Believers, personality cultists, strategists: Defend McCain if you can
By gamecock Posted in Archived — Comments (273) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[This diary is posted at the request of 'Becker and No King but God, as a challenge to supporters of John McCain, and especially in response to my dear fellow Queen City friend, absentee, also one of the best writers here at Redstate, as well as anteater, also a friend, who now believes in John McCain.]
I suggested in a comment BEFORE I was aware of absentee's blog, that I had yet to see one conservative defend McCain's policy positions outlined below. That they seemed always to resort to "electability" arguments and/or cult of personality hero worship devolving into "Where was Mitt when McCain was a POW."
And then today, I got into a phone conversation with a prominent blogger who e-mailed me to suggest that I was backing Fred because of his Southern accent. I challenged him to call me two times. He called today. It got heated. He resorted within 90 seconds to the POW defense.
I didn't convert to the GOP in 2000-1 after 18 years an activist Democrat, to sit idly by and watch it be taken over by those that do not support the conservative principles and policies of Reagan that work, and that won me over.
Many like McCain because Dems and Libs like him.
I came over here to the GOP to DEFEAT Libs, not be liked by them.
I watched Reagan and Newt's conservative principles win landslides with those principles over my then Dem Party.
Why would we eschew what works AND wins?
That is also why I am for Fred. For over a year I leaned to Mitt, but never endorsed him, mainly to defend Southern evangelicals against charges of bigotry. I think Mitt's endorsements in SC prove me out on that. But I digress.
I was won over to Fred based on substance and character. I still like Mitt very much, but Fred's principles and policies as laid out in his Paul Harvey stand-ins showed me he was a true Reaganite conservative. Then and since his entry into the race showed he had the courage to take on so-called taboo issues like Social Security reform, birthright citizenship and oil drilling in sensitive backyards. He was also the first candidate to describe Iran's attacks in Iraq as acts of war against the US. He favors a flat tax proposal, says his vote on the free speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold was wrong and is a supply side tax cutter. But again, I digress.
I was hurt when absentee left Fred for John yesterday. I respect him. But "believe in" John McCain?
Based on what? Certainly not his policies or his character. John McCain has a character and temperment problem, not just a liberal policy preference problem.
I watched the 2000 SC primary as a then Democrat objective observer and saw clearly that the better man and leader and the one with the better character was the current President and not this hot tempered back stabber of his own party. As A Dem, we liked that McCain was more like us.
In 2000, I watched a so called straight talker dissemble in SC. He got caught on tape contradicting his opposition to Roe. When caught, he attacked the ones that brought his lies to light by insulting Christians as purveyors of hate. He had multiple positions on the Confederate flag, Bob Jones and many other issues. He was not for tax cuts unless three hoops were jumped through.
He lost to Bush on the issues, yet has blamed his loss by insulting the State of SC. He blames his loss on the actions of a kook that did some push phone calls that reached few voters. As if the vast majority of SC voters could be swayed even if they heard that crap. He insulted the intelligence of SC.
And he has spent the past 7 years insulting conservatives and republicans on major issues like free speech and illegal immigration.
Absentee suggests that McCain, unlike other candidates, does not pander to regional audiences, like ethanol Iowans and Cafe Michiganders.
But, absentee he panders to an audience. His audience are those that book him on Sunday shows and fawn all over him when he attacks the purveyors of hate, ie the Religious Right or conservatives, and republicans. His audience is democrats and independents that hate the Dem party but are not conservatives except maybe on the war. He buys into the global warming lie, the "remedies" to which would bankrupt the US more than any pork he opposes with righteous indignation times a billion.
He does not believe in the free market. He is not for free speech. He has a hot temper and a vindictive streak.
And even on the war, he sells out American troops as torturers, yet never naming one torturer. He plays into the enemy's claims. He wants to give illegal enemy combatants lawyers, etc.
Let Mark Levin take it from here on the war:
One of the primary and most compelling criticisms of the Clinton administration's approach to terrorism was that it treated terrorism as a criminal rather than national-security matter. The enemy declared war on us years earlier, attacking various U.S. targets and killing U.S. citizens, and we indicted them if we could muster enough evidence. Despite 9/11, today many in Congress and the judiciary, with prodding by the media and left-wing (legal) activists, continue to treat the war on terrorism as Clinton did. And one of the most vocal sponsors of this approach is John McCain.
Despite his tough talk about sending more troops to Iraq (the benefit of which is and was debatable), McCain has led an effort to diminish the traditional war-power authority of the president.
Detaining the enemy
As reported in the New York Times (December 13, 2003), after visiting Guantanamo Bay with his favorite sidekick, Republican Lindsey Graham, and Democrat Maria Cantwell, McCain proclaimed, "They [al Qaeda detainees] may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I'm concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely." In a letter McCain and the others fired off to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, McCain asserted, "The treatment of the detainees is not an issue. However, a serious concern arises over the disposition of the detainees—a considerable number of whom have been held for two years."I am aware of no "right" under some binding declaration that requires the release or trial of unlawful enemy combatants before the end of hostilities. In fact, garden-variety prisoners of war, who have full protection under the Geneva Conventions, are held until the war's end. In World War II, before the Geneva Conventions, hundreds of thousands of POWs were held until we defeated the enemy. As a practical matter, the McCain approach would require a nation at war to allocate massive resources to processing the enemy through the court system. Untold numbers of military personnel would have to be pulled from the battlefield to provide some form of testimony justifying detention in each case. And the Supreme Court's 2004 Rasul and Hamdi decisions, conferring (unspecified) due process rights on the enemy—which, presumably, McCain would endorse given his release-or-try demand—would make military victory extraordinarily difficult.
Interrogating the enemy
Having earlier said that the length of detention of detainees, not their treatment, was his concern, McCain would then move on to their treatment. McCain seized on endless reports in the New York Times and elsewhere about Abu Ghraib and the mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo to push an amendment he attached to the Defense-appropriations bill conferring Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights on al Qaeda terrorists detained in Cuba. The amendment also makes aggressive interrogation of the enemy far more complicated and difficult by providing that "No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." [Emphasis added.] Of course, the phrase "degrading treatment" will now appear in every brief filed by some ACLU lawyer claiming torture on behalf of his terrorist client. Ultimately, judges will be called upon to make what should be presidential war-making decisions.Gathering intelligence on the enemy
Having already challenged the detention and interrogation of the enemy, this Sunday on Fox News Sunday McCain said that he doesn't believe the president has the constitutional authority to intercept al Qaeda communications with possible saboteurs in the U.S. unless that authority is statutorily granted by Congress. There's nothing in our history to support that position. Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt didn't seek congressional authority to secure intelligence against the enemy, because they already had the power under the Constitution. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act cannot and does not trump presidential authority. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment, and the requirement of probable cause and search warrants, has nothing to do with gathering intelligence on a declared enemy. Even in 18th-century Britain, from where we get the concept of probable cause, its application had no relevance to war-related investigations aimed at determining the enemy's next act. The idea that the president has the power to rain devastation on the enemy, including destroying entire cities as in World War II, but he doesn't have the authority to intercept the enemy's communications with individuals in the U.S. without judicial approval, is absurd at every level.It just so happens that in each of these cases—detention, interrogation, and intelligence gathering—McCain has adopted the litigation agenda of some of the most radical antiwar activists, including the ACLU. If Mona Charen decides to update her book Useful Idiots, she might want to add a new chapter.
The above is bad enough, but together with the arguments by Levin below, to make me believe that making sure McCain (and Huckabee as well, for that matter) is NOT the GOP nominee is even more important that wanting Fred to be the nominee.
There’s a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.
The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
And then there’s the McCain defense record.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.
While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)
— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
Believe in McCain? Yes, I believe he would most probably refuse to lose a war. But he would make it last longer and be harder when he gives all the captured illegal combatants their own lawyers with subpoenas that bring generals down to privates back to the States to testify in depositions and trials.
Will he finally name ONE American that tortured ONE named prisoner?
ONE?
Believe in the man, who, after seeing the people dare to call their congressmen and defeat the immigration bill, and then asked at a town hall if he would build the fence, replied angrily"
"Hell yeah, we'll build the G-D fence!"
The list is long for reasons we should not trust him to do right and why we should trust him to do wrong.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08
Yes, the guy was a hero in Vietnam. That's not a qualification for office, just ask John Kerry.
While McCain aquitted himself honorably in the Navy, that was 30 years ago. Since then, the only job he's held has been as a Member of Congress, both House and Senate. His career there is less than stellar.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Is a decorated Korean War vet who, by all accounts, performed heroically under fire.
That doesn't mean I want him to be President of the United States (or anything else, for that matter), though.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Extremely well reasoned and written.
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
You "believers, cultists, and worshipers" of Fred can have you pow-wow.
When you're done name calling, I'll assume you actually want some information.
And I'll tell you for d*** sure I'm not going to come to a thread titled "Defend Him Here" and feel I have any obligation to do so.
Gamecock, defend your guy. He doesn't seem to have the support to win the primary or general? He can't win more than a meager vote in NH and MI? Is he just a regional candidate? Can he even win in his region? Why should we think he has any chance in a general if he can't even win conservative Rs?
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I believe he has the character and courage and intent to carry them thru.
I believe "in" Jesus Christ.
Most McCain backers rarely mention his policy proposals. They ask us to believe in HIM due to his character (flawed-see evidence) and due to his Vietnam experience.
I have written many blogs on Fred that cover all policies and principles and character.
see my blog
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I think you have probably read on this blog before that many (if not most) of Fred's supporters believe in Fred's principles of small government conservatism and the Reagan model.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
a candidate's supporters "defend him."
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
to me whenever and wherever you reveal them. If you are not a believer, personality cultist or hero worshipper, then don't protest too much. Many of his supporters are. I got shouted down by one today on the phone. His argument was devoid of policy defenses. It was ALL Iraq War and Vietnam. That was ALL.
and he is not unique
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
is the only policy you defend? And meaningless righteous indignation puny pork stands for the cameras? (Just guessing on the latter. For all I know Iraq is it?)
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
And I'm convinced, for the reasons cited by Mark Levin, that either Fred or Rudy would easily be a far superior CinC to McCain. Romney probably would.
I'm on Planent Earnth. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If he gets enough conservatives out there to win or to place a strong second, all of a sudden this race looks different.
Why give up on Fred before he's dead?
Wow, you're actually starting to act like McCain. That's scary. Instead of actually defending him, you lash out at Fred. Very intresting. I'll give you with a quote from your idol Johnny Mac:
"F*** you! I know more about this than anyone in here!"
Ah yes, the foul talk that arises out of the frustration of John McCain. Imagine if McCain loses SC:
"F*** you! I'm the oldest...uh.....best candidate in this race!"
Now that would make a darling concession speech. I think ole Mac attack will probably win, but if he doesn't, what a wonderful night this will be.
I wrote an endorsement piece. I've written on McCain and issues. I've posted video of him on immigration, nuclear power and energy independence, spending, and other issues.
But when someone says "DEFEND HIM!!!!," I don't dance.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Sort of like, "I don't do 'hand shows.'" (^.^)
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
at you and those like you that have defended McCain on the issues, and you have even done so face to face at Wild Wing! It was written in response to two people, one, an admitted "believer" who became so at a rally, my good fellow NC friend, absentee, and another blogger, who shall remain nameless, who, resorted to cult of personality/hero worship when he could only defend McCain on the war.
I can defend McCain on more than he could. (And will, as well as anyone else if he becomes the nominee.) But I came into this party as a believer, not of men, but of principles, many of which McCain does not share.
Now, as to my "demand" or "request" to defend.
I live to meet challenges. I adore challenges to defend Fred, Mitt and Rudy, and have often defended even Huck and John.
