New Gang of 14 won't back McCain

New Gang of 14 won't back McCain

thehill.com

At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.

Many of the recalcitrant GOP members declined to detail their reasons for withholding support, but Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) expressed major concerns about McCain’s energy policies and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) cited the Iraq war.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This tickles me pink. I keep hearing all sorts of talk about how Democrats see Obama as unelectable but all the evidence points to McCain being the one who is unloved, even by his own party.

What I find most intriguing about this story is the two reasons given for members of his party choosing to not support him: Iraq and Energy.

I quite honestly thought McCain was going to be hard to beat, but with every day that passes it seems to me that he becomes more and more UNelectable.

thehill.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Animal


Animal
What you are saying is correct as I am seeing it at this point also. It is still a long road to the election also. A lot of things could happen. McCain may or may not stand firm on those issues, a bargain could be reached. Many different things could happen.

Originally posted by Animal
all the evidence points to McCain being the one who is unloved, even by his own party.

They both (Obama and McCain) have serious problems within their own parties.

This 'gang of 14' knows McCain well. They've worked closely with him. The fact that they don't want him AND the fact that other republicans have said that McCain's temper is out of control point to something serious.

People should take note. 1/2 the dems and a good number of republicans (I don't have a figure) don't want to vote for the nominee of their respective parties.

We SERIOUSLY need more than two major parties.

(thehill leans left. It would be great to find some confirmation from a source that isn't left leaning - but it's still an interesting find Animal )

I've been looking into voting for Bob Barr lately. I've HAD to look because he has an (L) by his name.

Still, If Ima blow my vote it should be on a guy I disagree with on 1 or 2 issues instead of nearly all of them...and make a statement against the (D), (R) status quo.

reply to post by Gatordone


Gator
That is a tactic that does work. For all the grief the U.S. gets from the two party system people supporting the other parties out there does force change in the two parties.

It is going to take a lot more than the minority choosing to vote 3rd party. The only 3rd party that ever had legs in the USA is a Bolter Party, and that is not likely to change. The 2 party system is too deeply engraved in the system itself.

I am all for more parties as well, I just do not believe that rogue votes are going to force the change as they have failed to for something like 200 years.

Still it is your right to do with it what you want.

If you read the article, you will note that this is neither unusual nor surprising. It happens every election cycle and it doesn't mean that those who don't publicly endorse McCain will endorse Obama. McCain has bruised a few egos over the years and it's early. Those who are still stinging a bit over the primaries have plenty of time to come around.

It is not unusual for certain factions of the Democratic and Republican parties not to embrace their respective candidates for president. McCain’s campaign seized on some Democrats’ reticence about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), issuing a release on Tuesday that highlighted that Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) is not endorsing the presumptive nominee. While some conservative Democrats have yet to endorse Obama and didn’t back Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004, there are both centrist and conservative Republicans representing various parts of the country who are not embracing McCain.

Throughout his career in the House and Senate, McCain has been at odds with his party on a range of issues, including campaign finance reform, earmarks, immigration, healthcare, taxes and energy.

thehill.com...

[edit on 2008/6/12 by GradyPhilpott]

I don't think we need more parties. I think we need less parties. As in zero parties. The people should be able to choose individuals who we believe are best suited to run this country, not parties. Parties evolve over time, and in doing so their agendas do as well. Inevitably, a party will eventually seek to improve it's standing with, and over other parties. Thusly, decisions begin to be based on what is most beneficial for the party, rather than the people.

This is not supposed to be a contest to see which party can achieve more members in congress, or which party controls the white house. Yet, this is what our government has become.