If the Republicans ran McCain in '08, would they have a sure win?

[Guaranteed]

My personal opinion is that he's unbeatable. He's the most electable politician, as far as the presidency is concerned, that we have out there. I know countless Democrats who would vote for him.

Yes, he's seriously pissed me off on a number of occassions. When he was campaigning with Bush, in particular.

On the brighter side, the polls I've seen have shown that the Republicans actually don't want to run him. He's like our Lieberman, to them.

In any case, I think that if they did, we wouldn't even the slightest chance of beating him.

What do you think?

[Racenut20]

1. They would never nominate him. Can't control him. That is most important.

[Guaranteed]

2. Right, I don't think they'll nominate him.

I think they'd have to be in serious trouble to actually put him up there. But, still.

[Frances]

5. Agree

The Republicans will not nominate McCain.

[Gyre]

20. Agreed.

Unless he agrees to a lobotomy first. They can't control him as much as they'd like. But they also might have a hard time touching him if he gets a grassroots movement going w/in the party. I think it would take off with very little encouragement.

Many repubes are sick of seeing a minor minion of satan when they look into the mirror.

On the other hand there seems to be an endless string of chimp relatives.



Gyre

[justy387]

3. I don't think he would win the nomination.

I have a feeling the GOP oligarchy will find some unaccomplished empty suit to rally around like they did with Bush before 2000.


Besides, even if they did run him, I think that people would have legitimate concerns about his health/age. I think that if we ran all-stars like Obama or a popular woman, we would have a chance.

[Guaranteed]

8. McCain just votes with us too much.

You're right- he has too much principle (although some here would contend that's not the case, and I'd agree in many circumstances).

But, yeah, the whores don't like him. He's not reliable enough.

[daydreamer]

4. He is not charismatic

just like Liebermann only on the wrong isle.

[Guaranteed]

6. Sure he is. People love McCain.

When he was on the Daily Show...even the DAILY SHOW...people were cracking up at his jokes. He has tremendous bipartisan support, and the respect of just about everybody.

Again- I don't think they'll nominate him. But, even with his age, I think he would crush us.

[bowens43]

14. I think you GREATLY over estimate his appeal.

I have heard people say that he is 'better then bush' , but who isn't?
I don't know any Republican who would vote for him in the primaries and I don't know any Democrats who would vote for him in the election.

[Guaranteed]

15. His appeal is that he's just as principled as Bush, if not moreso,

AND he's not always a dick.

He's seen as VERY strong.

[Leilani]

46. McCain has great appeal for Republicans

who have been left behind: fiscal conservatives, people who don't hate gays, people who care about the environment, & those types who are sick of politics as usual.

Also, he appeals to Indies & Perot type voters.

He ran as a Reformer, & people who are dissatisfied like reformers.

[Laurab]

18. I disagree although I'm not worried about '08 just yet

Due to the need for major election reform before then, or it won't matter anyway, but...

I used to kind of like the guy. He has done too many things, and said too many things, that to me, destroyed the credibility he used to have. As a former POW, he voted yes for Gonazalass the torturer's enabler.

Granted, not everyone pays as much attention as I do, but I would think he has lost at least some of his bipartisan support - the support of those who pay attention. Some of his comments in support of shrub's moronic ideas have also strained credibility.

Anyway, I don't like to talk about '08, I need to see major election reform before I see any point in really doing that, but as a dem who once found McCain acceptable, and as, in fact, one of the few repubs who seem to have any integrity - he blew it in the past few months.

[countmyvote4real]

33. I agree with EVERYTHING you just pointed out.

Once upon a time I would have crossed aisles and voted for him. He didn’t seem to be in lock step with the * agenda. And then he kissed *’s ass during the reselection. That seemed kind of strange for someone whose character and family was viciously assassinated by the * campaign. As much “fuss” as he seems to raise, it’s clear to me that he supports his party over his country. That’s further evident by the example that you cite of his Gonzalez vote.

And you’re right about election reform. None of this speculation for either party’s candidate matters if we don’t have verifiable paper trails, among many other reforms, in ALL fifty states. This needs to happen before ’06.

Anyway, back to McCain. He might be electable, but he’s a loser in my book.

P.S. And oddly enough, Al Gore has won my heart by speaking the truth when there’s nothing left to lose.