I'm like Rush, I just sit around minding my own business, when my principles get attacked, and I react.....right Mike
smile
DeVine: prepared to hate pork if John is the leader!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The more I think about McCain, the less I think he is acceptable. I started thinking he was acceptable after Huckabee won Iowa, however, I have since drifted away from him and now have him 4th on my list (Just above Huckabee).
While I dis-agree with you slightly on Fred (I like Romney more), I can understand you putting Fred first (I have him second). If he had more executive experience (which I think is very important), I would consider him first.
This said, Fred is a good conservative, who is worthy of your support.
but not the Whitehouse.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
With a typical "With all due respect," or is that well understood?
I think it is important to note that Charles Bird, Adam C, and Leverkuhn have, at great length and for some time, been over and over the McCain record. In great detail. I don't call that cultism.
Additionally, while you have, in gamecock fashion, addressed valid points in valid ways, I would also humbly point out that most of your appeals to action are predicated on an objection to personality. There is something to be said for not subscribing to the reverse of cult of personality.
I would like to address your primary point rather than a delineation of individual points of record, not least because, as I said, Adam C and company have ably done so to date.
Your core point is that McCain has negatives that outweigh positives and make him the wrong choice for President. This analysis is based on the presumption, the predominant Redstate presumption, that the candidate himself is the only criteria on which to base one's vote.
It is in this core belief where we most greatly differ. I think this election one can make a strategic choice. In fact, I would argue one must.
Think for a moment about Huckabee. There are those at this blog who make their stand for Huckabee on the sole basis of his support for marriage and life amendments. I am also pro-life. But as mbecker points out so frequently, this is not a strategically wise choice.
John McCain is a smart choice. I have the future of this country to think about. If I see what I think is the right strategy, I won't turn from it based on my own past animosity.
I used to blog about the McCain-Lieberman party when I maintained my own blog. So I know where your objection comes from.
I choose McCain for a host of reasons. I do not agree with his platform in total. I do not share his world-view in total. I do not require that agreement to decide that his election is the best course for the future.
All I can do is decide what I think is best based on my expectations. I don't believe Fred is going to make it. I think John can.
I think he can win the general. I have at least as much evidence of that as anyone here can claim for their own candidate, and arguably more. John's voting record shows he is right enough on a sufficient number of issues. He will protect the nation and I believe he'll bring a war on pork. His record is evidence, his rhetoric is indicative and his endorsements are illustrative. This not cult of personality, it's practical planning.
I don't expect my conclusions to be your conclusions. But my intellectual basis, while perhaps starting with different criteria, is not vacuous hero worship.
I don't mind being thought wrong. I'm no more above being a fool than anyone else either. In this case, however, I do have my reasons. From my perspective, they are strategically sound.
absentee
mind re cult of personality or hero worship, but given your description of the mystic experience that caused the new found belief, I would urge you to be careful not to devolve into either of same.
I see though, that I need not fear that will so devolve, as when we get beyond Belief, Iraq, War and pork, what we have is a political calculation of supposed electability.
So what you are defending, is not HIM (his policies, character and temperament), but rather your choice of him as the best candidate to win.
We also disagree on that.
I am glad that you didn't even try and defend his liberal record. You are still one of us conservatives at heart.
I have not given up on the GOP as the conservative party, especially DURING the very season (primary) when we define ourselves.
I have not given up on America.
more later
Enjoying the debate, and I fully respect you and Adam C greatly. But I watched the GOP beat me and my Dem party with rock solid conservatives and conservative principles from 1980-2000.
As Dems back then we salivated when we thought you would put up a candidate like McCain, secure in the belief thta we could out liberal a liberal.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
For my part, defense of his character is as frequently my topic as is directly required in relation to attacks thereof. Looking out from in I see a variety of malicious assassinations on his character based on his lack of orthodoxy.
I feel it necessary to point out at those times he can be merely wrong.
I have not reserved such defenses for McCain alone. I have defended Thompson against anteaters portrait of a baby-killer presiding over gay marriages; I have defended Giuliani against charges of being a liberal wolf in a female sheep's clothing; Romney against accusations of conspiratorial subterfuge; and Huckabee against charges of being a theocratic, hypocritical, snake sacrificing zealot. It is only natural for me to address John McCain's character in defense against charges of a lack thereof.
I expect people will stop hearing stories about John's service to the country in direct proportion with a decrease in the number of times he's called traitor and worse. It goes without saying that you have never done such a thing gamecock, nor do I expect you ever would.
I do defend my choice of John because it is in essence a strategic choice. It's no secret that Fred Thompson is far more representative of my own views.
However, make no mistake, I hold John McCain in high esteem. I see his strategy forming, and I have a sense of what those who have endorsed him are expecting.
Like I said before, war is coming to Washington. It's a war I think we need, and it's a war I want to win. In a perfect world, Fred Thompson would be the second in command of that war.
absentee
war, for instance?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
repeatedly......
Words escape me, absentee. They really do. I just don't know what to say, and it's not for lack of things to say -- it would just be an incomprehensible blizzard of intense thoughts. The most succinct -- though sadly and wildly inadequate -- summation would be something like "what CAN you be thinking! You know the truth, and yet you do what you are doing..."
I can only liken it to if I had a son who ditches the right girl, who (or whom?) he cherishes and respects, for the flashy but selfish and shallow girl, fully aware of the qualities of both, and unwilling to even look just a little way forward to see what the road ahead must inevitably bring.
So with primal scream unscreamed, I just say......sigh....
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
it for you and me.
All I can say is this...I know how you feel.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
bought one. It's the best I can do here. ;>)
And..so what if it is 10PM?
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
If Senator McCain were able to win the election, it doesn't take a talented tea leaf reader to discern he'd grow this already huge behemoth of a government to include Law and Order/Environmental Alarmist Squad. Do you have any idea how much cap and trade legislation would harm this country's already tenuous hold on treading economic water? How about illegal immigration? With the affirmation of becoming president, he would soon eat more of the forbidden fruit of liberal populism, and soon we'd have 24 million illegals instead of 12. We've got to help this country get back to it's traditional, conservative roots, and electing John McCain would set this effort back decades.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
With Rudy, you know where you agree with him, you know where you disagree, and there are no surprises, no feelings of betrayal and no feelings of being dissed.
I'm Fred, Mitt, Rudy, in that order, and in spite of seriously true-red conservative views, I'm not that opposed to Rudy, in part because of that WYSIWYG quality.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
In the end, I believe Republicans will never nominate a John McCain or a Mike Huckabee. Fred Thompson is a down-the-line conservative, of course, but his chances are slim to none. Giuliani and Romney are, or have been, more moderate on abortion, immigration and the second amendment. However, Giuliani is the most hawkish on foreign policy and cutting taxes, and Romney would do nothing to harm the economy or our national security. I expect both Giuliani and Romney, whoever the nominee, to please all the warring factions of the GOP.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
I don't quite viscerally hate the man as well you do, GC. I'd prefer Fred every day of the week and even drunk and stoned on Quaaludes. (Not that I could describe that feeling, my rugby days are long since past).
I actually had nice things to say about him, and felt fear that you would lead a mob of angry people to my cyberdomain and rip up my VRWC license and cast me out of the order.
"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men
waxes on the Iraq War. I honor his service. He is atrue hero. I hate his policies and much of his behavior in the 90s and 2000s.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
First of all, this is the primary season. The time when we need to look at our candidates and determine who best represents our priorities. I think we are doing that.
That being said, the majority of us here are conservatives that have specific policy priorities. They differ radically from those of the democrats.
For me, I am looking for a candidate that will uphold the conservative principles that are front and center to me.
1. The security of this nation. (to include the GWOT and illegal immigration)
2. Appointing good, solid constructionist judges to the federal bench and SCOTUS.
3. Solid pro-growth economic policies.
4. A federalist approach to the social ills that plague us.
For me, the clear choice is Fred Thompson. If he can not gain enough traction, then Rudy will be my guy. And although I am not thrilled with his social issue perspective, I can live with it given his strengths in other areas. If both of these men are not an option, I would reluctantly vote for McCain or Romney, but I would not be excited about their candidacies. And I just can not even fathom Mike Huckabee, Chuck Norris or not.
This all brings me to say this about John McCain.
1. John McCain would be okay on the GWOT. Not so great on illegal imm.
2. I have ZERO confidence in John McCain in this area. And that is a big deal for me.
3. He has all but conceded that he doesn't pay too much attention to the economy. Huh? That makes me nervous given the current fragile state of the US economy.
4. Again, I just don't have a lot of confidence in him in this area.
To wrap this all up, I do not want someone that will "work" with the democrats. Bush tried to do that when we were in the majority and he got screwed over time and time again. And we paid the price in 2006. Going into 2008, we are likely to have a dem controlled House and Senate. I want someone that will rally the republican minority and put the screws to every screwball policy Nancy and Harry try to foist upon us. If that brings gridlock, so be it. That will do less harm.
I believe Fred will not allow the democrat controlled legislative branch to run amok. I believe that Rudy will fight like h*ll against them. In other words, I believe in them. Both.
Here is what I believe about John McCain. He is an honorable man that served his country in her time of need. He suffered greatly for it. He is a patriot. I also believe that he will sell out every single conservative principle worth a d*mn in order to play Kumbayah with the likes of Teddy Kennedy, save one thing, the war.
The only way John McCain gets my vote is if he is the last man standing against Mike Huckabee come March 4th.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
about, and why you went all practical (as perceived based on some recent poll), don't.
If Fred loses, the nominee will be either Mitt or Rudy, both of whom are much more conservative than McCain.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Gamecock, I agree Rudy is a good candidate too. I have a real problem with him on abortion. He and McCain are similar candidates in many ways, but the abortion thing is no small issue.
I like Mitt alright. I think he might be McCain-lite when it comes to vetoing pork.
absentee
Roe may or may not ever be overturned. But, I honestly believe that we have a much better shot at that outcome with Rudy.
While John McCain is pro-life, I fear he would give us more O'Connors and Souters. I don't want those. I want Scalias, Thomases, Alitos and Roberts. And nothing less! Rudy gets that.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
judges more than McCain. McCain will only pick a judge that would uphold the repeal the 1stamendment act he wrote, and no judge that upheld that would strike down Roe.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Waste, fraud, abuse, pork, earmarks ...
That's not puny to me. I think it is one of the most pressing issues of the day. Washington is unclean. It must repent and reform.
absentee
When pork equals a single digit percentage in government spending, how can it trump health care and social security -- two issues McCain favors tax hikes to take care of. I'm no fan of pork, but I cringe every time I hear McCain is tough on spending when he favors increased spending on those two crucial issues.
Earmarks are money that the government has already decided to spend that Congress has decided to tell the government how to spend. Eliminating earmarks would not save a red cent.
Congress appropriates billions for roads or something and then it 'earmarks' several hundred million of it to be spent in one particular place. If Congress didn't do the earmark, the billions would still be spent.
I find him much more in line with Fred. Rudy and Fred have the same federalist position on abortion, gay marriage, taxes, and immigration. Except Rudy is the best conservative chief executive in the country, possibly in American history, which gave him the edge in my book.
I find it amusing that people are trying to sell him as a liberal or some such nonsense. He wasn't the only Republican to support campaign finance reform was he? Was he the only Republican to support the Immigration bill?
Perhaps at a time where we have such a splintered coalition compromise shouldn't be seen as a sin.
McCain has been consistently pro-life and anti-gay marriage (SoCons). He has been consistently against pork spending (FiCons). He has been consistently for the war on terror (DefCons). He also can draw independents and moderates that are crucial to a general election.
