Why McCain?
By GOP84 Posted in 2008 — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've noticed the McCain surge lately and I've been thinking to myself "why McCain?" What's so great about him?
His time as a POW in Vietnam is nothing short of admirable and heroic. I can't help but be impressed about the stories he tells concerning his experiences during the war. Veterans like him never cease to amaze me. But you'll to forgive me for asking: is that all?
Prior to 2000, McCain was always the maverick, the anti-establishment, cut-the-waste conservative. But he seemed to get along too well with the left for me and so I didn't really favor him over Bush in 2000. Then he amiably endorsed Bush in 2004, which I thought was pretty gracious considering that he had the opportunity to be John Kerry's running mate.
But if you look at McCain's record, you'll see things like McCain-Feingold and the failed (Hallelujah!) McCain-Kennedy bill. How can McCain supporters defend these pieces of legislation (especially McCain-Kennedy)?
This is the one Republican Presidential candidate who actually voted against the Bush tax cuts. I thought we as a party generally supported those, right? Needless to say, McCain got a very scathing review from Club for Growth for votes like that. In fact, the white paper on McCain may actually be worse than Mike Huckabee's.
Plus, McCain isn't known to be the most tempered of politicians in this race.
I'd like to think that anger management issues would certainly be a problem in the Oval Office.
And is anyone else actually concerned that Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, endorsed McCain? Is that really a good thing when he's trying to win votes from Republicans?
Let's face it: do we really want the guy that lost to George W. Bush in 2000 to become our nominee in 2008? I hardly think so.
Thanks for refuting what I said and making such a clear case for McCain. I really needed that!
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
Truth is, I'm just kind of bored with McCain attacks. I've seen them so many times, that I don't have a huge interest in trying to rebut all of it. At this point you've probably heard the rebuttals and decided you still don't like McCain, so I don't see a lot of point to arguing the issue. Well, at least not on the day after Christmas when I'm feeling kind of lazy.
However, I haven't seen the attacks on McCain as much as I've seen them on Romney and Huckabee.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
But if its only been as long as you've been a member, than you have only been here during the Romney attack season and the Huckabee attack season. You missed the McCain attack season. The candidates that get attacked are the candidates that have a chance. I think it was back when McCain was viewed as part of the big three. McCain was thought of as having died in the Summer, and there was a new big three: Thompson, Romney and Rudy. I don't remember there ever being alot of attacks on Thompson here on Fred I mean Redstate, though there were the people who pointed out that he was lazy... Romney is one candidate who has always been viewed as being in the top tier ( well early on some of us thought he might just be a guy with a lot of money, but he hasn't been in and out of the top tier) and has had his fair share of attacks for flipflopping... Not the least of which was a five piece hit on him by McClaughlin. Then Rudy has been hit too, but he always had a solid defense team for him. When I first came on this site I was pretty focused on attacking Rudy, and then I moved. A while back we had about a two week civil war between Redstaters who couldn't vote for Rudy in the general and those who thought these voters were deranged idiots. So yeah they have all been attacked. However, I would say that Huck and McCain have recieved the most attack. The memories of the attack against McCain are probably getting rusty for folks though.
Also I'm really kind of bored with Huck and Romney attacks too. There so many scandals these days that with all of the Huck scandals I just tend to yawn. And we all pretty much get the idea by now that Romney like to have conversions. So its not just McCain attacks that are boring me.
I got to tell you though, I good attack on Rudy might get me perked up.
Rudy's so easy to attack that it's almost awkward. He's pro-choice with a bad track record in his personal life. I mean when Rudy says "hands off my family," people listen. But when Romney says "I won't answer questions about my faith," people beg to know more. I don't get it.
Such odd circumstances these are.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
Reagan had a better record than McCain does now.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
Why? Because He Opposed Bush's Tax Cuts Twice!!! Yippee n/t
And he is not Rudy.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
And to some disillusioned skeptics, he's not Romney. It vexes me why anyone would really consider McCain to be their first choice.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
Nobody is perfect. Not even Fred! But, for his numerous past indiscretions, I have to discount McCain's chances.
I could strongly support McCain in the general. For the reasons you mentioned, he's tied for my third choice. My ranking is:
1. Fred! (distantly followed by...)
2. Mitt (distantly followed by...)
3/4. McCain/Rudy (distantly followed by...)
5. Ron Paul
Huck didn't make my list. At least Ron Paul would have the correct instinct on taxing and spending.
He's tough on our enemies and false friends
He's been right about the war and the correct strategy for the war
He has done more to fight wasteful spending than any other senator
And he has consistently supported conservative judges and justices
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
....and he will hate them for the rest of his life.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml
My favorite part of the comments was that they were made to reporters on the "Straight Talk Express". It wasn't one of those deals were someone claims to have heard him use that word 30 years ago.
GOP84,
One of your gripes with McCain is that he works too well with Lefties.
This is an extremely marketable image for the voting public these days. It is precisely why Obama is popular with his message of "working together". And that appeal is going to become much stronger after 10 more months of Congressional gridlock and acrimony.
And yet John McCain also has his "Anger Management Issues" which I think gives him a vitality lacking in his younger competition.
