I could handle President McCain more than any other Republican. Especially President Frist.

I need popcorn - I'm enjoying watching the far right wing drown itself, and at the same time insist on bringing the rest of the GOP down with it.

A murder-suicide has never come off as amusing.

Why can't we have the 2000 McCain? That guy would have rocked

SeismicJizzer: Why can't we have the 2000 McCain? That guy would have rocked

Because McCain got a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome!

"Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here"

Anyone want to find another version?

why who do the kool-aid drinkers like?

I'm not a fan of the repubs but McCain is tolerable.

Headso: why who do the kool-aid drinkers like?

I'm not a fan of the repubs but McCain is tolerable.

I listen to interviews with republicans every morning on NPR. All of them seem to be undergoing extreme cognitive dissonance. The entire party platform for the last 20 years is shot. The party of small government and fiscal responsibility is now spying on people and running record deficits.

There's plenty of conservatives on Fark, and none of them advocate a candidate. They just say shiat like, "well, McCain won't be the end of the world, I guess. . "

So we're looking at "Iraq for 100 years" or "We need more Guantanamo" for the GOP. I don't think "9/11, 9/11" even has a remote chance anymore.

moops: SeismicJizzer: Why can't we have the 2000 McCain? That guy would have rocked

Because McCain got a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome!

No, it's because you disagreed with him

Hang On Voltaire: No, it's because you disagreed with him

I have to admit even I liked 2000 McCain, and participated in the MI Primary to vote for him (although I was more motivated by the urge to stick it to our then pro-Bush governor).

2008 McCain is an angry, passive-agressive, maniac who wants to permanently keep 135k troops in iraq.

Headso: why who do the kool-aid drinkers like?

The Kool-Aid drinkers are going to "like" (and vote for) whoever gets the GOP nomination in September... even if they have to "justify" their "liking him" with "Well, I don't really like him.. but I'm not going to vote for the other party."

This is the only reason why I want McCain to win the GOP nomination: because I want to see every GOP'er who has been calling him a RINO for the past several years having to vote for someone they don't like.

No, the Kool-Aid drinkers are *not* going to stay home and not vote: they'd rather see McCain as President that Hillary (both a woman *and* a Clinton) or Obama (*gasp* a black man).

DarnoKonrad: Headso: why who do the kool-aid drinkers like? I'm not a fan of the repubs but McCain is tolerable.

I listen to interviews with republicans every morning on NPR. All of them seem to be undergoing extreme cognitive dissonance. The entire party platform for the last 20 years is shot. The party of small government and fiscal responsibility is now spying on people and running record deficits.

There's plenty of conservatives on Fark, and none of them advocate a candidate. They just say shiat like, "well, McCain won't be the end of the world, I guess. . "

I was a big Giuliani supporter until he started campaigning. This obsession with 9/11 working it into every speech and every answer to every question is intolerable. I was pleasantly surprised that he never mentioned it once at last night's debate. He was asked a direct question about the check he returned from the Saudi prince, but he answered it without saying "You know, when I was at 9/11, I learned blah blah". I wish he would have the same kind of discipline in his campaign ads. I think Rudy will be remembered for a long time as running one of the worst campaigns in history.

McCain is a much stronger choice despite a handful of questionable positions. He's the closest thing to a Reagan champion that we got, and he's one of the few (only?) Republicans in the senate 2002-2006 who tried to stand up against the incredibly wasteful spending. He voted against the Bush tax cuts not because the cuts were bad, but because they didn't include vital spending cuts. The tax cuts passed and the deficit soared to a peak of something like $600b. I was a McCain supporter for a long time and now I'm back in his camp. I firmly believe that if McCain had won the nomination in 2000 (thanks a lot Rove) he would have beaten Al Gore by a larger, less controversial margin and the whole country would have been better off under his leadership.

The rest of the GOP field is quite impressive this year, though everyone has some sort of negative. Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo were the exceptions, they have nothing but negatives. Duncan Hunter was a solid candidate with a ton of experience and sound policy, I never understood why his campaign failed to get traction. Thompson was a highly intelligent candidate with a solid policy plan provided in extreme detail, yet his campaign was so awful that he went from 2nd place nationally to 2nd to last, and gave up 3 weeks into the race. Hopefully he's a consideration for Vpharkabee is a honest, decent guy with a few good plans and a few bad ones. I am put off by his big government record (which runs contrary to his campaign rhetoric). I am intrigued by his Fair Tax but also a little scared at the thought of actually implementing it. The consequences if it fails are so severe that I wish we could test it somehow on a smaller scale first. Maybe institute a flat tax for high wage earners, and a consumption tax? I don't know. I am wary of his fundamentalist Christian beliefs, though he claims they will never affect policy (despite what clueless Farkers think). Also, he's not a Young Earth creationist, so you can quit that right now. I would vote for Huckabee in the general and I think we would enjoy a decent presidency, but he's not my first choice.

