McCain is Anti-Reagan!(Ideologically that is) Ask any Reagan worshiper in the GOP. They think McCain is the worst that can happen to Reagan's conservative movement. He of course has the better chance tan anyone to make an upset in general elections.

Apart from his age he has little similarity Reagan's conservativism. 60% of GOP supporters are conservatives, who don't really agree with his liberal values. McCain attracts moderate republicans, independents, and conservative democrats, but without unifying GOP with the conservative brigade he will fail where Reagan succeeded in creating a cross over majority coalition. If Obama were to be elected it becomes tougher for McCain to win, as Obama has a cross over appeal and string independent backing(more than MCCain). Either way, clinton or Oabma are nmore lieley to win but Obama can win by a much bigger margin.

This NY TIMES OP ED column is insightful on your question:

****

Who Is More Electable?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: February 7, 2008

It’s increasingly likely that the Republican presidential nominee will be John McCain, who is also the Republican most likely to win the November election.
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Nicholas D. Kristof.
On the Ground
Share Your Comments About This Column

Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.
Go to Columnist Page »

Senator McCain has unusual appeal among swing voters, and polls show him running stunningly well in general election matchups — even in a year that one might expect would be a Democratic romp. So that raises the obvious question: Who would be the stronger Democratic candidate?

The answer isn’t certain, partly because Barack Obama’s shine could quickly tarnish. In July 1988, Michael Dukakis was hailed as a Democratic hero with a 17-percentage-point lead over George H.W. Bush; four months later, he was a loser.

But one clue emerged in Tuesday’s balloting in 14 “red states” that were won by President George W. Bush in 2004. Mr. Obama won nine while Hillary Rodham Clinton won four and is ahead in the fifth.

“Obama would appeal much more to Republican voters,” said Susan Eisenhower, a lifelong Republican and granddaughter of the late president. “Not all Republican voters, but certainly those who might be somewhat in play.”

Ms. Eisenhower is supporting Mr. Obama and said she would be glad to enlist in a “Republicans for Obama” organization.

When pollsters offer voters hypothetical matchups, Mr. Obama does better than Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain. For example, a Cook Political Report poll of registered voters released this week found Mr. McCain beats Mrs. Clinton, 45 percent to 41 percent. But Mr. Obama beats Mr. McCain, 45 percent to 43 percent. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found similar results.

Mr. Obama also has the highest approval rating of any major candidate among independents, 62 percent, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. He also has unusually low negatives, which gives him upside potential.

Mr. Obama does surprisingly well among evangelical Christians, an important constituency in swing states. For example, Relevant magazine, which caters to young evangelicals, asked its readers: “Who would Jesus vote for?” Mr. Obama was the winner and came out 27 percentage points ahead of Mrs. Clinton.

Politicians from red states have seemed likely to endorse Mr. Obama because many see him as the Democratic candidate who will do better in their states. Politico.com canvassed Democrats in potential swing states and concluded:

“During extensive interviews in recent weeks in Republican-leaning states, Politico found widespread belief among current and former Democratic statewide officials that Obama is the more electable candidate with their electorates. These politicians also frequently registered a fear that Clinton’s personality and past history make her too polarizing to win independent and Republican-leaning voters.”

Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. “I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,” Ms. Chisholm once said.

And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up.

Moreover, my hunch is that a conservative woman like Margaret Thatcher may have a better chance of being elected than a feminist with a distinguished record of standing up for women’s rights. For the same reason, Mr. Obama probably has a better chance than a black candidate who emerged from the civil rights movement.

Granted, a general election campaign could shuffle judgments of electability, and it may be unwise — even offensive — to cast votes in part on how people with different political philosophies, even bigots, would cast their ballots. It’s also true that Mr. Obama has received more gentle press scrutiny than Mrs. Clinton, and if he were the nominee, he would be buffeted, investigated and swift-boated in a way that he hasn’t been (but that Mrs. Clinton has).

Then again, voters in many states have only just begun to be acquainted with Mr. Obama, and more familiarity may breed more comfort — and dispel some of the savage myths about him, such as the one claiming that he is a Muslim who doesn’t pledge allegiance to the American flag. Such lies will become harder to sustain.

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s charisma has stood up surprisingly well since he first sprang upon the stage in 2004. Some old hands believe that if he casts a spell upon many voters in red states, it’s not because of some momentary dazzle, but because he truly possesses an exceptional and enduring political talent for connecting with independent voters.

