My Arguement for McCain

[mr715]

Simple enough...

If McCain ran on a democratic ticket, a unity ticket, it would destroy the Republican party.



M

[FrenchieCat]

1. But you are gambling....

As it may backfire and destroy the Democratic party instead.

Things never go as planned.......when things can go wrong, they will.

Sorry, this election is too important to bring in a political experiment.

[mr715]

3. It isnt a gamble short term

It will get Kerry elected without a question...

Granted, the long term effects of a unity ticket are unknowable, and McCain is only my first choice for VeeP if he NEVER runs for President and he manages to guarentee a Kerry victory.

I dont know. I want Kerry/Edwards 2004, Kerry/Clinton 2008, Clinton/Clinton 2012

But I'll take a victory and a boot to Renhquist, Stevens, and Kennedy

[FrenchieCat]

7. You are so sure ......

"it will get Kerry elected without a question".....you say.

But that's just you talking. It doesn't make it so.

The crystal ball you are looking through may have a haze that you haven't yet noticed.

When things can go wrong, they will.

Nader might start looking good to many. Outraged Republicans with a "turn-coat" McCain "how could he" attitude might really get out to those polls.

The Republican Mean machine have already turned many against the French and the Germans. Please don't make so many assumptions and underestimate the term "Backlash" or ignore the possibilities. Like I said......you are gambling, pure and simple.

Put on your thinking cap and tell me that you cannot even envision a backlash as a remote scenario.

[robbedvoter]

11. Stevens is appointed by Clinton. Good guy. You are very confused

he said that in hijacking the 2000 election the real loser is the confidence in the justice system.
Also, they have lifetime tenure.

[mr715]

13. Yah

I'm well aware of the lifetime tenure. But they will retire.

Yeah, sorry about the the Stevens mixup. I never remember the good justices from the bad... just trying to remember which are slated to retire.

O'Connor, Renhquist are expected to retire. For whatever reason I got Stevens and O'Connor confused.

As for the destruction of the democratic party, I dont really see that happening. A democrat would still be in charge. A unity government didnt destroy Israel now, or Britain during WW2.

I know McCain is a conservative, and I dont like his policies one bit. As VeeP he would have less power now than as a Senator from Arizona, his replacement would likely be a democrat too.

But its just my thing. I'm cool with Kerry/Edwards or Kerry/Plant for gods sake

[MontecitoDem]

24. Well, he is much more liberal now

but he was actually appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975. He may be likely to retire sometime in the next few years.

[robbedvoter]

30. Sutter was appointed by Ford. Stevens was appointed by Clinton.

[MontecitoDem]

32. Check it out

Robbed voter - I agree with your posts nearly 100% of the time, but this time I do believe you are wrong.

Clinton appointed Justices Ginsberg and Breyer. Bush I appointed Souter I believe. Ford appointed Stevens.

Anyway, check it out - the whole OYEZ site is great for anything Supreme Court related!

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford.

And has been on the Court nearly 30 years now. (Since 1975.)

[sabbat hunter]

16. corrections

bill clinton cannot run for VP constitutionally. according to the constition a president can serve for only two terms or 10 years if the president were to die or be incapacitated. if heaven forbid something happened to hillary right after she won election, bill would only be able constitutionally be able to serve 2 years, causing a consitutional crisis.

also john paul stevens is one of the most, if not the most liberal justice on the current supreme court. the only way we would want him to leave is if he is replaced by someone equally liberal.

renhquist and kennedy can be given the boot for all i care.

peace
david
:hippie:

[HFishbine]

28. Only serve two terms? That's not in the Constitution

Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxii.html

[Hippo_Tron]

33. VP Must meet all qualifications for president...

Clinton is ineligable to be president therefore ineligable to be VP.

[HFishbine]

35. Why is Clinton ineligible?

If the Constitution says that no one shall be elected president for more than two terms, how does that make Clinton ineligible for VP?

[Terry_M]

2. This much unity would result in

a 1 party country... No thanx.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

4. WFBuckley's magazine (New Republic)

Did it's best to destroy McCain when he was running against Bush.

