Poll: McCain Beats Hillary, Obama in November
February 28th, 2008 at 12:12am Matt Margolis
The Los Angeles Times has the story…
As he emerges from a sometimes- bitter primary campaign, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain poses a stiff challenge to either of his potential Democratic opponents in the general election, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The findings underscore the difficulties ahead for Democrats as they hope to retake the White House during a time of war, with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have made ending America’s involvement in the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. And even though a clear majority of those polled said the war was not worth waging, about half of registered voters said McCain — a Vietnam vet who has supported the Bush administration’s military strategy — was better able to deal with Iraq.
In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61% of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats
So, not only does McCain beat both Hillary and Obama in head-to-head match ups, but when it comes to dealing with the most important issues facing our country, McCain clearly has an edge as well.
This is good news, but we shouldn’t give too much weight to these polls. For starters, various other polls have shown different results, and a poll — even a scientific one — isn’t going be able to account for voter turnout factors, particularly the potential effect an Obama candidacy in the general election on the youth and minority votes, both of which lean Democrat.
But, liberals should stop pretending they have a landslide victory coming for them.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
73 Comments
1. Almiranta | February 28th, 2008 at 1:20 am
An Obama/Clinton matchup has to rely a lot on personality and identity politics, as they have pretty much the same vision for America.
But an Obama/McCain match, or a Clinton/McCain battle, is a much different story, as each candidate will be running on a platform, and it will be issues and goals at the forefront.
Obama has no issues, just smoke and mirrors and dependence on his adoring groupies to carry him through. Clinton has issues, and the savvy to actually go somewhere with them, but she can’t stand up to Obamapalooza. She has the disadvantage of running in a party which has encouraged emotion as the basis for all decisions, and now that approach is coming back to bite her in the butt, as she just can’t generate the hysteria that Barack can.
It’s looking like it might end up being a race between a brash upstart and the wise elder statesman, and groupies might not be able to carry the day against a nation which understands, deep down, that they have too much to lose by turning the country over to a man with Obama’s baggage.
And if you think his racism is not baggage, think again. Between his church and his wife and his connections with racist radicals, he has a lot to answer for. Not to mention his total cluelessness on foreign affairs and his promises which simply can’t be paid for even on the backs of the supposedly rich.
And running on a platform dependent on despair and self loathing as an American doesn’t seem too smart to me.
2. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 1:39 am
No liberals, don’t believe it. Socialism and isolationism. Socialism and isolationism. Socialism and isolationism.
Oh, and abortion and gun control.
3. brett michaels | February 28th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Almiranta,
You seem to think the average american votes using thoughtful reason.
As a whole our country is very superficial and materialistic.
When it comes to the national debates, McCain (whom I am voting for) will appear to be a tired/angry old man. Obama will appear fresh/new. Independent voters will flock to him in the general election.
The issues will not matter…only presentation.
It will be a close race, but I just do not see McCain winning the election.
Even people are here are superficial.. people constantly denigrate others based on their looks or compliment a politician because ’she is a babe’. Or they brag about how their 401k is doing (although I dont here that anymore), or how big their house is..new granite countertops they had installed.
It’s all about marketing and presentation….not issues…except maybe the economy…thats about the only issue I can see swaying voters and the way the economy is going does not bode well for Republicans.
We are in the worse possible situation…tight credit, falling housing prices and increase in the price of everyday goods. I think the fed reducing rates is only going to make things worse.
Unless Obama screams like Howard Dean did at that rally, I dont see him losing.
4. brett michaels | February 28th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Before anyone tries to say its about issues…lets look at that argument.
According to many on here, the Republicans have always had the right ‘issues’. They are patriots, tough on terrorism, pro-gun, anti-aortion…
Republicans take the right stance on every single issue.
Then why did Republicans lose Congress? If voters ONLY voted on issues…then Republicans should have kept total control of the Congress and the Whitehouse.
So either the Republicans stance on issues is incorrect, or the average voter voted for something other than issues.
If Democrats only run on self-loathing, despair, abortion and gun control….then why did the Republicans get their asses handed to them in the 2006 election?
Your theory that McCain will win because he has the ‘right’ issues, just doesn’t hold water.
5. Kurt Diekelman | February 28th, 2008 at 3:16 am
The fact is that this election is going to be very similar to 2000 and 2004. Very close popular vote and it will come down to 2-4 states. Heads up: watch Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio(again). I like McCain’s chances in all of those.
6. NeoClown | February 28th, 2008 at 4:58 am
This election will be identical to 1972.
McGovern promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Vietnam.
