Florida Republican Debate

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Florida Republican Debate

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Mahonri wrote:

Mitt said the thought of having Bill back in the White House with nothing to do was just not good.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

So apparently after confessing he doesn't know much about economics, McCain is backpeddling, and insulting Mitt's actual real world experience running a profitable institution... Fun, fun, fun... Mitt's message must be getting to him.

--Ray

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Not to mention the "We're damn near Communists" NYTimes has endorsed McCain. Sweet. McCain's outta' there, methinks.

Is he injured or something, cuz he looks weird when he tries to move his arms around...?

Pt314 · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:

Not to mention the "We're damn near Communists" NYTimes has endorsed McCain. Sweet. McCain's outta' there, methinks.

Is he injured or something, cuz he looks weird when he tries to move his arms around...?

It's because of the torture that was inflicted on him in Vietnam. I sure don't agree with McCain on a lot of issues, but lets leave this alone.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I didn't know that. I had heard it was due to his age. No disrespect for his military service by any means.

Smaug · Senior Member

Well, what have y'all got against McCain anyway? I think in the most pressing issue of our time, that of global terrorism, McCain is clearly the man for the job. Sure, I don't agree with some of his positions, but overall I agree with him probably more than I do Mitt---and he sure hasn't waffled and pandered as much as Mitt. Gang of Fourteen? He protected the Conservative side with that one by keeping the ability to filibuster alive, yes, for the Dems at that time, but knowing that the Republicans would one day also be in the minority. Voting against Bush's tax cuts? He has never once voted for a tax increase. The only reason he failed to vote in favor of Bush's tax cuts is because he wanted spending cuts as well--and that seems like a good idea to me. Abortion? McCain is pro-life. So what else is there? Campaign finance reform? I don't know about you, but that hasn't hurt me in any way. I guess the big one is the immigration issue. Am I right? He sided with Ted Kennedy and co-sponsored the so-called "amnesty" bill, which of course never really was amnesty---not in the sense that actual amnesty was given by the Reagan administration. At least there were some huge caveats in order for the illegals to get citizenship under that plan. So are we better off now that nothing was passed? We still have 12 million illegals and counting, with no way to keep track of them in the works.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

A little blurb from what I heard on Glenn Beck radio last night covers some of it...

GLENN: Holy mother of everything that is good and sacred. What the hell is happening. How is John McCain, how is he not at the bottom of the barrel? The media's love affair with John McCain, at least the New York Times says who they are. We're damn near communists. And look at him. He's pretty good. We could throw a green jacket on him. Nobody wants to talk about his flip-flops. Hillary Clinton changed her mind. John McCain has just occasionally darted right. I don't think I've ever heard him be called a flip-flopper, ever, except from a real conservative. Well, we'll do it next.

(ProFlowers commercial.)

GLENN: I mean, I just can't believe John McCain is never called a flip-flopper. On abortion, 180 degree turn. He was favoring only the most minor restrictions and opposing overturning Roe versus Wade. Now he supports almost a total ban, says the Supreme Court should reverse Roe versus Wade immediately. He, of course, was a deficit hawk. He mocked supply side economics. Now he's, you know, to the point where he's claiming raising taxes decreases revenues. I mean, he completely reversed himself there. He used to hate ethanol. Now he loves it. He used to hate -- Jerry Falwell he called an agent of intolerance. Now he's giving commencements addresses. Campaign finance reform, gay marriage, everything.

At least McCain's got Greenspan's book to help him.

-- Edited by Cocobeem at 19:56, 2008-01-26

Randy · Senior Member

Smaug,

What do I have against McCain.

This post will be about the gang of 14.

The problem with the gang of 14 was that it was a capitulation to the democrats' novel idea that it was permissible to filibuster a judicial nomination based on ideology. Throughout history, no party has unilaterally filibustered a judicial nominee based on ideology.

The agreement that the gang of 14 made was self-contradictory. Although it stated that filibusters would from that point on only be permissible for extraordinary reasons, it also said that some of the judicial nominees would be denied for no reason whatsoever, let alone ordinary or even extraordinary reasons.

Since the Republican method is based on upholding principles rather than do whatever needs to be done to get the result you want, Republicans are not likely to filibuster judicial nominees when they are in the minority. Therefore, the gang of 14's goal of preserving this option for Republicans when Republicans are in the minority is bogus.

