I used to be strongly anti-McCain
By Charles Bird Posted in Archived — Comments (118) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Over the past eight years, I went from "I can't stand John McCain" to "I support John McCain for president". How did this change occur and why? It was a process, and it goes back eight years.
Back in the 2000 election, I thought about voting for John McCain in the Republican primaries, but pulled the lever for George W. Bush (as if voting in Washington State meant anything). Why? Because I thought Bush was the more conservative of the two. My mistake. I thought Bush had the better tax plan, and Bush seemed to have better answers on the other relevant issues of the day. Plus, talk radio helped talk me out of McCain, and the opposition to him on the airwaves was pretty much unanimous. I thought McCain's temper and temperament were less suited for the White House, and I remember him hanging up on Michael Reagan (and another radio host, can't remember who) after an uncomfortable and unfriendly exchange. I vaguely recall that McCain played the class warfare card on Bush's tax plan, which did nothing but push me further away from the Arizona Senator. When McCain was slimed in South Carolina, I thought it was just sour grapes because he lost. My mistake on that, but by then I was firmly in the other camp.
McCain pushed me further away with his anger and bitterness after Bush won, and even still further away when he pushed for McCain-Feingold. I still think the bill is the worst blot on his career, mainly because the pre-election gag rule was (and is) an affront to free speech. His chumminess with Democrats and rumors about him running with Kerry also didn't help. By 2002, I was about as unequivocally anti-McCain as anyone, and it was only tempered by his unequivocal support of Bush in the 9/11 aftermath. But then, it was politically easy to support Bush at that time, so McCain didn't get much credit for that.
I was mad about McCain-Feingold, but that irritation was equally placed on President Bush because he signed the g*ddam bill. Before signing it, Bush was on record as saying that he thought parts of it were unconstitutional, and this bothered me. How in good conscience could a president--a man who put his hand on the Holy Bible and swore to defend and uphold the Constitution--sign a bill that he said was unconstitutional? If anything, Bush should've been more chastised than McCain for that because McCain never went as far as saying that the bill violated the Constitution. Bush took the cowardly path by punting the legislation to the courts instead of stopping it in its tracks, and it marked one of many bad decisions this failing president has made.
But not long after McCain-Feingold, however, my detestation of McCain softened. Why? Because McCain was one of a pitifully small group of Republicans who objected to the massive increases in non-military government spending. On a Keynesian level, I can sort of understand why Bush and congressional Republicans did this, but we already passed tax cuts. Why keep priming the pump further, especially when those huge projected surpluses in 2000 disappeared so quickly? The highway bill was larded with pork (I support infrastructure construction, but not the excessive pork), and the farm bill was business welfare legislation that distorted free markets. The Medicare drug bill was dishonestly sold because the costs were dishonestly lowballed. McCain voted against all three bills, rightfully bucking his party in the process. To me, it was becoming clear that my party was going off track, and we needed some conservative voices out there to help put the GOP back onto its conservative rails.
In 2003, Bush did the non-conservative thing by instituting steel tariffs, again bucking free markets in favor of "fair" or managed trade. What happened to my party? Whatever happened to the free market principles laid out by Milton Friedman and acted upon by Reagan and Bush 41? John McCain was rightfully opposed to that stupid decision, and I remember him doing so.
In 2004, McCain started making more noises about Iraq and what we were doing there. I was with him on changing our strategy. Starting in April 2004, after reading up on some history and doctrine here and there, I came around to the idea that we needed a real counterinsurgency plan in Iraq, along the lines of the Combined Action Platoons (CAPs) in Vietnam. I wasn't with McCain yet on troop numbers.
I also thought Rumsfeld should have been replaced around the same time as Colin Powell (McCain didn't push for this). Why? Because Iraq was in a muddle, and it was difficult for me to glean what exactly we were doing and why we were doing it. I wasn't getting this important information from the Bush administration or the military establishment, and Bush and Rumsfeld were proving to be Occasional Communicators (as opposed to the Great Communicator we wanted to see). Abu Ghraib happened earlier in 2004, and while Rumsfeld was not directly responsible, it happened under his watch. For those reasons, I thought we needed new leadership in the SecDef position. McCain didn't call for Rumsfeld to leave, but he wasn't above taking the SecDef to task for the plentiful mistakes.
After Bush was reelected, I became increasingly convinced that we were lowballing our troop numbers in Iraq and I became fully convinced that we were not employing the best strategy. I also noticed that, although the media had no hesitation in reporting all the bad news that was fit to print, the happier rhetoric from the Bush administration was not squaring with the situation on the ground. Then the Golden Mosque bombing happened in February 2006, and once again we were caught flat-footed, responding too slowly to this outbreak of sectarian violence and chaos. Throughout this time, all the way up to the November 2006, McCain was one of the few Republicans who consistently challenged the Bush administration on our performance in Iraq, but the major difference between McCain and other GOPers (such as Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith), however, was that McCain wanted us to stay in Iraq and prevail. John McCain's instincts were spot on.
Leading up to November 2006, McCain was also right that our party was losing its integrity, too often traipsing with the likes of Jack Abramoff and too often behaving like big-spending Democrats. Add a muddling Iraq to the mix and it's no wonder we lost the majority. On those three most important factors that cost us control of the legislative agenda, McCain's instincts were sound, and he deserves credit for making his views publicly known.
After some long and careful thought, I came to the decision that we were mistreating detainees and that it was the wrong thing to do (except for ticking time-bomb situations a la 24, as I wrote about here). McCain's opinions aligned perfectly with my own. I believe that we are a nation that is supposed to respect and uphold the rule of law, and that we shouldn't be lowering our standards of behavior just because our enemy is so evil and barbaric. McCain's words carried some weight (but not a lot) with me because of his own personal experiences. I know I'm probably in the minority here on this issue, but there it is.