He'll work to get along with the Democrats but get damn angry when necessary. To me it seems like the tone and temper needed to manage the chaos ahead.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He gets along with lefties because compared to a lot of conservatives, he is a lefty. That's not marketable to conservatives at all, which is the base he must play to in order to win this nomination. Catering and compromising are two different things.
I don't see how dropping the f-bomb on John Cornyn is a display of vitality. If he drops the f-bomb on a fellow Republican, who knows what he'd do to our allies abroad if they don't agree with something he says!
So what you're saying is that he'll get along with Democrats and get angry at members of his own party. Something tells me that's not the right path for conservatives in 2008.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
...does anybody else feel this way? I almost consider it worse than McCain-Kennedy CIR. I appreciate McCain's steadfastness, his forceful defense of the mission in Iraq, and his service to our country, but he's simply on the wrong side of too many issues for me. Not only was he on the wrong side of those issues, in many instances he was a key player in them passing. He has also displayed a troubling eagerness to stab conservatives in the back and sidle up with Democrats and the drive-by media.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
because I voted in 2004 for the president who signed it after saying he would veto it. Yeah, I don't like it, and think it's a stupid law, but a deal-breaker? Nah.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
...and McCain-Feingold was a HUGE disappointment. I voted for Bush twice because he is/was far better than Gore & Kerry, but Steve Forbes was my choice in 2000 (even though he didn't have a prayer in the primary).
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
... isn't McCain/Feingold damage done at this point? He's made no suggestions to expand or extend it, or at least none with which I am familiar. While that may make you distrust the guy's views on campaign finance (though to be fair, his views align with legal precedent via Buckley v. Valeo), it's not clear to me that the issue will impact his administration.
In my view, his qualifications as commander-in-chief and his dedication to fiscal hawkishness are far more important than stupid legislation that he pushed 5 years ago. Besides, who's to say that the other candidates wouldn't have equally ugly spots on their records, if they actually had experience on the national level?
Actually, campaign finance is still a huge issue. Since the Supreme Court issued a decision this past summer that damaged the McCain-Feingold Bill, there are plenty of residual questions -- whether the law will survive further scrutiny by the Court, whether Congress will try to plug holes, etc.
It is also an issue on which McCain may become a dicey choice to have appointing judges. If he wants judges who will approve his campaign finance handiwork, that may become more important to him than other issues relating to the role of the courts. I'm not saying it is impossible to find someone that will uphold McCain-Feingold and overturn Roe v. Wade, but I am saying it will take a lot more work to find that person. It is a much more commonly found alignment to have someone who objects to both or supports both. There are not very many campaign finance fans roaming the halls at the Federalist Society conventions.
The problem with getting a man like Fred Thompson elected is that the things that we admire about him are the same things that are holding him back. he won't say what the public wants to hear just to get their votes. He won't play the media games just to get their exposure. He won't sell his principals for any amount of votes. My God folks, do you realize that if this man somehow manages to get elected he won't owe anyone anything. He can continue to be his own man. Wouldn't that be refreshing.
So many people are upset at Senator McCain for supposedly selling out the Republican party's principles through compromise. I don't see this. I see compromise as a good thing. Neither party will ever be able to get what it wants without working together.
I fear that if a similar web page, Whigstate, had existed in 1850, the abolitionists among us would have howled at Daniel Webster for "selling out" his principles and supporting the Compromise of 1850.
It cannot be Mitt...
Thompson is toast.
Rudy's first victory won't happen until late January (if then)...
Everybody either hates Huck or loves Huck... I have a feeling those who hate Huck outnumber those who do not... and will rally around McCain if he wins in NH (and Huck beats Romney).
McCain would kill HRC in a general, and would make Obama look childish on foreign policy and domestic policy. He is a fiscon, socon, a neocon, etc. He just managed to piss everyone off as well.
I supported him before Huck, but I would be satisfied with him bringing the party back together.
I'm sticking with Fred. McCain will never bring the party together. We've had conveservatives falling all over themselves for months and months to be the alternative to McCain and Rudy. Fred is the only candidate conservatives do not have major policy (or trust) issues with.
To those that complain about Fred's "energy" or why he hasn't "exploded", we'll just run Richard Simmons for VP to make people happy, or perhaps Sanjaya from American Idol.
Why can it not be Mitt? That's just silly. Huck is as bad if not worse than McCain. Both are terrible on fiscal issues. Mitt is not.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
I don't believe Mitt. He says all the right things - which is precisely the problem. He will say anything to get elected and that is not a person I can trust.
For me to beleive Mitt, I would have to ignore every thing he said before 2002, and in some cases 2006. Cant' do it.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He's just as credible as anyone else in this race besides maybe McCain or Fred Thompson.
"Politics is the business of trying to convince fools to do the right thing."
-Braden Pace
and he hedged his bets this past summer when it looked as if we might not succeed in Iraq.
So instead of just asserting that Romney is actually credible in foreign policy, please provide some evidence - if you can find any besides a couple trips abroad he might have taken (and travel experience is not foreign policy experience).
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjYzZWJlM2ZkZjA0MTgyZTBmN...
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Yep.
He's not the answer.