The gang of 14 had little to do with the confirmations of Roberts and Alito. Since vacancies on the Supreme Court are much higher profile than the other federal judges, people would have paid much closer attention, and the Democrats would have been too embarrassed under that much scrutiny to filibuster a fully qualified nominee for the Supreme Court.

McCain predicted that Republicans would some day be in the minority again, and so therefore it was necessary to preserve the minority's options because the Republicans would someday need them. However, McCain contributed to the Republicans reverting to minority status by thwarting Republicans in accomplishing the things they tried to accomplish, such as establishing the right for every nominee to be given an up-or-down vote.

This capitulation to the Democrats, which was not agreed to by the majority of Republicans (it was rammed down their throats instead) was especially galling in view of the character assassination that Democrats routinely indulged in to reduce support for eminently qualified nominees. Not only eminently qualified, but one judge from around these parts, friends of the local NAACP and who put his family in danger of retaliation by fighting the KKK, was bald-facedly smeared as a racist by shameless Democrats in the Senate.

Although compromises are necessary to accomplish anything, there comes a point where too much compromise is too much, and McCain has no idea where that line is. He thwarted the goals of the Republican party so that the Republican party could turn around and at a later date thwart the goals of the Democrats. The upshot was, Republican goals were not advanced, and McCain was complicit in this. Republicans knew that it was necessary to appoint judges who followed the Constitution rather than someone who espoused a certain political philosophy, whether that philosophy were liberal or conservative. They campaigned on this. They knew the importance of it. McCain punched a hole in the tires of progress.

Randy · Senior Member

Smaug,

What do I have against McCain.

This one will be about waffling and pandering.

You said that he hasn't done this as much as Romney has.

McCain was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. Today he says that he was against them originally because the cuts needed to be matched with spending cuts.

However, that's not what he said at the time.

At the time, it was a mirror of Democratic talking points, that the tax cuts favored the rich too much.

Now he's all for the Bush tax cuts.

Just before he went to Michigan, he said that there were Michigan jobs that were never coming back. However, when Romney's optimism resonated with Michiganders more than McCain's pessimism did ("vote for me--I'll tell to get used to hopelessness") he said he would bring those jobs back.

Any politican is allowed to change their views. The reason the "flip flop" term came into widespread use against John Kerry is because the flips and flops came from week to week, from month to month, and during the campaign. Evolution due to increased insight and maturity are allowed. Ronald Reagan regretted signing into law the nation's most liberal abortion law in the country as governor of California, but it would not be fair to call him a flip-flopper. At least his views changed in the right direciton.

Randy · Senior Member

Smaug,

What do I have against McCain.

Abortion. He filed suit against the Wisconsin Right to Life because, although the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, he felt that Wisconsin Right To Life did not have the free speech right to identify politicians who disagreed with Wiscon Right To Life's position before an election.

Sorry, but this is what the first amendment was made for.

Now this is not really against his stand on abortion so much (which I'll give him a pass on I suppose) but because his stance was contrary to one of the basic rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

Randy · Senior Member

Smaug,

One of McCain's campaign staff is a former member of Mexico's president Vincente Fox's cabinet, and his mission was to undermine US immigration law. His current job is to reach out to hispanics.

Sounds pretty smelly for a guy who now claims that he "gets it" about Americans' concerns about illegal immigration.

Randy · Senior Member

Smaug,

I agree with you that global terrorism is very important.

If McCain is stronger than Romney on this (and he might be) Romney is stronger than McCain on the economy, in spite of McCain's embarrassing lie during the Florida debate about this.

Although it is tempting to say that terrorism is more important than the economy, I don't want to sacrifice either. I think that Romney is stronger on global terrorism than McCain is on the economy.

And a global war on terrorism, or any other war, will fail without a strong economy.

The Soviet Union disintigrated, not because of their lack of military skills, but because of their lousy economy. Their military became moot after their economy collapsed.

Randy · Senior Member

Until today, I disagreed with McCain, but did not believe that he was evil. I felt that I could, with the help of lots of antacids, survive a McCain presidency.

However, as he made desperate lies today about Mitt Romney's commitment to the Iraq War, I no longer believe I would be able to stomach a McCain presidency.

Go Mitt!

Randy · Senior Member

Oh yeah, there's so many things to say I can't think of 'em all at once.

Here's another McCain flip flop.

I feel free to call it a flip flop because it happened during the campaign, in the space of about a couple of weeks.

