Another loss for McCain

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unlike you, and Obama and McCain, the clear majority of the voters in the November elections opposed the bailout of the financial wastrels (see the exit polls).  While you, and Obama-McCain like to steal billions of dollars to be paid of by the next generation to give to organizations like AIG and Citi, the American people don't like that idea, and should be given a choice of a candidate who shares their opposition to such disgusting bailouts.

Huh?  I oppose the bailout(s) and totally agree that the American people deserved a choice in the matter that they did not receive.

While McCain (and many others) supported the bailout; unlike your ultraconservative buddies, he has consistently stood up against pork, earmarks, and "tax cuts" that aren't paid for.

Yes but he is in the pocket of big-business when it comes to illegal immigration. Hmmmm. Arizona can do much better than this in my opinion.

Of course the Republican in Arizona can find a more conservative, party-principled politician to be senator. They have consistently shown that they don't want that though. Who knows, maybe in the next election, but you shouldn't claim to know what the people of Arizona deserve or ought to have.

Purple State, I see Obama's likely course of action as being a sharp turn to the left, leading to the catastrophes I forsee. I am a democrat because they're the more socially liberal of the 2 big parties.

Foresee all you want and feel free to predict it, but you are utterly bashing an administration that has not slighted you in the least bit yet. You can presume to know he will make a sharp left and I can say he will lean to the center, but I am not going on and on about how the next 8 years of Obama are going to be paradise and rainbows, unicorns and angelic song. It would be nice if you gave it a chance before you started criticizing non-existent policies. You just come off so...tiresome. How can I talk to someone about realistic policy and politics who is discussing something that hasn't happened yet and may never be.

I can be judgemental of a state and there politics as I deem fit and I don't need your permission. Yes Arizona has done much better than McCain. Jon Kyl while not perfect on Immigration is certainly not as in the tank on this issue as McCain and on a whole slew of issues is a much better representative of Arizona. McCain has had his eyes on the Prtesidency since the 90's and Arizona has come second. Now his primary goal is his legacy and I have every confidence that while we conservatives focus on holding Specter, Collins and Snowe in line close votes or finding replacements among the Dems(like Casey on Abortion) McCain will be Obama's go to guy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Has this become a discussion between two immense hacks?

HAYDEN, the Republican party doesn't need to become liberal to win over Americans. No one said that. But you surely cannot continue to back these extremist conservative views. You bitch and moan about the government spending our money to bail out the banks. But it was the deregulation of those banks that resulted in this mess. Why not let the government ensure that our money, the money that we entrust with these massive banks, is properly utilized and safely regulated. As for the current situations, when you find a better way to prevent the economic collapse of this country, you let me know. Until then, finding a way to keep this institutions, the institutions that drive the economy, alive and running is a top priority until we figure out what else to do with them. And yes, liberals like McCain more than we like conventional Republicans because he is more willing to cooperate and compromise. Compromise has created the greatest results this country has ever seen, while extremism and ideological policy-pushing has only resulted in some of the worst calamities imaginable.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

The irony is that if Goldwater was still around, he might be challenging McCain in a primary from the left.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Unlike you, and Obama and McCain, the clear majority of the voters in the November elections opposed the bailout of the financial wastrels (see the exit polls).  While you, and Obama-McCain like to steal billions of dollars to be paid of by the next generation to give to organizations like AIG and Citi, the American people don't like that idea, and should be given a choice of a candidate who shares their opposition to such disgusting bailouts.

Huh?  I oppose the bailout(s) and totally agree that the American people deserved a choice in the matter that they did not receive.

While McCain (and many others) supported the bailout; unlike your ultraconservative buddies, he has consistently stood up against pork, earmarks, and "tax cuts" that aren't paid for.

Yes but he is in the pocket of big-business when it comes to illegal immigration. Hmmmm. Arizona can do much better than this in my opinion.

Totally agree.

I remind everyone that McCain believes the myth told to him by his big business buddies that Americans would not pick lettuce for $50 dollars an hour.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I propose we burn McCain in effigy to celebrate this glorious occasion!

No silly, we'll celebrate by losing more elections as we become irrelevant to an entire generation of Americans.

So, you want the Republican party to "become relevant to an entire generation of Americans" by being a second rate copy of Obama?  Why go for the second rate copy when you can have the original?

Oh, and in Pullen's first term, Republicans gained seats in the legislature as well as county offices around the state never before held by Republicans.

Hmm.

Oh.. you mean 2008... that election where JOHN MCCAIN was at the top of the ticket and Arizona swung in his direction?  Hmm.

I realize that you have little understanding of reality, but, McCain trailed downticket Republican candidates in Arizona.

Oh, and were the state party was involved, success flowed to the Republicans in Arizona, but, where the NRCCC told the state party to 'butt out' on the congressional elections, failure resulted.
Unlike you, and Obama and McCain, the clear majority of the voters in the November elections opposed the bailout of the financial wastrels (see the exit polls).  While you, and Obama-McCain like to steal billions of dollars to be paid of by the next generation to give to organizations like AIG and Citi, the American people don't like that idea, and should be given a choice of a candidate who shares their opposition to such disgusting bailouts.

But then I understand, you don't want the voters to have a real choice, you want to limit their selection to liberal candidate A, or liberal candidate B.

 

Good point. Like in the first District. Wasn't Sydney Ann Hay suppose to be some kind of moderate who could hold that seat, the typical moderate arguement. She got creamed even with McCAin at the top of the ticket.

My hat is off to you.

You are remarkably perceptive,

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Has this become a discussion between two immense hacks?

HAYDEN, the Republican party doesn't need to become liberal to win over Americans. No one said that. But you surely cannot continue to back these extremist conservative views. You bitch and moan about the government spending our money to bail out the banks. But it was the deregulation of those banks that resulted in this mess. Why not let the government ensure that our money, the money that we entrust with these massive banks, is properly utilized and safely regulated. As for the current situations, when you find a better way to prevent the economic collapse of this country, you let me know. Until then, finding a way to keep this institutions, the institutions that drive the economy, alive and running is a top priority until we figure out what else to do with them. And yes, liberals like McCain more than we like conventional Republicans because he is more willing to cooperate and compromise. Compromise has created the greatest results this country has ever seen, while extremism and ideological policy-pushing has only resulted in some of the worst calamities imaginable.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

The irony is that if Goldwater was still around, he might be challenging McCain in a primary from the left.