I strongly dislike Romney for a great deal of reasons. First, he's basically a liar and a flip flopper. He changes his positions, principles, and campaign rhetoric with the political winds. The polls tell him people react well to candidates who promise change, so he starts talking about change. The polls tell him people are scared about the economy, he talks about how he's the best at that. He's very lucky the war is going so well, otherwise he would have virtually no candidacy at all. He squirms his way out of mistakes when he's called on them (depends on what your definition of "saw" is, good job Mitt). He is basically a John Kerry who flipped a coin and decided to put an R next to his name instead. I would vote for him over Clinton, but not Obama.

I think the panic is coming from the far right now because none of the candidates measure up to everything that Rush and his listeners want. There is no "4 more years" candidate or Reagan offspring available to vote for. Really, these people need to think about the health of the party and get behind a candidate who can keep it in the White House, John McCain. Right now with opinion polls wildly in favor of the Democrats about the only hope we have of winning is to put a strong moderate with broad appeal like McCain up against a divisive, unelectable Hillary Clinton.

moops: 2008 McCain is an angry, passive-agressive, maniac who wants to permanently keep 135k troops in iraq.

The answers to your four claims above are yes, no, no, and sorta.

McCain officially lost my vote this week with his sanctimonious response about illegal immigration. He can no longer even discuss the issue so he now has to bring up a story about a soldier in Iraq who's mother is an illegal immigrant.

DarnoKonrad There's plenty of conservatives on Fark, and none of them advocate a candidate. They just say shiat like, "well, McCain won't be the end of the world, I guess. . "


We'll let the primary play out. None of the candidates jump out at you but on the flip side none of them (besides Paul) rub you completely the wrong way. For the first time in a long time there isn't a "establishment" candidate. When there is an establishment candidtate the field generally narrows itself down to a couple candidates quick and early in the primary. (Like what has happened with the democrats.) The republican base will rally around whomever once Hillary wins the nomination.

moops:

I have to admit even I liked 2000 McCain, and participated in the MI Primary to vote for him (although I was more motivated by the urge to stick it to our then pro-Bush governor).

2008 McCain is an angry, passive-agressive, maniac who wants to permanently keep 135k troops in iraq.

There is no difference in the McCain of 2000 and 2008. You just disagree with him on Iraq so all of a sudden he goes from this "maverick" to a Bush sycophant.

Hang On Voltaire: McCain officially lost my vote this week with his sanctimonious response about illegal immigration. He can no longer even discuss the issue so he now has to bring up a story about a soldier in Iraq who's mother is an illegal immigrant.

Well, to be fair, 9/11 has changed everything.

MFL: For the first time in a long time there isn't a "establishment" candidate.

I disagree with you.

IMHO the candidate from/for "the establishment" is Rudy Giuliani... he's just failing miserably by making "9/11" and "leadership" his catchphrases.

moops:

Well, to be fair, 9/11 has changed everything.

HA!!! I wanted to vote for McCain till he pulled that shiat this week and now I have no idea who to vote for.

All I want is a fiscal conservative who respects the individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Is that so much to ask?

All the remaining candidates are downright horrible. Hillary needs no introduction, Edwards is a crazed populist and Obama is yet another big-government paternalist Democrat. With the Republicans it's down to John "Who needs free speech and border security" McCain, Giuliani the authoritarian, Romney the waffler and Huckabee the farking theocrat. Dear lord.

I'm left with Ron Paul, and if he won't run in the general election I have no clue who will receive my vote.

/Republican

Hang On Voltaire: McCain officially lost my vote this week with his sanctimonious response about illegal immigration. He can no longer even discuss the issue so he now has to bring up a story about a soldier in Iraq who's mother is an illegal immigrant.

As much as it may pain you to hear it, the illegal immigration thing is very like the Iraq thing in that it's a done deal and there's no turning the clock back. The first Republican to give amnesty to the illegals was Reagan, and the die was cast when the U.S. entered NAFTA. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, HOV, but our economy - and to a lesser extent our very soveriegnty - has been committed to the de facto North American Union. Just as Americans are going to have to live with the occupation of Iraq, Americans are going to have to live with millions of Latin Americans - largely Mexicans - from here on out.