[Guaranteed]

35. I'm right there with you. That Gonzalez vote in particular

really hurt his name, with me. That's something that he should be VERY passionate about.

[ellenfl]

53. i totally agree.

mccain blew it for me when he kow-towed to dubya during the 2004 campaign. i believe he did it because the repubs promised him a shot in '08.

ellen fl

[blondeatlast]

66. He most certainly is charismatic, very much so.

He's my Senator, I have met him more than once. He's very easy in a crowd, very approachable.

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Unbeatable?

Bush certainly beat him. The NeoCon wing will turn on him like they did in 2000. Also, the NeoCons will be trotting out Jeb and will destroy ANYONE who get's in the way.

[Guaranteed]

9. Right, but that's different than a general election.

Hell, even *I* voted for McCain in 2000- my vote just didn't count. I even gave him MONEY.

You think Bush would beat McCain in a general election?

edited for stupidity

[Kelvin Mace]

42. If he was running against Bush

he's win.

[LostInAnomie]

10. I don't think the Repukes would nominate him.

He's not a purist on the social issues. Without that you don't have a winner in their primaries.

Without their religious right base FULLY behind a candidate the Repukes can't win. I think if McCain would make it through the primary process you can look for a third party candidate to arise (Roy Moore perhaps) to steal away RW voters.

[Guaranteed]

12. That's an excellent point. nt

[EVDebs]

11. Not if you read Bob Herbert's "Republicans bizarre parallel universe"

article http://www.iht.com/articles/537205.html where he says we're stuck in Iraq for "ten or twenty years...That's not so bad".

Oh really ?

[Guaranteed]

13. I don't think that would destroy his candidacy.

Look at Bush.

[AndyTiedye]

16. They Could Run Atilla the Hun and It Would be a Sure Win...

...if we don't do something about the voting machinez!

[Guaranteed]

17. Well, I'm saying that they wouldn't need to do anything

with the voting machines.

So, I guess what I'm also saying is that we need to do everything we can to keep McCain off their ticket.

Funny me saying that when I cast my vote for him in 2000, and gave him money. Things have changed, though.

[punpirate]

21. Watch around late 2006...

... to see if Rove leaves the WH to work on a campaign. Whoever he works for will have a good chance, given Rove's slimeball tactics.

On edit, think about Rove working for Bill Frist, whipping up the conservative Christian right and think about how that pair might play against McCain....

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Never happen. The NeoCons would never have him.

[napi21]

22. I think he could win! His attraction is his candid answers.

You may not agree with his answers, but most of them are quite candid, and people like that. We are all sick and tired of the politically correct shit, and long responses that don't answer what was asked.

I think that was the main attraction of Dean too.

Neither of them hid behind a the normal BS.

I don't know if the Pubs would ever let him win a primary, but if he did, he'd be a much bigger challenge than Shrub ever was.

[Guaranteed]

23. ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY.

Lesson #1 in politics.

Funny about Dean's and McCain's histories...wow. Never even thought about it before.

[B0S0X87]

27. You're right about the Dean-McCain similarities

I read somewhere that some of the young people working for Dean also helped deliver NH to McCain in 2000.

[XemaSab]

75. I had a demented fantasy once

of a Dean-McCain ticket (this was before McCain sold out), then I looked at their photos side by side and started LAUGHING...

[B0S0X87]

24. For the first three years after Bush was elected

He sponsored and passed quite a few important bills using a coalition that consisted of him and democrats like Lieberman, Bayh and even Russ Feingold. He's a member of the Republican Main Street Partership which hard-core Republicans treat like hard-core Dems treat the DLC (the RMSP takes no stance on abortion and vehemently supports stem cell research).

I don't think the theocons can forgive his past sins and will look for someone else; maybe Bill Frist or someone who's like him, only slightly interesting.

[wisteria]

25. Well, this is one democrat who wouldn't vote for him!

He is to much of a party man. After, I saw the way he embraced Bush this past election, I lost respect for him.

[Skip Intro]

26. We run against bush, again, tying McCain, via his own statements, to what

surely by then will be universally recognized as the worst president in American history.

We tie bush around McCain's neck.

Repeatedly, over and over again.

All the while offering a way out of W and M's mess.

Running Kerry (Kerrry/Edwards?) again would also help.