McCain deserved further credit for fully supporting the surge strategy. At some point in 2007 (I think it was some time after he was smeared by the New York Times), I started asking myself who's been more conservative since 2001, Bush or McCain? Who would've governed more conservatively? Judging by their records, the answer to me couldn't have been more obvious. McCain, hands down, and that's when I started taking a serious second look. When he still defended the strategy in its darkest days, my regard grew. Later on, after taking a hard look at the alternatives, I came to my decision last November and endorsed him.
I don't believe I'm under any illusions about McCain. He's old and he can be stiff-necked and cantankerous. I can't stand the class warfare rhetoric he's used. I was opposed to it in 2000 when debating tax cuts, and I reject his comments about drug companies being the bad guys. I reject his implied distrust of commerce when he said that his service in the Navy was for patriotism and not for profits. I wish he would just stop that nonsense because it is our free market economy that has sparked so many medical innovations. It also pays for his salary and our military endeavors.
McCain's made plenty of other mistakes as well, and there's no doubt that he's an imperfect candidate. But we know where he stands on the issues and he does not easily change opinions. Despite some unfair comments about Romney (and I'm sure there're other things), he has conducted himself with integrity. When he makes pledges, he has a record of sticking to them. The problem is that he has stuck to pledges that many conservatives have found distasteful, which speaks to policy differences, not character. So when he says he'll appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito, and when he says that he'll prioritize securing the borders and deporting illegal immigrants who've committed felonies, I think it's reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Despite Obama's recent surge, I still believe Hillary is going to get nominated, and what better contrast than McCain versus a sleazebag political machine like Hillary's. According to the RCP averages, McCain beats Hillary and is neck-and-neck with Obama, but McCain's GOP rivals lose to both Democrats by double digits. I'm not thrilled with him as a candidate, but I still believe that he embodies our best chance of moving the conservative movement forward. We know what kind of judges we'll get if Obama and Hillary are elected, and to me there is no doubt we'll get a better slate of judges with McCain. But most importantly, we are a nation at war and we need the best commander-in-chief available. Because of his record on Iraq and War Against Militant Islamism in general, I still maintain that McCain is the best man for the job.
I'm also going to say this. If enough conservatives vote for someone else or leave their ballots blank or stay home, you might as well just pull the lever for Obama or Hillary, because such acts (or non acts) will have the same practical effect. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still think we lose by losing and win by winning. In either case, conservatives can still work within the party to move the party in a more conservative direction. Better that than having your nose in the window, looking in.
For the record, I'm a moderate conservative. Over two years ago, I wrote about where conservatives should be, and I'm still pretty much there. Also, after hitting "submit", I did some editing to improve the grammar. No changes to substance were made.
for McCain to him being my #2 bottom candidate - Huckabee is infinitely worse.
I'm not going to deconstruct your diary. I don't have time and it won't make any difference anyway. I will, however, make one note. I disagree that McCain is the best CinC. Yes he has military experience, but his position on torture, on GITMO and on moving terrorist prisoners to US prisons and giving them access to US Constitutional redress more than offsets any position he's held on the War.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Much of McCain's experience is exactly what freightens me. His experience as a POW drives him to such an extreme that he equates "degrading" treatment with the type of torture he endured. His experience in Vietnam convinced him that we could, in Dec, 2003, pour in enough US "occupying forces" to stabilize Iraq, when the consequences in Vietnam, and Israel's experience in Gaza, point elsewhere. His experience as one of the Keating 5, in which everything was the fault of that evil man and his filthy lucre, led him to try to "get money out of politics" with BCRA. No, his experience is not reassuring!
If Clinton wins the nomination we have half a chance with McVain...If Obama wins the nomination we have NO CHANCE.
It will be a wipe out. NEVER in American history has there been a case where the AGE DIFFERENCE is greater than 25 where the old( sick cancer stricken) man wins. WE WILL BE DOOMED.
McCain is neck-and-neck with both Hillary and Obama, and Hillobama are double digits ahead of Huck and Romney (cite).
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
But the point I was making was not about electibility, but about the consequences that follow from the election. In other words, do you think Hillobama will be better for the country than McCain?
NC
The Geneva Convention prohibits, with regard to prisoners of war, "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment provides as follow:
"Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
as ratified by the U.S. Senate.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
not part of a nation's army, ie: terrorists (ie: the people we're holding), are not covered by GC. They have absolutely no "protection" under any international law or treaty.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If you haven't, read the GC for yourself. It's pretty clear that the GC still applies to illegal enemy combatants.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
Whole sections of that agreement do not apply to illegal combatants.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Quite a bit of the GC describes how nations are to treat POWs, but the GC doesn't exclude those who don't qualify as POWs. The Conventions still require that the nations treat the non-POWs humanely.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
Well, for one thing, the Geneva Convention is part of U.S. law.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land." Const. art. IV.
For another thing, that law was flagrantly and conspicuously violated at Abu Ghraib. The soldiers who engaged in that degrading and humiliating conduct were a miniscule fraction of the U.S. armed forces, not in the least representative. But pictures of these acts were beamed across the world in a way that was harmful to our reputation and national security (in that the pictures could inflame passions and lead to more terrorist acts). That was part of what motivated McCain in trying to strengthen U.S. legislation against torture and against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
If the GC applies to illegal combatants, and McCain was just pushing for restrictions on "degrading" treatment that were already covered by the GC, then what was he doing any of it for? You realize you are now arguing that the legislation he was pushing so hard for had no purpose other than to get him invites on the Sunday news programs, right?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The GC has various parts and protocols, some of which apply to prisoners of war (lawful combants), and some of which apply to unlawful combatants. With regard to the latter, some of the provisions have not been formally ratified by the U.S. Yet some of those that have not been ratified were not objected to by the U.S., and have long been accepted as part of customary international law. Apart from the Geneva Convention, there is the UN Convention I cited above, which was been ratified, but with certain reservations. There are a number of complexities dealing with jurisdiction, determination of a detainee's status, the Bush administration's interpretation of relevant provisions, and other issues. There was certainly room to attempt to clarify some of these issues in legislation. So I don't agree that the legislation was merely for publicity.
