Link

-- uh oh (@ .), February 22, 2000

Answers

Link

-- whoops (@ .), February 22, 2000.

Try this one: http://www.drudgereport.com/urgent1.htm

The problem as said in that article is the "open primaries".

You can't have a "Republican primary" if you let anyone in who wants to vote. McCain won a bogus primary. In a real Republican primary, he would have won 25% of the votes. Hes a loser. L-O-S-E-R. The Dems know that, and they decided to play tricky and pick their opponent. They picked wisely because they picked a L-O-S-E-R for the GOP.

When the hothead L-O-S-E-R McCain gets into the REAL primaries he will lose his angry ass.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), February 22, 2000.

That sounds typical for Shrubya. He can't win because he's a lousy crooked politician, but instead of growing up he passes the blame to someone else and uses them as a fall guy.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 22, 2000.

I've always voted for republicans. I voted for Reagan, Bush, Grassley, and others. However, it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for McCain. A cold day indeed. I will either vote for Al Gore or I will not vote at all. If I must vote for a liberal, I would rather vote for a real one!

-- jq public (jqpublic@usa.com), February 22, 2000.

Charles:

To quote DD; you are getting shrill. Calm down.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 22, 2000.

I'm not being shrill, I just don't like McCain, period. I don't like Al Gore either. I've always taken voting as a serious responsibility but this McCain thing really makes me wonder. I just don't feel I could support him. He's not conservative, the democrats helped get him the win.

-- jq public (jqpublic@usa.com), February 22, 2000.

...REPUBLICRATS regained power tonight!...and this time they will not let it go!!! McCain leads Gore by 25 points!!! McCain 2000!!!!!!!!! ...from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli...!!!!!!

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 22, 2000.

Let's be honest, here. Bush won't win the election. By courting the right-wing Republicans, he's alienating everyone else. (Like that visit to the college that outlaws interracial dating. STUPID. Just plain stupid.)

McCain is reaching out to a broader audience - independents and democrats. And, as someone who knows people like that, they're voting for him because they really *do* like him. Many of them really don't like Algore Unit #1.

Seeing as the reform party is a joke this year (Trump or Buchanan? Ha!), winning the elections comes down to winning the center. If the Republicans nominate Bush, there's an excellent chance Algore Unit #1 will win (UGH!) That or, more likely, a lot of people will sit on their hands on election day (as I will if it comes down to a choice between those two.) McCain would have a much better chance. Is McCain perfect? God no! Is he the best person who could be President? Again, no! Is he better than Bush or Algore? I'd have to say yes... sorry guys.

-- lurker (lurker@aol.com), February 22, 2000.

Who is d.d.?

Anyway, McCain is nuts. Right now I'm watching Hannidy and Comes, and the conservative guy is tearing into McCain for moving to the left.

Mark my words this is going to be THE BIG ISSUE for the rest of the campaign. The hothead lunatic wasn't happy just ranting and raving, but he had to turn into a liberal in drag, and the word is out.

But like someone else said here, people would rather vote for a "real liberal" like Algore. So McCain can only hope to spoil the election for the GOP to hand it over to the Dems. Because if he somehow wins the primaries, nwih are the "real liberals" going to vote for a slug like HIM when they have the Real Thing under the donkey poster.

Yeh, that Senator Strangelove with his freakey Zonker "Hillarypin" McWife makes a fine example of the Pride of Manchuria.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), February 22, 2000.

Next year it's going to be "President Dubya"

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

That Hillary pin also pisses me off. What the hell is he trying to convey?

-- jq public (jqpublic@usa.com), February 23, 2000.

Globalism.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), February 23, 2000.

Here is to all you who have to snivel about McCain's wins:

WAHHHHHH WAHHHHHHH WAHHHHHHH!!!!!!

This man has a 17 year record of voting conservatively, strong gun rights advocate, pro-life, etc. - looking ahead to November. Get a grip! Lots of conservatives (but not extremists) had left the Rep. party to go declined to state, Reform or independent - NOW COMING HOME!!!