After McCain condemned Romney's "attack ads" (which were actually contrast ads) and said that he would not use such, he is now attacking in his ads. One difference between Romney's ads and McCain's ads is that while Romney gives facts, McCain abandons the truth.

I happened to see one of Romney's ads on McCain, and I was stunned to see that they had found a good photo of McCain, where McCain looked good. Where I'm from, that never happens. It really gets amusing around here to see a handsome and fit Mr. Brown juxtaposed with a worn and unkempt Mr. Smith (ad paid for by Mr. Brown) and then two minutes later you see a handsome and fit Mr. Smith next to a worn and unkempt Mr. Brown (ad paid for by Mr. Smith).

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Here's some more thoughts on John McCain...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

How can someone weak on illegal immigration simultaneously be strong on national security? They seem to go hand in hand to me.

Smaug · Senior Member

Okay, I'll get back to you Randy when I have a free 45 minutes. It seems though that you haven't backed up many of your claims with any documentation. I'd like to see it as I'm sure there is some.

I never called Mitt a flip-flopper, but a panderer he is. The things he said in his post-Michigan speech sounded like things that could have just as easily come from the mouths of Hillary or Barack--pure Democrat speech. I definitely like Mitt though and believe he'd make a good president. I just can't stand all the pandering and inconsistencies.

Smaug · Senior Member

But for now try this link--it's Michael Medved's townhall.com article entitled Six Big Lies About John McCain. Anyway, here's the link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/23/six_big_lies_about_john_mccain?page=full&comments=true

-- Edited by Smaug at 17:03, 2008-01-27

Randy · Senior Member

Smaug, I read Medved's column last Wednesday, but thanks anyway

-- Edited by Randy at 20:44, 2008-01-27

Randy · Senior Member

Smaug, You expressed curiosity as to why some of us have anything against McCain. I assumed, and assume, that you wanted that question answered, and I did so. At the time, you didn't request a bibliography.

Now you have a better understanding as to why some of us are against him.

When of if I get some time, I will consider researching to find documentation and backup as per your new request.

The issue of judges is something I followed extremely closely while it was happening, and I followed the story of Charles Pickering very closely, and lost all hope of ever finding the slightest bit of good faith on the part of the Democrats who thoughtlessly and shamelessly smeared this extraordinary man--Democrats, the same people to whom McCain cheerfully capitulated to on that very issue of judges.

I vote for leaders who I believe will fight to make a difference, not those who will fight to neuter all the principles that are important to me.

Smaug · Senior Member

Randy wrote:

I vote for leaders who I believe will fight to make a difference, not those who will fight to neuter all the principles that are important to me.

Consider this then. In every national poll conducted recently, Mitt loses to the Democrats by double digits. McCain is the only one that (again, according to the polls, which of course have been wrong from time to time) beats either Obama or Clinton. In other words, you seem to be saying that you'd rather have Hillary or Barack as President than John McCain. I find that fascinating. Ronald Reagan once said that "if I agree with a man 70% of the time, he's not my enemy." Are you actually saying that you disagree with McCain more than you disagree with any and all of the Dems? confused

Smaug · Senior Member

Randy wrote:

Smaug, I read Medved's column last Wednesday, but thanks anyway

-- Edited by Randy at 20:44, 2008-01-27

What did you think of it?

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug wrote:

Randy wrote:

I vote for leaders who I believe will fight to make a difference, not those who will fight to neuter all the principles that are important to me.

Consider this then. In every national poll conducted recently, Mitt loses to the Democrats by double digits. McCain is the only one that (again, according to the polls, which of course have been wrong from time to time) beats either Obama or Clinton. In other words, you seem to be saying that you'd rather have Hillary or Barack as President than John McCain. I find that fascinating. Ronald Reagan once said that "if I agree with a man 70% of the time, he's not my enemy." Are you actually saying that you disagree with McCain more than you disagree with any and all of the Dems?

There's always third parties. It's a great way to vote if you're tired of voting for evil (the lesser of two evils is still evil).

Smaug · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

There's always third parties. It's a great way to vote if you're tired of voting for evil (the lesser of two evils is still evil).

You can do that. But let me put it this way. You waste your vote voting for a third party and keep the person who would kill less babies from winning, allowing Obama or Clinton to win. Now there are good decisions, there are better decisions, and there are best decisions. The best decision, it would seem to me, would be to sublimate some of your differences with the leading candidate and make your vote count to preserve human life. McCain, Romney, and the Republicans are all pro-life. Voting for a third party candidate might be a good choice, on principle, but it ain't the best choice for keeping the worst evil out of leadership. Kapiche?