I intervened in this thread because skorrent suggested that McCain opposed "degrading" conduct because he was projecting his own experience. I wanted to point out that McCain used that word because it's part of our international treaty obligations.
Precisely because it is a word used in international law. The Constitution uses "cruel and unusual" UCMJ speaks of "inhumane". If we don't want judges referring to international law, why should we put up with Senators using it?
Saying that McCain was other than self-aggrandizing because we were already bound by treaty to do what he wrote the law to do is oxymoronic.
1. You're drawing a false distinction. Some of the treaties that use the term "degrading" are *already* part of U.S. law, per the U.S. Const., art. IV.
2. I fail to understand why the U.S. should not attempt to follow its obligations in international law and in treaties, especially when it insists and expects other nations to do the same, to the benefit of tis own citizens.
3. The 8th Amendment on "cruel and unusual punishment" has been interpreted by U.S. judges to prohibit all sorts of conditions and treatments that would be allowed under current standards in international law regarding torture and cruel and degrading conduct. In other words, U.S. prisoners covered by the 8th Amen. get an easier ride than the typical detainee covered by the Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Conventions specifically do not apply to ANY of the so-called people we're holding at GITMO or anywhere else. What we should do is lay them face down on the tarmac at GITMO and shoot them, it would be quite legal to do so and would keep them from ever setting foot on US soil or a US courtroom.
I'll buy the bullets.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The GC provides the means for identifying who are prisoners-of-war and who are illegal enemy combatants through the use of competent military tribunals (assuming there is any doubt as to their status). Illegal enemy combatants do not have the same rights and privileges, so there is nothing wrong with them being interrogated. However, they are subject to visits by the Int'l Red Cross and the Conventions do state that they are otherwise to be treated humanely. If military tribunals confirm their illegal combatant status, I would no problem putting them before a firing squad, but unfortunately that would be in violation of the UCMJ.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
The U.S. has set up tribunals to review the evidence against the detainees to determine whether they can be charged with a crime. Over 400--more than half of the number brought to Guantanamo--have been released. Do you think we should review the evidence against the remainder? Or just shoot them now?
that US law is more restrictive than the GC.
And yes, were it up to me, if they weren't high value targets with a high probably of information, I'd have shot them where they were taken prisoner.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
So I guess you're retracting your claim that you would shoot the Guantanamo detainees now. And once you take a someone prisoner, even if he's a suspected illegal combatant, you can't administer summary execution according to the GC. He has to be given a proper hearing, etc. The particular part of the GC that covers this hasn't been formally ratified by the U.S., but it has been accepted and followed by the U.S. as part of international law.
You are arguing that the release of some of these prisoners is evidence that they were innocent? Did you get lost on your way to dKos?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I said they were released--without charge. Were they "innocent"? I don't know. But I infer from their release that there was not enough evidence to charge them with a crime. And if there's not enough evidence to charge them, they shouldn't be shot in the back on the tarmac.
In the aftermath of the fall of the Taliban, we swept up a large number of suspected terrorists in the border areas of Pakistan. Lacking anything better to do with them because of their unclear legal status, we carted them back to Gitmo to sort them out. Some of those (a few dozen) turned out to actually be terrorists. However, many others were just people who had been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were just garden variety foot soldiers. US government efforts to close Gitmo have been held up by what to do with these people. In many cases, their home countries will not take them back, or will persecute them for political reasons. That is why we are trying to send Uighurs to Albania, among other things.
This is not dKos spin. It is in fact the official position of the US government and is well documented in offical US press releases. President Bush himself has expressed his desire to close Gitmo as soon as we can figure out what to do with the remaining detainees.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
enemy personnel? It says to shoot them where they stand. What will the terrorists do if we suspend waterboarding? Will they sharpen their knives a little before they start cutting off heads more humanely? John McCain wants to shut down GITMO and bring those living devils onto American soil where they'll have access to hate America first lib wacko lawyers like Stanley Cohen who would love nothing better than to get one of Satan's little helpers off on a technicality. Then they can carry out their 7th century dreams. If you stand for McCain, you also stand for closing down Gitmo. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
frustrating things about him. The Left just builds on this stuff. Many on the left want terrorists to be treated as the best of both worlds (can't question them, just like you can't question uniformed military) but you also can't hold on to them without trial for the duration of the war (like criminals who are guaranteed a right to speedy trial).
McCain gave the left a lot of cover on this issue by complaining about the "torture." Talk about a lack of perspective.
You obviously have not read the Geneva Convention, which says anyone detained, whether a lawful or unlawful combatant, must be given a hearing. And you haven't kept up with the news on waterboarding either. The U.S. has already suspended it, and never used it much in the first place. Here is Andy McCarthy, one of McCain's strongest and most vocal critics on the debate over torture:
"[I]t is very unfortunate that waterboarding has consumed the interrogation debate. According to the most credible reports it's probably been used on a grand total of three detainees (the U.S. has detained tens of thousands for greater and lesser durations) since late 2001, and it probably has not been used in about four years." (on National Review Online)
...instead of having Rush tell you what Conventions say. There's a striking difference between the written word and the spoken. Thinking for yourself wouldn't hurt you either.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
President Bush has stated so repeatedly.
And the Geneva Convention does not in any way, shape, or form say to "shoot them where they stand" WRT non-uniformed enemy personnel. Have you actually read the GC? Go back and read it before you talk about it any more.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
the GWOT is a war against an ideology. It has a military component, but it is not in my mind, primarily a military operation. Of the part that is miliary, Iraq and Afghanistan are but part.
Put in this perspective, McCain is actually on the low-end of the scale for Republicans in terms of fighting the GWOT.
He seems even more militarily myopic than Bush is.
I can see a principled objection to those things, don't get me wrong. But I can't see how those offset his other foreign policy credentials.