He probably would and the very fact that Goldwater's views are considered to be centrist now prove my point. In his day he was viewed as an extremist nutcase now as the natiional conversation has been moved several paces to the right and even in the 80's his views became mainstream. Sometimes you can't compromise, you half to stick to your guns. Like on Illegal Immigration, why should I let big business run our immigration policy and bring in hordes of unskilled and now skilled workers to increase and already high worker surplus and further depress already declining wages, unchecked.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The irony is that if Goldwater was still around, he might be challenging McCain in a primary from the left.

"We're the new liberals of the Republican Party" - Barry Goldwater, to Bob Dole

[CARLHAYDEN]

Of course the Republican in Arizona can find a more conservative, party-principled politician to be senator. They have consistently shown that they don't want that though. Who knows, maybe in the next election, but you shouldn't claim to know what the people of Arizona deserve or ought to have.

.

Yes, the Republicans in Arizona can find a more conservative, principled candidate for Senator than John S. McCain.  That wouldn't be too hard.

However, McCain really went on the warpath attacked conservatives in general and Republicans in particular, after his last Senatorial election.

Finally, I have cited examples of where the voters of Arizona have rejected McCain policies (a number of ballot measures) and the candidates he backed in primaries, general elections and party elections, so its not simply my opinion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Of course the Republican in Arizona can find a more conservative, party-principled politician to be senator. They have consistently shown that they don't want that though. Who knows, maybe in the next election, but you shouldn't claim to know what the people of Arizona deserve or ought to have.

.

Yes, the Republicans in Arizona can find a more conservative, principled candidate for Senator than John S. McCain.  That wouldn't be too hard.

However, McCain really went on the warpath attacked conservatives in general and Republicans in particular, after his last Senatorial election.

Finally, I have cited examples of where the voters of Arizona have rejected McCain policies (a number of ballot measures) and the candidates he backed in primaries, general elections and party elections, so its not simply my opinion.

Please do I love delving deep into the politics of states especially western states which are among my favorites.

[Purple State]

Of course the Republican in Arizona can find a more conservative, party-principled politician to be senator. They have consistently shown that they don't want that though. Who knows, maybe in the next election, but you shouldn't claim to know what the people of Arizona deserve or ought to have.

.

Yes, the Republicans in Arizona can find a more conservative, principled candidate for Senator than John S. McCain.  That wouldn't be too hard.

However, McCain really went on the warpath attacked conservatives in general and Republicans in particular, after his last Senatorial election.

Finally, I have cited examples of where the voters of Arizona have rejected McCain policies (a number of ballot measures) and the candidates he backed in primaries, general elections and party elections, so its not simply my opinion.

Regardless of how they treat his picks for certain posts and agendas, they reelect him time after time. If they do not want to get rid of him, suffice to say they don't want someone else. Of course, this is assuming that the people know what is best for themselves, which it appears you do. Who are you to say that they can do better than McCain. That is relative and they believe McCain is there man.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Of course the Republican in Arizona can find a more conservative, party-principled politician to be senator. They have consistently shown that they don't want that though. Who knows, maybe in the next election, but you shouldn't claim to know what the people of Arizona deserve or ought to have.

.

Yes, the Republicans in Arizona can find a more conservative, principled candidate for Senator than John S. McCain.  That wouldn't be too hard.

However, McCain really went on the warpath attacked conservatives in general and Republicans in particular, after his last Senatorial election.

Finally, I have cited examples of where the voters of Arizona have rejected McCain policies (a number of ballot measures) and the candidates he backed in primaries, general elections and party elections, so its not simply my opinion.

Regardless of how they treat his picks for certain posts and agendas, they reelect him time after time. If they do not want to get rid of him, suffice to say they don't want someone else. Of course, this is assuming that the people know what is best for themselves, which it appears you do. Who are you to say that they can do better than McCain. That is relative and they believe McCain is there man.

In a media driven world people are easily mislead. 2008 is the final proof that it is the sad truth of our politics.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Of course the Republican in Arizona can find a more conservative, party-principled politician to be senator. They have consistently shown that they don't want that though. Who knows, maybe in the next election, but you shouldn't claim to know what the people of Arizona deserve or ought to have.

.

Yes, the Republicans in Arizona can find a more conservative, principled candidate for Senator than John S. McCain.  That wouldn't be too hard.

However, McCain really went on the warpath attacked conservatives in general and Republicans in particular, after his last Senatorial election.

Finally, I have cited examples of where the voters of Arizona have rejected McCain policies (a number of ballot measures) and the candidates he backed in primaries, general elections and party elections, so its not simply my opinion.

Regardless of how they treat his picks for certain posts and agendas, they reelect him time after time. If they do not want to get rid of him, suffice to say they don't want someone else. Of course, this is assuming that the people know what is best for themselves, which it appears you do. Who are you to say that they can do better than McCain. That is relative and they believe McCain is there man.

First, the people of Arizona have not reelected McCain since 2004.  Since then he has really antagonized a lot of people.  I am on record as stating he will not seek reelection in 2010.  Much like Dennis Deconcini, he will realize that he will lose, and won't run.  Both Flake and Shaddegg (I worked for Shaddegg's dad thirty five years ago) are seeking to replace him.

Second, generally speaking the voters of Arizona do a pretty good job in selecting officeholders, when given a real choice. 

Third, I have spoken with McCain on a number of occasions over the years, and have watched him change.  Have you?  I know a lot more about him than you do!

Finally, yes, currently McCain occupies the Senate seat, but in a couple of years things will change.

