<p>McCain’s voted too many times to go along with whatever Bush wants. I lost all respect for him when he kept on kissing up to the president despite all the dirty tricks the Bush campaign (aka Rove) pulled during 1999/2000. They attacked his wife and his child but he never took any action or said anything that might endanger his chances for a later shot at the presidency. He is also not exactly squeaky clean ethically – remember the Keating 5? In the end McCain, like Specter, talks a good game but when it comes to voting, he is in lock-step with the administration. </p>
<p>I think his day is done. His remains as much a ‘vanity campaign’ as Brownback or Hunter. Or for that mattter, Dodd and Gravel.</p>
<p>“The GOP is imploding among women, younger voters, and Hispanics.”</p>
<p>TheDad, I’m not sure I agree with your assessment with regard to women voters, particularly married women with children. I think my demographic will be a very interesting one this election cycle.</p>
<p>TheDad: I think I agree with every single post you’ve made here. Got to be a first. You need to get yourself on over to the “I’m dying to be in the military” thread, where folks are still loving this administration and this war.</p>
<p>Love the Alzheimer’s comment the kid made to McCain. Didn’t we already have a president who [most probably] had early Alzheimers when he was in office? Ah, yes. Reagan. Now I remember. Who would have ever thought we’d look back at the Reagan years as the good old days. He looks like a dream compared to what we have now. Hard to believe.</p>
<p>ZM: Tony Fabrizio’s (GOP pollster) survey results from the other day are just the latest among many that point in the same direction. Lessee if I can find a link…</p>
<p>ZM, fwiw, I’ve seen polls on Clinton that show her losing married women against GOP match-ups by 1-3 points, winning single women by 20. Single women will be somewhere around 23-25 percent of the electorate.</p>
<p>One of the building blocks of my agenda is up your way: taking over the NY State Senate from the Republicans. Needs something like three seats. Hold the NY governorship and legislature in 2010 and then the redistricting plays turnabout and the stranglehold of GOP-leaning upstate NY gets shattered…and once they lose it, they’re never gonna get it back after a Democratic-controlled redistricting. Not only gives the Democrats control but depletes the Republican “bench” pool for candidates for higher office.</p>
<p>Since about 1968, the Republicans have made hay with the Southernization of the party, turning the former Democratic bastion into their base. As long as they retained their old strongholds in the Northeast and Midwest, things were looking good. But now the GOP is in a cycle of increasing “Southernization” as the more moderate GOP incumbents in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwestern states retire or are picked off. It’s a vicious cycle, because each campaign cycle shifts the balance of the party to even more Southern, more conservative, thereby putting more distance between them and the remaining non-Southern moderates. </p>
<p>Good Democratic gains in NY, PA, and OH in 2006, looking for more in 2008. I think it’s a good bet that Chris Shays, the last remaining GOP Congressman from New England, falls next time. I’m doing my own small part by attending a fundraiser for Tom Allen in a couple of weeks, whom I think has a decent shot of upsetting Susan Collins in the Maine Senate race the same way that Lincoln Chaffee went down in Rhode Island last November.</p>
<p>TheDad, you are certainly a strategizer! I could only hope to be out of the God-forsaken-state-from-hell before then, but . . . </p>
<p>Anyway, I always find statistics and demographics utterly fascinating on their own merits, so I can’t wait to see what the realities are, as opposed to the projections.</p>
<p>I’m also very interested to see if Spitzer has more bombshells coming or if he is going to lose his office. </p>
<p>I can’t imagine wanting the democrats to take control of the entire country, (although I do respect your views) because who could afford that? They’d be worse spenders than the current occupants of the White House and Congress. As far as my state, spending has pretty much reached crisis proportions. Without the wretched Senate to provide SOME measure of relief, the economy here could be in big trouble.</p>
<p>If Iraq were out of the picture, who would you vote for then? I’d rather have a ‘tax-and-spend’ Democrat than a ‘borrow-and-spend’ Republican. At least the Democrat is spending money that doesn’t have an interest rate…and I’m also of the opinon that taxes are a patriotic duty which is darn nice of me considering my bracket.</p>