Intelligence gathering through interrogation is not the primary method of intel. I was in military intelligence. There are three other types of intel that are far more important that mere interrogation, especially with regard to Islamic extremists. John's military and foreign policy expertise and experience is invaluable in all of those decisions, and in general strategy.
Also, putting sources of intel aside altogether, no military strategist is going to believe that intel is more important than strategy in war. Even in an unconvential war like this one, with many fronts, strategy is king.
absentee
Reagan's strategy won the cold war, not interrogation techniques. Also, Rommel was a brilliant field commander due to strategy, not intel. He was often cut off from intel.
How about Napoleon? In nothern Italy his lines were cut off more than once, but his planning and strategy brought victory.
Intel is part of building strategy, not the other way around.
absentee
The Brits defeated Rommel in No Africa primarily because Intel was reading his mail.
Toss the rest aside then, intel is everything.
Of course, that was signals intelligence. Something we do very well, and which is not remotely related to detainees.
absentee
anti-mccain folks have been flipping this on its head for a while now
what matters more - fighting the ground war or using waterboarding?
Not that I disagree with the sentiment of that sentence -- McCain-Feingold is a severe indictment against both McCain and Bush.
But I find the use of the G**-D*** word to be the most offensive word in English usage, and I would think this GROSSLY violates the spirit of RedState's profanity policy, and Charles, could you PLEASE edit that out?
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
A small edit was made.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
You sound like a liberal college administrator with your whining about being offended.
It's about showing some decency. Let's at least pretend that we have some standards around here!
I agree with Charles on his politics. However, I also agree with wet rat. Many conservatives hold strong religious beliefs, and using the Lord's name in vain is deeply offensive to them. We should refrain from such usage out of respect for them.
Interesting that someone should bring up the "liberal" argument. I've lurked on a few liberal forums out of curiosity, and the level of profanity always surprises me. They seem to compete with each other on who can be more emphatic in their vulgarity. Just look at the signs in the crowd at the next Cindy Sheehan rally. It puzzled me for a while.
I finally figured out that it was a reflection of the liberal thought process. Liberal philosophy is based on emotions, not rationality. It's all about your Feelings. Policy is evaluated not based on dispassionate analysis, but on the aggregate appeal to emotion. Thus, a key part of far left discourse is the use of profanity as a way of emphasising just how strongly you feel about your point, since of course the more strongly felt position must be right.
Sorry for the threadjack, just found that interesting. Anyhow, curse words don't impress conservatives, because we really don't care how angry, sad, or aggrieved the writer is.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
So you find nothing in this world offensive? So you are tolerant of everything? Well, actually that makes YOU sound like a liberal.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
given the diary you just wrote
i agree there's a difference between a crude insult and the use of G-d's name in the insult.
I have no issue with any Republican who opposes McCain during the primary season (though I do find it odd that so many conservatives have suddenly found Romney to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan), but I am simply amazed that any conservative could think that a President Clinton or Obama would be better for them than a President McCain.
Do conservatives really think that Clinton/Obama would be better on immigration, the courts, taxes, abortion, national defense, campaign finance reform, etc.?
NC
Where he voted against tax cuts again in 2003 and spouted his populist rhetoric about them being slanted towards "the rich" yet again. Oh yea, and about the tax cuts undermining the economy. Everybody knows tax cuts simply undermine the economy, right?
I think that outweighs the steel tariffs (which I also strongly opposed) by about 1000:1. So I don't understand how that marks the beginning of the softening towards McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I might be able to hold my nose and vote for him, but he is not a Mod.Con. There is no amount of discussion that will sell me on the fact that McCain cares one bit about Conservative positions. He does care about killing political free speach (McCain-Feingold), he does care about rewarding Immigration Law Breakers (McCain-Kennedy), he does care about stopping conservative judges from being voted on for confirmation (Gang of 15), he does care about making sure we pay higher taxes (No vote on Bush Tax Cuts)...on and on and on.
Yet now he is saying he can unite the Republician Party. How? This is the man who regurally cusses out Republican Senators he disagrres with. As for his truthfullness, the recent record is clear on that, he lies! By the way, don't tell me the ALL of them lie because that is not the case. We are not talking about how to define "IS" here, I am talking about flat out lies, about other republicans, to gain the top spot. McCain is offering us burnt toast and telling us it is almost as good as Kobe beef. Sure it is!
There is nothing McCain can or will do to persuade me to vote for him, for any office, especially President. If the party wants to rally behind him because he is the party choice, so be it, but I will not vote for him under any circumstances.
Looks like I will sit this Presidential election out, if McCain is the Republician choice, by writing a name in (Dem's are definately not an option). I will continue to support and vote for my Republician Senator and Congressman as well as my Republician State/Local candidates.
If you are a McCain supporter, continue your work, but stop trying to convinence me his Actions for the past 10 years will suddenly now change, they won't. I place much more importance on a man's actions over words. His actions are usually closer to where his heart is than are his words. McCains actions show me all I need to make a decision on him--I will pass on his offer--but thanks for the offer anyway Senator McCain.
You won't vote for McCain because he is not conservative enough, but you will sit out so Clinton or Obama becomes President? You think that will be a better result for Conservatives? I guess you retain your conservative purity in such a scenario, but I am hard put to see how the country is better off. As I am sure its been said many times over the past few days, there are a lot of conservatives who seem to be willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
NC
why even have a conversation? Oh, and because of the way this two-party system works, if you're in a battleground state, a non-vote or a third-party vote is a vote for Hillobama.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
and pouting to allow Clinton or Obama to get elected during time of war is positively anti-patriotic.
On your conscience be it.
I am going to fight with everything I have to see that our troops are able to complete their mission honorably.
If you don't give a rat's behind about the troops because your political purity needs are greater than the needs of the troops or the nation, then maybe you are not the Conservative or American you claim to be.
and I will not sell my values for a short term game (4 years). If the party goes down at the Presidential level because of the format of our Primaries, we have to live with that, but I will NOT ever support a man who hates our party and has a heart felt distain for it. The party will be better off with out him.