[Purple State]

Of course the Republican in Arizona can find a more conservative, party-principled politician to be senator. They have consistently shown that they don't want that though. Who knows, maybe in the next election, but you shouldn't claim to know what the people of Arizona deserve or ought to have.

.

Yes, the Republicans in Arizona can find a more conservative, principled candidate for Senator than John S. McCain.  That wouldn't be too hard.

However, McCain really went on the warpath attacked conservatives in general and Republicans in particular, after his last Senatorial election.

Finally, I have cited examples of where the voters of Arizona have rejected McCain policies (a number of ballot measures) and the candidates he backed in primaries, general elections and party elections, so its not simply my opinion.

Regardless of how they treat his picks for certain posts and agendas, they reelect him time after time. If they do not want to get rid of him, suffice to say they don't want someone else. Of course, this is assuming that the people know what is best for themselves, which it appears you do. Who are you to say that they can do better than McCain. That is relative and they believe McCain is there man.

First, the people of Arizona have not reelected McCain since 2004.  Since then he has really antagonized a lot of people.  I am on record as stating he will not seek reelection in 2010.  Much like Dennis Deconcini, he will realize that he will lose, and won't run.  Both Flake and Shaddegg (I worked for Shaddegg's dad thirty five years ago) are seeking to replace him.

Second, generally speaking the voters of Arizona do a pretty good job in selecting officeholders, when given a real choice. 

Third, I have spoken with McCain on a number of occasions over the years, and have watched him change.  Have you?  I know a lot more about him than you do!

Finally, yes, currently McCain occupies the Senate seat, but in a couple of years things will change.

Let's go one by one.

First, he will likely not run for the Senate seat, but I would guess it is more likely that this is because he is getting older. He wants a nice retirement. He doesn't want to be seen as the grumpy old guy that won't make way for the younger generation and new blood.

Second, the democratic system doesn't change by race. If they generally make "good" decisions (of course, relative to what you judge) then that is up to them.

Third, so you've spoken to McCain. Congrats. That doesn't mean you have tremendous insight into his mind. We have all seen his politics change over the years, from his involvement in the Keating Five to his war on special interests to his outrage at the base for betraying him to his pander to the base in a presidential election. Your "proximity" to McCain does not give you the final say on these forums in all matters McCain.

Fourth, Arizona did still go McCain, even with Obamania in full swing. I don't think all that much has really changed. People vote for politicians they like, whether they like their policies or their personalities or a combination of both. Things have changed, but if you haven't noticed they have become more moderate, more centrist, and less partisan. To rule out a McCain victory in 2010 (granted I doubt he would run), no less a strong Democratic challenge in Arizona is indicative of your inability to process what has occurred in this country. I guess we will see where the country goes in the next two years.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Purple said:

Let's go one by one.

First, he will likely not run for the Senate seat, but I would guess it is more likely that this is because he is getting older. He wants a nice retirement. He doesn't want to be seen as the grumpy old guy that won't make way for the younger generation and new blood.

Second, the democratic system doesn't change by race. If they generally make "good" decisions (of course, relative to what you judge) then that is up to them.

Third, so you've spoken to McCain. Congrats. That doesn't mean you have tremendous insight into his mind. We have all seen his politics change over the years, from his involvement in the Keating Five to his war on special interests to his outrage at the base for betraying him to his pander to the base in a presidential election. Your "proximity" to McCain does not give you the final say on these forums in all matters McCain.

Fourth, Arizona did still go McCain, even with Obamania in full swing. I don't think all that much has really changed. People vote for politicians they like, whether they like their policies or their personalities or a combination of both. Things have changed, but if you haven't noticed they have become more moderate, more centrist, and less partisan. To rule out a McCain victory in 2010 (granted I doubt he would run), no less a strong Democratic challenge in Arizona is indicative of your inability to process what has occurred in this country. I guess we will see where the country goes in the next two years.
[/quote]

I respond:

First, its nice to see you concede that McCain won't be seeking reelection. 

Second, where two candidates agree on the major issues, one is left to either vote by party (which in Arizona helped McCain) or on personality, which nationally helped Obama.  However, where the candidates disagree on the major issues, those issues can have a major impact on who gets elected.  So, this does change the outcome.

Third, could you please cite what "outrage at the base for betraying him" you are babbling about?  McCain is the one who has done the betraying.

Fourth, I really wonder if you are hallucinating, as I have not only never ruled out "a strong Democratic challenge in Arizona" in the 2010 Senate race, but have predicted that Napolitano is delighted to escape the Governor's chair during hard times, but is likely to return in 2010 to run for the Senate in this forum!

Fifth, as to where the "country" is heading in the next few years, I have carefully made no predictions, but, as to Arizona, I have, and stand by them.

But then, I base those predictions from knowledge, rather than ignorance.  Oh, and I agree with your assertion that you "don't think."

[Purple State]

I respond:

First, its nice to see you concede that McCain won't be seeking reelection. 

Second, where two candidates agree on the major issues, one is left to either vote by party (which in Arizona helped McCain) or on personality, which nationally helped Obama.  However, where the candidates disagree on the major issues, those issues can have a major impact on who gets elected.  So, this does change the outcome.

Third, could you please cite what "outrage at the base for betraying him" you are babbling about?  McCain is the one who has done the betraying.

Fourth, I really wonder if you are hallucinating, as I have not only never ruled out "a strong Democratic challenge in Arizona" in the 2010 Senate race, but have predicted that Napolitano is delighted to escape the Governor's chair during hard times, but is likely to return in 2010 to run for the Senate in this forum!

Fifth, as to where the "country" is heading in the next few years, I have carefully made no predictions, but, as to Arizona, I have, and stand by them.

But then, I base those predictions from knowledge, rather than ignorance.  Oh, and I agree with your assertion that you "don't think."

So you will resort to disgusting and offensive tactics to defend your incorrect notions of politics. No need to break down and cry when someone disagrees.

First, I didn't concede anything, because that would assume I ever stated anything otherwise and disagreed with you. In fact, I have come to this conclusion on my own and don't appreciate your condescension on points we, no less, agree on.