McCain is simply being pragmatic and honest in the face of this reality - this fait accompli. Conservatives who yearn for the deportation of 20 million Mexicans are living in fantasyland, just like the liberals who yearn for "withdrawal" from Iraq. If you are wise you'll grow up and get over it, because no President can or will turn the clock back on NAFTA. You lost your chance to stop it when you failed to elect Ross Perot.

If you're smart you'll get behind McCain, because he's your party's only shot at the White House in '08.

McCain looked like he was .27129 seconds away from having an outburst last night at the debate when Russert asked him a question about his temper problem.

Cromar I think the panic is coming from the far right now because none of the candidates measure up to everything that Rush and his listeners want. There is no "4 more years" candidate or Reagan offspring available to vote for. Really, these people need to think about the health of the party and get behind a candidate who can keep it in the White House, John McCain. Right now with opinion polls wildly in favor of the Democrats about the only hope we have of winning is to put a strong moderate with broad appeal like McCain up against a divisive, unelectable Hillary Clinton.

I think unrest in the party right now isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the election was 6 weeks away it would be a different story. There will be stark differences between the candidates in the general election. After watching last nights debate I'm actually feeling much better about the republicans chances next year. Elections are usually decided on who peaks at the right time. Republicans have been dissenfranchised for a couple years now and are looking for a something to rally around. Once a candidate is chosen they will find the spark not so much because of the particular candidate chosen but because of what the candidate is up against. I predict the Clintons will bring back the republican party.

canyoneer:

As much as it may pain you to hear it, the illegal immigration thing is very like the Iraq thing in that it's a done deal and there's no turning the clock back. The first Republican to give amnesty to the illegals was Reagan, and the die was cast when the U.S. entered NAFTA. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, HOV, but our economy - and to a lesser extent our very soveriegnty - has been committed to the de facto North American Union. Just as Americans are going to have to live with the occupation of Iraq, Americans are going to have to live with millions of Latin Americans - largely Mexicans - from here on out.

McCain is simply being pragmatic and honest in the face of this reality - this fait accompli. Conservatives who yearn for the deportation of 20 million Mexicans are living in fantasyland, just like the liberals who yearn for "withdrawal" from Iraq. If you are wise you'll grow up and get over it, because no President can or will turn the clock back on NAFTA. You lost your chance to stop it when you failed to elect Ross Perot.

If you're smart you'll get behind McCain, because he's your party's only shot at the White House in '08.



You aren't telling me anything I haven't heard. I never said I am in favor of deporting 20 million people what I am in favor of is locking down the Mexican border Korean Peninsula style and THEN we can discuss what to do about the illegal immigrants in the US. And I think you mean Buchanan and not Perot.

I heard Romney say the words "stimulate" and "package" on the radio this morning and it ruined both words for me forever. If McCain said it they'd only be ruined for a couple weeks.

Hang On Voltaire: McCain officially lost my vote

then who would you vote for?

I'll vote for McCain only if everyone who supports him agrees to enlist in the military if he's elected. We'll need cannon fodder for the war with Iran and I want the hawks to go first before I'm drafted.

Cromar: I think the panic is coming from the far right now because none of the candidates measure up to everything that Rush and his listeners want. There is no "4 more years" candidate or Reagan offspring available to vote for. Really, these people need to think about the health of the party and get behind a candidate who can keep it in the White House, John McCain. Right now with opinion polls wildly in favor of the Democrats about the only hope we have of winning is to put a strong moderate with broad appeal like McCain up against a divisive, unelectable Hillary Clinton.

I salute you for your well-reasoned thoughts on this subject. I would suggest, however, that Huckabee's fundamentalist ties should be of greater concern to you, and to everyone, if he receives the nomination (which, thankfully, he likely will not). Despite his claim that his religion wouldn't get in the way, it's impossible to believe him, especially considering (1) he's an ordained minister, and (2) his statement recently that the Constitution needs to be rewritten in "God's standards." That, friend, is truly frightening.