I am less concerned about the good of the party and more concerned about the good of the country. Leaving Clinton/Obama in charge of our armed forces and judicial nomination process does not sound like a good strategy to me. I am sure it gives Republicans a lot of ammunition to run against in 2012, but by then a lot of damage will have been done. Look, if the choice is between half a loaf and nothing, I'll take half a loaf every day. You seem like an all or nothing kind of guy(gal), and again I respect your principles, but sometimes you take the best you can get.
NC
And your smugness that we can just pick up the pieces after4/8/12/16 years of dhimmiecrat rule is naive, to way the least.
WE have the obligation to select the government, during time of war, that will lead us.
If you wish to dodge your obligation because you don't like someone, then you are no better than the democrats who vote for a war and then betray the war, the cause, and the troops because it is politically expedient.
just so we are accurate, it was Michael Reagan who hung up on McCain, not the other way around, I am positive about this.
I agree with a lot you wrote here other than the "mistreating detainees" thing. If someone is truly not a terrorist, then we have mistreated them, but if that has occured, it is an anomoly. We are at war with death itself, these bugs are not soldiers, they deserve not the respect a soldier deserves, even an enemy soldier.
I am disheartened about this whole race because I truly believe most who hate McCain do so because they are being told to do so. That might sound conceded but it is what I believe, a lie told often enough becomes truth, right? Rush is willing to give us President Hillary just so he does not look impotent.
I also am disheartened because I don't agree with McCain on class warfare, global warming, and so called prisoner torture. I do think he has nanny state tendencies like ALL of our remaining candidates. But the issue is, is there anyone better out there? Is there anyone out there likely to win the presidency? Is there anyone out there who has given as much to his country?
I am ammused/bemused by those that say McCain would be a disaster. Compared to whom I must ask. Would he be worse than Bush Sr. or Jr.? Where these men more conservative and in which way? To me it comes down to McCain being a fighter and an honorable man. I think TRUE conservatives can find a way to support McCain AND further their cause. There is no reason to wrap your whole life and happiness into who is the next president. There are tens of thousands of public offices that strong conservatives can win, losing the presidency will not help this occur, it will hurt it.
I think we can often as a site push great ideas. I think this McCain vs. Romney crud is a low point. I don't mind the race, and I could live with a President Romney too, but what this has brought here is the worst of conservatism, not the best.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Long term may look more like 1976. Might have to lose one to hold 20 of the next 28 years. And if BushI would not have strayed from conservative tenents (taxes) we would not have gotten Bill Clinton. Bush II is no better on spending.
We lose every time we lose our way. McCain has already bought into carbon taxes. He will be Dem Lite.
...were we not at war, Cowboy. No matter the flaws and foibles that many conservatives worry about in a McCain administration, I can't see how Hillobama as commander-in-chief would be better, and there is plenty of reason to believe a Dem administration would be much worse, starting with their opposition to the surge strategy and their views on troop levels.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
and that is what is KILLING me. I do NOT want to vote for McCain!
is that we're going to be at war probably for the next half century or so. So basically you're resigning yourself to voting for whatever crappy candidate gets nominated with an (R) after his name, no matter what, for the rest of your life.
And the (R)s aren't going to win all of them. We're absolutely going to have to survive the war through at least a few Democratic administrations. So this argument doesn't carry much weight for me.
The same argument is made as regards to judges, and it fails to carry weight for the same reason. There have been 17 Republican nominated SCOTUS appointees since 1950. By my count, seven went bad, eight stayed more or less conservative, and the jury is still out on the last two, but the odds say that one of them will move to the left. With odds like that, SCOTUS is a lost cause. The current four seat minority is about the most we can hope for, and it required being in power 20 of 28 years.
within a year of coming into office because "we're going to be at war probably for the next half century or so"?
I'm saying a Democratic administration during the war is a given. It will happen. And it will be damaging, but it's inevitable. So accepting a ton of other damage to avoid that is pointless.
it is not inevitable at all that we will have a defeatist democratic president at a time when we are just beginning to make significant progress in a ground war in the heart of the middle east.
accepting one now rather than supporting a man who insists on victory would be silly. another four years of sticking it out in iraq, under the new strategy, will make all the difference in the world.
We got Clinton because Perot decided to have his nervous breakdown on a national stage, and Pat Buchanan's bitter ego.
Was Clinton worth the small tax increase we got from GHW Bush?
No.
& that's why he's got my primary vote. Fred would have it if he'd not dropped out. Like many, I've posted ad nauseum about McCain. Suffice to say if he happens to be the nominee I'll vote for him; however, he has some big work to do reaching out to conservatives with more than just lip service. Conservatives are due some "Mea Culpas" from McCain, & if he ignores us it will be at his own electoral peril. I'm not sitting out, however I'm just one vote.
although I have to admit that the polling in the general has an effect on my thinking.
Still I will vote for Romney today.
I heard on the radio last night Kerry speaking that McCain's people had engaged his people about being Kerry's VP during the 2004 election cycle. McCain was able to sidestep that little piece of information in the discussion below. For me, if Kerry is to be believed??? This is absolutely shocking.
"SNOW: Well, you’re absolutely right though, it’s going to be fun to see. Now John Kerry, is it true that John Kerry asked you to be his vice president?
McCAIN: Uh, no. No, it was never offered.
SNOW: It was never offered. So, it may have been discussed elliptically, but never flat out request.
McCAIN: Never was an offer, no."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124970,00.html
It is interesting to me that he states "it was never offered". But he doesn't say, he would NEVER, EVER be interested in it because Kerry is a democrat. Telling for me. I wish I could pull the lever for Romney now, but my states not up yet.
So, will McCain ask Kerry to run as his VP - so that he can appeal to more of the center?