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Coco: Great youtube vid... Hee hee hee... Youdawoman!

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Smaug wrote:

arbilad wrote:

There's always third parties. It's a great way to vote if you're tired of voting for evil (the lesser of two evils is still evil).

You can do that. But let me put it this way. You waste your vote voting for a third party and keep the person who would kill less babies from winning, allowing Obama or Clinton to win. Now there are good decisions, there are better decisions, and there are best decisions. The best decision, it would seem to me, would be to sublimate some of your differences with the leading candidate and make your vote count to preserve human life. McCain, Romney, and the Republicans are all pro-life. Voting for a third party candidate might be a good choice, on principle, but it ain't the best choice for keeping the worst evil out of leadership. Kapiche?

And for how long after the election would they stay pro-life? Both Romney and McCain have changed views for political benefit in the past.

Besides, I don't want any evil in office. McCain and Romney are only different in degree from Clinton, and that not by much. What would I gain by voting for McCain or Romney? They share hardly any of the same convictions that I do. Other than a vague "wow, I voted for the winner" feeling, I wouldn't have gained anything. I have no hope or belief that McCain or Romney will do anything that I feel a president should do.

Like I said, I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the past. I'm tired of voting for evil. Haven't we been told to vote for righteous men? Why is it better to vote for evil than it is to vote for good? So one would do somewhat less evil than the other. They're still doing evil.

Noone is perfect. I admit that. But I'd at least like to vote for someone who exhibits the qualities of a statesman and not a politician. Someone who is a patriot, and wants what is best for America, and not what is best for them.

I will not vote for evil because I do not believe that evil should be in power in this country. We'll never effect change by doing more of the same.

Randy · Senior Member

Romney has overcome double digit leads by his competitors numerous times, so I'm not worried about the general election.

People don't know Romney yet and are answering polls based on name recognition.

If McCain runs against Clinton, then there will be no discussion of Clinton scandals because McCain has his share.

In the last half century, whenever a governor has run against a senator, the governor has always won. Kennedy was the last senator to win, and his win was questionable in Illinois, which made the difference. His opponent graciously chose not to make an issue of Illinois because he didn't want to put the country in turmoil. How things have changed since then. Anyway, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all senators and a governor or a mayor of NYC could beat them, or even a CEO.

Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama both have marital histories that make McCain's look sordid by comparison. The liberals are holding their fire on McCain now so that he wins the Republican nomination, but you can bet your bottom dollar that all the stops will be pulled out when he runs against their real hero. Romney will have the same immunity from criticism that Clinton and Obama will have on the issue of faithfulness to their spouses. When people learn more of McCain's marital history, they will reject him in sufficient numbers to doom his winning the general election.

When people compare Romney and his Democratic opponent side by side after hearing from them both, they will choose Romney.l

Randy · Senior Member

Arbi,

If Romney loses the nomination, I will be sorely tempted to join you in your third party. Obviously I'm not put off by him as you are, but I am put off by some of his Republican competitors nearly as much as you are.

I would still worry about national security with your candidate, though, and that would probably turn out to be the deal-breaker on the whole third party idea for me.

You said that you didn't see why you should choose between two unacceptable candidates, and I think that's a valid point.

Randy

Randy · Senior Member

Smaug,

Republicans win elections when Republicans are fired up about winning.

When they are deeply disappointed in their choice, they will not be fired up about winning, and so they will lose.

McCain can not fire up economic conservatives.

Romney is the only candidate that has a prayer of firing up economic, national security, and social conservative.

Smaug · Senior Member

Randy wrote:

Smaug,

Republicans win elections when Republicans are fired up about winning.

When they are deeply disappointed in their choice, they will not be fired up about winning, and so they will lose.

McCain can not fire up economic conservatives.

Romney is the only candidate that has a prayer of firing up economic, national security, and social conservative.

You know I'd vote for Romney if he were the candidate, Randy. But I disagree with this point. Republicans have won recently by getting a larger share of the independent vote. McCain has done that in every primary he has won. I could see Romney closing the gap though in the national polls.

Arbi, I see your point about not voting for evil. I'm not real sure you could call McCain evil though. Maybe he hasn't lived up to your definition of a moral man--in that case, I'd call him sinful or someone who has from time to time done wicked acts. Evil, IMHO, brings up in my mind the image of people like Hitler, or child molestors, or people who kill for pleasure. According to your definition of evil, each of us could be called that--it's only a matter of degree.