“I’ve worked for three presidents and known two or three others,” said Michael Blumenthal, who started his public career under President Kennedy and served as Treasury secretary under President Carter. “And Obama is just about the only politician I’ve ever seen who compares to Jack Kennedy.”

One can only hope!

Age is no barrier!

Cheers,

Steve

Conservatives Boo McCain...

After facing whithering attacks from conservatives, presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain addressed party activists on Thursday at CPAC (after Mitt Romney dropped out). The question remained: How would he be greeted? Conference organizers warned "not to boo McCain" -- and what happened? There was booing.

Watch the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/live-cpac-updates-romney_n_85505.html

Hello DK and Everyone,

Anything is possible in the US these days. Is it possible that John McCain become President at 71, even after four years of President Bush and the great Iraq Fiasco...simply put, yes.

Mitt Romney's interesting comment as to one reason he is dropping out of the race was because he didn't want to aid terrorism( or something to that effect) meaning the republicans are going to play the terror card to the fullest extent of their unlawful ways during this campaign.

I think Americans, for the most part are numb to the terror card, we are like....okay..."how many times are you guys going to hide behind the doors of Congress and keep jumping out and screaming BOO?" Really, we have bills to pay, children to feed, young people to educate, the Arctic to freeze....and all you guys want to do is keep scaring us....and they wonder why people are drooling over an Obama speech...really, it is only because he doesn't yell.."Run the Terroristis are Coming," every five words. But even after all this...there may be those millions who come out in November(I think it was 51 million in 2004) who might miss the BOO too much to let it go.

anything is possible in the USA....have a wonderful evening....ruth

I wonder DK why you state that you are apolitical when you bring up McCain's age? It doesn't come off that innocent of a statement, you could have simply asked the question.

Just wondering, thanks DK,

Steve

What befuddles me DK, is that while the various "political parties" duke it out... something is lost.. a critical ingredient to a successful government.

There is a party for the republicans.
There is a party for the conservatives.
There is a party for the democrats.

Etc. etc. etc.

But, lost in the game of politics; is that nobody is keeping the interests of the most "average and poorer than poor citizen", ahead of the interest of their "party's intentions and mandates".

I would suggest; this is how politics divides leaders from the people whom "hire them" to govern their country's wealth, abundance, health, quality of life; and strive for world peace.

Once elected in; politicians work for "their party" and no longer for the mass-public.

When I were growing up; I never thought I'd see our modern world in such sad and alarming conditions.

Under this corrupt umbrella; though I'd like to see Obama win..being in Canada; I don't mind for the first time in my life; admitting political preference in public!

However, because of an umbrella of corruption and greed, such is the case in the USA, Canada, around the world;

McCain will probably win.

The men of the USA are too ignorant and proud; to allow a black man or woman...become President!!

I would suggest we assume; this was the plan.. all along.

Nice call on this possibility too, DK!! For an apolitical man, that is. (smile)

Love,
North

Thanks DK,

Sadly age and possibly race and gender are used as political weapons. Maybe one day it won't be the case.

Best wishes,

Steve

from granny...post 4..

"Anything is possible in the US these days. Is it possible that John McCain become President at 71....."

fyi...granny...he will be 72 if he wins the presidency! ...dude shud seriously consider retirement in Florida not the stress of the OO....>...

Dear DK,
Somebody may be very slick at playing perception.

Note that there is this meme that has now been created that with McCain the conservatives are upset that he is not conservative enough. This would obviously make him appeal to people that identify with the liberal label and it's associated fictions. It was highlighted very well by the media establishing the meme.

This would be the ideal perception needed to acquire votes that might go to Obama or Clinton.

So you can all see the political strategy here, I hope.

You see if the Republicans could have increased their chances of winning if they embraced Ron Paul, the problem is Ron Paul is a huge thorn to those the Republican Party Bosses are beholden to. Just like Kucinich who is a thorn to the Democratic Party Bosses agents of influence.

I think perhaps McCain is part of the Good Old Boys Club and this is exactly the influence we need to eliminate.

I am in no position to judge him as a person. I can only listen to my feelings. I would though want to decrease the risk of special influence that would act to the detriment of the whole body. He does not impress me as being sharp at all.

It’s all good in this game because when the time comes I will help play the Keating 5 Card if the inspiration comes to do so. Obama won’t need to do it we will let technology take care of it.