Erik
Consider the most loyal Republican. Why should he *refuse* the chance to be on the D ticket, thus diluting their own hypothetical victory? He could take the nomination, campaign for the R ticket anyway, but still be Vice President (and have tiebreak voting power) even if the R loses.
And the fact that Kerry was dumb enough to want McCain, doesn't make McCain dumb enough to want Kerry.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I wouldn't think he would have *refused* (is this a new replacement for quotes on Redstate based on absentee's hysterical blog?) being on the ticket as (again according to Kerry) McCain's people were contacting Kerry's people. If McCain took the VP slot in 2004 on the Democrat ticket why would he have campaigned for the R ticket - he'd want to be a winner for his own ticket.
I'm still trying to come around for McCain, but these actions and his past decisions are troubling. And heck, I truly respect his prior service, feel he is extremely loyal to his country. But, not loyal to his party or the party's real principles.
Erik
Heh. If it is my power to decree, then I vote for your asterisks ekevlar. It's *fresh*!
absentee
He gets the congratulations for authoring the *new* tags. *Star's* are great, but $money$ is better. So, I think I'll be using that in the $future$.
Erik
Used to even automatically bold words surrounded by asterisks.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If I feel that the next president is going to take this country in the wrong direction, and make things worse in some areas than they are now, I would rather not be the one who voted for them, and even more, would not want that person to be the one representing the Republican party.
I will not vote for McCain because he does not represent my views. I take personal offense to those who attack those of us who do not connect with a candidate yet expect us to vote against our beliefs and values...
Shame on all of you. This is a personal choice given to me as MY priviledge in the Constitution of The Unites states, not by some party I am affiliated to, and I am amazed at the guilt and contempt those who support McCain are attempting to use when they tell us to vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils and all the other rhetoric.
If he doesn't share my values and beliefs, (at least the ones that I hold dear) how can you expect me to vote for him/her?
Talk Radio Junkie and Friend of Fred
And I take offense at the fact that you'd rather appease your own "conscience" (read: ego) then do what's best for the country.
I'm offended that you are more important to you then your country.
You can do whatever you want, that is of course your right. But don't expect people to respect you for such a nakedly selfish decision.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
His decision is no more nakedly selfish than yours is, in supporting a candidate that you had to know was going to arouse this.
If group 1 says 'Don't do A, because if you do I'll do B' and group 2 says 'But if you do B, C will happen, which is bad, so you can't do B', and goes ahead and does A, and, unsurprisingly C happens as a result, two things are clear. Both groups are equally to blame for the outcome, and both groups were being equally selfish.
I fully admit to being in group 1, and will share in the blame for outcome C. But those of you in group 2 will share equal blame.
That you would assume you know whats best for this country, and not only that but completly dismiss my right to what I believe is the right thing!
It is my choice!! My Vote!! My Beliefs!! Not some blind affiliation to some party that IMHO has left me behind!!
That is something I expect of a populist Lib!
Talk Radio Junkie and Friend of Fred
Don't you decide what you think is best for the country every time you vote? Isn't that the point?
That's not arrogance. That's politics. That's life in a Republic.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
to vote for the Party regardless (darn, I wanted to say irregardless)! Get with the program Neil...heh.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I think voting for the party every time *is* best :-)
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
... is dying. It suffers, huddled on the cutting room floor of extreme television shows and hard-hitting talk shows. It is bleeding out, alone in a dark cubicle at the New York Times. It is falling mute, abused and assaulted by waves of "personalities" who have much to say and little to mean. It has been usurped by popular culture references and trite feel-goodisms.
And the people cry out, "Do not beat me with your words and persuasions. My thoughts spring to life from the ethos, unfettered and pure. Your contrary point of view and attempt to convince me of the right of it burglarizes my choice and vandalizes my free speech!"
Persuasion, fare thee well. Your art is the past. The future belongs to passionate self-elucidation, to the revolution of wit and brevity, and the crassness of the unquestionable "me".
absentee
Seems to be the theme of the week.
It's almost over!
I so appreciate your ability to discuss issues rationally, to be able to disagree agreeably, and to trust in the intentions of those with whom you're dialoguing. 'Tis becoming a rare trait indeed. The vitriol on all sides at time resembles the KosKids.
Thanks for your voice of reason and sanity. We may need to dialogue a lot if/when McCain wins this thing.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
And thank you for saying Hear Hear and not here here. Pet peeve of mine.
absentee
They are like upside down candlesticks!! With flames!! Burning!! Hot!! Pure!! Like my beliefs!!
How dare anyone else have an opinion that is different than mine!! It is something I would expect of a populist Lib!!
All is calamity and woe, and with McCain comes the darkness from which we shall never emerge!!
Seriously, I think we can all come down a bit. Hell, we are not even in the general election yet, but from some of these posts you would think that McCain is somewhere to the left of Satan.
NC
I always saw Satan the same way, with a cackle, and pants suits, maybe having run for office in NY...heh
"You're with me? To the Death. For Narnia!!!!!!"(and Mitt)
Is that an original piece, or did you find it somewhere? Very Eloquent.
I still cannot vote against what I believe so to appease others views. Ultimatley, I have to look myself in the mirror and be true to myself.
I am a registered Republican, but that does not mean I am beholden to the party. I feel when the party is no longer beholden to me and those like me, then I cannot cannot blindly vote for a candidate just because I despise his opponent.
I have values and morals I hold more dear to me than that.
I refuse to accept your disdain for what I hold dear.
Talk Radio Junkie and Friend of Fred
And clearly it was correct, as the meaning seems to have missed you. A summary: It is not arrogance to attempt to persuade, indeed you are doing the very thing by engaging the discussion.
absentee
pro-life
in favor of making the Bush tax cuts permanent
in favor of repaling the AMT
in favor of appointing judges like Roberts and Alito
in favor of greater market forces in health care
I know what he's done in the past, but what exactly is the problem with these positions? These are not exactly "RINO" positions. Are you anti-McCain folks saying that he is lying when he says he will do these thing as president?