No one else in the party can claim that. Period. Fred Thompson can draw nothing but flies in the north and apparently it looks like he can't even win the south IN HIS OWN PARTY.
Huckabee is a nut. Rudy alienates the SoCons. Romney can't win the middle based on his hard right flip flop. McCain is all we have.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
such an affirmative effort to purposefully antagonize different sub-groups of conservatives. Even Huckabee doesn't do that on purpose (see recent rightward movement on immigration and foreign policy).
McCain's intensity seems strongest when he is combatting Republicans.
Exhibit 1: Comments to Senator Cornyn
Exhibit 2: G-D fence
Do you think McCain ever swore at Kennedy?
When McCain deals with democrats, at best he shows weak negotiation skills at worst he shows an eagerness for capitulation.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
And McCain is a very passionate man with a lot of conservative positions, but its not his conservative positions he's passionate about. Its his regulation and control positions he's passionate about.
Did the war ever prompt McCain to swear at Kennedy or Clinton?
Immigration did prompt McCain to swear at Cornyn and say G-D wall.
"can I get you some aspirin or another coffee?" with ole Kennedy. Maybe he even took "Splash" for a walk when Ted was indisposed.
Tim Schieferecke
surrender to them. We need to draw conservatives, and they are out there. See 1980, 1984, 1988, and even 1992 and 1996...sans Perot
We lost with the McCain-like Bush 41 and Dole.
If we "win" with McCain, the GOP will no longer be a conservative party.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
This is why this is so important. In fact the Republican Party is apt to be drastically redefined by the end of this thing.
I get your point. I'm just saying what I see to be the facts. You cannot win a general election in this country without the large section that are independent. These people are usually moderates that are willing to lean either way depending upon the candidate. McCain has proven drawing power with them. None of the others have shown this ability least of all Fred Thompson.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
... even if X happens to Romney.
There is absolutely nothing to gain, and neither is it "realistic" or wise for us to hamstring ourselves by declaring any of our top candidates sure losers to the Democrats ... which is implicitly what you're doing when you deploy an "Only X ..." argument ...
Since when did such defeatism become part of being a Republican? I see no reason to believe that there is no viable path to victory for any one of our candidates, whether it be McCain, Rudy, Fred, Romney, and much as I hate to admit, Huckabee.
Rudy can win. His socon differences are easier to swallow because he admits to them and swears he will appoint good judges. In some elections Romney's flips might mean trouble, but this election year the opposition is not such that they can exploit it. It is also their weakness. The reason conservatives have a hard time swallowing McCains differences is he doesn't admet to them. He believes in amnesty, but he won't call it that or admit to it. And he certainly won't promise to respect the will of the vast majority of americans and take amnesty, or amnesty with a fine out of his immigration plan. He hasn't admitted McCain-Feingold was a complete failure. He won't admit he spoke adamently against tax cuts for the rich when voting against tax cuts. He is not honest with us and perhaps more significantly he won't listen to us.
It might be easy for YOU to swallow but go search this site. When Rudy was at his peak this place was flooded with diaries of many saying they would never vote for him in the general.
In fact look back. No matter who the frontrunner has been at any given time, a segment of this and other conservative sites has spoken out against them. We had a Rudy rant period. A Romney rant period. We just came out of a Huckabee rant period. Now McCain is getting the smashing. Thompson is loved by many hear but the reason no one attacks him is because he isn't really relevant. He has been a non-factor up to this point.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Staunch Libertarian, you're forgetting one little teeny-weeny issue, and that's the conservative Americans like me that would sit out in that circumstance. I would rather see Hillary run this country into the ground for 4 miserable years than see McCain ruin the conservative brand forever. Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, God rest his soul defined conservatism without cow-towing to populism. I say this knowing I'll very likely take heat for it, and that's just fine.
Tim Schieferecke
But I think you highly overestimate your numbers. If you look at the winners of the primaries so far, your brand of conservatives don't have enough numbers to swing much of anything. I don't mean this in a disrespectful manner. The market always works and here it seems your style of conservatism is very weak. I daresay that Fred Thompson in days gone by would be a sure thing, but look at how he is selling now. Ron Paul consistently places higher than he does and raises more money.
Also as to your point. If we grant you that some people would sit out rather than vote for McCain, then we can also say that a segment will sit out if Romney is the nominee (based on Mormonism or his flip flops). Evangelicals will sit out a Rudy nomination. Some FiCons will sit out a Huckabee nomination. If you look at Thompson's performances outside of the South it is clear that many will sit out his regional ideological run.
So the question is which candidate can hold most of the base. I think McCain is the most likely to hold most of the base and he is able to bring in independents to make people that sit out irrelevant.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
You're right on all points given above. But I think those who would sit out to avoid the tarnishing of the conservative brand are a much larger group than the biggots who could never vote for a Mormon. I have had the pleasure over the years to live next door to Mormon families. They are salt of the earth, God fearing, strong family, moral folks to a person. I don't care what the minutiae of their theology says, and I don't think many others do either. How would a McCain candidacy motivate and inspire my "brand" of conservative? Sure, I'll still vote on the local sewer issue when the time comes, I'll just right in James Madison on the question of President.
Tim Schieferecke
The issue is that at this point it is all speculation on the numbers. If you look at Huckabee's rise it seems that it is in direct proportion to the grassroots evangelical base's distaste for Romney. What do they dislike? Could be his Mormonism or his flip-flops in general. But in Iowa they refused to vote for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I have to agree with you on that. Maybe some even like his culinary technique of popcorn squirrel! A good opossum with turnips recipe could put him over the top with some segment of these liberal leaning biggots!
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan
He also "gave us"
A. An Islamic Theocracy in Iran.
B. An Islamic Theocracy in Afghanistan. (Gee, do you think these countries have been problems lately?)
C. Near collapse of our Economy.
D. Near defeat in the Cold War.
We were lucky. It would have been very easy for the country to be in a position from which there was no comeback.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
What we need in a leader is to tell us not what we want to hear, but what we need to hear.
Fred Thompson 2008
==== 13 ====
Give me a break. We nearly nominated Reagan in '76 after all, and that was with him running against the President.
That's true, but it's also true if he had been elected in '76, he would have had a MUCH weaker hand.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Yes, he is a patriot for serving his country and enduring what he did, but it's becoming his "Get Out Of Jail Free" card when someone criticizes his liberal domestic voting record, his liberal stance on torture, detainees and Gitmo, The Keating Five, his friendship with moderate-at-best Republicans, and his refusal to help conservative judges to get nominated.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
Mike, I'd never try to talk you away from FDT. He's the clear choice.
But consider this hypothetical: Romney dominates in Nevada, while FDT finishes in fourth in South Carolina. At that point Thompson probably drops out, and I would urge you to consider McCain the best remaining choice.
Giulani? Base splitter.
Huckabee? Ditto.
Romney? Has completely changed his message since failing to finish first in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's now the 'change' candidate, not the conservative candidate.
That leaves John McCain.
Do I think he's a party splitter as Senator? Yes. Do I think he will be as President? No.
Why not? A) He's divisive on mostly the same things President Bush is divisive on, and we've survived him. B) The role of the chief executive is NOT the same as that of a Senator. Even if he had the same attitude, his bargaining position is wildly different, and so the results will be different.
I can't get enthusiastic for him, but the rhetoric on this site agianst him lately has been absurd.
The Senator has said that he understands why his bills failed: the American people do not trust the government on enforcement. He knows now that in order to get what he wants, he has to regain that trust. As President, therefore, he'd have to return enforcement to Clinton levels or beyond.
I think not---he would interpret its passage as a statement by the American people that they now trust the government.
McCain needs to be specifically asked whether he would veto McCain-Kennedy if it appeared on his desk.
That's the point: We've defeated it twice, but now McCain won't bother fighting for it unless he's gotten the people behind him again.
And consider that by electing President McCain, we'd be robbing the bill of its most effective supporter. It'd be DOA in the Senate.
we finally realized he was right or, even if we didn't, we believed in HIM to be an even bigger God than he thought himself in the Senate and as president of the MSM.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
There is a much better chance of more Ds in the Senate than now, even with a McCain victory. There are a lot more Rs up for reelection or open R seats this cycle.
This is a legitimate question!
I'll leave that likely scenario up to your imagination. However, I will say the recent diary comparing President McCain to Governor Schwarzenegger was so dead on. I wish we could "bump" threads.
"certify" the border is secure. I see no basis to trust him.
Just now, he has his FIRST ad up on local TV in SC in which he promises to secure the border and it is being smashed to pieces by local radio. The ad is misleading and inaccurate.
I do think you you make some good points above, and will consider, but I don't fear the base splitting as much as you do re Rudy and think Mitt's change would be superior to John's.
But I will consider what you, absentee and Adam C say if doesn't get one of the two tickets out of SC.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I was a believer in Romney's change. But in Michigan, he changed again. He's now for fair trade, not free trade. He's now for hands-on industrial policy, not pro-growth policy. He's for taking nationwide the plan the Democrats passed over his vetoes in Massachusetts.
If we believed his first change, I think we have to believe his second change, that he's now more like Huckabee than Thompson.
warming tax on the economy as well.
Rudy moves to #2 and maybe Huck #3 now...still thinking.
Nothing yet argues for McCain higher than 4th.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Its not really true, though. If you read what Ramesh Ponnuru had to say about it at NRO (Ramesh is a McCain supporter), Romney's big emphasis was on deregulating the auto industry, with special emphasis on attacking McCain's CAFE standards and his proposed global warming tax. The only non-conservative thing was his proposal to increase federal funding for various kinds of research.
This stuff about a 'federal industrial policy' is all from one line in a speech where Romney said he wanted to sit down industry leaders and federal execs and talk over the problems and the solutions.
As far as I can tell, he didn't say one word about backing away from free trade.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Why do we care what his motive is, as long as we know he wants what we want? That's coalition politics 101.
the fence. I think he will build what he said he will reluctantly build, ie a "G-D Fence" that guvs will certify. And given his attitude on the fence plus his continuing self denial about the behind the scenes deal he tried to cram down our throats while we slept only to re-discover Rush and the rest of We the People to his chagrin,
I trust that he would cave on all issues, or er ah
the Dems will cave to him on amnesty again.
No, I don't care what is motives are when he screws us again.
Bout all he has done for 7 years is screw the GOP. And so we nominate him?
PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Consider the governors out here. We have Schwarzenegger and Richardson both who are pro-border security, plus Perry and Napolitano whose positions on border security I don't know, personally.
And I'd rather nominate him than a guy who wants taxpayer funded abortion on demand (Giuliani), government-regulated CEO pay (Huckabee), or a government bailout of the UAW (Romney).
It's a lesser of evils spot, basically.
to the left.
Rudy has said he would uphold Hyde; Huck said he did not favor a law on CEO pay, and Mitt proposed a $20 billion for what (I am mostly ignorant on the specifics of Mitt as I have been focused here in SC on Fred and the Huck-McCain threat!)
But no, I consider McCain worse than all of them on domestic issues and only tied on the war or worse.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
There are two parts of GWOT. One part is Iraq and dealing with terrorist-sponsoring nation states. McCain is probably about as good as Rudy or Fred on that part.
However, the other part is intel and uncovering terrorist plots before they happen. For that we need GITMO and whatever interrogation techniques are necessary. Fred and Rudy get it - McCain doesn't get it.
Rudy's formative experiences have prepared him far better to be president than McCain. Rudy was there on 9/11 - he knows that NYC is still a major target for terrorists. Rudy has a strong self-preservation instinct to make sure that nothing like 9/11 ever happens again no matter what it takes.