McCain is beatable.

imho

edited for clarity

[napi21]

28. I didn't say he wasn't beatable, but not by Kerry/Edwards.

I wanted Edwards to be the VP candidate on the ticket and fought, screamed and donated to make that happen. I still like Edwards, but I'm not sure he's a national candidate.

[Leilani]

29. Do you REALLY think Kerry/Edwards would beat McCain?

Bwaaaahaaa!!!!

[Skip Intro]

34. YES! I DO!

I think we missed a great chance in 2004 by not running Gore again, and I think the same way about Kerry for 2008 - there is a massive "we told you so" angle that could be played and that I think could really be a big "draw" to us,

And, if played right -

would allow Dems to say, "we believed in them then, and we still do" - consistency! -

And -

It would force McCain to defend bush, which I think would be very effective in muting McCain's message,

And -

Running Kerry, reportedly a good friend of Kerry's, would mute, to some extent, the vile crap we saw from the right this last time around. This could mean we get to talk issues instead, and we win when we talk issues.

Yes, I think McCain's very beatable - especially if we can get the public to see McCain=bush.

Yes, I think K/E can do this, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is all those who "thought" about voting for Kerry last time will surely think twice about not voting for him this time. Kerry could say, and our ads could say, "look at what has happened under bush - list the REAL crap, w/ pics - then say to America "there's still time to take another path..."

I dunno, seems "real" to me, seems like Dems blatantly saying "we believed it then and we believe it now" would be really attractive to a lot of voters.

Yes, a big second chance

[Leilani]

37. Sorry, I disagree.

McCain can be beaten, but not by Kerry/Edwards.

It would be "The Straight Talk Express" against....well, you finish it off.

McCain would take ALL the red states, & might take a few blue states as well.

[Skip Intro]

41. fair enough

I think we need to do something dramatically different, and in a way that would delight jaded voters and hit the right in an unexpected, and able to be repeated way.

And, "the straight talk express" WAS beaten.

[karynnj]

72. His actions in 2004 were NOT straight talk

What is weird to me is that McCain is considered to be straight talk, based mostly on giving blunt actions - he only takes maverick positions on a small number of relatively fringe issues. Kerry has been far more principled in his career and if the (Nixon/Reagan/Bush**2) ideology is held in lower esteem by 2008, Kerry can make more of fighting them for 30+ years. (I think the death and near canonization of Reagan may be why we heard almost nothing about Iran/Contra)

[Contrary1]

30. Only if the Repubs behave normally,

like the hypocrites they are. Every remark I have ever heard
from a Right Winger regarding McCain has been negative. There
was a time not so long ago that I would have considered voting
for him myself, but not any more.

How any person could remain faithful to his own party after the
smear campaign they put him through is beyond me. And when I
saw how he embraced the nitwit son...well, that pretty much did
it for me.

[Clarkie1]

31. No one is unbeatable.

There is always a chance.

That said, we had better pick our nominee in 08' based on who has the best chance of defeating a nominee such as McCain.

We have to plan for every contingency.

[Guaranteed]

32. We have to fight principle with principle.

A fighter would be our best shot, no matter how you look at it.

[Clarkie1]

38. Yes, a principled fighter and civil, higher-level debate

CLARK: The only thing I can figure is that a lot of the civilian leaders hadn’t – they weren’t really students of military operations. Because every serious student of warfare understands that it’s not about smashing the enemy army. It’s about getting to the in-state. It’s the political objective that you’re going at. And I think the Republicans got mesmerized by the weapons.


MAHER: Right. A lot of the – you know, they all talk about the military. Very few of them served like “hm-hm.” I want to – I want to read you a quote, because I’m not saying whether you’re going to get into this or not, but Howard Dean, who is apparently the front runner now for the Democrats, he said last week, he said, “In Vermont, politics is much further to the left.” He said, “A Vermont centrist is an American liberal.”


And then his campaign manager came out and said, “That’s not an admission he’s a liberal.”  Which, quite frankly, pissed me off. Because somehow they hijacked that word, “liberal.”


Now, you’re a Democrat. You said that last week.


CLARK: Absolutely.


MAHER: Okay. I’m just – I’m just wondering, of all the people who has the credentials to say, “liberal” is not a bad word, I’m wondering if I could get you to say that.