Many indies and dems I speak to are just so glad for a good man to vote for - not perfect, just trying to DO THE RIGHT THING!

-- McCain all the Way!!!!!!! (formerregular@nottonight.com), February 23, 2000.

Probably the single element most destructive of any respect for the political process here as now structured is the dependence of the candidates on huge contributions from special interest groups.

Without the money, no campaign can prevail. No money, no campaign. No campaign, no re-election. No candidate can afford to alienate those special interest groups who pay for his (or her) campaign.

As usual, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The result in practice is that multinational corporations are governing this country, not in our interests but in their own.

McCain appears to want to change this. That's called "Campaign Reform." Good idea. Would he deliver, if elected? Who knows?

Even if he tries he'll have a very tough struggle -- because most Representatives and most Senators enjoy the existing situation, in which their positions are relatively secure. The prospect of losing this security blanket is not a welcome one.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 23, 2000.

Your kidding right?

Campaign reform?

He talks the talk, but walks with lobbyests BIGTIME!

Pro-life?

He said that if his daugter wanted an abortion, it would be HER CHOICE and he would SUPPORT her choice.

The polite term for that is "pro-choice".

Strong gun rights advocate?

Neal Knox:

McCain Has Strange Friends

By Neal Knox Feb. 12 update -- Former New York Mayor Koch -- who rammed through the city's "assault weapon" registration law, which his successor, David Dinkins, used to confiscate those guns  has joined the swelling ranks of Democrats saying they "would be comfortable with" John McCain as President.

And McCain is on the cover of all three major news magazines this week.

Even if I didn't know that McCain was largely responsible for last May's Republican cave-in on gun laws, his bedfellows and admirers would be making me extremely uncomfortable.

*****************************************************************

Editor's Note by Weldon Clark

McCain breathed new life into the Juvenile Justice Bill's anti- gun amendments, after it had been KILLED. McCain and 4 other moderate Republicans said they would vote for the Lautenberg gun show ban bill unless the Republican Leadership brought up a bill. They did and it passed the Senate.

McCain told Neal Knox and the present Second Vice President of NRA that he would never forget what NRA had done in the 1994 election. He then cosponsored the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance bill. This bill would prevent all independent groups such as NRA, Christian Coalition, Right to Life and other conservative groups from doing effective election campaigns. They could not report the voting records of candidates 60 days prior to the election. ALL elections would be tilted toward anti-gun liberals.

George W. Bush did say in the debate last night if you took the guns from law abiding citizens only the criminal would have guns.

********************************************************

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), February 23, 2000.

What's the Difference who wins?Your Vote is just Eyewash,and to keep us busy, fighting among ourselves.It's the Electoral Remedial School(College???) that decides the new President,not You .

-- Rip (aw@shirt.wet), February 23, 2000.

Beware of voting liberal or socialist as a "protest"

many conservatives did not vote or voted for blair, now he has a massive majority and carte blanche to carry out socialist measures, there's no effective opposition consequently no democracy, only an arrogant government

-- Sir Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), February 23, 2000.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE FEB 22 2000 21:28:05 ET XXXXX

MUTINY IN BUSH CAMP AFTER MICHIGAN DEFEAT; ADVISER SAYS ROVE MUST GO

A top adviser to Texas Governor George Bush now believes the campaign needs to dump its manager, Karl Rove!

"After tonight, it's becoming increasing clear that Karl should step aside," said the insider who spoke to the DRUDGE REPORT late Tuesday on condition of anonymity.

Tensions have been rising inside of the Bush campaign's inner circle, the Texas-based adviser revealed.

"We went from a 30-point advantage in Michigan to a 6% loss... and Karl foolishly argued that we should spend millions of dollars in Arizona, a complete and embarrassing waste of our resources. Karl is not focused. Our internal polls show that we are going to lose California, if we don't switch gears. And switch gears fast. Karl did not see the coming storm with the open primaries. And now we're isolating the very voters we will need to win in November."

