John McCain's win tonight in the Florida primary is a pretty big deal. Rumor has it that Rudy is set to endorse him tomorrow and with all the big primaries coming up in a week, it would seem the GOP nomination is McCain's to lose. I don't see that happening.

So, the question here for the real Republicans (as opposed to those who like to claim the label so they can post here simply to diss the GOP) is can and will you support John McCain for President?

Edited to add:

Tomorrow the GOP candidates will be out here debating at the Reagan Library. Local TV is reporting that recent polls (taken prior to the Florida results) show McCain with a 13 point lead. I think that lead is only going to grow and if John McCain does indeed become the Republican candidate (which he will for sure if he wins in California), who knows. California night come into play in the general election. That thought has to scare the holy hell out of the Democrats.


Aquilla

I have said that John McCain is more conservative than most people think and I also believe that he is probably more electable in a general election assuming the base comes out for him (which might be questionable).

As the campaign rolls on, my support for McCain has actually dwindled. I don't like how he misrepresented Romney's alleged position on timetables in Iraq. I still feel he is the best fiscal conservative although I dislike how he defers to others on the specifics (if I hear Phil Graham's name again...).

On a personal note, McCain is hard on the eyes. Specifically something about his eyes makes me flinch. I'm not sure what it is...

I will gladly vote for McCain over any of the Democratic field and I do think McCain has the best chance of defeating the Billary machine, should it come to that. I do feel there is something to the charge of the Rush Limbaugh types out there that if the media and the New York Times endorse McCain there must be something wrong with him. We'll see how it goes.

I haven't swallowed the McCain pill yet, but that doesn't mean I definitely won't vote for him. He didn't do much campaigning here in Iowa, but from the little I have read about him, I am not turned off. What I will find interesting is what rhetoric we will hear from Beck if McCain gets the nod. I have stopped listening to his show as all I have heard is how bad McCain is. I occasionally tune in to check in, but all I get is how wonderful Romney is, and how bad McCain is. If McCain gets the nomination, will Beck go on about how bad he is, or will he fall in line with the rest of the pundits and back him because he is the Republican nominee? Will he stand firm and not support McCain and push a third party candidate or independent? This should be good to watch unfold.

What I find interesting is that last summer, RCP had a democrat winning in all general election polls, but now with McCain leading the Republican race, he is in a statistical tie with the two Democratic leaders. Just some food for thought.

If McCain or Romney win it, which will become likely- I would vote against either of them, though it is a hard pill vs Hillary.

But, if given a choice of more of the same of the GW strain, with a hard headed military man that will make no attempt to compromise and expects us to be in Iraq for "a hundred years", we will be right back in the saddle we are in with GW, and his ruinous policies.

Given a GW-like administration and a Bill Clinton-like administration, I would pick Bill Clinton-like administration, every time. But will vote the libertarian ticket again before I hand either of them my vote.

A Republican win in November would probably best closest to a Clinton administration--a divided Congress and White House among the two parties which often makes for the best governance. The Democrats have already shown themselves to be incapable of getting much done in this session.

A same party Congress and White House is where things gets out of hand. Republicans spending like drunk Democrats and the White House thinking it can get away with anything.

A divided Washington is what we need. Bring back the government shut down!

My first search for an alternative brought this candidate: Wayne Root. I have only had time to read the page that this link is to, but from what I have read, I am starting to think Root is a better option than either of the Republican candidates. And no, I don't think voting Libertarian is throwing my vote away, as some would like to say. Not voting for the person that is closest to my political ideology is throwing a vote away.

Actually, a vote for a non-viable candidate is, in many respects, a throw away vote at best or a vote for your political antithesis at worst.

I heard that Romney may run ads in California and New York saying that a vote for Huckabee was a vote for McCain. Huckabee is unlikely to win those races and if the person would choose Romney over McCain, then a vote for Huckabee IS a vote for McCain (i.e. taking a vote from Romney).

Similarly, when I voted for Ross Perot in the first Presidential election I ever voted in (1992), I in effect helped to get Bill Clinton elected by not voting for a more viable candidate who was closer to my positions on issues. Did Ross Perot getting 19% of the vote (almost all from Bush Sr in my estimation) move anybody away from Washington waste or NAFTA? Nope. So I threw my vote away and, in effect, voted Bill Clinton into office.

When the topic gets spun as you have done, then yes, it can be viewed as a wasted vote, however, most people would agree that our civic duty is to vote for the best candidate for the position. Since that statement is extremely subjective, looking at only two candidates representing two parties is very narrow focused. Let's take a McCain v. Clinton general election. Neither of them really are in line with the issues that I feel are most important to me. Now those issues are going to be very different from the one's you feel are most important. Not because of political association, but because you and I are very different people at different points in our individual lives facing different circumstances. That is what is great about our country, a wide array of people making decisions for themselves, and what comes of it is a wealth of ideas and input. Since we are electing the leader of our country, I want to make sure that my vote represents me, and not what the media would say is important. I want to find a candidate that supports my views, not one that I think has the best chance at winning. Electability is one of the last reasons someone should cast a ballot for. I would be interested in finding out how many people vote for either party specific candidates, or by what they see on TV versus actually researching the candidates and finding someone that best represents their ideology.

It is our civic duty to vote, and to vote for what we deem as the best candidate, no matter what anyone else says. Not doing so is wasting your vote as I see it.

I agree. Too many times the "lessor of two evils" votes votes in at least one evil.

I will still vote for Ron Paul. The only candidate that would not disappoint me horribly other than Ron Paul is Obama, I think Obama is going for the "healing and consensus" thing- and back to the center from the neo-con right funk we are in now- very healthy thing for America, and what we really need as well here. I don't think Obama will be as horrible as any of the others, and he doesn't frighten me as an ideologue.