McCain's formative experience of being a POW has had the opposite effect on him. It makes it very difficult for him to allow an illegal-combatant prisoner to be treated as harshly as necessary to ensure that 9/11 does not happen again.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
thing re-immigration. Not.A.One.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
We can't afford new illegals on the welfare rolls, in the emergency rooms, and bringing kids into the schools when we're in budget crises down here.
authored back in 12/06 in reference to border enforcement...
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA122806.01O.perrycomment....
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
Rudy: saying he no longer supports tax payer funded abortions
Romney:saying that he is basically pro-free markets
McCain: saying he wont try McCain-Kennedy again without a secure border
Romney being pro-capitalism is his actual true position. He worked in business. He has been consistently for de-regulation and pro-capitalism, with a momentary lapse of corporate welfare in Michigan. It seems quite believable that Romney is not itching to beomce an economic populist.
Rudy saying no to tax payer abortions is a concession on a non-core issue. Rudy has been pro-abortion his entire career, but its not like his career path included being general counsel for planned parenthood. Abortion is not a core issue for Rudy. Moreover, Rudy has been respectful in courting social conservatives.
McCain is saying that on his big issue of the last two years, the issue that caused him to lose his cool, the issue that caused him to swear at his fellow Republican Senators, the issue that put big-time egg on his face, on this issue, we are supposed to believe that McCain has learned his lesson?
although Absentee's answer is predictable given the recent blog.
My answer is clearly (C).
If the three of us have such divergent opinions, no wonder the nomination process is so wide open.
The key is that you need to distinguish two concepts: illegal alien legalization, and border security.
The former has been one of John McCain's pet issues, not fighting the latter. I don't think he truly wakes up on the morning and thinks "Gee willikers, I need to keep our border porous today!"
I think he'd be just fine with securing the border as a compromise to get his legalization.
And honestly? I'd be fine with it too. Reagan's '86 compromise was a fair deal. I only reject IRCA-like plans now because (as McCain has noted) the government has no credibility when it comes to the enforcement side of the deal.
McCain will actually be great on border security because that will allow him to do what he really wants to do--McCain/Kennedy.
I see the logic in that, and I hope its true.
Still not sure that I agree though. I really don't trust McCain. There are mornings where I think Huckabee would be better than McCain if for no other reason that Huckabee doesn't really have strong beliefts outside of social issues and would play to the base.
Ah predictability. I strive to attain it!
I stand by my assessment. So far no one has convinced me of the innate evil of any of these guys. Besides Ron Paul of course. The alien probe was quite clear about that. Quite clear indeed.
Anyway, like I said here, I want to win.
The wide open nomination right now also has some mundane causes. The messed up schedule, the everlasting campaign. Some unpredicted reversals of fortune.
Timing. With the right timing and better campaign management we might all be riding a series of Thompson victories from one state to the next.
Personally, I think we can be four years from now. But of course, that's not material right now.
I want to know your answer to the other side of the question. Which of those three do you find most believable?
absentee
I think at his core, Romney is a business guy. He vetoed a lot of spending. Unlike (A) and (C), Romney actually wants to be the free-market guy. For Rudy and McCain, they are making concessions for electability purposes.
Thus, I have had Romney as my #2 on most days (some mornings I have Rudy as #2)
It's 4PM EST, you can start drinking, if needed. ;>)
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
And knock McCain and Huckabee out of the conversation once and for all. I'm tired of McCain supporters pretzel-ing themselves to defend him. We can finally have conversations about candidates with policy ideas.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
At the end of the day, those that really care are going to vote for him over Obama or Hillary.
And I think a prominent social conservative as his VP would go along way in making amends for some of his stands. YMMV.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
Giuliani wouldn't be the worst guy around, except thatI think he would drive some of our most enthusiasic activists out of the party. We can't nominate a pro-taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand candidate and keep the coalition together.
"At the end of the day"
At the end of my day, I'd go Rudy before McCain for sure. But that's just me.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
He is a flip flopper and I am pouting. :>)
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
but not contradicted his message. He has only emphasized different parts of his platform. Why is that a problem?
And finally, we have to shape America's trade policy to open markets for our goods and level the playing field across the world. For America to remain the world's superpower, we have to remain the world's economic superpower. And that requires us to successfully compete everywhere in the world.
However, as we pursue new trade agreements, I'm far less interested in just getting an agreement signed than I am in getting an agreement signed that is good for America. I promise you that any nation that unfairly manipulates its currency, steals our patents and designs, dumps unsafe products in our markets, or stifles the American goods in their market place, will face a very aggressive President across the negotiating table.
Now let me be clear, I strongly support free trade, but free trade has to be fair in both directions. And when the playing field is level, America can compete with any country in the world. And we will win.
I came here about a year ago and talked about a number of actions which I thought were necessary to keep our national economy strong. I talked about cutting spending in Washington, about across the board tax cuts, about national tort reform liability, and I also talked about entitlement reform.
Seriously, in context, it seems he's leveling an accusing finger at China for its unsavory practices. Or is it that I'm missing something?
is that this is Mitt Romney - and if he so much as changes a single word in his standard stump pitch it will bring forth howls of "FLIP-FLOPPER!!" and "ASTROTURFER!!" and "PANDERER!!" from roughly 3/4 of RedState.
That's what you're missing. Little else, actually.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
After Abraham and John, that is. er, I mean, after Fred.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
John, however, would abandon the base.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I know that was a throw-away one-liner, but it probably is a very concise prediction of the direction of a McCain administration.
Hasn't John already admitted that "Washington changed" him?
No part of the base is secure when Johnny Mac goes behind closed doors with Teddy and Nancy.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Giuliani and Thompson are the only candidates who have laid out a tax plan, who have specified nominating conservative judges, and who have in no certain terms said they would do whatever they need to do (i.e. "coercive interrogation") to protect our country. John McCain has been silent on these three.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
John McCain has said he positively opposes raising taxes, particularly in this current economic climate, and so would work to ensure that Bush's tax cuts would remain in effect.
That's fine with me, personally.
Every time he says he wants to fix social security I'm reminded of his longstanding plan to use the Clinton surplus money to "fix social security." I don't buy it that he's changed his position on desiring "tax cuts for the rich" instead of "saving social security."
And taxes need to be lowered further and made flatter. Both Rudy and Fred's plans are steps in the right direction. McCain is either no progress or likely regression on that issue.
on Bush's Social Security plan? I don't remember him supporting it at all. Since I am pretty sure it would work, his support might have made a big difference in pushing it forward. Yet he was silent.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I see. Mark Levin is the faithfull conservative... he was ready to concede defeat a year ago when it was hard to stand by the surge.
But on shall believe in Mark Levin, not in McCain.
Let me be very straight: I have no doubts about the benefit of the surge in Iraq. No doubts.
we don't most of the time. But temperament issues are what really disqualifies him for me. I actually agree with Neil above that McCain apparently has decided to sequence any illegal immigration legislation. McCain also has flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts--and that is fine with me. But I can see him exploding in public between nomination and the general election. Add that to some of the more controversial statements he has made over the years and memorialized for all to see, and the GOP loss would be of historical proportions. Yes, he now leads in head to head matches against Clinton, but that could change in a nanosecond.
In a perverse way, I wish McCain were the nominee precisely because I believe he will be slaughtered in the general election. That would put an end to his more extreme past positions and those in the party who embrace him, and make Republicans take a step back from what does for some resemble a cult of personality more than a principled decision. Yet I love my party and my country too much to vote that way.
If McCain is the nominee, I will go to vote for him. But that's it. And that represents more passion than many like me will be able to muster.
meaningless 85% vote figure, most of which votes are perfunctory.
You can't. You were just being nice. I know you.
smile
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
McCain has a core following in the Rebublican party, similar to the way the Clintons have in the Democrat Party. There is a fascination of sorts or maybe just a comfortable familarity that makes them easy to follow. We have come to know them in our livingrooms for well...forever! They both have experience in Washington as outspoken, opinionated & controversial and both enjoy a lot of media attention. Obama and Romney have arrived on the scene trying to shake things up a bit and break up these groups who are dedicated followers. Notice how they both talk about "Washington Insiders" and "lifetime politicians" and talk about outsider "Change". The question is will be whether they will be successful in pulling away that loyal support or whether each party will stick with what they know, even if only out of fear of the unknown. I say that because I often hear McCain backers say that "Well, at least I know what I'm getting with McCain." I hear the same argument against Obama in favor of Clinton. Her supporters know she's polarizing & corrupt, but they've had 8 years to come to grips with it and they aren't willing to take a chance on what weaknesses Obama will bring, fearing it will be too late and lose the election. Both Clinton and McCain have both been thoroughly vetted and many supports have found comfort in that.
{I don't know enough about all that nintendo crap to make a valid analogy. Sorry if this is lost on the younger crowd.]
Love the features, the marketing just hasn't got anyone jazzed yet.
Please, GC, may your home state of South Carolina prove me wrong, but based on the numbers I've seen it looks like every soul who has cast a vote for FDT so far is blogging with us at RedState.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
"Based on the numbers I've seen it looks like every soul who has cast a vote for FDT so far is blogging with us at RedState."
Yeah -- with at least two different names.
You all keep bringing up this same laundry list of complaints about McCain. All of them have been adressed by his supporters in many different places. We get it - you don't like McCain. You won't vote for him - at least in the primary - some not even in the general. You don't think he's conservative. Guess what - I don't care - not one single bit. I am not going to be able to change your mind and you sure as hell are not going to change mine. Every single post about McCain - good or bad - brings at least one person to post the list. I can recite it in my sleep:
1. Shamnesty
2. Gang of 14
3. McCain-Feingold
4. Blah, blah, blah - we've all read the words hundreds of times. Guess what? It's inside baseball to a lot of the rank-and file voters. The fact that McCain might win the nomination seems to be driving all you anti-Macs into some sort of frenzy.
I consider myself conservative - you have no right to say I'm not. And I supported the Gang of 14 - in most ways, I agreed with McCain on illegal imigrants. I supported many of the goals of McCain-Feingold, too. Just because you and Rush think that those positions are not conservative does not make it so. I'm a deficit hawk - that used to be one of the main planks of being a conservative and it's one of the reasons I like McCain so much.
I'm sick of this - totally and completly sick of it. Find something new to say about McCain. Good or bad, I don't care. But don't you DARE think that you have the right to say who is and isn't a conservative based on some cherry-picked group of issues.
«Find something new to say about McCain. Good or bad, I don't care. But don't you DARE think that you have the right to say who is and isn't a conservative based on some cherry-picked group of issues.»
Amen!
...for John McCain.
But he's not my kind of conservative.
I listened to his speech after the New Hampshire primary and heard quite a bit about "service" and "patriotism". These are noble sentiments. McCain has on more than one occasion, though, reminded his audience that his has been a life of "patriotism, not profits". There is something less noble in this sentiment: people who marshall land, labor and capital efficiently for the benefit of their fellow man are somehow less patriotic, less American.
We couldn't fight the good fights of the last century without the wealth and prosperity the entrepreneur struggles for every day. Our CEOs, our sole proprietors and our Joe Sixpacks helped win the Cold War, too.
McCain's post-New Hampshire speech mentioned little about the entrepreneurial spirt of the American people, little about the virtue of a good day's work, little about the pre-eminence of a stable family life in sustaining a prosperous nation, little about the dynamic service of the free enterprise system, and little about rolling back the size and scope of the federal government.
Maybe Sen. McCain cares about these issues and has addressed them elsewhere with as much passion as he talks about his public service. I haven't heard it. I have the highest respect for him (and all who work in police, fire and national defense), but all the National Greatness talk can be easily redirected toward expanding Washington's authority--Sen. McCain doesn't sound to me like he's entirely opposed to that.