Second, you didn't address my second point at all. I am saying that you are just declaring what you believe to be a good choice by residents of Arizona when, in fact, their decision is relative to what they believe to be correct and in their best interest. Of course issues change the outcome of elections. I never said otherwise. However, Arizona has proven time and time again that McCain's stances on the issues, some of which are relatively moderate or liberal in their implementation, are still supported by a large enough majority to keep him in the Senate time and time again.

Third, look to his loss in 2000. He loses the primaries because of a ferociously dirty Bush campaign aimed at sucking away the Republican base from beneath him. And it worked. Cut to immigration reform, in which the Republican base torpedoed a bipartisan compromise McCain wholeheartedly backed for political gains. McCain may have pandered to the base in his attempt to win the general election, but he does not like the base. He does not feel comfortable with the Religious Right. He is no rural populist like Palin. He is just a regular guy, a military man, a person of honor. He has seen that this gets him nowhere among the Republican party at large.

Fourth, I can only assume that your constant drivel about the increasingly conservative Arizona, the Arizona where McCain can't win, would mean a moderate and, hence, a Democrat can't win. If you think a Democrat could win then why can't McCain, who could win the Republicans and independents and some Dems, stand a fighting chance?

And as to address your little jab at the end, it would be appreciated if you keep the discussion civil and attempt to actually address my points with your own information. As of yet, you have only attempted to disprove my assertions (rather viciously) while providing little evidence behind your own (besides that you have spoken to McCain?).

I look forward to your next response.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, lets see.  You start out your response by alleging that my posts are "disgusting" and "offensive" and then you latter state "I would appreciate if you would keep the discussion civil."  Hmm, its kind of hard to keep a discussion civil, when you have posted comments which do not meet that standard.

Second, you apparently did not understand my prior post, which I suggest you reread.  McCain did no introduce his amnesty plan prior to his last election to the Senate, so, its a little hard for you to maintain that his reelection to the Senate in 2004 constituted endorsement of views McCain had yet to make public.

Third, you again make a number of false presumptions.  McCain never had the Republican base!  The proposal offered by McCain-Kennedy was not a "compromise," but rather just more amnesty, guest workers, non-enforcement of existing laws.  It was NOT, repeat NOT a compromise, but pure surrender!  I have read the bill, and posted detailed analysis of it when it was being considered on this forum.

Fourth, yes McCain does dislike Republican and conservatives. 

Fifth, as to your assertion that McCain is "just a regular guy," could you please provide the basis for that assertion?

Sixth, you make a lot of assumptions, which are both poorly reasoned and false.  You assume I believe things that not only I have never said, but which I have contradicted in prior posts on this forum.

[Meeker]

Will Carl cry when McCain is re-elected with >60% of the vote?

[Purple State]

First, lets see.  You start out your response by alleging that my posts are "disgusting" and "offensive" and then you latter state "I would appreciate if you would keep the discussion civil."  Hmm, its kind of hard to keep a discussion civil, when you have posted comments which do not meet that standard.

Second, you apparently did not understand my prior post, which I suggest you reread.  McCain did no introduce his amnesty plan prior to his last election to the Senate, so, its a little hard for you to maintain that his reelection to the Senate in 2004 constituted endorsement of views McCain had yet to make public.

Third, you again make a number of false presumptions.  McCain never had the Republican base!  The proposal offered by McCain-Kennedy was not a "compromise," but rather just more amnesty, guest workers, non-enforcement of existing laws.  It was NOT, repeat NOT a compromise, but pure surrender!  I have read the bill, and posted detailed analysis of it when it was being considered on this forum.

Fourth, yes McCain does dislike Republican and conservatives. 

Fifth, as to your assertion that McCain is "just a regular guy," could you please provide the basis for that assertion?

Sixth, you make a lot of assumptions, which are both poorly reasoned and false.  You assume I believe things that not only I have never said, but which I have contradicted in prior posts on this forum.

First, I referred not to your ideas as offensive, but your treating of my ideas and the language you used in addressing me. Thus, "keeping it civil" was what I was hoping you could abide by in the future. I would call your little jabs at me, including references to my "ignorance" and your supposed vastly superior knowledge of McCain's inner psyche, very offensive in a previously civil discourse and should be called out as such.

Second, I was not necessarily referring to before or after a given election, or any specific policy either. You just placed the immigration reform bill into the second point here. I am simply showing a certain moderation and willingness to separate from straight party votes that McCain has shown over the years. To say that the people of Arizona did not know about McCain's so called "maverick" attitude is to lie. They often elect him because of this little rogue streak of his and they accept his differences with the common party lines. They opt to vote for him because they agree with his policies. You claim that Arizona can do better. But better than what? Maybe better for the Republican party in general, but Arizonans believe he is the best for their views.

Third, despite the fact that McCain never really was "in" with the Republican base, he has been able to win it from time to time (like 2008 for one). However, in 2000 he lost all chances of doing so because of Bush's attacks, all expressly targeted at eroding any support McCain may have won with the base. And if the immigration reform bill was a compromise or not is irrelevant to our discussion. It only created a fiercer tension between McCain and the Republican base. He felt betrayed and has expressed as much on a number of occasions. Whether the Republicans were right or wrong is irrelevant to how it made McCain feel (which was the subject of my previous post).

Fourth, our numbers are no longer aligned and you do not appear to address my fourth point. You may do so in your next response.

Fifth, I do not mean to assert that McCain is an average Joe. Instead, I mean to say that he does not play well with the Republican base, something we both agree on and which does not need to be addressed further.

Sixth, I have not taken the time out to stalk your posts in this forum. I have based all my posts here as responses to what I have perceived are your words in this thread. If you believe that I have misunderstood something I appeal to you to restate it and explain it. As for your insult there, I would ask that you point out where I have assumed anything with poor reason or a lacking of truth. I would again appeal to you to keep the conversation civil. If you believe that I am speaking incorrectly, feel free to quote it and explain why it is incorrect.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, lets see.  You start out your response by alleging that my posts are "disgusting" and "offensive" and then you latter state "I would appreciate if you would keep the discussion civil."  Hmm, its kind of hard to keep a discussion civil, when you have posted comments which do not meet that standard.