McCain was one of the Keating 5 the only Republican amongst the other Democrats. People should realize both parties suffer from the influence.

One of the scandals to take advantage of Banking Deregulation which got us into the mess we are currently in.

Most of the public has a very short memory regarding the S & L scandal where tangible assets were picked up pennies on the dollar resulting in an illicit transfer of wealth funded by taxpayers (the bail out).

How many other privately owned businesses do you know you know that get bailed out for making bad decisions or engaging in advanced white collar theft?

Hey it’s just a story, so there is no reality.

This is from Wiki on the scandal McCain was involved in.

The Keating Five (or Keating Five Scandal) refers to a Congressional scandal related to the collapse of most of the Savings and Loan institutions in the United States in the late 1980s.

Following the deregulation of the banking industry in the 1980s, savings and loan associations (also known as thrifts) were given the flexibility to invest their depositors' funds in commercial real estate. (Previously, they had been restricted to investing in residential real estate.) Many savings and loan associations began making risky investments. As a result, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the federal agency that regulates the industry, tried to clamp down on the trend. In so doing, however, the FHLBB clashed with the Reagan administration, whose policy was deregulation of many industries, including the thrift industry. The administration declined to submit budgets to Congress that would request more funding for the FHLBB's regulatory efforts.

In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., collapsed. Lincoln's chairman, Charles H. Keating Jr., was faulted for the thrift's failure. Keating, however, told the House Banking Committee that the FHLBB and its former chief Edwin J. Gray were pursuing a vendetta against him. Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $1.3 million (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating.

This allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); John McCain (R-AZ); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI), who became known as the Keating Five.

After months of testimony revealed that all five senators acted improperly to differing degrees, the senators continually said they were following the status quo of campaign funding practices. In August 1991, the committee concluded that Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle's conduct constituted substantial interference with the FHLBB's enforcement efforts and that they had done so at the behest of Charles Keating. The committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."

As it happened, Cranston, who was nearly 80 years of age, had already decided not to run for re-election in 1992. DeConcini and Riegle continued to serve in the Senate until their terms expired, but they did not seek re-election in 1994. DeConcini was appointed by President Bill Clinton in February, 1995 to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. [1]

Glenn did choose to run for re-election in 1992 and it was anticipated that he would have some difficulty winning a fourth term in the Senate. However, Glenn handily defeated Lieutenant Governor R. Michael DeWine for one more term in the Senate before retiring in 1999.

The scandal was followed by a number of attempts to adopt campaign finance reform—spearheaded by U.S. Sen. David Boren (D-OK)—but most attempts died in committee. A weakened reform was passed in 1993. Substantial campaign finance reform was not passed until the adoption of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002.

The only remaining member of the Keating Five still actively serving in the U.S. Senate is John McCain.

Like I said I can't judge McCain as a person and people change and evolve so things done in the past don't indicate the character of a person in the present, and perhaps he was just in the wrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time.

However it can be an indicator of risk.

I just want to see an end to the empire ego built and replace it with something spirit built.

If that is also the divine intention you could imagine the support One will have in doing so.

Romney dropped out because he was told to by the Party Bosses. Playing the “McCain is too liberal” perceptual meme is an attempt to garner votes from the Obama or Clinton which they need to do if the Republican party is to have a chance.

As you all should realize the status quo has more influence over Clinton then Obama so they are going to try and get her in as the nominee.

What could end up happening is Obama and Clinton are so close that the Super Delegates, the upper crust of the party will end up deciding disregarding the vote of the public. I suspect Clinton would be chosen.

Remember the special interests are playing both sides, quite often members in the parties don't realize they are being led based on calculations and strategy they are not even aware of.

It's a big chess game you know, and a Hollywood production, they must create the illusion you all voted in the president they picked.

Let's hope with a little help from the Mysterious force that whatever ego intends will backfire. All in good fun.

The thought of McCain becoming the President gives me the shivers...hope that doesn't happen.

McCain I think is too much of a war monger. Also he is too much of the past. He's got cold-war business to finish, polus he is still defined by the Vietnam.

I'm exhausted by the whole Boomer dynamic of pro-Vietnam, anti-Vietnam. It's the same people fighting the same political battle still forty years later, and they are trashing our nation with that BS. Stop it already!

It's the economy, stupid! It's health care. It's restoring our middle class base.

