Did anyone else catch the war of words today between Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and John McCain? Some Reporter was asking Hastert about some comments made by Sen. McCain, and The Speaker replies something like, "John McCain....who is he??? Is he a Republican"? To which about 3 other Repugs. including Frist, standing next to him, break out in big *hit eating grins..Well McCain fired back about this and made comments to the effect of "Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility. I guess many in my party have forgotten about this". Memo to John: get some balls, and tell the Repugs. to stick it where the sun don't shine, and c'mon over to the left side of the aisle! Would be the best move you have ever made.

I am mystified by the fascination many Democrats have for John McCain. I give him props for character, integrity, and personal courage. He's one of the few in Washington who (by and large) says what he means and means what he says. He's also not afraid to stick to his guns when he disagrees with the party line.

But here's the thing: He disagrees with the Republican party line on two issues: fiscal responsibility and campaign finance reform.

He's no Democrat. Pro Iraq war, anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-death penalty, a party-line supporter of Bush's campaign to pack the courts with religious zealots, a supporter of the Patriot Act -- the guy is so far to the right he'd make the traitor Zell Miller look like a real Democrat.

This insane infatuation with an honorable -- but profoundly conservative -- man must end.

Skiguy. True John McCain is no democrat, but as you say, he speaks his mind, and often goes against Shrub, which of course appeals to alot of Dems. I am not exactly sure he is as anti-gay though as you speak. I remember a couple of years ago, right after 9/11, when he spoke out in glowing support, for the gay guy who was a hero on that cross country flight, who I recall was from Arizona, I think. I think he is quite progressive compared say to Tom DeLay or Frist. He is truly speaking out now against the Repugs. for the way they have veered away from what used to be very important to them, fiscal responsibility. And for that I thank him, and agree with him.

I agree Puckman, I have often thought that if more Republicans were like McCain I'd be more likely to listen to them, maybe even vote for one or two of them.

It seems anyone who crosses or questions Rove and Bush are the enemy now, even within thier own party. If you're not 100% with us, then you are against us. That's the message I see here.

Skiguy, you just listed yourself the reasons why so many people (not just dems and not just republicans) hold Sen.McCain in such high regard.

to the topic of the post..... if he were to defect over to the dems side (which he won't do as he is a true GOP) that would only prove Hastert's point.

No he is not a dem. He is (as McCain said) a true republican in the mold that we republicans used to be, RESPONSIBLE citizens. and you guys on the other side of the aisle should realize that and stop demonizing everything GOP as the next sign of the apocalypse.

as for his relations with gays. Note that he has very friendly relations with gay republican congressman, Jim Kolbe of Arizona.

Gee, I hate to see this infighting between republicans.

yeah yeah... tell me what else Terry McAuliffe told you.

Don't forget that John Cornyn, the GOP buffoon elected to the Senate from Texas, actually tried to claim that not only McCain's, but John Warner's allowing the hearings to go on was harming our troops. These comments came, of course, shortly after Cornyn and others met with Herr Rumsfeld....

Fortunately, the Cent Com head, General John Abizaid, affirmed at yesterday's hearings that such inquiries were NOT harming the troops, but actually a vital aspect of our democracy.

(I'm no fan of John Warner, but this man was a Navy officer in World War II, he fought in the Korean War, and he was undersecretary of the Navy, so he surely knows something about troops and war. Cowardly GOP creeps like Cornyn turn my stomach.)

Fortunately, Warner isn't easily cowed, so he didn't back down.

[ May 20, 2004, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I sent John McCain an e-mail, thanking him for his opposition to the FMA on the basis of protecting the Constitution. I received a response by snail mail that said he would continue to oppose amending the Constitution. He did, however, note that he believes in the traditional definition of marriage but wants states to make their own decisions about it.

Why so testy ung? Remember its your party that wants to amend the constitution to make us second class citizens, not my party.

If I hear from Terry, you'll be the first to know.

Ung, you misunderstand my point. I wasn't demonizing McCain at all. As Republicans go, he's terrific. If more of your party were like him, I'd be less depressed about where the country's headed.