Look, the fact is that if Fred Thompson quits after South Carolina, there will be no conservative in the race. If conservative philosophy is your litmus test, then you will have to stay home.
Otherwise, the question becomes "Which candidate will hurt the conservative cause the least?" Given that Giuliani and Hucakbee will split our party in half, and Romney is a weather vane, I think the choice has to be John McCain.
He may be a mule, but hey, he's (mostly) our mule.
When push comes to shove, the Republican Party rallies behind their candidate; I'm very skeptical of the idea that the party would splinter severely with Rudy at the top of the ticket. Especially since Rudy isn't running as a liberal, but as a conservative with a federalist posiions on abortion.
While it may not be ideal, a reassuring Huckabee VP would at the very least quell most objections.
He's running as a far-left abortion extremist. That's not going to sell to the base, and certainly not going to draw activism, sorry.
You're right it won't excite the pro-life activists. But as a pro-life conservative, I'm able to see past it with all the other issues on the table. While Pat Robertson doesn't carry that much weight around here, I do see him as an example of someone who feels the same way.
Name me one other 'far-left abortion extremist' that supports the partial-birth abortion ban.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Remember the hubbub in the 1980s over federal funding of Planned Parenthood?
All the Democrats that fought for it (but ultimately lost)?
Planned Parenthood does abortions. Government support of Planned Parenthood is government-funded abortions. QED.
Rudy is a solid conservative on every issue *but* abortion. John is a moderate to liberal squish on every issue but abortion, it seems.
Sorry, Leon, but I'll take Rudy over John. Rudy at least is moving to the right on abortion.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
...left to answer that question, Neil: "Which candidate will hurt the conservative cause the least?"
Why is my gorge rising already?
Were it not for Justice Stevens, the choice to stay home would be easier. The last time the Dems had both the White House and the Congress, they chased millions of conservative Americans out of the Democrat Party and gave us our first conservative House and Senate in 40 years.
I'm not ready to think that contrarian, yet, though.
McCain could actually win in November--so what energetic, possibly Southern (though I'd prefer Midwestern), rock-ribbed, fiscal conservative balances the ticket? A nod to us small government-types from the Arizona Senator would sure help settle my stomach on election day.
This I can agree with in some ways. You were able to put some of your objections to McCain without having to drag out those same old talking points. I don't entirely disagree with you - I think the spirit of wanting to succeed and become rich is one of the great things that drive the US and it's a fair point to make. I've read enough Ayn Rand to know there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit. I was not crazy about that 'patriotism not profits' line.
I just did a quick review of your blog entries, but I couldn't do that for your contributing comments. As Becker908 says, I don't agree with much of what I saw, but you write well.
So. I have a hard time understanding your complaint about dragging "out those same old talking points." Those "talking points" are the the essence of some of the reasons we don't like McCain as a Presidential Candidate. Some people may dislike him personally, but I just think he's very unsuited to be a Republican President, based on his record.
Those talking points are a list of the things he has either done or said that indicate he would not be the President I'd want in the White House. You can't just dismiss them with a pejorative. If you disagree that they are important, say so, and say why. The worst of it is that they make me believe that I can't trust his word. Without trust, what good is he to me?
You might even consider his boast that he's never brought home one cent of "pork" to Arizona. As an Arizonan, I don't consider that to be a big selling point, but if he were President he would leave a spot for a new Senator who might have the interests of his home state in mind a bit more, as do all the others.
Here's a non-talking-point comment: he is completely illogical and counterproductive in his statements and behavior, unless you consider that he just might be in it for himself alone. Then some of his outrageous behavior could make sense.
"I've read enough Ayn Rand to know there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit. I was not crazy about that 'patriotism not profits' line."
Maybe it's only possible to read "enough" Ayn Rand. Actually finishing her books is tough, I understand. But I was not only not crazy about that "patriotism" line, I thought I'd choke when he said it. Reminded me of Lord Bentsen talking to Dan Quayle.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I don't find that to be a compelling argument. I go to my job because I am profit-motivated, and that is good. I believe in capitalism and that is good. But that doesn't make it patriotic. It doesn't make it not patriotic either.
A priest who vows celibacy and poverty can be admired for his dedication to the Lord. If he says, my life has been about faith, that doesn't detract from me. My career is, in fact, not about faith. That priest's is.
Joe Sixpack and the engines of industry, they are pieces of the chaotic system of capitalism, the engine that brings freedom to mankind. But they aren't going to work because of an oblique notion that it is patriotic to do so, nor should they. The man who dies on the battlefield, his life is about patriotism. It doesn't mean you "are somehow less patriotic, less American." Virtue in others does not equal vice in yourself, and when those virtues are a unique qualification that is good.
As a capitalist, one should appreciate competition for a position of authority, and understand that some people are qualified for some jobs, and others for others. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging one's qualifications.
absentee
anything new is a function of his absence from Congress. My blog was response to absentee's.
We will know when you are sick when we don't see any posts.
I am pleased you find commenting on my blogs irresistible.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Don't strain your arm patting yourself on the back. Most of the time I do ignore your posts - they are not very different from most of the other McCain-haters really. It's just repetitive.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
for reminding us why John McCain should not be a Republican President. Well expressed. Three of the Big 5 candidates are still on my list. John and Mike would be very disappointing.
On a DOD Study Task Force where the leadership (of said TF) spent several sessions with Senator McCain. I was the guy on the wall taking notes (interestingly, nobody mistook me for a staffer... I guess my demeanor is extremely military).
My impression is that he is a smart guy. He is also a deeply embedded insider who stubbornly refuses to listen to those outside of his list of approved eggheads (regardless of ideology). What are the chances of him listening to "the people" or "the base?" I can say with reservation the answer is zero. None whatsoever.
This has been labeled/construed as "straight talk," but when you are sitting with the guy trying to hash out policy, it feels more like being bludgeoned by an angry guy who has yet to fulfill his destiny... with the added indignity of being treated like you know nothing about your particular area of expertise (no matter how defined... he knows more).
Hell, maybe my experience was unique. Maybe he was so dead sure because it was a (relatively) specific defense issue. I do know that if you're singing his tune, he'll make you feel like the sun rises and sets on your hind-end. If not, you're just another schmuck that should find other work.
I don't trust him to listen to what we conservatives want. He's more likely to see his nomination and election as a "mandate" to continue McCain business as usual. Will I vote for him? If he is the candidate, I will... but I won't look forward to what that brings.
And as a counterpoint. You know who else is single-minded and known as a real SOB to work for? General Petraeus. That guy works his staff like slaves! Seriously, his staff jokes that it is more akin to indentured servitude... without the benefits of being able to run away. That being said, they all say that it is a rewarding experience because he pushes them to find SOLUTIONS!
When he was Commander of the 101st (and I was working border issues with the Provisional Authority), two of his Majors showed up with a comprehensive border plan that he had commissioned them to work in their "spare time." Had we implemented it, we wouldn't have been fighting the same insurgency. The guy doesn't wait for tasking... he just fixes the freakin' problem.
Not sure if that is related...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
He's leading Clinton by a four-point average and even now leads Obama by about two. Edwards won't be the nominee, but to prove McCain's strength, I'll point out that he's even leading Edwards slightly--when EVERY other one of our candidates loses by at least more than 5 to him.
Polls don't matter much, but his numbers are consistently so much stronger than the other candidates AND he and Clinton are both known quantities, so there's not a lot of room for shifting.
On every issue you mentioned save perhaps CFR, President McCain will be better than a President Clinton or Obama, whether it's judges, national security, or even immigration. This is not a case where we have to rip the party apart to win, like some say Giuliani or Huckabee might. (They're the only two candidates to lead Clinton in any other recent polls) Some of us will have to suck it up a little and put on a little smile as the independents get behind us. I'm willing to do that.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
"Polls don't matter much, but his numbers are consistently so much stronger than the other candidates AND he and Clinton are both known quantities, so there's not a lot of room for shifting."
In effect, you're saying these polls are an accurate representation of how voters will vote ten months from now. I think you're forgetting a big something.
Polls are highly affected by what is being broadcast in the MSM. The MSM pushed the Huckster in Iowa and Johnny in New Hampshire. They ignored Wyoming and Romney won. Now, they're pushing McCain in South Carolina by virtually ignoring everybody else except Huckabee. The MSM decreed that Michigan would be a McCain and Romney battle, and they covered it that way. Yet Romney beat McCain in every demographic except liberals and conservatives, indicating I think that the MSM can be beaten with specific issues. Thompson is only now beginning to get some media attention, and the amount of media attention, coupled with the type of media attention, is exactly how they push. Until recently, all Thompson's coverage was of the horse-race, didn't-you-enter-too-late, when-will-you-quit variety. Now, he occasionally gets some more substantive questions.
On the Democrat side, the MSM pushed Hillary for about a year, until they noticed some of her big gaffes. (It probably hasn't hurt Obama that he has been supported by George Soros all along, either, but even Soros can't overcome a strong Clinton). Hillary's weakness has opened a door that the MSM is trying desperately to push Obama through, apparently succesfully.
Contrary to your statement, there is a LOT of room for shifting. As soon as a Republican nominee is determined, the media will immediately train its guns on that person. If it's McCain, there will be plenty of stories about McCain the maverick, the Gang of 14, his favoritism for "amnesty," his temper, the fact that McCain-Feingold was an attack on free speech, and all those other NEGATIVE talking points. In the meantime, either Hillary or Obama will be God's gift to the USA.
When that happens, all those polls with McCain ahead will vanish like the mirages they are. As always, the MSM will fully support the Democrat with slanted reporting. A conservative candidate, right on almost all issues, could overcome that. The MSM attacks would use political differences as a base, and a smart conservative can use those to his advantage. But with McCain as the candidate, the MSM won't be trying to drive away just independents; they'll be trying to drive away conservatives, too.
"On every issue you mentioned save perhaps CFR, President McCain will be better than a President Clinton or Obama, whether it's judges, national security, or even immigration."
Except for immigration (where they would be the same) he is better than the Democrats on the points you mention. But as you can see today, issues don't seem to matter, or we'd all be behind Fred Thompson. I say that because so many folks here have said as much, but "Fred just isn't electable."
Do you really think we'll get enough independents to offset the conservatives McCain will turn off? And, even more important, do you think those independents will vote Republican for Congressmen and Senators, too? Something that is never considered is that with a conservative candidate, we have a better chance of getting a more conservative Congress.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
That's a negative Ghost rider, the media is here.
Maverick, you just did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane! you don't own that plane, the tax payers do! Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash. You've been busted… ~Top Gun
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
maybe we could share a picnic basket if schedules permit?
________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
If the polls are to be believed, McCain has the best chance against any of the Democrat challengers. The question is, if someone is moderately conservative and electable, then would they be a better choice than someone who is extremely rock solid conservative and likely to be blown out during the general election?
Face it, the idea of conservatives as a unified group is effectively dead. The very definition has become fragmented, with Socons, Ficons, Neocons, Theocons, Shaka-kahns. (and the ever famous Kirk scream of Kaaaaahhhhhnnnn!) each group favoring a particular *con and believes theirs is the best, most important *con; to the point that anyone who doesn't fit their brand of *con isn't a *real* conservative. How did we get to this point. No candidate is ever going to be acceptable to every group, and we've reached the point where the stridency and tone has become toxic.
I won't lay blame on anyone or any group for the rather venomous nature of the internal battles here, there's no point. But really, if we can't support a candidate because they're not *con enough for us, then really, we might as well accept that we are going to be the minority party for the next 20 years and get used to it.
