He further lucked out when the Democrats were evenly split after Super Tuesday, and he emerged the frontrunner. This means he won't have to battle primary opponents, but can consolidate his support to make a run in the general. Obama and Hillary can waste the rest of their campaign funds on each other— and the Dems may come out deeply divided after their convention. McCain is a very lucky guy.

What about Bush interpreting the laws to give him teh right to torture people? Talk about twisted. For centuries civilized countries have considered waterbaording torture and banned it. The US even prosecuted Japanese and Germans for using it on US soldiers and the US even prosecuted its won soldiers who have used it in the past. And it's unconstitutional- the constitution bans cruel punishment.

Which is worse, liberal judges interpreting laws for liberal positions (i.e. allowing gays to adopt and have equal rights as straight people) or the conservatives who scream that it is fine to trample our constitution and torture people which does not yield results? Can't the US get its priorities right?

BTW: DLS, you made comments over the past couple of days about pulling out fo Iraq precipitously. I agree with you- we can't just yank our troops out. And Obama and Hillary have both said they understand the need to be careful in pulling out our troops. I don't nkow what sort of timetable you have for gettnig the troops out (or if you think Obama and Hillary would pull them out too quickly). But it seems like the options for withdrawing the troops are: pull them out within about a year (that's more or less the Obama/Clinton timetable) or keep them in Iraq indefinitely (McCain is for keeping them in for 100 years). I'd like to know just what the troops are accompishing at the expense of their lives and our treasury. Is it worth it for American citizens to continue to die (and possibly for decades)? If so, then why not commit troops to lessen the violence between the Israelis and Palestinians so they have some political breathing room to negotiate a peace settlement?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnMcCain/2...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CliffMay/200...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaug...

The entire point of Romney dropping out was to allow McCain to win the nomination withhout having to tack as far right as Republicans have had to in the recent past, thus setting him up for an easier transition to the general, more moderate election.

He smiled and said most of the right things, but the news of the day was that the conservative obviously didn't have the clout they thought they did.

Yep. We (even us mere non-liberals) don't want too large and intrusive a federal presence. And it's not right to socially engineer from DC by conservatives any more than it is by liberals just because we may not be as upset by the righties.

First, I was surprised and believe McCain did better than most people would have expected.

Second, I believe with most of us the basis for judgment lies between the most broad or general, and the single issues that yes, are a turnoff to most of us, all but those who have made single issues their personal crusades. Specifically in this election year, I don't doubt McCain's or Clinton's competence; we all know both are competent. I look at their politics and their histories to date. (Clinton's is sordid; McCain at times has been a Dem Lite, in theory should do much less harm and he should do well against Clinton if Clinton is nominated, the likeliest thing to happen, though most of us would be casting an anti-Clinton rather than a pro-McCain vote.) I do not know much about Obama's competence or history, but he seems to me to be at a minimum likely to be more adept than the current President and would be intrigued by who else he may bring with him into the Executive branch. I hope he at least gets nominated so as to ruin Clinton's chances for regaining the Presidency (officially, this time), ideally forever.

Many of us are moderate but hardly mushy, and many of us are swing voters (the best term to use rather than “moderate” or “centrist”). Regarding elections in the past and behavior in some states (reflecting the composition of the voters), some states are swing states or highly competitive and when things are undecided, they are of paramount importance. Ohio has proven to be especially “pivotal.” Keep this in mind given there is a debate there shortly and a very important primary there, arguably more important than Super Tuesday was.

In the following document you'll find all kinds of interesting information, including a “red-to-blue” description of how each state voted in 2006 (the USA overall was slightly Republican), the degree of how “pivotal” or influential (potentially or actually) the various states have been, and so on.

(The bluest state in 2006 was Massachusetts, at 25% bluer than “even” [magenta]; DC was 80% blue. The reddest state in 2006 was Utah, at 46% redder than “even.” Ohio was 2% net Republican but slightly Democratic of the USA vote overall. HIGHLY CONTESTIBLE in the general election.)

<a href=”http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=poli_honors”>http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewco…

SD What does the Voting Rights Act have to do with the 2000 election? Besides the fact that there was widespread voter suppression especially among black voters!

I haven't forgotten. It was a sad sop to the Religious Right. It's none of the federal government's business.

Similarly, the flip side position on these issues isn't likely to expand the left's control of the swing voter. Single issue campaign themes and one-off events are things that capitivate forum junkies, not mainstream voters. They are going to be measuring how well McCain seems to “handle things”, not so much “what would you have done about Terry Schiavo”. I think he did about as well as he could in the CPAC circumstances.

While I accept polls can be derided for their “choice without consequence” attribute, McCain is the single most “known quantity” in this election. The long term poll trends have shown him close a huge gap with both Clinton and Obama despite all his “knowns”. And that has been accomplished in a period when Clinton and Obama have had the luxury of not really being pressed to say “how” or “how much” relative to their policy positions.

Despite whatever distracting sideshow can be continued by the socons, an inpartial observer would certainly feel a “presumptive nominee” is currently ahead of “nominees in a dead heat”.

I think McCain is in a very good position right now.

Of course he stayed in Crawford during Katrina- the real national crisis!

Are you proposing that the Democratic Congress repeal the 1964 voting rights act and let the states have complete control over voting? How very reactionary of you.

And the word is “terrorism,” not “terror” [sic]. Not only Romney but so many talking heads and other politicians engage in dumbed-down English. (They've even mis-pronounced: “terr'ists,” “terr'.”) Fortunately, for a change, Obama's deft handling of Romney's statement (with an elegant turn-around on Romney that really stuck and struck well) at least featured correct English. We need more of it from Democrats.

“That’s the kind of poorly thought through statement that led him to have to drop out. It’s a classic attempt to appeal to people’s fears that will not work in this campaign. And I think that’s part of the reason he was such an ineffective candidate. No Democrat has suggested that we surrender to terrorism. Democrats have suggested that we start withdrawing out of Iraq so we can focus our attention on terrorism. But, you know, it’s a classic example of trying to conflate the war against real enemies with the failed strategy of the Bush Administration in Iraq. … It’s those sort of glib statements that I think got Romney consistently in trouble in this race.”

Abortion? Most people don't want it prohibited, though normal people will tell you there is no absolute right to abortion whenever someone wants one, particuarly at government and taxpayer expense, least of all at federal government and taxpayer expense.

Conservative influences are needed when selecting future Supreme Court justices in order to continue to apply the brakes to the illegitimate judicial activism (creatively interpreting any legal document to “mean” what liberals want it to mean, especially if they cannot get the laws they want the legitimate ways, because they don't always win elections to influence the legislatures in this nation). The reaction to this illegitimate activism has been and remains an insistence on stopping this practice and replacing it with valid law and valid rule of law (due process rather than “due substance”), dishonestly referred to by liberals as “conservative judicial activism” [sic].

The truly base behavior and motives remain on the Left rather than the Right, as has been true in particular since the 1960s.