McCain is also helped by the fact that he receives an 87% favorable rating from Republicans, higher than the 80% and 79% that Clinton and Obama, respectively, currently receive from Democrats.
So I'm one of 13 percent of Republicans who do not have a favorable impression of McCain. Figures.
These poll results do not suggest what strategies or issues any of the candidates should pursue, and hence are not interesting, at least to me.
Michael Fuerst
87% of Republicans favour McInsane? I don't believe it.
I saw similar voter reactions in the Ford-Carter race. Ford was the incumbent President and Carter was just an very nice Governor from Georgia. But the Political climate was the same only the parties were reversed. Ford was associated with Nixon and you were just not sure of what he was going to do.
Carter had a clean slate and came across as so.
Now we have a couple of candidates on the Democratic side that aren't exactly squeeky clean. Hillary, was involved in some pretty shady land dealings that financed her husband's campaign and then has of the baggage of her recent activities in the campaign and some questionable tactics.
Obama, is associated with Chicago politics and has a fund raiser who is now being tried for some unsavory dealings. No matter his charm or personna, he is not JFK and does not have Joe Kennedy behind him. He passes legislation concerning Earmarks and then gives out Millions of Earmark money. Has a questionable religious supporter and like it or not, is still a Chicago Politician. Not exactly clean.
Then you have McCain, who has been in the Senate for more years than both Hillary and Obama together, is a war vet and has sit in the most deplorable of conditions for years as a prisoner in the VN War. Didn't give out any earmark money and is not afraid of jumping the fence if the cause is correct. If the call to the White house was answered at three in the morning, I think I would want his experiences (both political and personal) answering that call.
So just as Ford was a lock to win the election then, so are Hillary or Obama, now....................maybe.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Given GWB in his eigth year at building the Biggest federal government, most of the time with a GOP Congress, the poor state of our economy and continuing to maintain a multi billion dollar conflict we started, where Americans are killed at more than two per day-----your "maybe" seems hardly legible at this time, Rex.
Oil man, the current Dem candidates have no problem with a big federal government, regardless of who controls Congress, and plan on taxing the economy from poor to thriving. They talk about ending the war, but won' t pledge to have all our troops out by the end of their first term.
There may be a lot of disgust with Bush, but people looking for the Dems to "improve" things on these fronts will be greatly disappointed.
Oil Man,
That is my point exactly;
People were saying Carter didn't have a chance, he's hardly known, what is he doing, Ford is the President and this is a formality.
The Republicans managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in that election, and President Clinton's press secretary Dee (Meyers? name escapes me) made the same statement about the upcoming election.
Just food for thought.
As I have always said about these Primary Elections, seems that all they do is provide dirt for the other side to use in the future.
However, I do like that question about who would you want answering the phone at 3:00 AM. Neither Hillary nor Obama have even the remotest idea of what a prisoner of war suffered through and I can't imagine the determination and quality of character it took to withstand that. Again, it is that determination and perspective I think would best serve the person presented with the problems of the Presidency. Worrying about a budget, or how hard it is to satisfy people would pale to worrying about your prospects of living another day in prison.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
In the case of McCain, being a prisoner of war apparently took a tremendous toll on an already intellectually limited bottom-of-his-class D student. Sad, but surely no reason to make him President. It is amazing how people feel sorry for the warmonger yet dont imagine how sorry they will feel for themselves if he ever becomes commander-in-chief.
Welcome, DMX!
04:48 PM, Anonymous
My eyesight and memory must be failing me, mind pointing out in my post where I suggested my reasons for wanting him to answer that phone included sorrow?
And I am sure you are correct, his
"already intellectually limited bottom-of-his-class"
mind caused him to not exercise millions of dollars of Earmark projects when he could have been intellectually superior like Hillary and Obama and spent that money.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
All of this is, of course, wrong. Al Qaeda is Sunni; Iran is Shiite. This is “common knowledge.” McCain was speaking with authority about the basics in the Middle East, and getting the regional dynamic backwards.
To RSW: None of the current canidates GOP or DEM have any plans to back off the big governent created by this administration. Also both Congress and the President are spending like 'Drunkin Sailors" racking up debt for generations to come. Again none of the canidates GOP or DEM have any plans to spend within the income of the government. Your comment about the DEM canidates not pledging to get our troops by the end of their first term seems a bit anti-GOP since the talk of a timeline for troop withdrawal is forbidden by the GOP rank-n-file. Now I have assumed you are a rank-n-file GOP member, redstatewannabe. As for me, I feel confident any of the current canidates would be a vast improvement over GWB.