I'm fairly conservative, but I think people need to stop taking their cues from Rush and Mark Levin and actually think for themselves and look at where McCain stands, and not look at this as a means of punishing someone for past deeds. I'd feel totally comfortable voting for McCain in November, and I'd do it with joy, in fact, if Billary or Obama and their thinly veiled socialism is the other option on the ballot.
that McCain needs to do a better job of communicating with influential talkers like Rush, Laura Ingraham et al, and hopefully he'll do that if things go today as it appears they might. I think McCain is close to conservatives on a lot of issues, but he needs to get that message out and not continue to fight them.
What issues?
Please McVain...For Embryonic Stem Cell Reaserch
For Illegal Immigration
For Limiting Free Speech
For Class Warfare Retoric
For Closing Gitmo
For Denying Enhanced Interigation
For Legal Rights for Terrorists
Should I go on? I can not believe you. Doing a BETTER job communicaing? I think he has communicated his views quite well, Thnak you.. No thanks....DEMS WILLL WIN THIS ELECTION NO MATTER WHAT IF MC VAIN IS OUR NOMINEE
It's McCain, not "McVain." Whatever you think of the guy's politics, I think he has earned the right to be called by his proper name.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
the definition of McCain Derangement Syndrome. I never claimed the guy was a perfect conservative, yet you completely disregard any positive attributes he may have. I am for life, lower taxes and strict constructionist judges, and he is for all three. Given the lack of a true-blue conservative and McCain's electibility, I think he's a good choice. But something tells me you are impervious to any logic or rational thought on the issue.
By the way, I hear Juan McCain and McAmnesty are the cool anti-McCain names - you;re so last week with your terminology.
McCain is not "for illegal immigration". Quite the opposite.
I don't know what "enhanced interigation" is, but McCain is opposed to coercive interrogation techniques except in ticking time-bomb situations.
On granting "legal rights for terrorists", McCain is agin it. The Detainee Treatment Act suspends habeas corpus for detainees. They can only plead their cases before military tribunals, in keeping with the Geneva Conventions.
The other points are arguable, but I agree that McCain unwisely used class warfare rhetoric and the gag rule in McCain-Feingold was a huge mistake.
Oh, and you if desire to persuade people to your point of view, terms like "McVain" are not helpful. I'm assuming, of course, that your motive here is to persuade rather than demagogue.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
You guys who push McCain are pushing the GOP left....hard left.
You want us traditional, rational, clear thinking conservatives to get on board with you as you become liberal Republicans?
Screw that. You are the ones pushing a lib like McCain in the primaries, you decided to do that, you decided to throw in with the NY Times and Teddy Kennedy who both adore McCain.
Honestly, we can all read McCains history, we have watched his act, his hatred for conservatives, his love for liberal policies. Some of us reject liberalism and will reject it all the way to the end. Rush is right..again... might as well let the real Democrats win if McCain is running. There simply is no difference between the two, well not enough to throw our principals out the window.
RINO's suck
If he could back an outright liberal like Nixon, then I can back a maverick like McCain.
And if that makes me a RiNO, then there are more RiNOs in the party than True Republicans™, which is a bit of a paradox.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Presidential race or you and I are dinosaurs of the old party...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Guys like you make me sick. You sit there and try to explain away everything McCain does. What is wrong with you?
Closing Gitmo, no water boarding, carbon taxes to save the world from global warming, Z Visas for illegals, voting no on tax cuts, etc..... these are positions that you would expect from a FREAKING HARD LEFT SOCIALIST LIBERAL.
But you go ahead and act like McCain is the man for the GOP. He is conservative we can get behind. Pathetic.
Not only is your man McCain going to get blown out come November, but his nomination is going to fracture the party beyond repair. The conservative base is not going to get over this any time soon and you can forget getting support in the General election just because " McCain is not so bad ".
Romney is no Ronald Reagan, but he is not going to destroy the party if he gets the nomination. Looks like you didn't figure that into your little write up.
RINO's suck
The ole Bird may be a good libertarian but you should not disparage him so. Maybe he is just voting for his best choice just as you would. You do have to allow a bit of leeway in other ideas ya know... Actually, a libertarian is twice as good as a Democrat any day...heh.
By the way, no way I would vote for McCain...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
"I'm also going to say this. If enough conservatives vote for someone else or leave their ballots blank or stay home, you might as well just pull the lever for Obama or Hillary, because such acts (or non acts) will have the same practical effect."
At this point, if McCain is the nominee, I WILL pull the lever for either Hillary or Obama. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I will not throw my principles out the window here. McCain has made his career by poling conservatives in the eye on all our pet issues, and will be as destructive to the country on a number of issues as Hillary or Obama. I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House giving bad policy than a Republican, thanks. That way, (a) the Republicans in Congress will feel no compulsion to support bad executive policy on the basis that it is coming from a Republican president; and (b) voters will blame the Dems for the problems arising from said policies.
"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still think we lose by losing and win by winning."
How do conservatives win if the candidates on both sides are basically liberal-moderates? Or are you talking strictly party, with no consideration for ideology?
"In either case, conservatives can still work within the party to move the party in a more conservative direction. Better that than having your nose in the window, looking in."
Get real. If McCain wins the presidency, HE will name the party leadership. HIS bully pulpit will set policy. HE will be the face of the Republican party. It will set conservatives back thirty years. Are you old enough to remember the conservatives being on the outside of the party in the 1970s? I am. It took Jimmy Carter to get us conservative leadership in the party, and the presidency.
And, quite frankly, if we could survive the Soviet Union and the Cold War under Carter, we can survive the War on Terrorism for four or eight years under Hillary or Obama.
Am I being extreme? Perhaps. But know this - there are a lot of folks out there who agree with this position. We aren't a majority -- heck, we may not be more than four percent of Republican voters. But that is probably enough to throw the election to the Dems, particularly given how close the elections of 2000 and 2004 in some key states (think Florida and Ohio, for example).