Nixon promised to leave the troops in Vietnam and not surrender.
The 1972 election is why the democrats invented the “super delegate.” The super delegate is supposed to protect the moronic democrat masses from nominating another unelectable candidate like McGovern.
And now we have Barack H. Obama.
“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Winston Churchill
7. Magnum Serpentine | February 28th, 2008 at 4:59 am
So McCain leads Obama by 2 points (less than the margin of error) and Matt calls it a land slide?
Who did this poll?
8. PoetryInMotion | February 28th, 2008 at 5:28 am
If McLame keeps making nice with Hitlery and Earbama, I see him losing a lot of support in the general. That thing with Bill Cunningham was appalling–what did he expect out of Cunningham when Bill was asked to “warm up the crowd?”
McLame paints Hitlery and Earbama as great Americans. They’re socialists–two peas in a liberal pod…
9. plainjane | February 28th, 2008 at 7:49 am
The election is still so far away that a poll today means nothing. But as President Bush showed it is not about the popular vote. You should be reminded McCain has not won one southern state. Just a feeling but I believe some southern states will be in play with a McCain on the ballot vs a Huckster. McCain has no shot in any typical blue state. In addition he better spend some time campaigning in Arizonia or he could pull an Al Gore.
10. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 8:20 am
>>>The super delegate is supposed to protect the moronic democrat masses from nominating another unelectable candidate like McGovern. - Clown<<<
And there you have it folks. The true liberal disdain for the American public and a free society. If only the smart people would choose the candidates right clown?
11. coulterfan | February 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am
>>Nixon promised to leave the troops in Vietnam and not surrender.
Didn’t he have a ’secret plan’ to end the war? McCain, however, wants to stay in Iraq for 100-10,000 years!
>>The super delegate is supposed to protect the moronic democrat masses from nominating another unelectable candidate like McGovern.
And now we have Barack H. Obama.
Well, Obama is MUCH more electable than Clinton. In fact, EVERY poll has him doing better against McCain than she does. Independents prefer McCain to Clinton, but they prefer Obama BY FAR to McCain! My SIL (a Democrat) dislikes Clinton so much than she would vote McCain, but she LOVES Obama. I know at least 5 ‘Obamacans’ who have always voted GOP who are now excited to vote for Obama.
Perhaps you are practicing political Ju-Jitzu here, but there is NO WAY that McCain is going to beat Obama. However, Clinton is not only beatable- she would ALSO drag hurt our downticket candidates in ‘Red States’ (unlike Obama who will have LONG coattails). Furthermore, even if she DID eek out a win- we would have scandal after scandal (who the Clintons were sleeping with, corrupt fundraisers and associates, etc) and the GOP would filibuster her entire agenda. Obama will have a FAR better chance of getting our agenda through!
12. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 8:41 am
coulter,
You know 5 people who usually vote GOP but now are Obamabots? Well that should swing the election, game over.
And I want to see McCains 10,000 year plan. Sounds interesting.
13. coulterfan | February 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am
>>Obama has no issues, just smoke and mirrors and dependence on his adoring groupies to carry him through.
Have you read his 65 page PDF on the issues on his web site? Have you listened to him debate specific policy?
As Stephan Hayes (from the Weekly Standard) reminded us in the WSJ, Reagan was attacked in exactly the same way as Obama. He didn’t have specific policies and only spoke in ‘platitudes’ In fact, Nixon called Reagan an ‘empty suit’! Much to his detractors peril, the reason he was able to move the country along is because he inspired people and moved past partisanship!
Read the essay:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
14. coulterfan | February 28th, 2008 at 8:50 am
>>You know 5 people who usually vote GOP but now are Obamabots? Well that should swing the election, game over.
And I want to see McCains 10,000 year plan. Sounds interesting.
Anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But, NONE of them would vote for Hillary Clinton! I think it’s pretty apparent that Clinton would be easier for McCain to beat than Obama. . .
And didn’t you see McCain say “I don’t think the American people care if we stay in Iraq for 1,000 years or even 10,000 years!”? How sustainable is THAT?!?!?
15. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am
>>Nixon called Reagan an ‘empty suit’!<<<
Folks, whenever you see this line, you know it’s a DNC plant. This is the talking point du jour for Obamabots.
How sustainable is THAT?!?!? - Coulter
You’re right dammit. Why are we still in Germany and Japan? Let’s get the hell out of there. It’s just not sustainable.
