<p>“THe mistake was not pointing out in 04’ also that George Bush “protected America” during the Vietnam War from… Texas.”</p>
<p>You didn’t seriously post that, did you? Heck, Dan Rather lost his job over exactly that issue. Not pointing out! That’s the laugh of the day.</p>
<p>UCLA,</p>
<p>I can only hope that the Dems attack McCain’s service record and try to sell us on France as the model for our economy and healthcare system. If that were to happen, I would see the biggest R win in decades. You are showing your naivete with that comment.</p>
<p>A. I am Pima</p>
<p>B. The fact that you would lower yourself to “dish it up against McCain” just shows your fear.</p>
<p>Please read the following from [Biography</a>, Videos and Interviews - Biography.com](<a href=“http://www.biography.com%5DBiography”>http://www.biography.com) You can’t even compare Kerry’s war record to him. Oh BTW Kerry never once in his senatorial career introduced a single bill. </p>
<p>On October 26, 1967, during his 23rd air mission, McCain’s plane was shot down over the North Vietnamese capital of Hanoi. His captors soon learned he was the son of a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Navy and repeatedly offered him early release, but McCain refused, not wanting to violate the military code of conduct and knowing that the North Vietnamese would use his release as a powerful piece of propaganda.</p>
<p>He eventually spent five and a half years in various prison camps, three and a half of those in solitary confinement, and was repeatedly beaten and tortured before he was finally released, along with other American POWs, in March 1973, two months after the Vietnam cease fire went into effect.</p>
<p>Though McCain had lost most of his physical strength and flexibility, he was determined to continue serving as a naval aviator. After a painful nine months of rehabilitation, he returned to flying duty, but it soon became clear that his injuries had permanently impaired his ability to advance in the Navy.</p>
<p>So if you want to attack his military record go for it, but by doing so you will make republicans more entrenched and will go out to the polls. Also if you try bringing up the slander that happened in SC in 2000, by insinuating that his adopted daughter is illegitimate, you will lose, that was already vetted, and is sick that anyone would stoop that low</p>
<p>“I can only hope that the Dems attack McCain’s service record and try to sell us on France as the model for our economy and healthcare system.”</p>
<p>Yup, I daresay the Republicans could ALL come together with glee over that!</p>
<p>But I don’t think the old-guard and “talking heads” are going to let McCain anywhere near the nomination. Flip on Fox News and it’s all-Romney-all-the-time. I also read a piece that said almost all conservative talk radio is pushing Romney and ripping McCain limb from limb. Kind of like cutting off one’s nose to spite the face. I think Romney is little more than the new Kerry, with about as much chance in a general election.</p>
<p>Mcmom, I think you were completely on target with post 84. I agree completely about Romney being the candidate of choice for the republican media. Many think that Mccain isn’t much of a conservative, but voters have a way of doing what they want. I don’t think McCain is out of it by any means.</p>
<p>Actually McCain is now polling ahead of Romney, Huckabee and Guiliani. If you read through the threads, most republicans do not support Romney or Huckabee, which leads me to believe that the polls are correct. Conversely on the dem side all you hear about is Obama, but looking through the threads, dems are even asking what is the deal with Obama.</p>
<p>As for Fox, don’t you think Romney is desperate and having their PR dept calling Fox to get air time (national coverage at no cosT). Why would Fox say no? It is the same for Huckabee, he is on all the time. Hillary before Obama start his rise never appeared on Fox in 10 yrs, even as a senatorial candidate against Guiliani, however in the past few weeks she has been on several times? Why? My guess is for the independents.</p>
<p>McCain was on only a couple of days ago on Fox, but now he is getting national attention and is on the national media circuit</p>
<p>UCLA might do it, but the Democratic Party wouldn’t even think of going against McCain on his military record. You can question Kerry and Bush’s military record from many fronts; but those who know politics and the simpathy/emotion side of voters wouldn’t even think of bringing up a military record of someone who spent years as a POW. It would never happen. If there’s any Democrat leaders reading this thread, they would be squirming when UCLA brought up trying to question McCain’s military record. They don’t want that coming up at all.</p>
<p>I’m not a big McCain suppoerter, but his military record will not ever come up for debate. I think what will happen is that most republicans have a common core. As such, whoever gets the Republican nomination will get the vast support of the majority of republican voters. I don’t think however that the same can be said about the Democrats. There are many that won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Same with Obama. So, unless something changes in their treating of each other and dealing with issues instead of personal attacks, they both could wind up going down the toilet.</p>
<p>Okay I had to take a breather b4 I responded to GOTTALUV</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If you are a Brit than you can just go over to France and have the medical procedure done as a private care. In other words they pay for the operation out of pocket and come back for follow up care. London to Paris is like driving from Baltimore to NYC, not a biggie.</p>
<p>Here’s my horror story…3 months pregnant with my DD, I have an open head laceration, and brought in by ambulance. I sat in the ER as they filled prescriptions. and removed stitches for @3 hrs. When I was finally brought in, they asked my DH to go into a cabinet and get the thread to stitch me up, and to also go and get more novicane to numb my forehead (oh did I forget to say that as soon as they started I screamed, and they realized I could feel it…so sorry) He asked isn’t there someone else to do that…nope, it would be faster if he did it. Great system, keep your drugs open and let anyone and everyone access to them? That’s what I want for my medical system</p>