Prior to Ronald Reagan, who was the last "movement conservative" to win the Presidency? I don't think Nixon, Ike or Hoover count. Who does that leave, Teddy Roosevelt? Why do you think Bush won the nomination/election in 2000? He was just the most conservative candidate that had ANY chance of winning the nomination.
The 2004 election was also a dog fight, even though we were at war and Kerry was an empty vessel. Moving the candidate to the right is a recipe for defeat. It is our job to fight the good fight and try to move the electorate to the right. If we are lucky, before we all turn to dust, we might have another leader like Ronald Reagan who could carry most of the load himself. While that is my hope, it is far from a certainty.
The GOP is in the business of winning elections. They will assemble a constituency that will allow them to do just that. We have lots of leaders and lots of conservatives but darn few conservative leaders. While our discourse is far more reasoned and civil, we are the conservative version of Moveon.org. We are the true believers in all things conservative. Expecting to field a candidate that shares all of our values to win, this year anyway, is a (crack) pipe dream.
Ask yourself what happens if McCain wins when you and yours all stay home. When the music stops, we will be the folks without a chair. You can have part of something, or 100% of nothing - your choice.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies...
"Expecting to field a candidate that shares all of our values to win, this year anyway, is a (crack) pipe dream."
Of course it is. That's why I held my nose and pulled the lever for Bush 41 in 1988 and 1992, and for Dole in 1996, and for Bush 43 in 2000 and 2004. But this is different. McCain shares conservative values only in an incidental manner. He has taken particular glee in rejecting conservative values, and in leading Senators in fights against conservatives.
"Ask yourself what happens if McCain wins when you and yours all stay home. When the music stops, we will be the folks without a chair. You can have part of something, or 100% of nothing - your choice.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies..."
This presumes that McCain would feel any gratitude towards, or loyalty to, conservatives. I have seen no evidence that he would feel any obligation to do so. To the contrary, his actions all seem to indicate that he would continue to enjoy his "maverick" status (which is a code for "rejecting conservative political goals in order to obtain the fawning gratitude of the MSM).
Friends like that, I can do without. Again, it will be a hard four years with Hillary or Obama in the White House -- but if we can survive Jimmy Carter, we can survive Hillary/Obama, too.
S--
"I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I will not throw my principles out the window here."
How is voting for Hillary or Obama expressing your principles?
"I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House giving bad policy than a Republican, thanks."
Is that one of your principles? Don't care what happens as long as I'm not to blame?
"And, quite frankly, if we could survive the Soviet Union and the Cold War under Carter, we can survive the War on Terrorism for four or eight years under Hillary or Obama."
Hmm, but apparently not 4 years of a pro-life, spending hawk, defcon who is right on the War on Terror. That makes perfect sense.
Here are some other things that make equal sense which you might consider:
- In order to express your displeasure with McDonalds, you should eat at Burger King. But not the food, get some roaches from under the equipment. That'll show them.
- If a house is on fire, fireman who work for fire departments that fail to purchase proper equipment should refuse to put out the fires. If something goes wrong with the equipment, at least they won't be to blame.
- The country survived the Soviet Union and the Cold War under Carter, so what can hurt to have four years of Michael Moore? You should start a campaign for him.
See? Logical.
absentee
The Democrats are motivated. They are pissed about losing to Bush twice in a row and they actually like their candidates Obama and Hillary. They have money coming in by the mega millions and they are fired up to win.
The GOP would have a hard time winning this election if we were running Reagan himself.
Instead we have McCain, arguably the biggest traitor the conservative movement has ever had to deal with as the GOP nominee? The party is fractured, no money is going to come in and talk radio, the biggest weapon we have to fight the MSM will not have any enthusiasm.
McCain loses 42 states. Is this what you want? Romney simply does not have this problem like him or not.
RINO's suck
You have no idea what you are talking about... you are a RINO if you stay home and thus support the democrats. The War and SCOTUS are too important. WIth the right runningmate, McCain will be beat HRC and be competitive against Obama
We frown on people deliberately trying to start flame wars.
Second, lose the attitude.
Not negotiable.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
coming into the party if McCain is "our" pick. I told the RNC and Rep. Senatorial election comm to both take a hike on asking for funds. I will not give my funds to candidates like McCain, Graham, Kyl, Lott. I will give my funds locally and let the Nat'l fend for themselves if they think McCain is what is good for America.
It is amazine what a lack of choices will do for someone.
Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650), Publisher of the HoustonBusinessReview.com and writes frequently in his www.BizPlusBlog.com.
charles just described how he became impressed with mccain over the course of 6 or 7 years
that's not about a "lack of choices"
To the "Anyone but McCain"-iacs
let me get this straight;
(the ' marks indicate where I am paraphrasing what is said and meant by many here who are so filled with conservative self-righteousness they appear to have become irrational).
'I believe the United States must act in a conservative manner in all things to preserve the true meaning of the Constitution and to prevent it being destroyed by it's enemies from within or without and to safeguard my friends and family from harm'.
'I am a conservative and believe I must have a conservative candidate who I agree with completely on everything they've ever done or spoken about as the candidate because only that type of candidate will lead the country in the direction that I believe represents TRUE CONSERVATISM'
'If there is not such a candidate in the running, I will either; vote for the candidate who is the total opposite of what I believe is best for this country or will not vote at all thus insuring that the candidate who is the total opposite of what I believe is best for this country is placed in charge of the United States'
This is called principle?
Please listen to yourself. Can you not see that your way lies sure disaster? McCain may be less than what we want but he's more than what we need. No not in all things. Maybe not much at all except for standing up to the Jihadists who must be stopped. The man stood up to his captors for 5 years. He refused to be released ahead of other prisoner's because that wasn't the honorable thing to do. You may not like things he's done, you may not understand why he's done what he's done but there can be no doubt that as much or more than any other man, John McCain will do what he believes to be the honorable thing, the right thing for the United States!
and hit your head during this time?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.