McCain. Thoughts? Also NRA candidate ratings

[Texasdoc]

The NRA gave him a A+ in 82 and its stayed around a A for the past 20 years , I can't find a rating for him since that so I know he has ticked off a lot of gun rights folks with some of his bills.


I hope they rate him soon as I need to find a new guy to back since Fred dropped out.


Doc

[KBCraig]

McCain-Feingold lost him most any goodwill he had from all the gun groups.

Romney is definitely unfriendly to RKBA, because he is a proponent of "reasonable restrictions" (to borrow from another thread). Huckabee's only good point is RKBA; other than that, he's pretty much a Democrat.

Ron Paul has GOA's highest rating.

This will almost certainly be a brokered convention in September. It should be very interesting.

[Snake Doctor]

Just watched the Republican debate at RR Library. Mitt skirted questions as usual, McCain went straight to the point, Ron Paul said stuff that made great sense but got his standard "boo"s when asked about Iraq, and Huckabee, well... was Huckabee even there? He got to answer two full questions and one response question... during which he was cut off by Anderson Cooper. Don't you just love politics?

Oh, and Ron Paul fans... give it up! I love the guy but pushing for him at this point in the race is like pushing for Fred... AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. No disrespect intended.

[lrb111]

This will almost certainly be a brokered convention in September. It should be very interesting.

Newt / Bolton

We got to get someone that has at least has read the Constitution. But I would vote for Newt just for the fireworks.

[stroo]

McCain is great on Iraq and the War on Terror.
McCain would also push spending control.
Then he goes downhill.
In McCain-Feingold Act, he attacked the First Amendment and totally screwed up campaign finances.
On Supreme Court judges, he would be marginally better than Hillary. Think Souter, Kennedy, Stevens for the type of judges he would choose.
On the 2nd Amendment, I believe he voted for the Assault Weapons Ban and probably would sign a new version of it.
On immigration, he was the author of the bill that got shot down last year.
He doesn't understand economics and the need for tax cuts.
He believes America caused Global Warming and supports measures to attack it that would cause a lot of economic disruption to the country and send even more jobs overseas.
On abortion, he has a great voting record and has done absolutely nothing else to overturn Roe v Wade and according to reports from Republican Senators constantly worked to avoid votes on abortion issues.
He likes working with Democrats and hates working with Republicans.
While I didn't like any of the candidates this year, except Thompson, McCain is the one I would have the most trouble voting for. If it is Hilary vs McCain, I may sit out the first presidential election since I became eligible to vote in 1968.

[KBCraig]

and Huckabee, well... was Huckabee even there? He got to answer two full questions and one response question... during which he was cut off by Anderson Cooper.

Cooper was a complete... well, 10 year old daughters, and all.

He apparently thought his job was to interview the candidates and/or debate them himself, rather than moderate the debate. He completely ignored the ground rules of the debate, and cut off both Paul and Huckabee in order to facilitate the McRomney Show.

Here's the breakdown on time:

Romney got to speak for about 27 minutes
McCain spoke for about 20 min.
Huckabee got to speak for about 18 min.
Romeny and McCain went at each other for about 8 min.
Ron Paul only got to speak for about 7:40 min.

[anygunanywhere]

With the exception of Dr. Paul, the current crop of candidates from both sides illustrates the sorry state of our political system.

The next logical step for our political system is to call it a reality show and have the viewers vote on the candidates with their cell phones.

Political pundits and suppposed educated individuals advise against being single issue voters. I read somewhere a bit of advice that I found profound. The advice was that if a political candidate is not willing to trust you with your full right to keep and bear arms, then will they trust you in other aspects of your life? If they can not trust you with your right to keep and bear arms can you trust them to run your government?

Anygunanywhere

Edited for content.

[45ACP]

Since you asked, I've been Googling McCain out of curiosity. Now I'll say up front that I won't vote for him, I think he's a RINO, but here's what I've found:

- He lost FIVE aircraft. Two of those (Forrestal accident & SAM shoot-down) were arguably not his fault, but if you believe in people being lucky/unlucky, makes you wonder. I also wonder how many aircraft the average combat pilot loses. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmc ... five_u.htm

- McCain-Feingold, arrrgh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

- He got a lot of demerits in school and 894th out of 899 at the US Naval academy (is that what he means by being a 'maverick'?) http://www.wmsa.net/People/john_mccain/ ... I_1999.htm

- He has been accused of collaborating with the enemy in Vietnam. I've read a lot of 'interesting' stuff about his time in Vietnam, and it sounds like he may be a Manchurian candidate. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmc ... vietam.htm

- Here's what GOA says about him: http://gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

Ultimately, his record on many issues does not impress me, and I don't trust him. Also, he is notorious for his bad temper, a trait I do not want in someone who has nuclear launch authority. Damaged goods, IMO.