<ol>
<li>Bush’s unit was not called up… end of subject, period dot. He did not evade, he signed up for the guard, got pilot qualified and did his time. As stated before do you think Dan Rather was fired for being a whistle blower? I think he was fired for trusting people who had a vendetta and he bought into it. DOD records support Bush’s response…please don’t start on a conspiracy theory</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>“I don’t think McCain is out of it by any means.”</p>
<p>Well, maybe it’s just my perception and I’m not paying close enough attention! But lots of Republicans dislike McCain because, as Zoosermom said, many think he’s not conservative enough, and Democrats dislike him because they think he’s the only one that might beat them. I find that most of the tv and print media I see is pretty biased, one way or the other, which pretty much leaves McCain alone on the bus and carrying his own luggage, LOL. </p>
<p>I don’t think the Republicans are going to rally around Romney any more than the Democrats did Kerry.</p>
<p>If the general election was Romney against Hillary or Obama, then I think they would most definitely rally around Romney.</p>
<p>Except for Obama, it seems every election year I have to cast a vote for the lessor of 2 evils. Where are the better candidates?</p>
<p>fundingfather: I’m surprised that you’re still on the whole swift boat bandwagon. I thought everyone with the ability to critically examine the facts was past that.</p>
<p>I’m also amazed by your continuing attribution of polling results on issues that seem to be pretty well supported by the public to “bias”. For example, how would you change</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>to be “less biased”?</p>
<p>gottaloveucla: Give it a break. You’re really truly making yourself look very very stupid.</p>
<p>Attacking McCain would be political suicide; you cannot call his war record into question, since it is essentially unquestionable.</p>
<p>mcmom: Agreed about Romney. I wish Fox would lay off.</p>
<p>fencer: How is Obama’s church racist??</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha, well said. I’m not a McCain supporter and I don’t think him having been a POW necessarily qualifies him to be president, but I DO respect him. I can’t believe anyone would try to attack him on his military record! That would be like saying huckabee isn’t really religious, or Ron Paul is a flip-flopper. Some things are beyond dispute.</p>
<p>Leal who would you vote for if it came down to McCain v Clinton or Obama?</p>
<p>Obama. I was an Obama supporter before I found out he’s CFR like the rest of 'em and before I discovered Ron Paul. If Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination and doesn’t run as an Independent, I would vote for Obama and hope that his innate integrity (buried down there someplace) would prevail. I have respect for McCain in some ways, and he’s seems more honest than all the other Republicans (except RP), but he’s too much into war. I don’t hate Hillary but she seems intent upon showing how tough she can be and the end result is another warmonger.</p>
<p>I think McCain would be the last person to get us involved in any military action. I like him because he has been vocal about pork barrel for a very long time.</p>
<p>What is CFR?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Council of Foreign Relations, easily researched. Do a search on youtube.</p>
<p>Here is an excellent overview:</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - WHY RON PAUL PWNS John McCain Hillary Clinton Rudy Giuliani](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ynm40OLERk]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ynm40OLERk)</p>
<p>NOTE: Despite its title, Ron Paul is mentioned only in passing. The video is about the CFR.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope you’re right. I would certainly take McCain over any of the other Republicans, if forced to choose a Republican other than RP.</p>
<p>B&P, McCain is the most jingoistic Republican after Giuliani. Iraq for 100 years and, hey, let’s bomb bomb bomb Iran. The would-be ayahtollahs may be wary of him, as are the Wall $treet crowd, but he’s definitely acceptable to the neocon thugs and by default will become their candidate of choice when Giuliani slips under the waves…couldn’t happen to a nicer thug (Giuliani slipping under the waves). Giuliani easily wins my “Most Detestable Republican Candidate” award.</p>
<p>Thank you, no.</p>
<p>I don’t like McCain because he wants to keep us in Iraq and he’s against choice, but I see no need to attack his war record.</p>
<p>Bulletandpima, I could match every horror story about British hospital’s with experiences in American ones. We can start with the one with the intern who saw ds for a possible broken arm rummage through cupboards looking for a small sling. He had no idea where they were kept and there was no one around to tell him.</p>
<p>
I don’t believe that I have even mentioned swift boats in this thread, but in answer to your assertion - only those who want to gloss over any facts regarding their allegations see it as a closed issue from a “what happened” perspective. I am more than willing to let it go as a campaign issue, but the left keeps dragging it up, as UCLA did in this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This particular question, as phrased, does nothing more than to measure people’s opinions based on their level of ignorance of the issue. It is nothing more than a measure of how effective the Democratic obfuscate/demagogue machine has been in formulating public opinion at the headline level. I can see Howard Dean formulating a question like this as an attempt to find out how successful the Dems have been in their propaganda efforts.</p>
<p>However, it is dangerous to extrapolate an ignorant perspective into true beliefs - if you are really trying to find out what true beliefs really are. That is why the way that the USA Today question was phrased is more effective at measuring the population’s real feelings about the subject. It removes the ignorance factor and replaces it with actual facts.</p>