CLARK: Well, I’ll say it right now.


MAHER: Good for you.


CLARK: We live in a liberal democracy.


MAHER: Right.


CLARK: That’s what we created in this country. That’s our—


MAHER: That’s right. Thank you.


CLARK: That’s in our Constitution. Let me follow on this, okay? I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment.


MAHER: Right.


CLARK: It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back.


MAHER: Thank you.


CLARK: I’d like to follow that. Can I follow that?


MAHER: Yes.


CLARK: Because, you know, a lot of people have said, “What are you interested in? Why would you even consider running?” And they say, “Isn’t it just about Iraq?” It really isn’t. Iraq is part of it. I think the foreign policy has serious problems.


MAHER: Right.


CLARK: But I think the economy and the way the administration has dealt with the economy has serious problems. But more fundamental than that, it’s about what kind of country we want to live in. I think this nation wants open, transparent government. I think it likes a two-party system. I think it likes to hear reasoned dialogue, not labeling, name-calling and hateful politics. And I think 2004 is the election that voters have to put that back in.

http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_090503.htm

[Guaranteed]

36. We could attack his, too.

The Gonzalez vote. We could really fuck him up with that.

This is a man who was tortured for five years. Yet he voted for someone who endorsed torture...what the FUCK kind of principle is that?

That's party over principle. That's what that is. That's a definite weakness.

[Clarkie1]

43. Indeed we could.

Let me ask you about Alberto Gonzales, the president‘s counsel.  He‘s up for—the president has put him up for attorney general.  He‘s the man that laid out the guidelines, if you would call them guidelines, on torture of prisoners and the power of the presidency during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Do you think he‘s fit for the job? 

CLARK:  No. 

How can the American people have confidence in a man like Gonzales after what he‘s written for the president of the United States?  He‘s basically said the Geneva Convention was irrelevant.  He basically said that torture is something that‘s very limited, that you could be in terrible pain and that you still wouldn‘t be being tortured.

MATTHEWS:  Yes.  He said we could have cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. 

CLARK:  And not have it be torture. 

MATTHEWS:  Right. 

CLARK:  And Mr. Gonzales has basically said the power of the presidency is unlimited and he can do anything he wants. 

How can we feel confident as Americans that we‘re living under the rule of law when the attorney general has violated what we believe to be the law?

MATTHEWS:  Well, let‘s just get this straight, so we don‘t sound like we‘re goody-two-shoes here.  You‘re a military man.  You‘ve commanded troops, many of them.  You‘ve been in combat in Europe.  What are the limits of interrogation, as you understand it to be? 

CLARK:  Geneva Convention, no question about it. 

I mean, we would never have violated the Geneva Convention.  You don‘t shoot prisoners.  You don‘t do false—trick executions.  You don‘t rough them up and beat them up. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  Did we threaten to throw people out of helicopters in Vietnam? 

CLARK:  I have heard those rumors.  I never saw it.  And if it was ever done, I hope it was punished. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  Did we hose people with hoses in their mouths until they talked?

CLARK:  Not in any of my commands that I know of.

MATTHEWS:  Yes. 

CLARK:  And I‘ll tell you this. 

In 1999, when we had three Americans captured by the Serbs at the start of the Kosovo campaign, they were put on television and one of them had a big black eye and looked like he was beaten up.  We were outraged. 

MATTHEWS:  Right. 

CLARK:  And...

MATTHEWS:  So you don‘t think water-boarding, as it‘s called, where you basically threaten a guy with drowning, you make him think he‘s going to drown, is acceptable?

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK:  Absolutely not. 

MATTHEWS:  So Gonzales is not your man.

CLARK:  I think strict Geneva Convention, strict adherence to the law. 

MATTHEWS:  Thank you. 

CLARK:  We put that law in place to protect our soldiers.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  You can‘t officially do it anymore, but—you‘re retired.  But do you think a lot of military men of your rank, flag rank, do you think that‘s a common view?  McCaffrey certainly had it last night.  Is this a general view you hear from military men? 

CLARK:  This is what we believe in.

We—look, we fought for the Geneva Convention.  It was put in place to protect our soldiers, our values and our institutions.

MATTHEWS:  Right. 

CLARK:  We can‘t win the war on terror if we give up what we stand for as the American people.