It's your vote, but I strongly disagree that McCain and Clinton are only slightly different. Which earmarks has McCain ever voted for? Which tax increases? In over 25 years in Congress (which is a lot--hey I agree, there should be term limitations) he hasn't voted for any of either one. Check Hillary's record over the short time she's been in the Senate. McCain sponsored a bill that would've at least done something to make sense of the 12 million illegal immigrants--to do something to keep track of them. Instead, led by conservative talk-show hosts like Laura Ingram and others, that bill went down to defeat, and now, even the wall isn't being completed as it should be. Do you truly believe that a democratic president and a democratically controlled Congress will do anything to control the illegal immigration problem? Do you believe in gay marriage and unfettered abortion? Do you think Hillary or Obama with the democratically controlled Congress would tighten or loosen restrictions on both? Talk about evil. How about freedoms like Second Amendment rights? Don't you worry about a democrat for president and a supportive Congress? What about the social programs in schools that Democrats favor? The removal of words such as husband and wife from text books so that all forms of relationships can achieve acceptability? That's not evil. I can't see Mitt approving of that, nor even the evil John McCain for that matter. How about death taxes and capital gains taxes? I can see every Republican trying to lower or get rid of those, but the Dems? What about the war against the terrorists? Yes, I know you favor Ron Paul (I'm not sure on your third party candidate, Libertarian?), and probably think we should've never gotten involved over there in the first place. But we are there now and we need to win or we can expect more and more attacks. Appeasement never works. How about the millions more babies that will be killed when our government refuses to make stricter abortions laws? That ain't evil?

To me, choosing a candidate that actually has a chance of winning and doing something to stop the slide isn't evil. In fact, I kind of resent you telling me that I'd be voting for someone evil --but not enough to be offended. It's all in my interpretation of what is evil versus yours.

-- Edited by Smaug at 08:59, 2008-01-28

Smaug · Senior Member

In the last half century, whenever a governor has run against a senator, the governor has always won.

What about Nixon? Okay--that was two Senators running against each other. Well, there haven't really been too many governors running against senators during that time. I mean, there's almost always been an incumbent president or vice president running against whomever. I'm not talking about the primaries here.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

Clinton McCain or Obama McCain? Sounds more like a democratic party ticket than an election.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

arbilad wrote:

Smaug wrote:

arbilad wrote:

There's always third parties. It's a great way to vote if you're tired of voting for evil (the lesser of two evils is still evil).

You can do that. But let me put it this way. You waste your vote voting for a third party and keep the person who would kill less babies from winning, allowing Obama or Clinton to win. Now there are good decisions, there are better decisions, and there are best decisions. The best decision, it would seem to me, would be to sublimate some of your differences with the leading candidate and make your vote count to preserve human life. McCain, Romney, and the Republicans are all pro-life. Voting for a third party candidate might be a good choice, on principle, but it ain't the best choice for keeping the worst evil out of leadership. Kapiche?

And for how long after the election would they stay pro-life? Both Romney and McCain have changed views for political benefit in the past.
Besides, I don't want any evil in office. McCain and Romney are only different in degree from Clinton, and that not by much. What would I gain by voting for McCain or Romney? They share hardly any of the same convictions that I do. Other than a vague "wow, I voted for the winner" feeling, I wouldn't have gained anything. I have no hope or belief that McCain or Romney will do anything that I feel a president should do.
Like I said, I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the past. I'm tired of voting for evil. Haven't we been told to vote for righteous men? Why is it better to vote for evil than it is to vote for good? So one would do somewhat less evil than the other. They're still doing evil.
Noone is perfect. I admit that. But I'd at least like to vote for someone who exhibits the qualities of a statesman and not a politician. Someone who is a patriot, and wants what is best for America, and not what is best for them.
I will not vote for evil because I do not believe that evil should be in power in this country. We'll never effect change by doing more of the same.

No kidding. That mentality has contributed to our being where we currently are politically. Someone here has the sig line that refers to doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result equaling insanity. How true it is. We keep voting for lesser evils and getting more of the same crap.

I don't want to stand in front of my Heavenly Father and explain to him why I voted for politicians because "they were not as evil as the other one", when it is possible to vote for candidates that are actually principled.