The Right will cut off it's nose <finish cliche here>

[Kolesar]

5. Isn't "National Review" = W F Buckley's magazine?

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

8. National Review it IS!! Thanks for the correction...

.. sorry, brain cramp there!

[Liberal Christian]

6. My Argument Against McCain

HE'S A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

With a Republican as Vice President, you put the tie-breaking vote in the Senate in the hands of a REPUBLICAN! McCain is a conservative. He's lousy on reproductive freedom and on tons of other Democratic issues. As Vice-President, he is the president of the Senate. Do you REALLY want that kind of influence there in a Democratic administration?

And, if, God forbid, anything should happen to Kerry and the Veep had to take over, you'd have a Republican president. Is that really what you want?

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were of two different parties when Adams was President and Jefferson, Vice-President. It was not a pretty picture.

There are far more good reasons to keep the Prez and Veep in the same party than there are to split the ticket.

[demosincebirth]

18. I totally agree

Also, chances are we're going to have a republican controlled senate, I hope not, but if something happened to Kerry...think about it.

[ibegurpard]

9. translation:

this topic pisses off people on Democratic message boards.

[robbedvoter]

10. Exactly McCain's agenda: destroy the GOP. It is, isn't it?

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon

[Padraig18]

12. It would also destroy the Democratic Party.

Or hadn't you considered that? :eyes:

[Zorra]

14. I completely agree.

I have been a yellowdog Dem all my life. If McCain is chosen as VP, it would prove to me that republicans had taken control of the Democratic Party. I would immediately join the Green Party and never look back, and I believe that at least 1/4 of all Democrats would do the same or similar.

The Green Party would vastly increase it's membership.

I'm curious, how many of you who advocate McCain for VP are republicans, former republicans, or have voted for republicans?

C'mon, 'fess up.

[Sparkly]

19. Was gonna post that

I do think it'd destroy our party *first.*

[Hippo_Tron]

15. And exactly WHERE is the logic behind this argument?

If Bush picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate, would it destroy the democratic party? Hell no! We'd all tell Joe to go fuck himself and be a Republican. McCain is scorned by the right wing (most of the party) because he voted against Bush's tax cuts. Although he has a strong base of people who respect him, most Republicans would just say good riddance if he became Kerry's running mate.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. What If Bush Picked Dean As His Running Mate?

Ouch, ouch! My head hurts just from trying to imagine it...cognitive overload...must...shut...down...

[Hippo_Tron]

22. It still wouldn't matter...

Any democrat who accepts the VP slot on the Republican ticket would just be considered a traitor and vice versa. The only difference with McCain or Lieberman is that it would not come as so much of a shock if they did it.

[robbedvoter]

29. I can see the headlines: GOP-ers want Dean in spite of his refusals

"Polls show GOP voters clamor for Dean as #2"
"Many proeminent GOP-ers propose Dean as VP"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. No, it would destroy the Democratic party

which is much less ideologically unified.

The left wing would split off and go Green for sure, and the Dems would have only themselves to blame.

[JJ Hotdog]

21. ...

McCain is supporting Bush's reelection. There's no chance in hell it's going to happen.

[newyawker99]

27. Hi JJ Hotdog!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[robbedvoter]

31. But, maybe if we, unworthy dems beg him a lot, in his spare time

when not campaigning for W, he may be kerry's VP - at least twice a week? it would be so very swell and we'd be ever so grateful and shine his shoes daily!

[MontecitoDem]

23. Maybe I'm wrong

but isn't it all just a gesture to let moderates know that Kerry isn't a "crazy liberal" like he's being labeled? I mean, no way McCain would take it (although he might take a cabinet position). He's already come out for Bush. Anything else now would look like just sour grapes and personal ambition. McCain values his reputation in AZ, and elsewhere. He won't do it.

So Kerry ends up looking like someone who is trying to unite the country rather than engaging in more partisan fighting.

The only true political cost is that some of us dems may move over to Nader. No idea how high that cost could be ....

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Bullshit.

I would NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for a Kerry/McCain ticket. It may very well destroy the Democratic party. :(

[fujiyama]

34. My argument

against that argument:

McCain is a republican and is not changing parties.

If McCain wanted to switch parties he would have -- long ago.