16. coulterfan | February 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
neocon:
A memo from Jerry H. Jones to Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney said:
“2. Bill Gulley spent an hour and a half or so with Richard Nixon in San Clemente last weekend. RN made one observation to Bill that he asked be passed on. RN feels that Ronald Reagan is a lightweight and not someone to be considered seriously or feared in terms of a challenge for the nomination. He further feels that we are building Reagan into a more formidable opponent than would be the case otherwise by responding to him in terms of our trip schedule -and how we talk about Reagan’s entering the race. He therefore recommends that we take it easy and not build up Reagan in any way through our actions or words.”
I’m sorry, Richard Nixon actually called Reagan a LIGHTWEIGHT and not an EMPTY SUIT. My mistake!
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/exhibits/campaign/2jones.htm
17. coulterfan | February 28th, 2008 at 9:20 am
>>Why are we still in Germany and Japan? Let’s get the hell out of there. It’s just not sustainable.
Remind me again how many religious factions are fighting each other in Germany and Japan?
You may recall that Iraq was never a ‘real country’ but was hobbled together by the British. It only ever was held together by a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, and before him General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr.
Hey, how many Americans have been killed during the ‘occupation’ of Germany and Japan? Are Japan and Germany Muslim Holy sites?
18. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
coulter,
Remind me again of the civil war raging in Iraq. I keep forgetting about that.
And now you’re denigrating the soveriegnty of Iraq? And are you saying that Muslim Holy sites are not worth protecting?
You really are a waste of flesh, my friend.
19. coulterfan | February 28th, 2008 at 9:44 am
>>And now you’re denigrating the soveriegnty of Iraq? And are you saying that Muslim Holy sites are not worth protecting?
Not at all. . . I’m saying that religious factions which hated each other were forced into becoming Iraq by the British Empire. The only way this worked was under strong-arm dictatorships.
Furthermore, US Christian troops occupying Germany was a little different than US troops occupying Muslim holy lands. They tend to not like that so much.
Now about it being a Democratic ‘talking point’ that Nixon called Reagan a ‘lightweight’. . . It’s funny and sad that you can’t acknowledge when you’re wrong. If you read the Stephan Hayes article (not exactly a Democrat!), you will see that MANY dismissed Reagan as a lightweight who was all talk and platitudes. I think Obama has based his campaign, in large part, on Reagan (who based his campaign on the Democratic optimism of Kennedy and FDR) .
20. Aaron | February 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am
McCain is a household name who has been in congress for eons, and who has run for president on previous occasions. Considering that, he should be clobbering a relative unknown new-comer who has only served in the Senate for 3 1/2 years, and who is only now being introduced to voters on the national stage.
And yet, most polls show him losing to McCain - some by wide margins - before Obama has even laid a glove on him. AP has Obama leading McCain by 10 points, while CBS has him up by a walloping 12.
McCain had the good fortune in the primary to only have to share the stage with 8 other lackluster old white dimwits. He looks and sounds slow, boring and just plain awful in his campaign appearances, but that was enough against a truly crappy field of Republicans. Once voters size up McCain next to Obama, the comparison is going to be pretty unflattering for McCain.
Moreover, McCain is married firmly now to GWB and his Iraq madness. Iraq is only going to get worse this summer as over-stretched US forces must draw down from the surge. Once the Sunni tribes stop getting their loyalty bribe money from the US, and al-Sadr’s Shi’a militias end their cease-fire, the civil war will be back in full swing - only this time it will be bloodier than ever as the Shi’a militias and Sunni tribal groups turn their newly acquired American weapons on one another. That’s what our tax dollars go for these days: arming the next round of ethnic warfare in Iraq.
So our troops will be left to valiantly referee another round of civil war in Iraq, while McCain goes around the country explaining how great it is that we continue to bleed and spend $12 billion a month… with no end in sight after 5 damn years of this shit. And he’ll try to explain that this occupation is such a wonderful thing that he thinks we should do it for another 50 or 100 years.
Perhaps he’ll follow that up with another visit to a peaceful Baghdad marketplace to prove again that everything there is as normal as regular country fair in the US (if you ignore the 100 special forces, flak jackets, and attack helicopters needed to protect his sorry ass while he visits this “country fair”).
This boob McCain is going down hard this November.
21. Aaron | February 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
previous post should read:
“And yet, most polls show him losing to Obama - some by wide margins…”
22. Darva Conger | February 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
The American people are not dumb, they know a McCain administration will just like a third term for Bush.
They will not go for that.
23. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Just stick with the socialism & isolationist story.
Just keep promising to “take” (steal) the profits of “big” oil, and “big” pharmaceuticals. That way we won’t have any oil or medicine. (Oops, let that slip in. Ignore it.)