MATTHEWS:  Would you testify against Gonzales on the Hill if they asked you? 

CLARK:  Well, I would testify against anybody who wrote those kinds of things.  I don‘t know Gonzales personally.  But how he could have written these documents is outrageous. 

MATTHEWS:  Strong words.  Thank you, Wesley Clark. 

You going to run for president again? 

CLARK:  Rule nothing out. 

MATTHEWS:  I love it. 

Anyway, thank you very much, General Wesley Clark, still in the mix. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6790643/

[ellenfl]

68. if dubya can't run in 2008 . . . and i wouldn't rule that out . . .

i think it will be little bro', jeb, who gets the republican nomination. he will be an ex-governor (thank god for term limits in florida!), is certainly more qualified than his brother . . . which isn't saying much . . . . will have 2 years to campaign after he 'retires' from the governorship and will most likely have 'bush's brain' to help him.

why do you think big bro' sent him to tsunami-land? he's preppin' for his run.

ellen fl

[Me.]

39. He Sold His Soul To The Devil (gwb)

and that could come back to haunt him. Even his own daughter asked how he could stump for ***h and appear on stage with him after what they did to the McCain family.

[98geoduck]

50. "I hope you realize how much that hurts", but I'll kiss your ass anyway.

If he doesn't have the balls to stand up to W, he's got a lot of hurdles to even consider a run.

[tsuki]

40. The Republican Party will never run a Veteran. n/t

[LostInAnomie]

54. LOL

Funny and true.

[Comicstripper]

44. He would not be beaten, with two possible exceptions:

Clark could do it.
Clinton could do it.
But he won't run, because he doesn't fit with the religious right, and he's too old anyway.

[Clarkie1]

45. Hillary Clinton?

[countmyvote4real]

47. In these times that would be like running Ethel Rosenberg.

Don’t get me wrong. I am deeply moved by the entire Rosenberg saga as it’s been allowed to come out. But HC is just as polarized and misrepresented by the current press mind-set, as is almost any Democrat, as the Rosenbergs were in their day. The problem is that Hillary has a longer history in the “press.” And let’s all please remember that she is a centrist. She does nothing for progressive causes other than to presume that they don’t exist.

You’ve just got to love or hate her. As my senator, I think that she’s savvy, but I think that it’s more about herself than for me. OMG. Did I just say that? OK. Truth be told, I would rather eat her cookies than see her torn to shreds by the current right wing media. In another time, she would be a great President. Even in this time, she would be better than what we have now.

Anyway, I contend that it’s not so much about the POTUS as it is about the fourth estate. The press and the MSM consolidation have really failed us. We now know that there are real and true media whores out there that “report” what they are paid to do. And if we can presume that there are some that aren’t on the * payroll, then why haven’t they questioned these “reports?” Instead, they choose to question the bloggers that have exposed the truth. And that’s why I no longer tune-in to these loser networks or support their advertisers. But that’s just me.

Hillary would be mighty in a another time and place. It’s just not her time now, especially if she wants to serve her constituents in NY. And we’re watching.

[Me.]

48. I Find I Agree

If things remain as they are she will be demonized and put through hell. They're already raising funds to defeat her. She doing a good job as our senator, she's even more popular than Pataki now, upstate, which is no small feat. I would love to have a woman president but I don't think she can get there from here.

[Disturbed]

49. McCain is an asslicker like Colon Bowel.

He disgraced himself and his family.

Gore/Clarke, Clarke/Boxer or are possible to win.

[Comicstripper]

74. These were my thoughts n/t

[Guaranteed]

70. That's exactly what I was thinking. I was thinking

that if they run McCain, we have no choice but to run Hillary.

Which is odd for me to say, because I think running Hillary would be a disaster. But, yeah, if they do that.....we have to.

[woodleydem]

51. Frist or George Allen for the Republicans in 2008

The Christian Right doesn't particularly care for McCain, and wouldn't support him if he got the nomination. 2008 will be the the Christian Right's candidate, so count on Bill Frist or George Allen. Besides, McCain will be 72 in 2008, and he has had health problems in the past. Seeing as how he will never be nominated by the Republicans, he is better off joining the Democratic candidate as a VP candidate. I think Clinton/McCain would be a very strong ticket nationally. That may be McCain's only opportunity to serve in a higher office. (besides a Cabinet post) Republicans will never nominate him.