And now we have new issues like climate change, and a new multilateral world of China, and EU.

Sticking America into the past is just going to divide and beat us down more.

Enough already.

Bring in the new devil we don't know. Sometimes that is better than the one you already know.

It is a very interesting election indeed :)))

I only saw a short cut of one of Mr. Mc Cain's speeches (they do have a way of perfectly summarizing messages on our national television). He was saying that he will strongly defend the country of anyone and everyone...

What is more interesting to me is how Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will live their higher ideals. They do speak of ending wars... will this even include election wars? It seems that the "impossible" is being asked of us :)

Well the Republican political strategists probably think the Democrats will not bring up the Keating 5 because it involved four Democrats.

They are probably correct.

I am not a Democrat.

Public memory is short. It's almost impossible for me to recall six months ago, McCain canvassing sleepy towns like half a carnival on one last dollar. I think at the time, I kind of felt sorry for him, but I don't remember for certain. (I must've though.)

This stuff between Clinton and Obama is perfectly normal, and well suited for the battle they're about to undergo. If Obama doesn't insist on Clinton revealing her tax filings, you can be sure a Republican will later on. It really is a healthy vetting phase.

And, after all, if we didn't have this sort of deciduous process, BOTH parties would wind up with stiff, old white guys pitching to keep seniors safe. And the rest of us would pretty much ignore the whole thing.

Indeed Dana indeed!

The scariest thing of all is that John McCain could be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, and even have Michael Moore as a best friend, but as long as he is pro-war republicans will vote for him in droves.

That a group of people can think they are special enough not only to imprison the poor here in this nation, which they have done a very good job of, but that they can also kill the poor anywhere in the world, especially say in a country whose U.S. installed dictator no longer obeys imperial commands and so must die, is simply horrifically astonishing.

That poor blacks, whites, latinos, filipinos, etc., join the U.S. armed forces and go kill other poor people for the rich man just pisses me off to no end . . .

That "our" federal government spends about 33 percent of the budget, OUR money, on war is an obvious enough sign that we are in deep trouble!

For those who have not read the President's 09 budget here are a couple of excerpts:

The first one is a statement saying exactly that the money spigot for war must be constantly "expandable" - "Includes an emergency allowance to support activities related to the Global War on Terror into 2009. The Administration will request additional funds for civilian efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities when the needs are better known"

In other words, more fill in the blanks no-bid contracts for warmongering "defense" contractors.

- 830 million to "help" Pakistan
- 142 million for Lebanon
- 1.1 billion to advance Afghanistan’s overall development by promoting economic growth (yes I have been reading about those bountiful opium harvests . . .)

And here is the best one yet - "Continues international broadcasting. $699 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide accurate and objective news and information about the United States and the world to international audiences via television, radio, and the Internet with a continued focus on broadcasting throughout the Middle East and to people living under tyranny in North Korea, Burma, Iran, and Cuba."

700 million dollars on propaganda! 700 million . . .

And who in the Hell is the "Broadcasting Board of Governors" anyway . . .

Sounds like a bunch of Orwellian O'Brien's standing behind the curtains until they come out and put sackcloth over your head with a rat in it!

And these are but a couple innocuous examples of the 1 trillion dollars your government is requesting for war, all of the other instances are just plainly money for guns, men, planes, tanks, and nuclear bombs.

I cannot wait until the Chinese dump the dollar, then the evangelical dream of a world-wide Gentilian holocaust will really get in gear;

and then of course Jesus will descend from the heavens, kill everybody but "the elect," after a thousand years of peace let Satan loose to kick his butt again, and then the universe will live happily ever after . . .

Repent sinners repent for thee are awash in sin!!!!

I think Richard is correct in saying that the decision was not Romney's. On his own, Romney would have never given up his dream in a campaign fight he had an even chance of winning. Politicians live for that kind of thing.

It is like a musician suddenly deciding not to play for an audience of 200 million with the payoff of being famous and set for life.

It just doesn't happen, unless someone else is pulling the strings.

Be suspicious, very suspicious, and you have a 99.9% of being right about this.

Richard is also correct in pointing out that the GOP/Bushmafia/IronTriangle/MurdochMedia machine is not going to play by the rules, and they are not going to stay within the law during the election. Having gotten away with vote tampering, voter suppresion, voting machine hacking, and all the rest of it, they figure they have nothing to lose. If they get caught, they'll throw some small heads to the crowd just like they always do.