Second, you apparently did not understand my prior post, which I suggest you reread.  McCain did no introduce his amnesty plan prior to his last election to the Senate, so, its a little hard for you to maintain that his reelection to the Senate in 2004 constituted endorsement of views McCain had yet to make public.

Third, you again make a number of false presumptions.  McCain never had the Republican base!  The proposal offered by McCain-Kennedy was not a "compromise," but rather just more amnesty, guest workers, non-enforcement of existing laws.  It was NOT, repeat NOT a compromise, but pure surrender!  I have read the bill, and posted detailed analysis of it when it was being considered on this forum.

Fourth, yes McCain does dislike Republican and conservatives. 

Fifth, as to your assertion that McCain is "just a regular guy," could you please provide the basis for that assertion?

Sixth, you make a lot of assumptions, which are both poorly reasoned and false.  You assume I believe things that not only I have never said, but which I have contradicted in prior posts on this forum.

First, I referred not to your ideas as offensive, but your treating of my ideas and the language you used in addressing me. Thus, "keeping it civil" was what I was hoping you could abide by in the future. I would call your little jabs at me, including references to my "ignorance" and your supposed vastly superior knowledge of McCain's inner psyche, very offensive in a previously civil discourse and should be called out as such.

Second, I was not necessarily referring to before or after a given election, or any specific policy either. You just placed the immigration reform bill into the second point here. I am simply showing a certain moderation and willingness to separate from straight party votes that McCain has shown over the years. To say that the people of Arizona did not know about McCain's so called "maverick" attitude is to lie. They often elect him because of this little rogue streak of his and they accept his differences with the common party lines. They opt to vote for him because they agree with his policies. You claim that Arizona can do better. But better than what? Maybe better for the Republican party in general, but Arizonans believe he is the best for their views.

Third, despite the fact that McCain never really was "in" with the Republican base, he has been able to win it from time to time (like 2008 for one). However, in 2000 he lost all chances of doing so because of Bush's attacks, all expressly targeted at eroding any support McCain may have won with the base. And if the immigration reform bill was a compromise or not is irrelevant to our discussion. It only created a fiercer tension between McCain and the Republican base. He felt betrayed and has expressed as much on a number of occasions. Whether the Republicans were right or wrong is irrelevant to how it made McCain feel (which was the subject of my previous post).

Fourth, our numbers are no longer aligned and you do not appear to address my fourth point. You may do so in your next response.

Fifth, I do not mean to assert that McCain is an average Joe. Instead, I mean to say that he does not play well with the Republican base, something we both agree on and which does not need to be addressed further.

Sixth, I have not taken the time out to stalk your posts in this forum. I have based all my posts here as responses to what I have perceived are your words in this thread. If you believe that I have misunderstood something I appeal to you to restate it and explain it. As for your insult there, I would ask that you point out where I have assumed anything with poor reason or a lacking of truth. I would again appeal to you to keep the conversation civil. If you believe that I am speaking incorrectly, feel free to quote it and explain why it is incorrect.

First,  I don't recall every posting anything about "McCain's inner psyche."  I did however note that I have dealt with him on numerous occasions.

Second, just how can people agree with a policy which a candidate has not adopted?  McCain did not announce his support for comprehensive amnesty until after his last senate election.  Are you alledging that you divine that the "inner psyche" of the voters of Arizona and they knew ahead of time that he was going to support amnesty, and that they voted for him for that reason?


Third, since McCain was never in with the Republican base, there is no way they could ever "betray" him as you originally asserted.

Fourth, you have repeated leaped to assumptions which are both unfounded and false.  I have previously posted, and reiterated (yes, on this thread) my belief that Janet Napolitano will run for the Senate in 2010.

[Purple State]

First,  I don't recall every posting anything about "McCain's inner psyche."  I did however note that I have dealt with him on numerous occasions.

Second, just how can people agree with a policy which a candidate has not adopted?  McCain did not announce his support for comprehensive amnesty until after his last senate election.  Are you alledging that you divine that the "inner psyche" of the voters of Arizona and they knew ahead of time that he was going to support amnesty, and that they voted for him for that reason?


Third, since McCain was never in with the Republican base, there is no way they could ever "betray" him as you originally asserted.

Fourth, you have repeated leaped to assumptions which are both unfounded and false.  I have previously posted, and reiterated (yes, on this thread) my belief that Janet Napolitano will run for the Senate in 2010.

First, you attempted to assert that your previous contacts with McCain provide you with knowledge of or about him that far surpasses mine. I was simply challenging that assertion. Talking to a person a few times does not provide you with vastly greater depths of knowledge.

Second, I will repeat I was in no way specifically singling out amnesty or the immigration reform bill in this area of discussion. Generally speaking, in terms of years of public service and policy disagreements with the GOP hardliners, Arizonans have stuck with McCain through it all. Despite differences on abortion and tax cuts (these came out before 2004) he was continually reelected. Thus, you previously stated, and I am quoting, "the Republicans in Arizona can find a more conservative, principled candidate for Senator than John S. McCain." I replied that, "If they do not want to get rid of him, suffice to say they don't want someone else." This is what sparked our entire discussion. You are acting as if because the people of Arizona can find a more conservative candidate, they should. Whereas I would argue (and I would imagine you would agree) that if the people of Arizona elect McCain time after time, maybe they do not want anyone more conservative or principled in that seat.

Third, regardless of whether McCain was beloved by the base (which I do not assert), he did have a reasonable shot at winning the Republican nomination for president in 2000. It was largely Bush's antagonizing of the base against McCain at previously unseen levels (e.g. claiming he illegitimately fathered a black child) that lost him that election. McCain is also no fan of the religious right, as I have mentioned previously (e.g. "agents of intolerance"). All of this has contributed to aforementioned distaste of McCain towards the Republican base.