-- Edited by mirkwood at 12:16, 2008-01-28

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Arbi on this point, I'm with you.

If Mitt doesn't win the nomination, I can guarantee you I'll be voting for the constitution party candidate.

My wife tells me that's just a vote for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends husband, but I won't vote for McCain or Guiliani.

Smaug · Senior Member

I don't want to stand in front of my Heavenly Father and explain to him why I voted for politicians because "they were not as evil as the other one", when it is possible to vote for candidates that are actually principled.

And I don't want to stand in front of Him and try to explain that I could've prevented more babies from being killed, but didn't because of my principles. Or I could've stopped gay marriage from passing, but my principles kept me from voting for an evil man. A lot of British people would've not voted for Winston Churchill for the same reasons. I thank the Lord they didn't do the wrong thing as a matter of principle. "Sometimes" as a character in Richard Dutcher's States of Grace says, "you need to break the rules to keep the commandments". Everyone must of course, fast, ponder, and pray about whom they vote for. But let me just remind you of a couple of things: 1) Every candidate is flawed 2) Every candidate has fallen short of the ideal 3) Every president we've ever had has done something that you would call "evil". 4) If I choose "the lesser of two evils" that has a chance to win, I'm voting to keep the greater of two evils from winning and causing more evil than would be caused by the lesser. I think I can look the Lord in the face if I do that.

The Constitution Party should run candidates in the Republican primaries and get their thoughts and candidates out there where they can be heard and decided upon by real American voters. Then they might have a chance to actually win a race and contribute to society.

And now I'm going to change the subject. How on earth could any LDS person vote for Harry Reid in Nevada? I'm a bit flabbergasted by how that guy got elected.

-- Edited by Smaug at 15:07, 2008-01-28

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Maybe he was the lesser of two evils...?

Smaug · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:
Maybe he was the lesser of two evils...?

I don't know--what happens in Vegas...

BTW, this is who Reid ran against in '04: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/candidates/22949/

Doesn't sound like the lesser of two evils won to me. Sounds like a good man lost.

-- Edited by Smaug at 22:12, 2008-01-28

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

McCain takes Florida, and moves to the lead.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

He got a massive vote from the illegals. It's not over.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

How do illegals vote?

arbilad · Head Chef

Jen wrote:

How do illegals vote?

They register, then they show up at the polls. "Motor voter" and HAVA (Help Americans Vote Act) have made it very easy for anyone, legal or not, to vote. Heck, in most states you don't even have to show ID at the polls to prove that it's you.

Organist · Senior Member

Even if true, that isn't going to count for the near 95,000 vote lead that McCain had.

arbilad · Head Chef

Organist wrote:

Even if true, that isn't going to count for the near 95,000 vote lead that McCain had.

Actually, we have no way of knowing that. Given the large hispanic population, it is not unlikely that there are more than 95,000 illegals in Florida, and it is vaguely possible that they could have all voted for him. It is unlikely, I grant you. But I consider it unlikely that I'll know until I get a Urim and Thummim in hand, because it is unlikely that every illegal alien who voted will volunteer that information.

Does Florida allow for non-Republicans to vote in the Republican primary? That has been McCain's biggest advantage in other elections; the independent and democratic vote.

Pt314 · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

Does Florida allow for non-Republicans to vote in the Republican primary? That has been McCain's biggest advantage in other elections; the independent and democratic vote.

No, its a closed primary, only registered republicans can vote in it.

However since the democrats in Florida got all of their delegates taken away, there is speculation that some dirty business with independants and some democrats possibly registering as a republican so they could vote in the republican primary.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

Well if McCain gets the nomination, I'm voting independent for the first time since turning 18.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I really don't want to vote for McCain, either.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I actually was very pleased with McCain prior to his trashtalking of Romney, now I am completely deflated on him.

--Ray

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

After the Primary yesterday, my wife says it looks like she won't even vote in the General Election. The only way that would happen is if Mitt were to be McCainiac's VP because he has said he is a one term president.

If Florida is any indication of Super Tuesday, then this country is in trouble my friends.

arbilad · Head Chef

You're right, Mahonri; if McCain gets elected, we can kiss our country goodbye.
Although I don't understand your wife; if she can't vote for McCain, why not vote for a third party? If she doesn't vote, there is no chance that a candidate who supports her views will get elected. If she votes third party, there is a small chance.
Of course, the reason my wife doesn't vote is that we haven't filled out her citizenship papers yet.