Thgis is why I repeatedly call for opening up our election to international monitoring, and both sides playing by the rules the international monitors set. Unfortuneately, too many folks in both p[arties think cheating is their only viable option. Our last few elections have NOT been beacons to the world of the democratic process. To this day we basically have acourt-appointed President after an ugly struggle in the state governed by the winner's brother. It looks feudal, like a battle of Kings and Lords, not at all like a democracy.

McCain is playing to be the Iron Triangle's man. The Iron Triangle feeds off war, and McCain has virtually said everything he can to appease them without just coming right out and sayiong the reality: "If elected, I, John McCain, will make sure there are ALWAYS hugely profitable wars going on for the merchants of death, because they are my Lords and Masters."

Check his strongest argument against both Huck and Mitt - it was they are not sufficiently pro-war.

And deep south states are strongholds for the Iron Triangle. A lot of the machinery of war, weapons and weapons systems are produced by subsidiary companies of General Electric, Westinghouse, Raytheon and others in towns like Birmingham, AL and Decatur, GA.

Many communities are totally dependent on military contracting, and have been since WWII.

When McCain talks war-mongering, it translates to them as homes in the Sunbelt, food, education, and health care for their kids, and jobs for life plus retirement, because that is what the war industry provides for them.

It comes across as ideological political posturing, but it is much, much more than that.

It is McCain's promise that the staus quo will be preserved, and the Iron Triangle will remain Lords of America.

His whole strategy is that this will be enough to get him elected.

And he could well be right.

Indeed that is some really good stuff Richard and Yogi! Awesome!

Washington State, Glover MIddle School, Spokane, WA, tomorrow at 1:00.

Obama

(Even though Ron true repub Paul and John closet thing to a socialist Edwards would have been the dream ticket: could one imagine!!!)

peace

POTUS!

OBAMA!

pax vobiscum

Does anyone recall, any of the candidates at all; guarantee better income and longer-term care for veterans.. you know.. those men and woman; that die, get mamed and emotionally wounded... for every other single person at home safe... in the USA.

While we sleep, they kill to protect.

IF a leader can deploy human beings, to fight their conflicts abroad..then, shouldn't the highest of living standards be awarded them for their sacrife when they return home?

I watched a show on veteran health-care.. wow! Shameful..

"they" are never the same"... and need care!! Mental, emotional, physical, supportive care!

Sad.. when a country won't even care for it's wounded soliers..to live better lives, for the freedom they so valiantly and/or deceiptfully fought.. for their country?

ooh, I gotta stop logging onto the net.. I gotta stop coming to IB...it's gotten more depressing, than my own miserable life.

Oh.. I know! I'll financially support more "how-to" authors, by buying another one of their books...

I feel like a soldier, fooled...

exit,
stage left

North

From "The 2008 Race for President and the Search for Our Better Selves," Posted February 4, 2008 by Arianna Huffington at HuffPost

[...]

I'd interviewed McCullough back in 1999, along with a variety of other political observers, for a column I was doing on the 2000 race and what Americans were looking for in a president.

[...]

Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin agreed: "We need to get away from a political system that is so filled with minute public opinion polls and focus groups and the ability to know what the electorate is thinking at every moment that the leader loses his instincts for boldness. The job is not simply to reflect current opinion but to challenge it, move it forward and shape it. The ability to just take a stand and know that you can move the country to that stand is a lost art we need to recapture."

Back in '99, I also spoke to Sen. John McCain, who hadn't yet begun his 2000 bid for president. He too focused on "the ability to inspire Americans," and reached back to a defining moment in our history -- JFK's speech proposing the Peace Corps: "Young people were willing to live in a village hut in Africa for years and dig irrigation ditches," said McCain. "Why were they willing to do that? Why were they in fact eager to do that? It's because he inspired them to do it." Almost a decade later, McCain is still talking about sacrifice -- but these days he's thinking less of time spent digging ditches in Africa, and more of blood spilled on the streets of Iraq. Alas.

After the dark, uninspiring -- indeed deeply alienating -- years of the Bush presidency, the feeling that I took away from these conversations resonates even more profoundly today: that it is time we recognize that our search for a great president is also a search for our better selves. Finally, a political litmus test that matters: Which presidential candidate can lead us to do more good than we think we're capable of?'

http://tinyurl.com/ytnoxu