Fourth, I do not contest that you have spoken about Napolitano's possible 2010 Senate bid. I simply have based many of my statements on what I have seen you write in response to my comments. In fact, it is extremely frustrating when you attempt to ignore points I make when you don't know how to address them while you hone in on often superfluous and nonessential matter I mention. In addition, you have continued to attribute my points to words I did not mention in association with one another, instead assuming that points in proximity are the same point. Perhaps you could address all of my comments (much like I am doing), rather than glossing over my words and assuming you know what they say. Just as an example, you have completely overlooked the following question I posed a few posts back in response to your assertion that McCain, "[m]uch like Dennis Deconcini, he will realize that he will lose, and won't run." I would appreciate an answer this time: "If you think a Democrat could win then why can't McCain, who could win the Republicans and independents and some Dems, stand a fighting chance?"

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sigh!

First, you use varying terms, with different meanings.  I DO know far more about McCain than you do, but I don’t pretend to probe his “inner psyche” (YOUR term).  Have you even met McCain?  What makes you so knowledgeable?  Do you probe peoples “inner psyche”?

Second, you employ low winded paragraphs encompassing different allegations, concepts, so I will label each seperate one by letter, and quote in so that it will be easier for you to comprehend my rebuttal.

a. You said: “I will repeat that I was in no way specifically singling out amnesty or the immigration reform bill in the area of discussion.”
I reply: No. You avoid specifics and merely cite generalizations and your opinions.  I cited a tangible example to disprove.

b. You said: “Despite differences on abortion and tax cuts, he was continually reelected.”
I reply:  McCain did NOT take a pro-abortion line prior to his 1998 reelection, and while he did make pro-abortion statements in 1999/2000, he backed off those statements in the 2001-to present time period.  As to McCain’s opposition to tax cuts, that came after his 1998 reelection (so you can’t count that), and prior to his reelection in 2004 he made a number of contradictory statements to explain his votes against tax cuts, and promises not to do it again.

c. You said: “If they do not want to get rid of hi, suffice to say they don’t want someone 4lse”
I reply:  First, Arizona voters are very forgiving, and in 2004 McCain disowned a number of the leftish positions he had taken in his then existing term.  However, when he betrayed the voters in 2006 by promoting amnesty, that was the last straw.

d. You said: “I would argue (and I would imagine you would agree) that if the people of Arizona elect McCain time after time, maybe they do not want anyone more conservative or principled in that seat.”
I reply:  McCain did not begin his leftish campaign prior to 1998 (he was a pretty conventional Republican Senator), and by the time of his 2004 reelection, had retracted/repudiated his 1999/2003 excursion into insanity.  Had he not backed down of those positions, and had he prior to 2004 advocated amnesty, he would have been gone.

Third, you state that “largely Bush’s antagonizing of the base against McCain at previously unseen levels (e.g. claiming he illegimately fathered a black child) that lost him the election.
I reply that: Bush did not make the statement you alledge, but rather that a telemarking firm did, and I reject you gratitious that that claim “lost him the election.”
Fourth, your lengthly paragraph is one of the most disjoined and irrational I have yet seen on this forum

a. You base your statements on misunderstanding of my response.

b. I do respond to your points, you merely fail to comprehend my responses.  I understand you are frustrated because you are unable to comprehend my points, and when I provide specific factual data to support my contentions, you consider those “superfluous and nonessential.”

c. I am NOT going to write in long, disjointed (and disorganized paragraphs, as is your style!
d. With respect as to why Napolitano can be McCain in 2010, let me provide you with a couple of reasons:

i.  Napolitano implemented laws for dealing with illegal aliens, whereas McCain merely wants to provide them with amnesty, and increase the number of “guest workers.”  In her state of the state address earlier this month, Napolitano recommended that the legislature increase penalties for “coyotes.”

ii. McCain is an arrogant asshole who has gone out of his way to antagonize people.  I know people who don’t really disagree with McCain much on the issues, but have been the victims of his cursing who will vote for the “other” candidate rather than vote for McCain.

[Purple State]

Sigh!

First, you use varying terms, with different meanings.  I DO know far more about McCain than you do, but I don’t pretend to probe his “inner psyche” (YOUR term).  Have you even met McCain?  What makes you so knowledgeable?  Do you probe peoples “inner psyche”?

Second, you employ low winded paragraphs encompassing different allegations, concepts, so I will label each seperate one by letter, and quote in so that it will be easier for you to comprehend my rebuttal.

a. You said: “I will repeat that I was in no way specifically singling out amnesty or the immigration reform bill in the area of discussion.”
I reply: No. You avoid specifics and merely cite generalizations and your opinions.  I cited a tangible example to disprove.

b. You said: “Despite differences on abortion and tax cuts, he was continually reelected.”
I reply:  McCain did NOT take a pro-abortion line prior to his 1998 reelection, and while he did make pro-abortion statements in 1999/2000, he backed off those statements in the 2001-to present time period.  As to McCain’s opposition to tax cuts, that came after his 1998 reelection (so you can’t count that), and prior to his reelection in 2004 he made a number of contradictory statements to explain his votes against tax cuts, and promises not to do it again.

c. You said: “If they do not want to get rid of hi, suffice to say they don’t want someone 4lse”
I reply:  First, Arizona voters are very forgiving, and in 2004 McCain disowned a number of the leftish positions he had taken in his then existing term.  However, when he betrayed the voters in 2006 by promoting amnesty, that was the last straw.

d. You said: “I would argue (and I would imagine you would agree) that if the people of Arizona elect McCain time after time, maybe they do not want anyone more conservative or principled in that seat.”
I reply:  McCain did not begin his leftish campaign prior to 1998 (he was a pretty conventional Republican Senator), and by the time of his 2004 reelection, had retracted/repudiated his 1999/2003 excursion into insanity.  Had he not backed down of those positions, and had he prior to 2004 advocated amnesty, he would have been gone.