Oh yeah, 'Keating Five'.

[frankie_the_yankee]

McCain-Feingold lost him (meaning McCain) most any goodwill he had from all the gun groups.

Romney is definitely unfriendly to RKBA, because he is a proponent of "reasonable restrictions" (to borrow from another thread).

I hope the intention was not to borrow from any thread where I may have used the term, or to mis-characterize my use of it as "definitely unfriendly to the RKBA."

Outside of a very narrow fringe of legal and/or constitutional thought,totally unsupported by any sort of case law, everyone is a proponent of "reasonable restrictions". (As a reference I would suggest reading the recently posted Respondents' Brief from the Heller Case.)

So to be more usefully descriptive about Romney, it would help if more descriptive terms were used.

In some of his statements, Romney has indicated that he would be receptive to banning some types of weapons currently not banned if it "turned out" they were shown to be of "unusual leathality". This was on either Meet the Press or Fox News Sunday. Since the "leathality of common small arms is already pretty well known, I took this to mean that he would be receptive to signing bans on this or that type of gun if a gun ban group was able to successfully demonize it. ("Junk guns." "Sniper rifles." etc.)

Of course, through all this he gives lip service to the 2A.

Now McCain is an even finer piece of work. He swears up and down that he supports the RKBA. But he was the main force behind McCain-Feingold, the law that many believe imposed unconstitutional restrictions on political speech. So the thinking is that if he could blithley show such disrespect for the 1st Amendment, why would anyone believe that he would hold the 2nd in high regard?

It is true that Ron Paul has GOA's highest rating. But it is also true that he has about the same chance of becoming POTUS as as Barbara Streisand - probably less chance.

Of course any of these people would be 100 times better than any Democrat currently in the race. So no matter who gets the Republican nomination, gun owners best chance is to vote for them no matter who the Democrat is.

If we let the perfect become the enemy of the good, we will likely get stuck with "the horrible", or "the nightmare" as our reward.

[boomerang]

The last seven years has taught me RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.

[AEA]

Statements from all of them are only lies.........

This is Politics.....they all lie now and do what they want if and when they get elected.

They all try to tell the most believable lies.

Best to look at their history and don't even bother to listen to what they are saying.

[KBCraig]

It is true that Ron Paul has GOA's highest rating. But it is also true that he has about the same chance of becoming POTUS as as Barbara Streisand - probably less chance.

His chance of being elected POTUS if he's the nominee, is higher than his chance of actually being the nominee. I wish people would quit deluding themselves that pro-war socialist RINOs can beat pro-war socialist Democrats. Either McCain or Romney is a sure loser in the general election.

A note about polls, and the danger of relying on them: Saturday's Maine Caucus was in two parts: first, selection of delegates -- you know, those people who will actually decide the nominee. Second, a "presidential preference poll", which is not binding, and is basically useless. In the poll, Paul was third with 14%, just two points behind McCain. But in the delegate count so far (no final count yet), he's running a tight race with Romney for the lead, only slightly trailing at 35%.

Same with the Nevada caucus. He took second place in the poll with 14%, but insiders believe his delegate count is 30% or more. He won some counties outright.

Ron Paul has done consistently well in the race for delegates, and has focused on states with proportioned and uncommitted delegates. Winner take all (like Florida) is a sucker's bet, as Giuliani found out.

Even after the Super Tuesday number roll in, we won't know the real result until the delegate counts are known. We all know the general election is for electors, and the popular vote doesn't count; the primaries are even worse, with bigger disparities between popular vote and actual outcomes.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The last seven years has taught me RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.

Do you really think we would be better off today if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004?

Do you think either one of them would have appointed Alito or Roberts, or anyone remotely like them, to the SCOTUS?

What kind of Heller decision would be be expecting right now with two more Breyers on The Court?

[boomerang]

The last seven years has taught me RINOs are much more dangerous than donkeys.

Do you really think we would be better off today if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, or Kerry in 2004?

Hindsight is 20/20 but yes I do.