I'm not saying we have to support McCain, Thompson, Romney, Guiliani or anyone else, particularly during the primary season, but each time I hear someone say, I'd never vote for candidate X, Y, or Z because they're a terrible candidate I cringe, because the implication is, 'the other party's candidate is better.' and if that's the case, then the nomination process is even more messed up than I thought.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
certain things. The coalition held every year but '92 and '96, when Perot split us. It held every other year since 1980. It would hold this year too with a Reagan conservative, ie Fred.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
For the republican nomination - I am looking at this from a policy & issue standpoint as well as a communication standpoint, & from that view Fred is definitely the better choice. McCain would be better than any of the democrats running & if he's the nominee, I pray we have a huge conservative influx into congress.
McCain has made many mistakes. He has attacked conservatives & the republican party while speaking to democrats. He has been very wrong on the tax cuts & illegal "immigration," & has not shows the temerity to admit when he's wrong & change.
Levin mischaracterized the McCain letter to Rumsfeld. In the 12-13-2003 New York Times article, McCain's position was for the U.S. government to "release the detainees or bring them to trial." The Geneva Conventions are pretty clear that if there is any doubt, detainees are to stand before a competent military tribunal. Since we are a signatory, we are bound to abide by this treaty. Quite a few of those detainees were not captured in the heat of battle against U.S. forces. Rather, many were handed over by various groups and many of those groups were compensated for their efforts.
McCain was right. We were not operating according to the rule of law when it came to tribunals, and this was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. If detainees are confirmed as unlawful combatants by said tribunals, they can rot in jail until we determine hostilities have ended. There is no inconsistency here.
Second, when McCain wrote that "the treatment of the detainees is not an issue," the clear meaning according to the Times was that "the senators believed the prisoners were being treated humanely by the military and not being abused in any way." This letter to Rumsfeld was written months before Abu Ghraib splashed across the front pages and months before it was confirmed that we were coercively interrogating detainees.
On the treatment of detainees, President Bush himself said that detainees would be treated humanely. Quite frankly, I don't see how humane treatment and coercive interrogation can happen simultaneously. Under the Conventions, we are allowed to interrogate detainees, but not cross the line of humane treatment. We did have a problem in that regard. McCain's position is that, unless there is a ticking time-bomb situation, we should not be in the business of inhumane interrogation methods. It's a position I agree with.
I do not agree with McCain when he said that coercive techniques do not yield good intelligence. I've heard from enough CIA types that the techniques are highly effective. But in my view, the political costs we've paid by allowing these methods have outweighed the intelligence benefits. This may sound trite, but we shouldn't be lowering our standards simply because our enemies are a bunch of barbaric medieval thugs.
Also, gamecock, your claim that McCain wants to "give illegal enemy combatants lawyers" is false. McCain was a party to the Detainee Treatment Act, which rescinded habeas corpus for detainees.
I'll address your other points later.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
need to re-visit. We disagree.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Exactly what did I write that was untrue?
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
illegal enemy combatants, and there is no requirement for a trial if there is "any" doubt that they are being properly held, and even Co-President A. Kennedy hasn't gone that far.
Its war.
McCain has named no American that has broken the law prohibiting torture at Gitmo or anywhere else. Instead he smears them all.
Bringing the illegal combatants to US soil would risk granting them the constitutional rights of "persons" under Pres. A Kennedy's new constitution, and McCain knows that. Before Sen Graham schooled him, he was advocating that they all have lawyers.
We have not lowered standards and the political costs have come due to the public slanders of McCain et al agreeing with unfounded claims.
Thankfully France and Germany didn't care what McCain said.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The Geneva Conventions were established to minimize civilian losses, help differentiate between prisoners of war and unlawful combatants, and set forth rules for how POWs, civilians and unlawful combatants are to be treated. The GC doesn't say much about unlawful combatants, but the bottom line is that detainess are supposed to be treated humanely and there are do's and don'ts as to what is humane and what is not.
McCain rightfully supported the Detainee Treatment Act because there is evidence of inhumane treatment by our government as shown in my link, so there is no "smear". McCain added his name to the legislation because the Bush administration's lawyers wrongly counseled the president that these coercive techniques were legal. They were not, as written about in that book by that lawyer (Goldsmith? Golstein?) who succeeded Yoo. Those techniques lowered our standards in both the law and in the eyes of our allies, and we have paid politically for doing so.
I disagree with McCain that Gitmo be closed, but in either case, the Detainee Treatment Act rescinded habeas corpus and rightfully set forth procedures for competent military tribunals. There is still room in the law for coercive techniques in ticking time-bomb situations--rare as those situations are--because the president can pardon the fella who saved hundreds or thousands of lives because he waterboarded a jihadist goon. McCain already said he would support that form of interrogation in those situations, so a pardon would logically follow.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Just wanted to grab a chance to say, since it all happens TOMORROW.
Go Gamecocks! May SC make the Republican Party proud by helping Fred get his national momentum going! I wish you the very best brother.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
The weather may be our friend. Rain turning to snow tomorrow.
I am going on the radio in a bit to push back against the McCain as victim meme he and his are whining all over the State. The same old insult to SC that he lost due to a rogue push poll er that reached few homes in 2000, and which no one believed anyway except a few kooks. He lost by 16 percentage points. The MSM is his friend in playing the victim card with some fliers from a kook this year, yet hardly mentioning that fliers against Fred have appeared and push polls against them all.
None of which are relevant. And btw, all this occurred in other states but the media likes to paint us a rubes.
I hate the MSM.
McCain is calling anyone liars that say he ever called for amnesty for illegals.
Unfortunately for him, radio talk shows have the TAPES of McCain calling for amnesty, BY NAME.
Fred's supporters will brave the snow and rain.
McCain's base is mostly dem crossovers. The fact that the dem primary is next week helps McCain. The weather does not.
The wild card is Romney's vote. He abandoned the state, and I suspect his vote in polls is exaggerated.
Can't gauge Huck well.
Its a unique year. McCain couldn't beat anyone head on, but with the crowded field,
I am clueless.
Thanks guy!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
intentionall and purposfilly excludes illegal enemy combatents (no uniform, targets viilians, etc, ie terrorists, spies and sabateurs).
And your suggestion that there was ever any evidence that the US was not treating them humanely repeats McCain's slander.
The US has punished rogue soldiers that mistreated prisoners under then current law.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I highly recommend those points be expanded and put into a diary. People don't hear about the exact record of McCain's comments on GTMO and torture enough.
In that vein, coercive techniques of detainees is only as helpful as the information those detainees can provide. I'm not disputing the high intelligence value of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al Sheibh, and the others among the 14 'high value detainees' that were transferred to GTMO in late 2006. However, I think a lot of people out there seem to think of the intelligence business to be like '24' with ticking time bombs and dangerous men who never crack who also happen to hold the keys to the kingdom .
Most of the men at GTMO are of very low intelligence value. They are Taliban footsoldiers who have already given most of the information they could about who facilitated their travel to Afghanistan, what camp was where, the name of their third cousin by marriage who may have seen a man called the 'big shoe' who may or may not be Osama bin Ladin, etc etc etc.
When we're talking about torture or enhanced interrogation techniques or whatever is the name of the day, we're only talking about at the most those 14 high-level guys, many of whom aren't necessarily unresponsive-except-for-torture. There are many other reasons high value detainees talk. They want to brag about their accomplishments and intimidate the Americans. Other interrogation techniques may have worked on them, such as Love of Comrades/Hate of Comrades, Love of Family and Incentive, Pride and Ego Up, and Pride and Ego Down, even Fear Up, which doesn't have to involve any "enhanced" techniques. If I can find links describing those techniques I'll edit this and throw them in.
Finally, in my own discussion with those interrogator types, to a man every one has told me that torture, abuse, humiliation, waterboarding, and other enhanced interrogation techniques are not as effective. That may be an endless debate, but I wouldn't take it as a given that those techniques work. I do understand that one of the fears is that McCain's being so against torture will blind him to the fact that it may work sometimes, or maybe that it makes him look soft on terrorists. I think Charles Bird's points above may help deter some people from that line of thinking. I also agree that despite a possible benefit from some enhanced interrogation, that it's not worth a.) the political cost and b.) the moral cost. I'm a conservative because I believe in absolute, not relative morality. Does the fact that I truly believe in treating even the evilest man with a modicum of human decency make me a bleeding-heart liberal? It doesn't make me anti-war (by any means), anti-America, and pro-terrorist,and it doesn't make McCain that way.
Finally, to show that I'm not a completely in love with McCain, I will disagree wholeheartedly with any plan to close GTMO. I wasn't a fan of GTMO from the very beginning. Although I think it's completely legal and above board of the Bush administration to deal in enemy combatants as opposed to applying the Geneva Convention and conferring POW status (considering our enemies do not afford us the same favor), I was uncomfortable with it regardless (because of public relations and because we're putting footsoldiers in the clink for a generations-long war). That being said, my view on GTMO is the same as my view on the Iraq War; despite what anyone felt about it in the beginning, pulling out now would be calamatous. Countries such as Yemen aren't ready to receive their 93 GTMO detainees. Pressure from their tribal/conservative contingents, political neccessities, personal ideology, and just plain old lack of planning and infrastructure will lead these countries to let the bulk of their detainees go. Did I just say that these detainees were just footsoldiers in the Taliban, and imply they weren't al-Qaida terrorist types? Six years in GTMO...and they're a threat now. (Same as Iraq bleedout- impoverished inexperienced boys go to fight for glory and come home with the motivation, the know-how, and the connections to conduct attacks in their own country.)
Anyway, this reply was just meant to praise Charles, so I'm out.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I understand that Fred has not campaigned in a manner and style that generates passion. This gives me heartburn a little because he is the one guy who I agree with most on policy and issues.
Every one of the candidates seems to have the word 'change' included in every speech they give. Do the voters really want change? If they do, then why would they vote for John McCain? A McCain presidency would represent a continuation of the status quo, a third term of 'W'.
I'm a voter who is looking for change, and I expect to find it from a candidate who doesn't live and work in DC. People don't change DC, DC changes people.
I want an outsider like Fred, Rudy, or Mitt to win the nomination. The Republican Party is going to suffer like we did in '76 and '96 if we choose a sitting US Senator to be our nominee.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
First and foremost, let me say that I have absolute respect for Senator John McCain’s service in the Navy. He is an American hero.
Having said that, let me put it in my perspective. I am a retired US Army Combat Engineer. Like all veterans, I know that soldiers go into battle for God, country, mom and apple pie. But, they fight the battles for each other. For myself, and every veteran I know, leaving the Hanoi Hilton with other prisoners left behind would have been inconceivable. Surely, the Senator should be commended for his actions, but any of us would have done the same thing. I’ll bet real money that even the Senator would say it was an easy decision.
Civilians have a difficult time understanding the strength of the bond formed between soldiers in combat. As a result, I believe they tend to overstate the significance of this event.
It’s surely commendable, but not a qualification or justification to be president.
Sorry if somebody else already pointed this out. I didn't have time to skim all of the comments before mine...anyway...
It irritates me to no end to hear McCain and his supporters suggest that today we should give him a pass on his transgressions because he was a POW some 40 years ago.
I've got 21 years in the military (I retire this year), and I have great respect for McCain’s years in the Hanoi Hilton, but that was then and this is now. Regarless of your history sir, don't expect me to turn the other cheek today while you're trying to stab me in the back. No sir, I won't give you a pass for leading the charge against us when many important conservative causes were being fought for in congress over that last 10 years.
Remember, Benedict Arnold was well regarded before he made his famous departure to the other side.
John McCain is a Senator. Senators have a very poor record in the last 70 years or so when it comes to winning the Presidency (only JFK did it, and that was with the dead voting in Illinois and Texas). We're almost certain to be going up against a Senator in the general since Hillary and Obama both are, so why squander that advantage by choosing the one Senator we have running?