Third, you state that “largely Bush’s antagonizing of the base against McCain at previously unseen levels (e.g. claiming he illegimately fathered a black child) that lost him the election.
I reply that: Bush did not make the statement you alledge, but rather that a telemarking firm did, and I reject you gratitious that that claim “lost him the election.”
Fourth, your lengthly paragraph is one of the most disjoined and irrational I have yet seen on this forum

a. You base your statements on misunderstanding of my response.

b. I do respond to your points, you merely fail to comprehend my responses.  I understand you are frustrated because you are unable to comprehend my points, and when I provide specific factual data to support my contentions, you consider those “superfluous and nonessential.”

c. I am NOT going to write in long, disjointed (and disorganized paragraphs, as is your style!
d. With respect as to why Napolitano can be McCain in 2010, let me provide you with a couple of reasons:

i.  Napolitano implemented laws for dealing with illegal aliens, whereas McCain merely wants to provide them with amnesty, and increase the number of “guest workers.”  In her state of the state address earlier this month, Napolitano recommended that the legislature increase penalties for “coyotes.”

ii. McCain is an arrogant asshole who has gone out of his way to antagonize people.  I know people who don’t really disagree with McCain much on the issues, but have been the victims of his cursing who will vote for the “other” candidate rather than vote for McCain.

Okay, one by one we go.

First, meeting a person does not mean you know more about a person. Maybe you know more about his personality in a private (or other) setting, but I would argue you do not know more about the politics surrounding him.

Second, I am sorry you are unable to read comprehensive sentences, so, if it makes it easier for you, let us go point by point instead.

a. I do not only speak in generalizations. However, in portions that I do speak in a general and comprehensive manner to underline ideas, you seem to choose cite tangible examples that are simply not related to the idea, rather than a truly disproving idea.
          Example = If I was referring to before McCain's last reelection in 2004, I was obviously not referring to the immigration reform bill. For you to use that as your example to "disprove" me is disingenuous.

b. & c. & d. I am aware that most of his more left-of-center views have come out post-1998. However, as forgiving as Arizona voters may be, McCain has betrayed the Republican line on a number of large items. Oh, and prior to his reelection in 2004 he said on national television, in response to a question on whether he would postpone the Bush tax cuts because of the war, answered, "I would have." If he was making contradictory statements, it is hard to imagine that he would have won on a flip-flopper platform (look at the bashing of Kerry's flip-flopping that same year).

Third, I would say that regardless of who started it, the Bush team did not reject it outright (as it should have), almost alluding that it was true. Many in the McCain family are still upset about that (see NYT article a month or two before the 2008 general election).

Fourth, I am sorry you lack the capacity to follow a paragraph's line of reasoning. I do not object to addressing you point by point if you insist.

a. As do you.

b. I would say you understand my points, but, rather than address them, choose to rely on insults and false interpretations to attack me. I would prefer you stop trying to make it personal and discuss this on the merits.

c. Again, "I would prefer you stop trying to make it personal and discuss this on the merits."

d. --

i. I agree regarding Napolitano's viability so this isn't a problem. As for the part about McCain, the state has shown it does not mind when he disagrees with them on fundamental issues. And his views on immigration were no secret before reelection in 2004. On a questionnaire he filled out in that year, he responded that he supported an increase in the number of visas issued and comprehensive immigration reform while opposing reducing the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country and the establishment of English as the official national language.

ii. McCain has always been an arrogant prick and there are always many people that disagree with his oft crude humor. This hasn't changed recently and won't hurt him anymore than it has in past elections.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, of all, I suggest you look at your paragraphs.  A basic concept is that there is a topic sentence, with the remaining sentences being supporting sentences, which elaborate on the topic sentence.  You posts meander all over the place, particularly in your longer paragraphs.

Second, I merely cited personal contact with McCain, which I have and you do not as one example of a source of superior knowledge.  I also know, and have extensively talked to, staffers who have worked for him and reporters who have covered him.  Have you, or just how do you have such supposed excellent knowlege/understanding of McCain?  Are you divining his "inner psyche," to use YOUR expression?
 
Third, with respect to McCain's positions prior to 2004:

a.) most opponents of illegal entrants that I know have no problem with increased number of visas issued, which is a red herring on your part,

b,) most opponents of illegal entry don't support a reduction in of legal immigration, another red herring,

c.) here's McCain's response on "Official English":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo6ezipypUk

d.) McCain made no public mention of his support for amnesty in 2004,

e) McCain also said that he would not seek to repeal the tax cuts, prior to the 2004 election, and

f.) Yes, McCain was offered the Vice-Presidential nomination by Kerry, and rejected it since he realized Kerry would lose, and McCain (who was up for election that year) would have been unable to simultaneously run for Senate and Vice-President at the same time (Arizona law) and decided to remain in the Senate.  This may be hard for you to understand, or "immagine," but, to borrow an expression of Walter Cronkite, "that's the way it is."

Third, McCain goes ballistic if anyone dares to disagree with him (from the right).  So, what?

Fourth, yes McCain's views on amnesty were a secret to Arizona voters in 2004, contrary to your assertion.

[Purple State]

First, I will ignore your inconsequential criticism of my stylistic choices if not for the simple fact that your grammar, diction, and syntax are atrocious.

Second, knowledge of a person's views does not require any close personal contact with said person or those close with him. It simply requires knowledge of a number of indicators and common factors a person displays.

Third, with respect to your points:

a.) I was only addressing your comment on guest workers. I thought you wanted me to address your specific points with some of my own.

b.) See a.

c.) No one who supported the bill called it amnesty at the time, so your use of the word is misleading, simply pulling from the rhetoric of those groups that opposed the bill. He did make it known that he wanted to reform immigration and wanted to do so in a manner differing from those in his own party who wanted an increasingly penal form.

d.) Not seeking to repeal them is totally different line than postponing them and any educated voter would be able to tell the difference. McCain lost the battle over tax cuts and he knew it, so the next best thing was to argue to postpone them, which he did publicly on a number of occasions.

e.) I did not refer to Kerry to discuss the VP offer, etc. Please do not read my words and then place them out of context based on your own assumptions. I meant only to draw a comparison between the flack Kerry received for flip-flopping in 2004 and the lack thereof directed at McCain for his "supposed" flip-flopping. I would assume that if, indeed, you were correct in stating that McCain flip-flopped on the tax cuts and abortion, etc. he would have lost reelection in 2004 when flip-flopping was a huge deal for people.