Just keep promising to withdraw around the world and damn the consequences.
Just keep saying your all about “alternative energy”, while pushing wood chips. Say your for wind, while blocking it. No-one will notice.
Whatever you do, don’t suggest any hydro-electric projects. That may harm some owls. And forget about atomic energy. Too scary.
And make sure to stifle political speech while allowing Soros to pour millions into anti-GOP organizations. Thats fine.
Lastly, take away the people guns, in case they ever get wise to you.
Sounds like a plan!
24. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Remind me again how many religious factions are fighting each other in Germany and Japan?
WOW, our being there must be working! Way to go USA!
The only way this worked was under strong-arm dictatorships.
What a racist!
“Richard Nixon actually called Reagan a LIGHTWEIGHT”
Considering Reagan had been governor of California for 8 years when Nixon said this, I guess Nixon was wrong.
“And yet, most polls show him losing to Obama - some by wide margins…”
Leading in the polls by W I D E margins, just like President Gore, President Kerry and President Dukakis?
25. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
kahn, stop being such a drama queen.
Who said we are going to “withdraw around the world and damn the consequences”?
Nobody is taking away your freaking uzi.
Nobody is saying anything about stifling free speech.
By the way… Keep bringing up the wind and hydro energy that the Dems are “blocking”. By the way, did you see the vote just recently to remove some tax subsidies from the oil giants and invest in wind and solar? Them damn liberals, huh? That sure doesn’t seem like they are blocking wind at all. Of course you WILL complain that a tax subsidy is getting removed for the oil biggies.
26. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Um,
Uzi’s - real ones are restricted from import, require a several hundred dollar transfer tax, and the BATF can come to you house at any time and demand to see it.
Speech IS restricted. The campaig finance laws not only restrict donations and financing - they restrict using the candidates names (and other speech that would point to a candidate) for certain times before elections. That is a restriction on speech, isn’t it?
Isn’t the plan to withdraw from Iraq without any hesitation? I don’t hear Obama saying “…. unless” What would make Obama keep troops there? The threat of a bloody civil war or of a greater regional war don’t seem to matter. What would?
Good that they voted to push wind and solar. There are no current hydro projects being considered (free energy for decades) and no nuclear.
The bill they speak of below not only delayed the Cape Cod project - a big one. But ALL projects. Don’t have time to search further now. But you can look into it, if you care. For crying out loud - I WANT windmill project. I just get mad when you people let Kennedy and Kerry get away with this. You know, we do a pretty good job of policing our side. We’ll kick someone to the curb pretty quickly when we need to. Not libs though.
Oh and stoping tax breaks is fine. Thats NOT what Clinton and Obama are saying. They say their going to “TAKE those profits”.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/
27. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Sorry for the exaggeration on the uzi comment… Still, it doesn’t change the fact that nobody is “taking away your guns”.
28. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Isn’t the plan to withdraw from Iraq without any hesitation? I don’t hear Obama saying “…. unless”
That isn’t what you originally said Kahn. Your comment that I commented on was this…
Just keep promising to withdraw around the world and damn the consequences
Withdrawing from Iraq… yes. He is saying that. Withdrawing from the world… no.
As for restricting donations thru the campaign finance laws… I say we make all federal polital campaigns federally financed. Maybe we would get some better people in there that wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise.
29. Darva Conger | February 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
President Dukakis? There won’t be any Willie Horton ads in this election or rides in M1 tanks.
President Gore? Nader will be a non-factor and no Supreme Court will hand the election to McCain this time.
President Kerry? Bush barely won. In fact he had the closest popular margin ever for a victorious sitting President. Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry. You call that a great performance for a wartime President? With his popularity in the low thirties right now you can be he will drag down the GOP in many locations.
30. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Kahn: Speech IS restricted. The campaig finance laws not only restrict donations and financing - they restrict using the candidates names (and other speech that would point to a candidate) for certain times before elections. That is a restriction on speech, isn’t it?
Actually, only the explicit endorsement of a candidate by an unaffiliated group is still disallowed in the period before an election. The endorsement of issues is no longer restricted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/washington/26scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Regarding the Globe article you cited, is that what you’re taking as evidence that ALL wind projects have been delayed? Where do you get that? At best (or worst) the ammendment described in your article (which was defeated, by the way) applies only to off-shore farms. And, as your article also indicates, there were supporters and opponents on both sides of the aisle. Finally, the dirty stinkin’ hippies in the Sierra Club have endorsed the Cape Wind project. So it appears as though it’s impossible to say that all Democrats or all liberals are against it.
31. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Rico - no. I have found them in the past. just don’t have time to research this morning. You could look into it. I’ve published links before - well at Blogs4Bush.
I mean you could look into it if you really care that a pair of Senators are blocking wind projects and you care about that more than who they are…..
32. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Rico -
“Opponents of the Cape Wind project include several influential members of Congress. Critics say their latest attempt to thwart the planting of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound has led to a moratorium on wind farms hundreds of miles away in the Midwest.
Federal officials refused to reveal how many stop-work orders have been sent out. But developers say at least 15 wind farm proposals in the Midwest have been shut down by the Federal Aviation Administration since the beginning of the year.
The list of stalled projects includes one outside Bloomington, Ill., that would be the nation’s largest source of wind energy, generating enough juice to power 120,000 homes in the Chicago area. The developer had planned to begin installing turbines this summer and start up the farm next year.
“This is a big, ugly political maneuver by a handful of people who are undermining America’s energy security,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a not-for-profit group that promotes renewable power.”
http://www.energybulletin.net/17650.html
You can look into it further - if you really care. Global Warming believers, you didn’t know this? I’ve pointed it out before.
33. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Kahn: Critics say their latest attempt to thwart the planting of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound has led to a moratorium on wind farms hundreds of miles away in the Midwest.
Uhh… You were participating on the last Global Warming thread, right? Check out my comment #97 on it. In it there’s a link to an article about the very same wind farms in the Midwest, and about how the Sierra Club sued the Pentagon to try to force them to get their butts in gear and provide the overdue impact study that was delaying the construction of the wind farms in question.
Here’s a quote from the article I linked to:
The Sierra Club sued the Department of Defense on Wednesday, saying its failure to complete a key study has stopped construction of more than a dozen wind farms in the Midwest.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon missed a May deadline for a study on whether the wind farms interfere with military radar, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
The Federal Aviation Administration has halted projects in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, and South Dakota until the agency can determine their impact on the radar.
“The end result is the wind industry is being crippled,” said Kristin Henry, attorney of the Sierra Club.
Maybe it really is the same elitist cabal responsible. I don’t know. But even if so, it’s pretty clear that not all lefties are on one side and all righties on the other. Assuming it’s really true that you “just get mad when you people let Kennedy and Kerry get away with this”, and suggest that “we do a pretty good job of policing our side”, I suspect you’re wrong — probably about both parts.
Finally, there is this: Shattering all its previous records, the U.S. wind energy industry installed 5,244 megawatts (MW) in 2007, expanding the nation’s total wind power generating capacity by 45% in a single calendar year and injecting an investment of over $9 billion into the economy, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced today.
So apparently whatever obstructions existed in 2006, they were either not ubiquitous or have eased. Either way, one of the things I find attractive about some renewable sources (particularly wind and solar) is that they can be built very quickly — in a matter of months rather than years or decades.
34. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hey Kahn… before you continue with the liberals and the “your party” blocks this and that…. did you read that whole article you just linked?
So enough of the “your party” is blocking wind farms. There are plenty from BOTH sides blocking this. Cry all you want that it is getting blocked, but stop the finger-pointing.
35. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Rico - well yes I was in the thread but stopped reading it recently. The point came up here when I made a list where this was included. I was challenged to prove it, and so here we are.
The laws the Pentagon is trying to answer were put in place by Kennedy and others as a deliberate deterrent to Cape Cod. They wrote the law in such a way that it affects all the projects in the country. It’s not like the Pentagon had a room of people sitting around waiting to go do windmill environmental impact studies.
It’s good that the Sierra Club sued. But why didn’t they attack Kennedy for writing and getting the law passed in the first place? Why won’t you? Give me a break, this isn’t the big bad Pentagon doing this. It’s your own northeastern elite. Call them on it - or don’t expect me to take you seriously.
YOUR people did this. Why aren’t you willing to call them on it?
36. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Kahn: YOUR people did this. Why aren’t you willing to call them on it?
See my comment #34
37. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Thanks Joe. But he didn’t write that law, did he?
I already oppose John Warner (who is in his last term) on this and other issues.
Why are you looking for Republicans in the weeds. This was a Teddy Kennedy action. Why are you insisting on politicizing this and to not criticize him for it?
It makes me wonder if you REALLY think energy independence and global warming are important?
OK - The north eastern liberals got Warner on-board with attacking the Cape Cod project. But YOUR party wrote and passed a law that killed (or severely restricted) ALL the projects.
Come on, are you a partisan hack or are you fighting for the environment? I thought you guys claimed the high ground on this?
38. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Kahn: YOUR people did this. Why aren’t you willing to call them on it?
See my comment #34
So WHY ARE YOU NOT WILLING TO ATTACK THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WROTE, INTRODUCED, LOBBIED FOR, and PASSED this restrictive law? Why do you look for one single Republican (who represents coal interests in Virginia, by the way)?
How does this KENNEDY sponsored bill square with the DEMOCRAT position on Global warming?
Jeezzzz, stop being such a political dick and join me in this, Don’t you WANT windmill projects?
39. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Joe, obviously you care more about a bumbling drunk-driver murderer who single handedly killed wind power than you do about global warming and energy independence. I know it must be hard for you to attack one of your own, but this is ludicrous. Your credibility wanes by the second…..
40. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I’m trying to politicize anything. I just think that you blaming the Democrats for this is foolish. Yes, Kennedy may have written the bill, but someone had to write it. He also could have written the bill had nobody voted for it.
The whole “YOUR party” did this attitude is faulty.
With a few simple google searches, I have found that Sen Stevens added language to a bill giving say over the Cape Wind project to the state allowing for Mitt Romney to veto it.
I’ve also found that Sen Cornyn and Sen Hutchinson (both Repubs from Texas) were blocking a section of the energy bill that allowed for wind turbines because they didn’t like that nuclear wasn’t included or because it would have removed the oil tax subsidies . So why block the acvancement of the wind option for something like that?
Enough of the “YOUR party” is at fault.
41. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“The maneuver to stop the wind farm ”is clearly a backroom deal, and they’re going to get called publicly on it,” said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA. ”The Democrats are going to kill the first big offshore wind farm in the United States because of their relationship with Ted Kennedy.”"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/
42. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Kahn,
Perhaps it’s time to start putting pressure on members of both sides of the isle who are trying to stop wind farms rather than try to put it on one party. It seem to be one area that the majority of those commenting on this blog agree. I would be more than happy to send emails to anyone opposing wind farms. Would you?
43. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Well, I guess you just won’t condemn Teddy Kennedy no matter what. Even Greenpeace disagrees with you.
44. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Nice attempt to deflect Casper. But your party controls Congress, not mine. Kennedy wrote and introduced this bill. Not Warner or Stevens.
Since Joe found two Republican names so easily, I challenge either of you to tell me what Democrats were involved and to condemn Kennedy.
It just looks more and more that party is ALL you see. You complain about global warming ad nauseum - and won’t condemn this. Give me a break.
NO, this is NOT a Republican thing. Stop it. Be honest.
45. Some Assembly Required | February 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Kahn,
Ted Kennedy is no saint by any means, but then Greenpeace is not exactly a beacon of perfection either. Take what they staged for the seal hunt for instance.
New renewable energy alternatives requires cooperation from both sides of the isle. Blaming one side or the other quickly leads to a stalemate.
46. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Kahn,
Ok. Ted Kennedy is a jerk. So is Ted Stevens and anyone else who is trying to stop wind farms. I don’t care who.
Happy.
47. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Wrong again kahn. Just because he is a Democrat, I am far from backing him on everything he says and does.
I’m not sure why you are attacking me and claiming I am saying things that I am not.
Relax. We are on the same page. I WANT wind farms. I want them in Nantucket Sound for cryin out loud.
All I am saying is we should pressure everyone opposing them regardless of party. I am just pointing out your issue with pointing this to only Democrats.
48. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Kennedy caught in crosswind
Cape project move draws ire
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/kennedy_caught_in_crosswind/
49. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Note The above bill was the one that gave states the right to veto a project. There is ANOTHER bill that Kennedy wrote that required extensive environmental studies.
So yes, some Republicans were involved above. Their apparent justification is “states rights” though none had imminent projects that would be affected.
We are talking about more than one wind killing bill.
But obviously blaming Republicans is more important than actually building windmills. Thanks Democrats for showing your true natures - again.
50. Some Assembly Required | February 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Kahn,
We get it, Kennedy wrote and sponsored the bill. People from both parties supported it.
Move on
51. Joe | February 28th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
WTF? I’m not just blaming Republicans. I’m saying that both parties are WRONG. Why do you want to keep saying I am being partisan here?
This conversation is going around in circles.
Blame Kennedy all you want. I blame him too. But because Kennedy did this, you can’t say that the entire Democrat party is doing this. I am simply pointing out that both Dems and Repubs are blocking these things for different reasons. Neither is correct on the issue.
Man. And you are saying all I want to do is blame Republicans?? Geesh.
Next topic.
52. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
WRONG two bills See above.