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Thanks, GC. Fantastic!
I am so glad you wrote
"His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?"
I've wondered the same myself. When is he going to claim that he personally held Bush's hand as he forced him to sign the order?
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Considering the alternative proposed is we believe Fred Thompson can pull a whole new resurrection before our very eyes. Based on his performance to date that seems to be the real leap of faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I have been struck by the large number of McCain supporters that engage in cult of personality arguments that refer back to Vietnam when they get asked to defend McCain's record.
I have also been struck by McCain's sour tone incl cursing at conservatives for 9 years.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
we destroy McCain, and then what? Fred is way behind in SC and Florida. Who will we get, Romney? I doubt he will win either state. Maybe we can just fire all these guys and start a new primary? It seems to me a lot of people here are INSISTING on the guy in last and saying anyone who dares lead this thing is wholly unacceptable.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
these days when everyone is simply looking for more of the same. Right?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
So, let me understand this (because I still don't get why this is such a hair across your hindquarters) - if a (hypothetical - no one in particular) conservative wants to run against an out-of-control Washington, they cannot run as a "change" candidate? Ever?
"Change" can only imply liberal or non-conservative in terms of its impact on Washington in you mind?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
No, wrong. Romney embraces "you," regardless of who you are or what you stand for. Whatever you're for, he's for. Whatever you're against, he's against.
Since he's running as the conservative candidate, he's conservative.
Unless of course he's campaigning in Michigan, then he's in favor of a massive Government bailout of the auto industry.
Or, say, if you are from Iowa, where he's in favor of ethanol subsidies.
Or...oh nevermind, you get the idea.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Here's a link ...
I've seen folks write that Romney not only promised to dump $20 billion into the Big Three's R&D coffers but also that he repudiated free trade.
I've read the whole speech more than three times. I've seen the supposed smoking gun statements, and I simply cannot see where anyone but someone already pre-disposed to believe the very worst about Romney can come to the conclusion that he actually did any such thing.
We really need to stop this ... there are many legitimate reasons to be opposed to Romney winning the nomination - the negative tenor his campaign took on as the Primaries got under way is one. But this constant re-interpreting of every single thing he says and re-casting it to fit the most negative meaning is not kosher.
If tomorrow Mitt is reported as having said "you need to keep the whites and coloreds separate ...", far too many Redstaters would skip past the part that he was talking to his granddaughter in the laundry room and start shrieking "racist!" and "flip-flopper!" ...
On McCain-Feingold, I agree that this bill is a blot on McCain's record. The 527s have worked out pretty well, but the 60-day gag rule is a monumental mistake. Fred Thompson gets dinged on this too because he voted "aye" right along with McCain. And of course George W. Bush gets dinged too because he signed the goddam bill.
On McCain-Kennedy, I reject your contention that it was an amnesty bill, and by your using such terminology, you're demagoguing the Senator and the issue. Words mean things, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've said my piece and counted to three.
On McCain-Lieberman, that's another one I disagree with McCain about. It would be counterproductive to try to cut CO2 emissions, especially when we don't know the true impact of CO2 on climate change.
On the Patients' Bill of Rights, there isn't much difference between Bush's own Patients' Bill of Rights and what was in Congress. The concerns about employer liability look overblown.
On the drug reimportation bill, I question Levin's source, which happens to be Giuliani Partners LLC, whose CEO happens to be Rudolph Giuliani. In any case, the drug reimportation issue is small beer because, as this market-based health care blog notes, generic drugs are already very cheap and readily available.
On the Bush tax cuts, I remember McCain saying that the higher tax brackets were getting too much of a break, but it doesn't take away the rationale that the tax cuts should also be met with reductions in spending growth.
On McCain's purported hostility to "American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies", I won't unquestioningly take Levin's word for that. He's already mischaracterized McCain's record on at least two other occasions, so if you or he don't have a cite, I won't be convinced.
On the Gang of 14, I didn't have a strong opinion about it at the outset, but the results tell me that it worked. Hardline partisan Democratic Senators stopped filibustering Bush's nominees because the Gang of 14 neutered their ability to do so. That's why there's been so little press these past couple of years on nominees. No news is good news, just like in Iraq.
Levin is mischaracterizing McCain in saying that McCain "forced" Bush to change strategies in Iraq. McCain doesn't have that power. The reality is that the November 2006 electoral meltdown forced Bush to change tack. The fact of the matter is that McCain has been urging Bush to change the strategy and to deploy more troops as far back as 2003 (cite).
Here's a general suggestion, Mike. Take Levin with a grain of salt and read all of his source materials, not just what he snips out. He's a talk radio blowhard who has the unfortunate trait of being both unentertaining and unenlightening.
Bottom line, there are some issues I disagree with McCain about. He is an imperfect candidate, but so are all the others. On the issues, Thompson is about as close to me as McCain, but McCain gets the nod because he's been right on Iraq and right on the War Against Militant Islamism from the get-go, and he has significantly more foreign policy experience. Thompson is a little better on the economy. If he craps out in South Carolina, I hope Thompson endorses McCain and I hope McCain picks Thompson as a running mate.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
On McCain-Kennedy, I reject your contention that it was an amnesty bill, and by your using such terminology, you're demagoguing the Senator and the issue. Words mean things, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Strictly technically, you're correct that since they have to pay some "fines" then it's not "amnesty." But then again, following the same hyper-technical definition, this is true even if the fine is just $1.
Why don't you deal with the real issue here rather than focusing on the extant issue of whether or not what McCain supported meets the strict dictionary definition of amnesty?
McCain-Kennedy would have allowed illegals to basically buy legal status with chump change (i.e. the so-called "fines" - so-called because "fines" are supposed to be onerous and punishing and these are not) without having to leave the country.
That's like sentencing a man who steals a million dollars to pay a $100,000 fine. Technically, it's not an amnesty because he was "fined." But was he really punished? Do you think the consequences of his actions would lead him to have any regrets about the crime he committed and discourage others from doing the same?
McCain-Kennedy essentially rewards illegal entry and settlement into the United States. It may not be an amnesty by a strict dictionary definition, but it is ultimately no different.
I want it hurt illegals' pocketbooks for them to stay here and work to obtain legal status, and I'm all for raising the price. Obviously, a $1 penalty is tantamount to amnesty or de facto amnesty, and you could fairly argue that $5,000 plus back taxes is tantamount to amnesty or de facto amnesty. But the antis don't use that language, resorting instead to demonizing and demagoguery. I'm truly saddened and frustrated that fellow conservatives are taking that lower road.
I don't disagree that illegals are getting a break for their behavior, but that's the price our nation pays for keeping a flawed law on the books and for not being serious about enforcement over the last 20-plus years. And guess what, if a Democrat gets elected and the Democrats keep their hold on Congress, the situation will worsen because they're beholden to their special interests.
The fundamental question is this. Do you want to kick all 12 million out or would our nation be better off if we let the most productive ones stay. The cost of kicking them out, not to mention the hit to our economy of losing 12 million, is impractical in my opinion. The better solution, to me, is create a path for legal status, put those who want citizenship at the back of the line, kick out those who don't go obtain legal status, kick out those who've committed felonies, harshly penalize employers who hire immigrants who don't have don't have tamper-proof ID cards, and enforce the borders. To me, that makes the best of a bad situation without unnecessarily slamming our economy in the process.
McCain pledged that he would enforce the borders first, and he's recently added that he would prioritize deporting illegals who've committed felonies. If you don't think he's a man of his word on that, then tell me why he has a track record of breaking pledges, because I haven't seen it. If anything, he has a history a taking political hits for sticking to his guns.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
I'm so sick and tired of people who actually do know that they're straw-manning it continue to posit the absurd notion that any elected official has ever advocated physically removing all 25 million illegal aliens.
This form of lying is incredibly unbecoming.
The actual position that you again misrepresent is: Begin enforcement at the border and the workplace, show intent to keep it up for the long-haul, and then give them time to learn their welcome is over. Most will leave, just as they did when Eisenhower used this tactic.
They came convinced there would be no consequences and they will leave when they are convinced that the consequences for staying are greater than the benefit of remaining.
This form of truth appears to bother some people. For them, I'll state it bluntly: I'd rather see each illegal alien harshly removed than to let him stay because such leniency says the wrong thing about who we are in relation to our attachment to the rule of law. It bodes very poorly for the future if we constantly give in on stuff like this.
So, I'd have absolutely no problem seeing caravans of buses filled with deportees on the news. To me, it would prove that the rule of law is more important in this nation than the smarmy desires of those who place far too great a premium on compassion and tolerance.
I find it curious that those who raise the specter of such scary images always offer their tripe up accompanied by some pathetic story about some incidental example of how one "exemplary illegal alien" might be harmed if he has to leave.
Once...just once...I'd like to hear a story about how an American child will be harmed if we continue our failure to put his interests first. Go to just about any school in any district that has to accommodate 120 languages and dig a bit. In it, you'll find myriad students who have already lost opportunities because resources that would have helped them reach their highest potentials were diverted to remediate the children of people who should not be here.
Oh, and by the way, give the "it wasn't amnesty" stench a rest. You aren't going to convince anyone else that your re-definition is proper at this point. Not only is it misleading, it's insulting because by inference what you're saying is that the dollar value of permanent residency and a path to citizenship is $5000 for those who have broken the law and a cost multiple of perhaps 20 times that for some legal immigrants.
I've always viewed my citizenship as probably the most important asset I have outside my family. Obviously, there are too many who don't think that something so precious has much value. If we're willing to place the fair market value of citizenship at a mere $5000, then why bother defending sovereignty at all?
McCain advocates selling us out in this respect.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Lord knows I've had my differences with McCain over the years. I certainly don't agree with him on every issue. But picking a president requires looking at the big picture, and the BIG issues that really matter. To me, there are two major issues in this race, and McCain is right on both of them.
The first issue is the war in Iraq, which I believe we must win to ensure our safety as a nation. On that issue no other candidate has fought as long or as hard as John McCain, and no other candidate has been as consistently right. He was right when he told the Bush administration they weren't putting in enough troops. He was right when he told the liberals that winning the war was worth fighting for, even though we'd made mistakes in the past. And he was right when he fought like a bulldog in the U.S. Senate on behalf of the surge.
My second major issue is the one issue that should unite all true conservatives: fiscal integrity. Simply put, I believe it is wrong for the government to keep on spending, year after year and decade after decade, far in excess of its means. I do not by into the glassy-eyed theorists who say that huge deficits are sustainable on an indefinite basis. John McCain is the only candidate in the Republican race who has fought for this conservative principle tirelessly and consistently. Not surprisingly, he received the highest rating (an 88%, equivalent to an "A" grade) from the National Tax Payer's Union among all GOP presidential candidates who've served in Congress. [1] Likewise, Citizen's Against Government Waste gives him a lifetime rating of 88%, one of the highest among active U.S. Senators. [2]
Of course, there are nit's to pick. I don't like McCain's position on ANWR, Git'mo, and water-boarding. But drilling in ANWR will happen sooner or later anyway (oil's around $100 after all), and the really hard interrogation cases we end up sending overseas, not to Git'mo. As for water-boarding, McCain may not like a particular form of this interrogation, but as other's have pointed out, there are infinite varieties of water-boarding. Some of them could even could go by another name, and there are also infinite varieties of aggressive interrogation that are not water-based. Thus, if he is faced with a difficult decision about an interrogation, I am certain McCain will make use of the latitude he has as commander-in-chief. It's not like there aren't options available.
[1] http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=97
[2] http://www.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=109&repId=122&session_num=0...