Third (again?), you stated that people are constantly offended by McCain and would vote against him even if they agree with his policies because they are offended by him. However, you go on to claim that this would contribute to the failure of any reelection bid he would pose in 2010, as if this aggressiveness is a new phenomenon. McCain has always been a jerk and has still won election and reelection. If enough people haven't been turned off by it yet, there never will be enough.

Fourth, see c. above.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, I will ignore your inconsequential criticism of my stylistic choices if not for the simple fact that your grammar, diction, and syntax are atrocious.

Second, knowledge of a person's views does not require any close personal contact with said person or those close with him. It simply requires knowledge of a number of indicators and common factors a person displays.

Third, with respect to your points:

a.) I was only addressing your comment on guest workers. I thought you wanted me to address your specific points with some of my own.

b.) See a.

c.) No one who supported the bill called it amnesty at the time, so your use of the word is misleading, simply pulling from the rhetoric of those groups that opposed the bill. He did make it known that he wanted to reform immigration and wanted to do so in a manner differing from those in his own party who wanted an increasingly penal form.

d.) Not seeking to repeal them is totally different line than postponing them and any educated voter would be able to tell the difference. McCain lost the battle over tax cuts and he knew it, so the next best thing was to argue to postpone them, which he did publicly on a number of occasions.

e.) I did not refer to Kerry to discuss the VP offer, etc. Please do not read my words and then place them out of context based on your own assumptions. I meant only to draw a comparison between the flack Kerry received for flip-flopping in 2004 and the lack thereof directed at McCain for his "supposed" flip-flopping. I would assume that if, indeed, you were correct in stating that McCain flip-flopped on the tax cuts and abortion, etc. he would have lost reelection in 2004 when flip-flopping was a huge deal for people.

Third (again?), you stated that people are constantly offended by McCain and would vote against him even if they agree with his policies because they are offended by him. However, you go on to claim that this would contribute to the failure of any reelection bid he would pose in 2010, as if this aggressiveness is a new phenomenon. McCain has always been a jerk and has still won election and reelection. If enough people haven't been turned off by it yet, there never will be enough.

Fourth, see c. above.

First, I must admit that you are very dense.

Second, I again challege you to reveal just where you get your supposedly great understanding of John McCain.  You admit you have never spoken with him, apparently you have never spoken with his staffers or reporters who have covered him.  So, just where do you get your supposed understanding of McCain?

Third,

a.) again you change terminology.  You said "visas," and know you say you meant "guest workers."  Please learn to say what you mean.

b.) so, legal immigration is the same as "guest workers"?!?  Guest workers are temporary (accoding to terminology) and therefor NOT immigrants.  You are convincing me that you do indeed have severe problems with the English language.

c.)  As to you assertion that no one who supported the bill called it amnesty at the time, they learned not to do so because of severe public censure, but, McCain had called his proposal amnesty previously:

This morning's Politico has what may be a hot story: Senator John McCain, who denies that the current immigration bill constitutes an "amnesty," embraced that term freely back in 2003:

McCain "Pushes Amnesty,  reported the Tucson Citizen of May 29, 2003. The senator is quoted as saying: Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it. "

d.) You cited McCain supporting postponing tax cuts which were already in existence, whereas I cited his statement that he would not repeal the tax cuts that were already in existence.  If you study basic English, you will learn that you can only postpone something which has not already occured.

e.) Once again you assume incorrectly.  The simple matter is that McCain was adored by the press until he became the Republican nominee, and received protective coverage.  If you deny this, I will post his flip flops on abortion.

Third, it has taken McCain a number of years to offend enough people.  Prior to 1999, McCain was pretty much a conventional Republican Senator.  After he began to receive the adulation of the liberal press, he started on a series of attacks on conservatives, Republicans and other with the belief in his own omniponence.  In 2001 he reduced his attacks on Arizonans, and concentrated on attacks on Bush.  Since being reelected in 2004, he has returned to his 1999/2000 approach.

Fourth, hyperlink listed above.

Now, you have yet to cite one source, or to answer my repated question on your source of knowledge.

[Purple State]

First, I will discontinue our discussion if you continue to insist on anything less than civil discourse.

Second, my knowledge stems from watching McCain's actions over a number of years, researching his policies and opinions, listening to him speak on a number of occasions over a sizable period of time.

Third,

a.) A guest worker program would include a worker's visa...

b.) Both expansion of legal immigration and guest worker programs are largely deemed as unacceptable to anti-"amnesty" conservatives.

c.) Am I hearing you prove my point here? So McCain had publicly supported amnesty before 2004. That would mean Arizonans knew of his pro-amnesty position. Why would they vote for him in 2004 then and not in 2010? He has been publicly pro-amnesty since 2003.

d.) I believe his answer was in response to a question regarding whether, had he been President, would he have postponed the 2003 tax cuts in light of the war in Iraq. Either way he is expressing his distaste for the tax cuts shortly before the 2004 elections.

e.) You ascribe too little individual knowledge to Arizonans regarding their own senator. They know of McCain's varied views and I highly doubt flip-flops would have been considered lightly in 2004. I am sure he mentioned varying opinions, but it is likely that his prevailing ideas were largely known regarding many of his controversial opinions, such as immigration (as you proved above), campaign finance reform, etc.

Third (really fourth), it is revealing enough that, despite McCain's arrogance and use of insults, he won Arizona in the general election against the most formidable Democratic presidential candidate in decades. That alone I believe reveals McCain's formidable presence in Arizona.

Fourth, this is combined with c. enough to remove this.

And I have cited sources a plenty, including direct quotes. The source of my knowledge is the same way anyone learns about anything without actually being there.