The well-placed insider suggests that Bush's support for Karl Rove may be loosening. "The govenor was 100% behind Karl just a few weeks ago, now he's 85%."

Rove travelling in Michigan could not be reached for immediate comment, but he may be unfairly taking all of the punches for Tuesday's defeats.

There were on-the-record hints that Democrats had deliberately voted in the Republican primary in Michigan to foul up the other party's process.

Michael Flashner, 31, a Democratic sales representative in the Detroit suburbs, backed McCain, reports R.W. Apple Jr in Wednesday editions of the NEW YORK TIMES.

Asked why, Flashner replied: "To tell the truth, I'd like to see the process go on as long as it can, because the more they beat each other up, the better."

MORE

-- (@ .), February 23, 2000.

Just a thought. If you're so disgusted and saddened by the (eventual) two choices on offer, why not vote for - shock - a third candidate?

Wasted vote? All the votes for a losing candidate are wasted. All votes except the one that gets the majority for the winning canditate are wasted.

Doesn't really matter who you vote for, just don't sheepishly accept the premise that you are in a two party system.

Or you could just go on whining and grumbling and vote for the least- worst candidate, all the while berating all the other morons who made this two party debacle possible.

Your choice.

-- _ (_@_._), February 23, 2000.

Because politics is not about voting your conscience, it's about stradegy. So, sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two electable evils.

-- (@ .), February 23, 2000.

formerregular:

Here is the McCain voting record:

WHY LIBERALS LOVE McCAIN (Published by Human Events)

WRONG ON FETAL TISSUE

* Voted for HR 2507, April 2, 1992, which would have overturned President Bush's moratorium on federal funding of human fetal-tissue transplantation research. (Bush vetoed the bill.)

* Voted for S 1, Feb. 18, 1993, providing federal funding of human fetal-tissue transplantation research.

* Voted against an amendment by Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) to S 1061, Sept. 4, 1997, that would have denied federal funding to Parkinson's Disease research that uses brain tissue removed from aborted babies.

WRONG ON JUSTICES

* Voted to confirm liberal, pro-abortion ACLU activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, Aug. 3, 1993.

* Voted to confirm liberal, pro-abortion former Ted Kennedy aide Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, July 29, 1994.

WRONG ON SATCHER

* Voted to confirm liberal, pro-partial-birth-abortion Surgeon General nominee David Satcher, and then voted to confirm him, Feb. 10, 1998.

WRONG ON KOSOVO

* Voted against a successful tabling motion offered by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) that killed a McCain resolution (SJ Res 20) that would have authorized President Clinton to "use all necessary force and other means" in Yugoslavia, May 4, 1999.

WRONG ON HEALTH CARE

* Voted for an amendment by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to S 1344 that would have further socialized medicine under the Orwellian rubric of a Patient's Bill of Rights, July 14, 1999.

WRONG ON TOBACCO

* Voted to kill an amendment to S 1415 offered by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) that would have stripped tax increases from the tobacco bill, May 20, 1998.

WRONG ON TAXES

* Voted to force a vote on an amendment requiring tobacco consumers to pay $516 billion in taxes, June 17, 1998. The motion to force the vote failed.

WRONG ON SPENDING

* Voted against an amendment to S 1650 that would have triggered an across-the-board spending cut in case of a deficit, Oct. 6, 1999.

WRONG ON FREE SPEECH

* Voted to force a vote on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that would have denied private organizations the right to express their views on political candidates and issues during an election period, Feb. 25, 1998.

* Voted to force a vote on the similar Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill, Oct. 19, 1999.

WRONG ON CHINA

* Voted to kill an amendment by Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) to S 2057 that would have required government monitoring of Communist Chinese commercial fronts operating in the U. S., May 14, 1998.

WRONG ON SOVEREIGNTY

* Voted to approve the establishment of the World Trade Organization, Dec. 1, 1994.

* Voted for a motion to kill an amendment by Sen. John Kyl (R

-- Diane (cptlauthor@aol.com), February 23, 2000.