[Greybnk48]

52. Not a Chance--he's the Lieberman of the R Party

Also, it would take very little to get him to go off publicly (temper problem).

I used to like the guy for his plain talk as did many of my friends. But, at least in my circles, he's now seen as two-faced. We have also questioned his character for cozying up to Bush after Bush had attacked his family. As someone else said, he and Powell trashed their credibility.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

55. I worry that any Repub choice has a Diebold 'sure win' at this point.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

56. LMAO, the Repubs wouldn't let him win!

He's too -- moderate. A bit too sane. A little bit too conservative. Maybe too human, too rational, for the Republican party. He has a mind of his own, which is not a good thing for a Republican leader, for he would not be puppeteered by a Rove or Wolfowitz, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

I think Pinocchio has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination than McCain does.

[rjx]

57. I'm not saying that I want republicans to be President, but

What if Mcain went the grass roots route and got the nominee. And what if Powell was his VP candidate? I would be interested in something like that if the dems lost.

[Mark E. Smith]

58. He'll be 72 in 2008

The age factor is creeping up on him. That plus the hardcore reactionaries in the GOP truly hate McCain's guts for his tendency to speak his mind rather than echo their agenda like so many basically faceless Republican Senators. I don't think they believe they can trust him.

[rjx]

59. And 80 after 2 terms.

Ok, nevermind. hehe

[TNMOM]

60. He may win the soft middle, but no one at either end of the

politcal spectrum is going to vote for him, right-wing or left. He's made plenty of enemies and there's still four year left for him to piss off more people on the right and left.

I don't think he's invincible. Personally, if he was as principled as he likes to portray himself, he should have stood up to the Swift Liars. I will NEVER forgive him for staying silent.

[B0S0X87]

62. If I remember correctly...

he denounced the swifties immediately after the first ad was released and said that personal attacks on a candidate's military record are ridiculous.

[Neshanic]

61. No, he is disliked by his own in Arizona.

[karynnj]

63. Even in his own book, he comes across as too hot headed

Last fall, while wasting time at a library while my teen was getting books for a research report, I read the section of McCain's second book dealing with the POW/MIA work he and Kerry did. At least in that section, McCain came out as needing Kerry (or someone else) to keep him calm enough to suceed on their difficult task. Kerry, on the other hand came out as very organized, smart, diligent, and caring. Kerry's ability to get the entire committee to agree and to get agreement from the Vietnamese to let them go places with no advance warning showed great political ability...but for Kerry. And this was McCain's book.

I think that McCain's reputation as a maverick - which appeals to Democrats and to moderates may be damaged by the fact that he seems to be toeing the line on GWB. If GWB's popularity sinks, McCain should be damaged by his extreme support to Bush.

If Kerry is the candidate, on odd problem may be that Kerry, by all accounts was willing to pick McCain as a running mate.

[BlueManDude]

64. If he gets the nomination he wins - but it's a big IF n/t

[blondeatlast]

65. He's my Senator--please, God, no; I hate to think who would

get elected to replace him.

His health doesn't seem to be good lately, either, although I've heard nothing official.

An awful lot of hard-core Republicans won't want him, either; within the party, he's pissed way too many of them off.

OTOH, it would be nice to see even a moderate in the WH.

[SixShooter]

67. interesting

McCain aint perfect and I think he sold out big time to campaign for Bush when everyone knows he hates his guts.

However, he's a maverick politician who isnt swayed and isnt afraid to stand up and fight.

If the GOP was smart enough to nominate him he'd blow the doors off in the general election. I know tons of D's who would vote for him. Of course, they're not smart enough to do that, the neocons and the radical right will swallow him up, which is a shame.

[blm]

69. Yes, he'd win alot of Dem working class males like he did during the 2000

primary. Those men switched just to vote for McCain in the Michigan primary. McCain would also win NH again, and likely Iowa, so he could very well be the GOP nominee.

The debates would be essential, especially since McCain wouldn't have the same advantage as Bush with the evangelicals who would vote for Bush no matter what drool he slobbered on stage.

[cobaindrain]

71. he'd be 72 and very ill looking

no chance, Evan Bayh would beat him in the general election

[GreenArrow]

73. He'll wear thin

real thin.