I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he supported Bush's torture policy. I also find it sick how he's kissed up to this criminal administration at every opportunity and wants to maintain the current Iraq policy. Yet, of all the Republican nominees, he's the only one who doesn't make me want to puke. I am a Democrat and an Obama supporter, but if the election came down to Hillary vs. McCain, I would have to give my vote a lot of thought. McCain's social conservatism is diametrically opposite of my own views, but I think he believes in the Constitution and wouldn't try to Jesus up this country any more than it already is.

MFL: For the first time in a long time there isn't a "establishment" candidate.

espiaboricua I disagree with you.

IMHO the candidate from/for "the establishment" is Rudy Giuliani... he's just failing miserably by making "9/11" and "leadership" his catchphrases.

He probably would have had better organization and push from the base in some of the early states. He's far too liberal socially, and with things like the 2nd amendment to be pushed by the establishment. His campaign has never had much money which is an indication the establishment isn't helping him too much. If they really would have wanted him he would have had an organization and at least competed early states such as MI and NH.

Something_Creative: I could handle President McCain more than any other Republican. Especially President Frist.

I have to agree. I don't actually like his policies overall, but he actually seems to get why torturing people is a bad thing, and he's not a theocratic religious nutcase. He's the only major GOP candidate who can truthfully make both those claims.

I'll vote for whomever the Democrats put forward, but if it does come to a Republican president, I hope it's McCain.

McCain is tolerable.

McCain isn't a REAL conservative.

He doesn't favor torturing people or putting millions of Mexicans into jail.

Hang On Voltaire: HA!!! I wanted to vote for McCain till he pulled that shiat this week and now I have no idea who to vote for.

Vote for him anyway :) I know it's frustrating hearing baseless appeals to emotion to defend a weak position, it sounds like what the Democrats do every day. Ugh, it actually sounds a bit like John Edwards. Fortunately though pragmatism is on McCain's side, though for a different reason than what he says. It's just not possible to deport these people. It's not possible, reasonable, or morally acceptable to do some of the plans we hear from the Tancredo wannabes. McCain's flawed plan at least is based on the basic reality that we are going to have to extend some form of amnesty to these people, or ignore the problem until it goes away.

For the record, McCain is a strong advocate of closed borders (to illegals), like every Republican running. He just goes off on meaningless tangents whenever he starts talking about what to do with the people here. I consider it a big weakness, along with his capitulation to the anthropogenic global warming alarmist crowd, but I think his strengths win out here. He's got the right idea on the economy, he's the democrat-beating candidate, and he's excellent on foreign policy.

He's also a big proponent of nuclear energy which we need, badly. Bush did nothing to prop up nuclear energy in this country, and we need to get this rolling ASAP.

If by "Kool Aid Wing" she means "people who are actually conservatives" I suppose. Some of us believe in tax cuts, and don't believe in turning the country over to illegal immigrants the way McCain does.

Hang On Voltaire

...locking down the Mexican border is not only impossible, but would be the response of an impotent and decadent nation. Hadrian's Wall never worked, the Iron Curtain never worked, and the great Wall of China never worked. Advocating such a weak and silly "solution" just makes you look...weak and silly. The volume of trade with Mexico precludes such an unworkable, pointless exercize, not to mention the thousands of miles of desert wilderness that would have to be patrolled expensively and uselessly. It's a fool's errand.

The only effective policy would be to enforce the law at the point of consumption: The workplace. But conservatives can't do that because they're making too much money off the cheap labor, so it's quite a conundrum for them.

You're suffering from Future Shock. Events are passing you by and overwhelming your ability to digest and assimilate and adapt to change. The past is past, and America will never be what it once was. I understand, because I'm unhappy with the open-borders, free-trade thing, too. But I'm a realist, and I refuse to waste my time pining away for that which is irretrievably gone.

Acquire a taste for Tequila and a few phrases in Spanish and get on with life. Look on the bright side: Baja is very nice this time of year.

SusanIvanova: Something_Creative: I could handle President McCain more than any other Republican. Especially President Frist.

I have to agree. I don't actually like his policies overall, but he actually seems to get why torturing people is a bad thing, and he's not a theocratic religious nutcase. He's the only major GOP candidate who can truthfully make both those claims.

I'll vote for whomever the Democrats put forward, but if it does come to a Republican president, I hope it's McCain.

I am impressed. You managed to make a whole post without accusing Huckabee of supporting slavery. Great job!

Some of us believe in tax cuts, and don't believe in turning the country over to illegal immigrants the way McCain does.

Tax cuts are great, as long as they come along with a *decrease* in government spending. Bush&Co are bankrupting the country with the war and social programs. You don't see this?