I was only speaking to Democrats who seem to think he's one of us -- which he most definitely is not.

NO Raze, your party wants to let you on the bus, you just have to sit in the back and keep quiet.

Now sit down and be a good little homo.

So it's better to be bodily thrown off the bus than sit at the back of it?

I'm not one to compromise with glee, but I really can't imagine throwing my lot in with those who are actively working to restrict my rights to live life as I choose rather than those who aren't working hard enough to expand those rights.

I think the reason many people like McCain is because he isn't afraid of partisanship. Under the Clinton administration, there wasn't NEARLY as much partisanship as there is today. Sure, there was still quite a bit (just look at the impeachment issues), but Clinton took steps in the right direction to change that.

I saw an interview with McCain and that was something he made a point of speaking about. And you're right about McCain, he is HARDLY a democrat on the 'party line' issues. Like someone said, he thinks states should make the decisions on gay marriage, he did support the Iraq war (as did many democrats), but like Kerry, is questioning a lot of what is going on, he does NOT like the secrecy of this administration one bit, etc.

John Warner is as close to an independent Republican as John McCain. He has not come out in favor of the gay marriage amendment, he voted against a couple of the articles of Clinton's impeachment, and he incurred the ire of the radical right here in Virginia when he refused to support Oliver North for the other Senate seat, instead supporting and incouraging another republican to run as an independent, thereby securing that Chuck Robb edged out a narrow victory. I do not support much of what he does but he saved the Senate from having an ideologue and puppet of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. So if he runs unopposed by a Dem I vote for him.

Actually, i will split hairs with you on something. The last i saw, the only chance that would be for the amendment is if the door was open to civil unions.

So really, you would still have civil unions, YOUR candidate Kerry only supports civil unions... What is the difference? ZERO.

How do you give Kerry a "free pass" for giving you 1/2 of what you want. At the end of the day it is the same thing. So why dont ya'all go ahead and take your little cookie. Let me know when he actually supports your right to marry.

PhillyFan - you make a good point about the Civil Union issue and that John Kerry only goes that far in his support. I think he recognizes that there is an electability factor. At the HRC dinner here in February, Governor Ed Rendell was heckled by some folks yelling - "Hey, what about gay marriage?". He candidly responded by saying something to the effect of -- 'my support has to be incrimental otherwise you would have someone opposed to any form of gay unions'. A practical politician.

As far as McCain is concerned, I think John Kerry would end up paying a very large price selecting McCain although he likely would swing the election. Another consideration -- there may also be a backlash among some very liberal folks who could turn to Nadar as a protest vote in enough numbers to make a difference.

md, if that were to happen, those people who 'protest' would be rather stupid. It would just possibly mean Bush would win the election. I don't understand the Nader voters....they know Nader won't win and if they all voted for the Democrat (which is what they would much rather have than a Republican), the Democrat would probably win in many cases.

Good point, Illini, I am not sure if the Nader voters understand themselves either.

Ditto -- Illini; I think most agree that Gore would have won if Nader was out of the race in 2000. He is more marginalized now but many liberals don't trust McCain so the protest vote could be a factor. Someone posted a Florida poll in another thread -- and once again, every vote will be critical.

The schism in the Republican Party that many have noted in this thread is mirrored in my own Democratic Party--the "liberal" wing who are simplistically tarred as "tax as spend" & the centrists who comprise the DLC, from which Clinton consolidated his powerbase. One of his true political talents was the abilty to bridge those parts. The only reason this schism isn't now more pronounced is that we are unified (as unified as Dems get) in opposition to Bush.

As for McCain, he is in agreement with much within his own party and stands in opposition to much of what comprises the Dems platform--and that in itself would keep him from ever being considered as Kerry's VP. One of his gifts is his ability to acknowledge that opponents' arguments can have valid points instead of the usual kneejerk reactions; in the present political environment, the loud voices (who often gain easier access to the cameras) seem to automically yell NIGHT if the opposition yells DAY.

~Adam

Id rather be on the back of the bus than run over by it, but hey, go for it PF!

"Inclusion wins"

Your candidate Nader supports gay marriage, that must make you happy.