Of Romney and McCain, Romney's the one I believe when he says he'll appoint constructionist judges. And if he does indeed get Fred as VP, then all the better. He'll have a conservative backing him and hopefully breaking him of the habits developed from having to be a Republican in Massachussetts.
You know, I know it might be wrong, but I just can't vote for Romney. And yes, it's because of his religion. If he were Muslim, Jewish, whatever, I would not care, but Mormons are just fringey (is that a word? No ) enough that I can't support him.
And yet you seem to have forgotten all about it until reminded half an hour ago. Meanwhile, it's been absent on lists of why McCain is unacceptable compiled by everyone from Rush to Shep, while Campaign Finance Reform usually has star billing on those lists. Generally, transgressions that people have to be reminded of don't tend to carry as much vote-inhibiting impact as the ones that are never forgotten. Seems Keating 5 has resurfaced just as it began to look increasingly likely that McCain would get the nomination, while McCain-Feingold has been chronically ranted about for years. Hence the question I asked in post #59.
Good question, actually. I honestly don't know, they're right on the border for me. Certain religions I wouldn't vote for, though: Scientology. Latter-Day Saints. Seventh-Day Adventist (Especially after dating one, yeesh).
I don't care for McCain or Romney, but if comes down to the two of them, I'd much rather see Romney be on the ticket than McCain.
I wasn't paying attention to politics back then. I'd heard of the scandal in passing. Didn't know or care McCain was in on it then. Later of course, in 2000, but I stopped paying attention after it was clear that Bush was going to get the nomination, which was right after South Carolina, which was shortly after it was first brought up. Campaign finance reform makes conservatives stay home. Keating Five means swing voters vote Democrat. A bad enough Democrat can make up for the former; nothing can make up for the latter.
The Keating Five scandal will have about as much relevance to this election as Whitewater. Maybe less.
Honestly, if it comes down to McCain vs. Hillary- I'm just staying at the office. It's not worth the price of gas to waste going to the polls to vote for either of those fucks.
Not to mention that he was cleared and that the Dems might not want to bring it up in the first place since the other four Senators were Dems.
On the other hand, none of the other four are still in office, and one of them is dead, so there's no currently active Democrat who'd be hurt by bringing it up. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't think anyone will bother. If a 20-year-old scandal would have relatively little impact even on someone who was directly involved -- which I think is the case -- it would have even less impact on candidates who happen to be from the same party as some people who were involved, but have been out of office for a decade.
Interestingly, McCain's later attempts to remedy this kind of thing made him much more infamous than the original thing.