Giving the country away to illegal immigrants? They are already here. McCain is trying to come up with a reasonalble, practical solution.

Headso:
then who would you vote for?

Right now I am not sure. I am thinking Romney but I have problems with him too. I vote this Wednesday so I need to make up my mind

Drant: I'll vote for McCain only if everyone who supports him agrees to enlist in the military if he's elected. We'll need cannon fodder for the war with Iran and I want the hawks to go first before I'm drafted.

I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through. If you vote for him, you ARE one of his supporters.

randomjsa: If by "Kool Aid Wing" she means "people who are actually conservatives" I suppose. Some of us believe in tax cuts, and don't believe in turning the country over to illegal immigrants the way McCain does.

Fortunately McCain also believes in tax cuts, he made a politically suicidal move in making a protest vote against the tax cuts for not including spending cuts.

While I am not confident that a McCain administration would solve the illegal alien crisis, he won't make it worse. There will be no Reaganesque blanket amnesty (even Ron can make mistakes!). Additionally, I am not confident that any other candidate on either side that is still running could or would actually do anything to solve the crisis for real. Romney doesn't care, he is just repeating Rush's talking points to pick up votes. Huckabee is weaker in immigration than McCain.

Hang On Voltaire Right now I am not sure. I am thinking Romney but I have problems with him too. I vote this Wednesday so I need to make up my mind

He did look good last night. That comment about "Bill Clinton in the whitehouse with nothing to do" was classic.

Wow, this far down and no mention of Ro
++++**NO CARRIER**++++

McCain minuses:

Campaign finance reform: Money and politics go together like college and awkward drunken sex. It is what it is, and I would much prefer a system of full disclosure of who's buying whom.

McCain pluses:

Iraq: realizes that a war isn't like a bad sitcom that you can just cancel and walk away from, and unlike Bush has the personal history that'll leave the soft left out in the cold.

Spending and pork: if nothing else, it'll be a delight to watch President McCain give the Jack Murthas and Ted Stevenses a long-overdue series of smacks upside the head. Maybe we'll get some perp walks.

Gridlock: assuming a continued Democratic majority in Congress, their stupider congressional ideas won't stand a chance in hell.

Torture: it's not that it won't ever happen in a McCain presidency, but we'll err on the side of doing the right thing.

McCain meh:

Immigration: chances are we'll get a pragmatic program that gives a break to the illegals who are busting a hump and make a commitment to citizenship and integration, while coming down like a ton of bricks on the illegals' gangs in places like LA.

Cromar:

Vote for him anyway :) I know it's frustrating hearing baseless appeals to emotion to defend a weak position, it sounds like what the Democrats do every day. Ugh, it actually sounds a bit like John Edwards. Fortunately though pragmatism is on McCain's side, though for a different reason than what he says. It's just not possible to deport these people. It's not possible, reasonable, or morally acceptable to do some of the plans we hear from the Tancredo wannabes. McCain's flawed plan at least is based on the basic reality that we are going to have to extend some form of amnesty to these people, or ignore the problem until it goes away.

Thats fine and I would be more than willing to accept some sort of amnesty AFTER we lock the border down. I just found McCain's latest spin to be a little more than insulting

For the record, McCain is a strong advocate of closed borders (to illegals), like every Republican running. He just goes off on meaningless tangents whenever he starts talking about what to do with the people here.

No he is not. He has done nothing about border security since he has been in Congress. He has been too busy trying to get the NY Times to love him

I consider it a big weakness, along with his capitulation to the anthropogenic global warming alarmist crowd, but I think his strengths win out here. He's got the right idea on the economy, he's the democrat-beating candidate, and he's excellent on foreign policy.

Oh God don't even get me started on his global warming stance and he voted against the Bush tax cuts. He is great on foreign policy I agree but I don't think his stance is any different than any other candidates. I like McCain and I think he is a hero and he probably deserves the nomination but he just has done so much to piss me off.

He's also a big proponent of nuclear energy which we need, badly. Bush did nothing to prop up nuclear energy in this country, and we need to get this rolling ASAP.

Agree

schiefaw: Drant: I'll vote for McCain only if everyone who supports him agrees to enlist in the military if he's elected. We'll need cannon fodder for the war with Iran and I want the hawks to go first before I'm drafted.

I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through. If you vote for him, you ARE one of his supporters.

Not really. Most of what I'm hearing on these threads is that the majority of his supporters are voting for him because they think they don't have a better option.