This is simply not true. Ask those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 if they would do it again, knowing that they helped to elect Bush. Ask me if I'd vote for Ross Perot knowing what I know now about 1992.

No candidate is perfect, no candidate is going to perfectly align with a person on every issue.

The civic duty to vote is an attempt to get the person elected that is closest to your political position. Part of the equation of making that happen is to vote for someone who is viable.

I could write in Walter Williams for President, but that would be a vote for the Democrat, no matter who that was because Dr. Williams is simply not going to win.

We are going to have to agree to disagree it seems. I won't go as far as you did and say that you are wrong, but we simply disagree with the value of a vote. I don't have any qualms voting for someone the public deems non-viable. In my view, viability has nothing to do with it. Voting your conscious has everything to do with it. I have never claimed that there is going to be a politician that lines up perfectly with my political views, unless I were to run. My point is, what do you do in an election year such as this one where it appears McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, and it doesn't matter who the Democrat is going to be because you completely disagree with both of them? McCain supports amnesty. I do not. McCain did not support the tax cuts. I do. McCain has not shown how he plans on simplifying the tax code. That is important to me. McCain has not told me how he is going to reduce wasteful spending. This is important to me. So, because he supports the war in Iraq, and I do, I should vote for him? Since I can only think of one issue that we agree with, I should vote for him because I don't agree on any issues the other side has? That is ridiculous! You may be able to easily write off a vote for someone in a third party, but I can't. By me voicing my position and supporting a third party candidate, maybe that will be one more vote that will bring these third parties more exposure. Maybe not. But if I can help get us out of this broken two party system that only wants to fight for more power and bigger government, I will do it. Wayne Root has laid out his position on many issues. Some I disagree with, but the ones that affect me most, we agree on. Right now, it appears that I will be supporting Mr. Root because that is where my vote will do the most good. Voting for the lesser of two evils needs to stop in this country, and the only way that can happen is if we look at more options. Sure, the third party candidates usually don't raise millions of dollars, but I was not aware that the White House was for sale. It's time we got away from money being the power and bring the people and ideas back into control of this country and our government. I refuse to vote for someone that is too far from my political ideology just because of viability and to vote against someone else. If I can't find someone, we have the right to use the write in option. Maybe I will get one vote for president one day.

Voting is your chance to get the government leaders into office that you would like. If there isn't a candidate that agrees with you completely, you vote for the closest to your position. If the two candidates (let's say McCain and Clinton) have no difference between them to you, then a third party vote isn't wasteful, since you have no opinion between the two.

However, if universal government healthcare or tax increases or pulling out of Iraq before the job is done are important to you, then there is a choice between the two and voting for a third party who is unlikely to get more than a few percent of the votes is really a vote against the main party candidate that is closest to you.

As you pointed out, it is the difference in what is important to you. Let's put it this way. I refuse to vote for Romney, if McCain gets the nomination, I don't see any alignments with the issues that impact me the most, or that I feel are most important. Clinton and Obama are both on the other side of the fence entirely from what I feel is important. I have, over the past few years, found that Libertarians align closer to what I believe, and the two major parties are getting farther away from what I believe. This is only the fault of the two major parties, not the third parties or myself.

By more people supporting third parties, they become more viable. I honestly think if more people understood that, more people would vote third party, as the two major parties go further away from what people used to know them as. Some Democrats may think that the Democratic Party is moving too far left. Some Republicans (myself included) may think the Republican Party is moving too far left on some issues, and too far right on others. This of course is a matter of opinion, however since we have seen no real differences between the two parties we are dealing with now, I am willing to work towards what I believe.

I understand this line of thinking, but I disagree with it. If you do not vote for the candidate that best represents your views, then your views don't get the support they deserve. Consider your vote for Perot (I also voted for him)...while it may have given the edge to Clinton in that race, it forced the Republicans to cater to that voting block and support their issues. Ditto with Nader and the Dems. If you don't vote for whoever best represents your views, then your views themselves get lost, as the voting block representing them gets devalued, and therefore the need to cater to those views diminishes.

Further, this line of thinking also makes it difficult for a candidate such as Perot to ever actually get elected. Had it not been for many people thinking he couldn't win, he might have actually won -- most of those Republicans who didn't vote him that I talked to didn't have anything against his policies, they just didn't think he could win. Well...guess what--if all those people who thought that had voted for him, then he could have possibly won! This goes for any 'alternative' candidate. Voting for only those considered 'viable' creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, where alternative candidates can never be taken seriously simply because they aren't considered 'viable'. Going back a little farther, Anderson went from 20+% in the polls to something like 2% of the vote due to this. Imagine how much more of his ideology might have become policy had he received the 20+% of the vote (representing those who he probably did have the same viewpoint as him).

Huh. You just covered the two ends of the spectrum. I some ways Paul is very conservative and we know Obama is as far left as you get. How can you be a “Republican” and say you can vote for Oboma.

McCain appeals to many in the middle and as you know the “50 years in Iraq” comment was taken out of context. Do you know what the context is?

Well, it is McCain after last night, and I think he has a pretty darn good chance of winning in November, regardless of who the Democrats put up. I've been shocked quite frankly at how well McCain has held up in what has to be a grueling journey. He's a much better national campaigner than he was 8 years ago. I was also very impressed with Gov. Huckabee's speech last night. He'll be a good asset campaigning for McCain although I don't expect him on the ticket. Still, he's a good guy and a great campaigner.


So, as DW says before the green flag.....


Boogity boogity boogity..... Let's go RACING folks!


Aquilla