Still can’t bring yourself to condemn Kennedy? THAT’s my point now. Why should I take you seriously on Global Warming.
Here’s a link to freakin’ Greenpeace, for cryin’ out loud.
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/hottie_off_the_presses/2006/05/08/title_334
53. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Kahn: It’s good that the Sierra Club sued. But why didn’t they attack Kennedy for writing and getting the law passed in the first place?
My understanding is that they did attack Kennedy — and the others as well. As did Greenpeace, and various congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. However, the connection between Cape Wind and the Midwest farms is a little harder to understand. You say, “Kennedy wrote and introduced this bill.” What bill? Your Globe article indicated that the problem was that Kennedy et. al. attempted to attach an ammendment to a Coast Guard authorization bill that would provide state governors veto powers over offshore wind projects (and in fact it was Don Young that got the ball rolling in the House before the Senate took it up). Be that as it may, how that would affect the Midwest farms is not clear. Both your article and mine (linked to on the other thread) fingered the FAA as the agency that pulled the plug on the Midwest farms. Mine further indicated that the reason they did was because the Pentagon didn’t provide an environmental impact review in a timely manner. Yours simply implied that “a handful of people” were behind it — as well as the Cape Wind controversy. They didn’t really say they were the same handful though.
So I did a little more research. And interestingly, it appears that Sen. John Warner is responsible for getting the Pentagon involved: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 contained a last-minute amendment, inserted by Senator John Warner of Virginia, requiring Donald Rumsfeld and DOD to complete a study on the effect of windmills on military readiness and the operation of military radar installations by May 8, 2006. Interesting. Your article provides the other half of the connection, the one to Cape Wind: Another opponent is U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who has tried several times to block the Cape Wind project. So there is indeed at least one common link. And since he’s good buddies with Uncle Ted, it seems reasonable to at least wonder whether he was aware of what Warner was up to.
As for Ted Kennedy, it’s quite clear he’s tried many different ways to prevent the Cape wind project. And despite all the reasons he’s tried to come up with, it’s also quite clear that the real reason is that he thiks it would be an eyesore when he’s sitting around on his veranda sipping mint juleps with his buddies looking out on Nantucket Sound. Well boo hoo.
54. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Rico - thank you. Long winded, but thank you.
55. Brian G. | February 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Look at every other poll, fellas. McCain’s got his work cut out, especially with Clinton done for.
56. Dasein Libsbane | February 28th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Rico,
Please don’t forget the Sierra Club’s opposition to Maryland Wind Farms as they pose a threat to migratory birds.
And speaking of birds, wasn’t it a democrat (Rahall) that introduced H.R. 2337 that would have effectively shut down wind farms in the US? in fact it’s still being considered by the House, isn’t it?
57. Dasein Libsbane | February 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Sorry, wrong thread.
Rico, Did you get my note on Thomas Sowell?
58. Darva Conger | February 28th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Kurt:
“Heads up: watch Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio(again). I like McCain’s chances in all of those.”
And why do you like McCain’s chances in those states?
Michigan went Dem in ’92, ’96, ’00 and ’04. Minnesota hasn’t gone GOP since 1972. Wisconsin went Dem in ’76, ’88, ’92, ’96, ’00 and ’04. Ohio went Dem in ’76, ’92 and ’96 and of all your states mentioned it is the only one close to going for McCain.
Mark my words, you guys are going to lose, it might be close, but you are going to lose. You have an unpopular war, an economy losing steam and a Congress that is going to stay in the Dem fold (and increase its numbers) and you still think McCain will win?
59. Poll…But be WRAY! a&hellip | February 28th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
[…] Poll: McCain Beats Hillary, Obama in November […]
60. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Dasein: Did you get my note on Thomas Sowell?
Yes, thank you.
Please don’t forget the Sierra Club’s opposition to Maryland Wind Farms as they pose a threat to migratory birds.
I promise I won’t. I’m not sure what to make of it, though. That little sound bite you offered seemed rather silly. And if you Google [western maryland wind power] you get the impression that there’s considerable debate within the MD chapter of the Sierra Club about it.
Kahn: Rico - thank you. Long winded, but thank you.
Yeah, I wrote that last post before I read your #48 one. The link you provided pretty much covered what I did. By the way, it appears that another off-shore farm is in the works off Delaware.
61. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
One more thing (and again off topic)… I recently got an email from a regular here suggesting I email Matt and/or Mark about running a topic on the future of energy. I’ve been thinking about it and haven’t written back yet. But interestingly, one of the points I was going to make when I did has been well-illustrated on this thread. That is: future energy policies are very likely to cut across the typical partisan divides. I’m sure the regular ideological differences will still reveal themselves, at least on a knee-jerk level (if nothing else, most of us that frequent this site appear to have very strong reflexes), but I am convinced that superimposed on them will be other concerns that may in fact dominate. In the present case of siting wind farms we see that the divide is based more on how people feel about relative priviledge than it is partisanship. When it comes to other related issues like biofuels, engine efficiency, electric grid efficiency and deployment, cleaning up or replacing coal plants, drilling for oil, building nuclear reactors, etc., the battle lines are likely to form around the lines of power, prestige, and especially patronage. The deadly “Five P’s”: partisanship, priviledge, prestige, power and patronage. It’s going to be difficult sledding (assuming anyone remembers what “sledding” was, lol!). But really, is it possible for anyone to assume congresscritters in the position of, say, Richard Lugar or Don Nelson are not going to listen very closely to what “big agro” has to say about the ethanol industry? Or critters in the position of, say Charlie Dingle are not going to listen very closely to what “big auto” has to say about the car industry? I’m not saying that any side on any issue is necessarily right or wrong, but I AM suggesting that it will be important to be mindful of where the major players in the upcoming battles get their bread buttered.
62. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Rico - exactly. Thats my point about hydro=electric plants. They provide decades and decades of electricity and gather water that can feed urban areas. But I doubt that one will ever be built again. Is that a party thing? No.
63. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Ricorun,
I think that would be an excellent topic. I have relatives who are making big money right now growing corn, I also live in a state that can provide energy regardless of what direction things go (we have oil, gas, coal, lots of sunny days, and wind, way too much wind). It is a very important topic and one which crosses party lines.
Who knows, perhaps we could discuss it without the normal nasty name calling. LOL
BTW, did I mention we get lots of wind?
64. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Of course, McCain does have problems with his appeal to some conservatives, such as George Will:
65. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
And Bill Donohue of The Catholic League:
66. Diana Powe | February 28th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Ann Althouse is piling on Senator McCain as well for the Senator’s embrace of what she terms “a raving anti-Catholic” (video in her blog entry):
67. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Diana, but have you noticed that in every string dealing with Obama’s stated positions they are so ludicrous that it turns into a joke?
If Al-Queda is in Iraq, we’ll fight the. They are in Iraq. They’re there because of yoe. But they ARE there and so you’re going to fight them, right? No you’re not? I don’t get it.
Against NAFTA? Why? How will you circumvent this LAW?
Really - what the heck is he even proposing? Enough with the cut-n-pastes (your SOP), can’t you think for yourself?
68. Diana Powe | February 29th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Kahn,
This thread is about the ability of Senator McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee being able to succeed in the general election against whoever is the Democratic nominee which may be Senator Clinton or may be Senator Obama. Now if Senator McCain is the nominee and if he is to succeed then he has to appeal to Republicans who wouldn’t ordinarily support him, such as evangelical Christians and Republicans who don’t like McCain-Feingold. Frankly, his flip-flop on evangelical Christians is fairly embarrassing to watch.
So, it’s rather relevant to this thread to point out that a major conservative writer, George Will, thinks Senator McCain suffers from a “towering moral vanity” in regard to public campaign funding that leads him to a “disturbing righteousness” and two other conservative voices are lambasting Senator McCain’s very public and unequivocal embrace of an evangelical Christian minister who refers to the Roman Catholic Church as “The Great Whore”. So, if you’d like to expound on those points, I’d be fascinated. Of course, I’d really be fascinated if Mark, speaking as he often does as a Roman Catholic, should choose to comment on Senator McCain and John Hagee. We shall see.
69. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Diana - fair enough. But the OTHER side of the equation is this:
1. A woman people feel would be a Democrat Nixon.
and
2. A man who is so wildly naive and clueless that we can hardly talk about his positions without laughing. Thats of course when you can actually figure out what his positions are.
Against either of THOSE alternatives, McCain looks good.
70. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Oh and Diana - compare those Christians with Obama’s ties (yes - ties) to Louis Farrakhan. Again, McCain is looking good.
71. Diana Powe | February 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Deleted - off topic.
72. Diana Powe | February 29th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Deleted - off topic.
73. rn johns little farms mic&hellip | April 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
[…] Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohioagain. … RN made one observation to Bill that he asked be passed on.http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/02/28/poll-mccain-beats-hillary-obama-in-november/trackback/free internet t.v.smolinske belay croatia Pagemod ancient greece marathon city 3 31346 3778 5. […]