To Rex: I would rather have any of the current presidental candiates answer a 3:00 am call than GWB. Remember how he answered the calls from New Orleans.
To 04:48 Anon: John McCain is still way ahead of GWB in any catagory you chose.
To Oilman: you forgot to mention health care system, poverty, education and infrastructure, all of which need to be improved.
Yeah McCain's flubs on mixing up the Shiite insurgents getting support from Iran with al Qaeda was pretty embarassing as he's touting his foreign policy credentials. His dectractors jumped all over it, as they should... ignoring that red meat just ain't possible. Sort of like when Obama was talking about how he'd send troops back into Iraq if al Qaeda showed up. And all us McCainiacs are still ripping on him over it. It happens, even to the best of candidates, and even to the most vacuous ones. I hope McCain doesn't make a habit of it though. He's not as easily forgiven for his indiscretions as Obama. As my Boston Buddy put it: "Obama could punch a baby in the face and admit he has a heroin problem & I'd still vote for him."
Now that's loyalty! Disturbing, but impressive nonetheless. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
The notion that McCain is some sort of patriot, hot dog, or saviour because he is opposed to Earmarks is not true, and is a smokescreen. To Earmark or not to Earmark is irrelevant to spending. Earmarking is simply part of the power struggle between Congress and the Executive branch. McCain's saying that he would make a better president because he is opposed to earmarks is totally meaningless b.s., more indication of McCains cluelessness and the haplessness of the voters. I am disappointed that Rex repeats that stuff.
"To Earmark or not to Earmark is irrelevant to spending."
Other than being yet another way to add more spending, yes, totally irrelevant. *boggle*
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
People were saying Carter didn't have a chance, he's hardly known, what is he doing, Ford is the President and this is a formality.
It was a similar election. The Republicans were so damn brain dead that they nominated the broadly despised bonehead Gerald Ford instead of Reagan at the convention (narrowly). Actually it wasnt so much that Ford was hated per se, he was so disgustingly pitifully clueless mediocrity kinda like GHW Bush and Bob Dole that even an unknown like Jimmy Carter could beat him. In 2008 there is simply no one to vote for, almost exactly like 1976 and 1996 there are only people to vote against. And with the Iraq mess dragging mindlessly on, even a decent Republican candidate would have trouble, let alone some jerk like McCrud.
Another McCain favorable: Bad***ery!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Mock surprise *boggle*. Its just one branch blaming the other for spending when its out of control all around, and a smokescreen from McNut.
MIB - appropriately displays McInsane and Gang as the thugs they are. This is sure to be a popular poster because is works both the pro- and the anti- .
Heh... well at least McDarthVader is so absolutely horrible that there's no way that McOMGWTFLOLBBQ will ever get near the white house... so you probably don't have to worry about McPoopyHead ever ruining anything for you. Feel better AnoneenerFace! :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Also relevant to the discussion about McCain's credentials as a CiC is his flip flop on torture. Since Rex seems to think the experience in a prisoner-of-war camp forty years ago gives McCain special wisdom about how to keep our country secure, one wonders why he would support the CIA's use of toture in the so-called War of Terror.
It suggests to me that, like his embrace of "agents of intolerance" (hate-mongers) like Pat Robertson, Falwell, Hagee and Parsley, McCain is willing to sacrifice his principles to become President. Far from being the candidate with the most integrity, John seems to be quickly becoming the candidate with the least credibility. Which is saying a lot when Hillary Clinton is still in the race. :)
The only "flip" on torture I heard about was he voted against an amendment or something that would have applied military rules generally on the intelligence services... which wasn't a vote for torture, just a vote against going way beyond that, iirc McCain explained his vote as such at the time.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
This ABC reporter's take was certainly not favorable of McCain on this one, but he explains the situation fairly well nonetheless. First link that popped up with "mccain flip flop torture" search.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
You know, it may be that McCain thinks that Iran actually *is* funding and training AQI. I know that this is something that gets bandied about among the more conservative crowd, but has never really been confirmed nor debunked. Just saying that Iran is Shiite and AQI is Sunni doesn't cut the mustard, however, if one is looking to discredit this argument. We heard that before, in the form of "Saddam couldn't be in cahoots with Al-Qaeda, because Iraq is secular and Al-Qaeda is religious." Both of these denials work just fine as long as you close your eyes to the fact of Syria (secular, Sunni-dominated but ruled by an Alawi family) supporting Hamas (Sunni religious), Hezbollah (Shiite and religious), or Iran during its war with Iraq (supporting the non-Sunni, non-Arab country against it's "brother" Arab Sunni secular Baathist neighbor). I'm not saying that Iran is backing AQI, I'm just saying that the fact that Iran is Shiite and AQI is Sunni makes absolutely no difference in the world, especially since the Iranians support Hamas and Saudi Hezbollah as well - again, both Sunni.