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
How does the introduction of cap and trade into an already tax overburdened business reality defend fiscal integrity? McCain has thrown in with the granola crunching tree huggers on this without the slightest care in the world of what it will cost!
How does fighting for the rights of illegals to have access to Social(ist) Security funds represent fiscal integrity?
How does twice voting against the Bush tax cuts represent fiscal integrity? Where would we have been after 9/11 without those tax rate, but revenue growing cuts?
You can put lipstick on a pig, but I'm still not going to kiss her!
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
... I have reservations about McCain's environmental views, but to be totally accurate, his position on the cap and trade idea is not an additional tax. IMO, cap and trade is actually a much more free market centered approach than actually imposing an outright emissions tax because it allows business to have a role in regulating itself, and it doesn't mean that the federal government gets a bigger share of business revenues. Now, is a cap and trade system, or something like it, actually necessary? McCain's answer is yes, because he believes that global warming is happening, that it's very bad for us, and that man's activity is at least partially responsible for it. If you accept those premises, McCain's position is entirely rational. I accept only the first premise (i.e., it's fairly clear global warming is happening), but I think that there is enough division among the scientific community to make the second two premises doubtful. If I'm right about that, then McCain's concerns are unwarranted. If I'm wrong, then we should probably be going at least as far as he proposes, and maybe further. For now I'm willing to settle for McCain's moderate course while we gather more data. Keep in mind that there are a whole lot of people who want to push much further at a much faster pace.
As for illegals and SS benefits, I think we've already beaten that one to death. To put it bluntly, you and I just don't agree on immigration. But we can at least agree on the importance of accuracy, no? So let's cut through the BS. McCain supported the Bush administration's unsuccessful attempt to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at legal status. The legislation he supported (and sponsored, actually) specifically excluded illegal immigrants from obtaining Social Security benefits. [1]
Now, under current federal law any immigrant who is naturalized or granted a work-eligible VISA then becomes entitled to participate in the Social Security system like any other worker. That's the way it should be, and that's the way it is right now, regardless of any legislation supported by Senator McCain. If we legalized millions of illegal residents we would certainly be allowing them to participate in Social Security, and eventually to draw benefits, but we would also be bringing millions of tax-paying workers into the system. Moreover, most of these workers are very young, so by allowing them a path to legalization we would add millions of workers in their prime working years who would contribute to the system for decades before drawing benefits. The effect of this on the SS system would be either revenue neutral, or revenue positive.
Lastly, we come to the Bush tax cuts. I supported the Bush tax cuts as a necessary economic stimulus, even though I knew at the time they would cost the federal government revenue. I still believe that they had a lot to do with the subsequent economic recovery, so they can be regarded as a successful policy from that perspective.
But at the time the first round of Bush tax cuts were passed (in 2001), the government was still running budget surpluses. McCain opposed the tax cuts because he argued that they would not be matched by corresponding fiscal discipline on the part of either Congress or the White House. He was right. Rather than cut back on spending to cover the difference created by the tax cuts, Congress went ahead and did the exact opposite, going on a spending splurge that covered Washington in red ink. Only now are we beginning to recover from that orgy of fiscal insanity and bring the deficit down to reasonable levels. In the end, if I had known how badly the budget situation would have deteriorated after 2001 I probably would not have supported the tax cuts even though I believe they helped the economy.
You might say that makes me less of a conservative, but you'd be wrong. Here's how I see it:
tax cuts + spending cuts = fiscal conservatism.
tax increases + spending increases = fiscal liberalism
tax cuts + spending increases = fiscal ruin
[1] http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0214.htm#c
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Cap and trade is just a massive burden on industry. I don't want a "fiscally-sound" government choking us to death.
... if you don't accept McCain's assumptions about Global Warming, then you're right, it is an unnecessary burden, and so would any similar emissions regulation. I have serious reservations about the global warming dogma, but I don't know enough to be certain. So can't totally rule out a modest emissions regulation program while we also gather more data.
On the plus side, McCain also proposes expanding research in alternative fuels such as clean coal, and nuclear energy. The environmentalists don't like that at all, but it could end up being very good for our country. We are numero uno in coal production and coal deposits, so any move toward coal-based energies would be economically beneficial to the United States. Moreover, we certainly need more nuclear power plants, yes? All those things are also a part of the McCain's approach to the environment.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Cap and trade isn't some harmless little fuzzball, plastic banana, good time rock n roll policy, it is SHAMELESS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!!! I will now take the challenge you've made on my integrity and dig up the quote he made about Social Security benefits for illegal aliens.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
You are good at bashing sir, why not spend your time supporting your candidate. You promised us McCain would not win "your state", do you still make that promise? Will you back that up with something, like a muzzle for a week?
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Far too many recommends from opponents to be a call-out.
This is serious primary politics at it's finest.
They will shake hands and support the nominee when it is all said and done. This needed to happen. Get it out of our systems now.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
is trying to destroy McCain. He has a lot of Chutzpah because he will be beclowned in a day or so. He kept telling us he knew "his state" better than us, and SC would not vote for McCain, the polls say otherwise. But what galls me is this guy, a Democrat just a presidential race ago, is telling us what to think, like he is the oracle. Sorry, so far he has had it all wrong, and the call out of other poster's in a diary is very trashy.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Palmetto state, I would have never believed McCain could win this state either. IMO-FDT should be winning in a cake walk.
It's a strange race, that's for sure.
Gamecock is passionate and this really has been coming.
It's all good. We will come together when things flesh out a bit more.
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore
man, just wait till you hear me defend McCain of he becomes the nominee!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I would remind you that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat and union leader before he realized the folly of his ways, and turned away from the dark side.
Gamecock is a TRUE convert to conservative principles, and so please do NOT refer to him as a Democrat.
And one of the most loyal and consistent posters we have hear. Since when do you have to be a lifelong convert to be able to lead the consevative fight. I suppose Reagan should have kept his mouth shut too, as well as other people in here. I know Mbecker voted for McGovern and was a member of SDS. Come now Doc, this is waaaaay beneath you-you're better than this.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
_he tells us this about once a week.
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
hey, at least you know I never miss your posts :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
reason. you think this came out of the blue? Anyway, forget it, I said my piece.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Did you go out and bet based on my thoughts from a month or so ago?
Why don't you ask if Absentee considers my blog to be trashy. It was mainly a response to his conversion. I have spoken to Absentee, before Fred's visit to Rock Hill this week that we both attended; after said visit; and after I wrote my blog is response.
He and I are cool.
Do you want to date of of us?
smile
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
what about:
arrogant
conceited
self-important
snooty
puffed-up
overconfident
self-aggrandizing
high and mighty
jk ;)
GC seems like a pretty nice guy to me.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Ditto!
True story -- last weekend at the birth of my second granddaughter, while sitting in the hospital cafeteria, I commented to the assembled family members that Hillary could NOT win the presidency because she reminded every man of his ex-wife! Smooth statement that was, sitting, as I was, right beside my own ex...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
count before mine. Was mine that much more powerful? Or is it that, like slanderous push polling and false fliers (which occurred in other states before SC), anything said against McCain that is true, uttered by a Sandlapper, is also considered "trashy."
I have never lived in a mobile home. I swear.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
After doing some personal research as I had been out of the state for 6 months. Not sure what your problem is with me, but I do care.
I do doubt McCain or Huck will be the nominee. Florida could be the state this year that takes on the role of SC every year since at least 2000. It appears that many establishment repubs in SC are going with McCain on electability ideas. He got 42% in 2000 despite many missteps due mainly to crossover dems.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Certain kinds of patriotism surely get you banned over there, you know. Not a good argument to make that they wouldn't allow a post.
absentee gave us a heartfeld blog and for a change, an insightful blog. GC used his name to take cheap shots, I think that was low rent. The fact of the matter is GC said HIS STATE, SC would stop McCain and Huck. hmm, the vote is tomorrow, anyone care to remind me who are the two candidates in 1st and second place? Anyway, I will drop this, I can see the reccomends, but I have the guts to go against the grain. I find this diary unworthy of these accolades. Anyone learn anything new? If you are honest you will answer no.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Absentee's honor is in intact!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
ago, not based on polls. They were based on the history of SC. But this is a unique year, given that the field hasn't been whittled down. One thing that is coming out is that SC likes to go with a winner.
When I did my research last week after 6 months out of the state (which appears to no longer be mine, eh! My new state is the state of joy! Praise God!), I did a blog revising my opinion. But the votes haven't been counted yet. Patience. Hope you didn't lose a whole lot of money.
If your purpose here is to call me out as being wrong, then you may be too late. I called myself out last week, in a manner. But the votes haven't been counted.
I actually do not blame you for calling me out, as I call out the MSM all the time!
But my main predictions stand:
GOP will beat Dem in Nov
McCain and Huck will not be GOP nominee
Huck will not win SC
But on that last one......
I also predict that you and I will kiss and make-up within 37 minutes.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
do hope beyond hope, as do you, that Fred pulls it off.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
say hello to Wyatt.
we cool
hey man, you made some good points
Foghorn's Leghorn is a big boy!
how you like that vision Hinz!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
drinking, and whoring, and arguing with you from time to time, but agreeing most of the time :)
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I try to be nice, but want to tell him there is not room enough on this site for the two of us, I don't want my brand diluted.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
on this, given how well you "know" me by my style, and I actually must have realized that today when I was a guest on local radio, and that is that I resent how McCain has insulted my home state since during the 2000 primary and esp since by blaming his loss on a puny push poll, suggesting that all but a few kooks among SC voters would have believed it. He lost 58-42%. He spent most of 2001 before 911 with his head up hardball and russert's butts whining about it. He lost on the issues and because he got caught in non-straight talk over and over and over.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
faults a week or so ago. I did that even when I took a shot or two, I said most of your points were accurate. McCain was dumb on the flag to be sure.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The outcome simply doesn't depend on us or the arguments we make, although hopefully they help to inform the voters.
Note to Franz: if you were running a better campaign, we wouldn't be so divided! I would tear that Becker guy a new one.
I hate his positions on man made "global warming" and his Johnny-Come-Lately jump to supply-side economics. However running against a thoroughly unelectable Johnny-Come-Lately Conservative, a gaffe-a-day charmer, and a pro-"choice" Republican, I'd take McCain any day.
Notice I left out the electable stud with the gorgeous wife -he could get elected too & I'll support him until the end of the road, then if he's through I'd proudly cast a vote for John McCain.
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
I like and respect John McCain, but I'm recommending this diary because the debate here is really interesting and informative. As always, GC your diaries make for an interesting discussion. :-)
servuce and true heroism, as well as for standing up for winning in Iraq.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Thompson is a much more of a leap of faith than McCain. At the very least we know the true character of McCain, spending five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton tends to strip the BS off of anyone, maybe that's one reason his supporters talk about it.
Thompson on the other hand has spent his adult life cultivating the ability to fool people into thinking he's someone he's not. It's great if you're watching "Hunt for Red October" or "Law and Order" not so good if you're trying to decide who'll be leading the country for the next four years. His record as a Senator is hardly impressive either, he barely bothered to show up even when he was present in Congress.
McCain may have warts but at the very least he's real.
amnesty for illegals. Yet, he is on video tape at least twice, saying he was for amnesty, saying the word "amnesty".
When the bs got stripped off, underneath was another layer of it.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Actually, Thompson started off as a Lawyer. He started getting national notice during Watergate. Acting career came much later. So, your argument doesn't hold water.
That doesn't mean I am a Fred supporter, but he is better than McCain. I would rather have someone who worked with the conservatives than some one who fought against them.
It never hurts to be reminded of how awful John McCain would be as our nominee. Thank you for this.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.