/Hate to break it to them, that's how we got Bush.

You know, the Conservative coalition was stitched together in the first Reagan election by some very careful rhetoric.

The unregulated market was justified using the idea that God rewards hard work. The same would go for the abject worship of the rich, and the casting of the rich as victims of a horrible, evil government.

Veiled racist rhetoric was used to strip the old racist Dixiecrats out of the Democratic party. This group was made up mostly of evangelical and social conservatives. Now, the code-word for attractive and successful African-American became liberal, which was lagniappe because the Low Other was then expanded to include anyone who wasn't "conservative."

To keep the evangelicals on board, poverty was cast as a moral failing. So, since the poor and mentally ill were that way because of sin, they could be cut off without having to consider social justice (yes, I am so old I remember when Christians cared about social justice).

And of course the small-government conservatives easily went along, because Reagan declared himself an enemy of large government (LOL).

But things are different now. We do not have the Communists to react against anymore, so branding liberals as communists is getting less and less effective. Our abject and simpering worship for the ultra-rich is even beginning to annoy evangelicals because it disregards social justice entirely.

All the other wedge issues that the conservative movement used to denigrate liberals to Low Other status and create a sense of moral superiority have begun not to work, as other realities (health care costs, federal budget problems, mismanaged wars, torture, disastrous foreign policy, loss of international prestige, housing crisis, and so on) are obscuring even the most concentrated hate-mongering efforts of the Liberal Bashing Industry.

And the Liberal Bashing Industry itself is in trouble. For the first time in twenty years, it doesn't have a unified message. People are looking up and wondering how liberal-bashing failed to produce a utopia on earth, and add to that the disastrous policies that the Industry helped put in place, people are beginning to turn their heads away from its ugliness.

All of this is very good news for the country, IMO. Legislating the Bible will be bad for religious freedom. Continuing to increase the divide between the haves and the have-nots cannot continue indefinitely. Many conservatives who don't want to be labeled as sympathizers of Enemy Liberals privately worry about torture and privacy and Habeas Corpus and so on.

The Republican party should never have given its wing-nuts the mike. The liberals did it with disastrous results. People went along with feminism until male-bashing got too intense.

Thank you, Liberal Bashing Industry and Evangelicals, for Dworkinizing the Republicans.

.

canyoneer:

...locking down the Mexican border is not only impossible, but would be the response of an impotent and decadent nation. Hadrian's Wall never worked, the Iron Curtain never worked, and the great Wall of China never worked. Advocating such a weak and silly "solution" just makes you look...weak and silly. The volume of trade with Mexico precludes such an unworkable, pointless exercize, not to mention the thousands of miles of desert wilderness that would have to be patrolled expensively and uselessly. It's a fool's errand.

You're right. Lets just not even have a border. AGAIN, look at the Korean Peninsula and don't tell me you cannot secure a border.

The only effective policy would be to enforce the law at the point of consumption: The workplace. But conservatives can't do that because they're making too much money off the cheap labor, so it's quite a conundrum for them.

I'm all for workplace enforcement

You're suffering from Future Shock. Events are passing you by and overwhelming your ability to digest and assimilate and adapt to change. The past is past, and America will never be what it once was. I understand, because I'm unhappy with the open-borders, free-trade thing, too. But I'm a realist, and I refuse to waste my time pining away for that which is irretrievably gone.

Acquire a taste for Tequila and a few phrases in Spanish and get on with life. Look on the bright side: Baja is very nice this time of year.

You sound like the "realists" in the 70s who said that the Soviet Union would always be there and we just needed to accept their occupation of Afghanistan and Poland etc etc

Cromar: He's also a big proponent of nuclear energy which we need, badly. Bush did nothing to prop up nuclear energy in this country, and we need to get this rolling ASAP.

Interesting, I had no idea. Still not voting for McCain, but this is a good thing to hear, given his chances of getting elected.

Anybody know what the other candidates' stances are on nuclear?

The scary thing is McCain is the "true conservative" in the race - his only crime was acting like a "true conservative" and standing up to the President when he moved away from those principles.

And that is the biggest crime in freeperland.

When canyoneer is having one of his lucid days, there is no one better. He can actually make you reconsider your views on days like these.

I wish these days weren't so few and far between. Because most of the time, he is an angry, misanthropic lunatic.

He's sort of the Pat Buchanan of Fark in that regard. Except completely opposite.

What this thread needs is more cowbell.

/got nuttin