Considering that it is very much in Iran's interest to muck up Iraq and slow-bleed the US, they certainly have the motivation to support AQI, and interest usually trumps 1,300 year old questions of caliphal succession. The article cited by Anon 7:10 shows the usual media conceit - they finally wrap their heads around the Sunni and Shia divide, then figure that this can act as a Unified Field Theory of the Middle East. Maybe John McCain knows something they don't...you know...from those meetings where they throw the media out of the Senate hearing room and brief the Senators on classified matters.
D-man... I think in this case it is pretty safe to consider this a screw up. While it's not impossible, nor necessarily unusual, for people with some pretty fundamental differences to work together on a common enemy... it's not necessarily a good idea to talk about the what-if's as fact. Perhaps if there was some evidence to back up the scenario, I could understand it. In this case McCain quickly corrected himself after realizing he was mixing up his bad actors, as opposed to issuing a retraction later after some debate over his comments. If McCain wants to present what if's he seems to be quite comfortable in presenting them as such, which I think people can appreciate. Clinton as well as his Administration talked about the "what-if" of Iraq arming terrorist groups... they didn't go off half-cocked like the Bush Admin, Cheney especially, declaring as fact that Iraq and al Qaeda were in cahoots based on some extremely thin connections that didn't add up to much at all in reality.
The Straight-Talk Express sometimes veers off the road a bit, but assuming an Iran-al Qaeda link would probably make people wonder if veered off a cliff.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
D. Boon
You of all people should know, that I would NEVER support the use of torture. On of my favorite sayings is;
"Show me a man who raises his fist in anger, and I'll show you a man out of ideas"
torture is not, nor ever will be an acceptable idea. I am disappointed in your even suggesting that is a part of my beliefs.
When I was campaigning, I had the opportunity to meet John McCain and spend a little time with him in St. Louis. I found him to be very on many issues, but very frail physically. I also completely disagreed with him on other issues and had concerns that he believed as such.
I put stock in the sad part of Senator McCains life when he was a prisoner, because I cannot even fathom the determination and character necessary to survive such a terrible time. But I personally know that when I suffered through the worst of times in my life, I was a much stronger person because of the determination it took to weather those times. As a result of those experiences, I view some situations completely different than those who did not suffer the same experiences (or I would prior to suffering). It is inconceivable to me that Obama or Hilliary could understand his experience or have the same benefits from that experience.
That being said, please don't put me in the McCain camp, I also have another benchmark that I wonder about and that is;
How would any of the candidates (or previous Presidents) have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Fortunately, we had the right guy in the right place, because a wishy-washy response or no response or the wrong response would have us all being "toast".
Certainly LBJ would have toasted us, as would Nixon, or Carter, or ...... (fill in the blank)
Please don't put me in the McCain Camp or any other camp for that matter, because I have not made up my mind yet. I simply made my original statement to point out the similarities between this election and 1976. As I said above, I have some strong disagreements with McCain. I don't trust Hilliary and believe her to be very vindictive which would not serve the nation or world well. I find Obama, to not be forceful and decisive, which absolutely is a must for the Presidency. My choice of the Dem candidates was Bill Richardson because of this resume, the success of his ideas in his state and the quality of his responses in the debates. It is astounding that no one is even considering him for VP
So who do I think would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis?
First out is Obama, it required strength and decisiveness, which are not his strong points, we would have been "toast" or we would have lost our strength of position and forced to start the war.
Second out would have been Hilliary, she has the tact of a nail in the quick, and probably would have been the first on the "button". "Toast" again.
Last out would be McCain, I think his military experience would have prepared him to understand the crisis more quickly, but I am not sure about his decisiveness. Maybe not "toast" but browned.
I think either Richardson or Paul would have probably been able to quench the nuclear flames, maybe not like JFK, but probably could have done it.
So who was my first choice? He was killed in a plane crash on the way to a wedding a few years ago.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Anyone who describes Ford as "broadly despised" was probably not alive at the time.