<p>Novelisto, I think taxes are a patriotic duty, but respect for the CITIZENS’ money is even more so. I’d like to vote for a fiscally prudent conservative. If I find one, I’ll be sure to make note of that. Remember, I live in New York where respect for the citizens by the ruling class, let alone their money, is unthinkable. My personal belief is very deep that the vast majority of people are competent and decent and are best suited to spend their money and set their own priorities.</p>
<p>With the exception of some whack-jobs, most conservatives support reasonable taxation, the question is where the “reasonable” part comes in. Many of us do not believe that the government, particularly at the federal level, should be doing anywhere near the amount of things that it does do. I know that many good people disagree or have different parameters and that’s fine, but these are mine.</p>
<p>“I’d like to vote for a fiscally prudent conservative”</p>
<p>If they could stop there, I’d vote for them too… </p>
<p>It’s the prude part that always gets me. I want government to run government, not what goes on in our pants. I can deal with the government reaching into my back pocket for my wallet. It’s when they go after the front pockets, I object.</p>
<p>Opie, would you be surprised to know that I agree with you? I think the minding the “front pocket” business is yet another type of overstepping to which I object.</p>
Yes! I believe that some level of taxation is imperative – but it’s all the special programs and pork that bother me. I’m really more of a Libertarian than anything else – I don’t really care that much about what people do in the privacy of their own home, as long as I don’t have to hear about it, see it or support it. But I don’t have a high enough opinion of most politicians to give them leave to spend my money for me.</p>
<p>SJMom, that’s exactly what I think. I probably lean more libertarian as well, especially since I’m not in the least religious. I don’t trust anyone to spend my money – I readily admit to being cheap, but I have much less trust of democrats, particularly those elected to office in New York State. which is not to say that I’m pleased with the fiscal stewardship of President Bush or the previous Congress because I’m not. I just happen to think that Senator Clinton’s core is a tax and spend, nanny-state liberal. Which is fine. I just don’t want to pay for that. To be fair, I hated Pataki, both personally and professionally with a raging passion, so this is principle (agree or not), not partisanship.</p>
<p>When you find a fiscally prudent politician of <em>any</em> stripe, publicize him/her please. They all start out just fine but after a while, either the money or the prestige (yes, Senator, you’re right, Rep…ad nauseum) gets to them. Unfortunately, even those who were originally for term limits change their minds when their time is supposedly up. Some days ‘don’t re-elect anybody, not even your momma’ seems to make the most sense.</p>
<p>All the more reason to start out with someone who will at least try to hold the line on spending, as far as I’m concerned. If they start out with big ideas for spending our money, then they are already on the wrong path.</p>
<p>“It’s when they go after the front pockets, I object.”</p>
<p>“I think the minding the “front pocket” business is yet another type of overstepping to which I object.”</p>
<p>"I don’t really care that much about what people do in the privacy of their own home, "</p>
<p>OK, I’m confused (or perhaps you folks are). The inference is that the Republicans are trying to dictate what goes on in the bedroom. Can you provide any reference to legislation promoted by Republicans that would dictate personal behavior of consenting adults? Or is this just another catch-all phrase that has been repeated so often that people just buy into it without thinking about it.</p>
<p>I’m sure the immediate response will be the issue of abortion which the Dems have succesfully clouded the Republican position as being an “intrusion into the bedroom”. This is definitely not the case.</p>
<p>I only intended to convey the idea that as a Republican, like most other Republicans, I don’t care what people do at home. That doesn’t mean I don’t object to issues that affect others, like abortion.</p>
<p>I don’t recall the GOP platform saying anything about regulating what goes on in people’s bedrooms.</p>
</p>