John McCain as "the last man standing"?
Is he THE MAN to take down Hillary or Barry?
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary | John McCain | Republican nomination — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was looking at poll results this AM when my eyes turned to a bit by nationally syndicated political columnist Bob Novak. He tells us this morning that "canny Republican professionals" think that John McCain is their best shot at beating Hillary/Barry/Edwards/Richardson/Whomever. If Mike Huckabee pulls off an Iowa upset, these canny folks think the path to the nomination will be clear for McCain. Novak has it that if Huckabee takes Iowa, McCain will take New Hampshire and set off his string of dominoes (the subsequent primaries).
McCain would be the Last Man Standing:
Rudy Giuliani's baggage is getting too heavy to carry. Fred Thompson never got started. Huckabee's Republicanism is even less orthodox than McCain's and seems unviable beyond Iowa. Romney is burdened with anti-Mormon prejudice and the accusation he is "plastic."
"Huckabee's Republicanism is… less orthodox." Actually, it is an admitted redefinition of Republicanism, as stated on last Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS. Romney's problems are not related to his religion or his hair; rather, he faces doubts about his credibility and political honesty. It's a perceived flip-flop problem, as well as the perceived tendency to stray from or embellish the truth. Either way, though, McCain has his own baggage. Novak mentions these – "global warming, stem cell research, tax policy and immigration controls, not to mention his original sin of campaign finance reform" – but does not indicate that he thinks they will effect McCain at all as far as being the "last man standing."
Read More…
Why am I now seeing an old western in the back of my mind? Oh, it's the "last man standing" reference, and since this is not a Harold Lloyd flick, we assume this is serious.
To the Republicans in private, Novak writes, it is about victory:
But when Republicans get together privately, they tend to agree that McCain is the Republican most likely to defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Even while some consider the old naval aviator as cranky and hot-tempered, he has not exhibited those negative characteristics in debates. Rather, he exudes a heroic aura that goes beyond managing New York City or the Utah Olympics. That quality is shown in his Christmas card television ad depicting a North Vietnamese prison guard making a cross in the dirt. McCain has managed to support the invasion of Iraq while criticizing President Bush's management of the invasion, and he maintains his fiscal integrity in a pork-driven, spendthrift Republican Party.
Bob Novak himself did not support the position that McCain is the potential nominee with the best chance in November; rather, he reported it. My question is: Is Bob Novak telling us something we do not already know? Absent a last minute Fred Thompson explosion, isn't McCain the only candidate well-positioned to defeat Hillary or Barry?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Does America Need John McCain? — Comments (102) »
John McCain as "the last man standing"? 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792
New kid on the block here. I am a youngster just finding his political feet. Not sure who I will vote for in my primary, but interested in reading different view points and arguments for and against the various GOP candidates.
I agree, based on policy and temperment, Fred looks like the one candidate best suited to hold the various branches of the GOP family together.
Is his position in the primaries a result of the MSM kicking him down - or are conservatives just too divided over the other candidates to put real strength behind Fred's candidacy???
but his own lack of a willingness to put strength into his own campaign.
But since the beggining of the campaign we were aways near the end for Mitt according to Novak.
It's funny, this campaign has always been candidate X vs. Mitt.
It's why Mitt will win.
it has been Huckabee vs. Mitt or Romney vs. Mitt, with Romney being the constant, because Romney has spent so much money in those States and has thus long been the front runner. Remember, money is the great equalizer and automatically lends a candidate cred. Remember Ross Perot?
Ross Perot got thumped when it came time to vet him.
Mitt Romney has withstood a much closer scrutiny than Ross Perot could have ever dreamed of, and his strategy has proven him to be a far more intelligent and competent candidate.
Perot did very well for a third party candidate after he had been examined. There were some charges of lunacy, what with Perot's claims about being chased around Canada and having his daughter's wedding invaded by the Republican Dirty Tricks squad, he was allowed in each debate. Why? He was credible because he had money. And his followers were ferevent.
Romney has faced some scrutiny, but a problem is that he hasn't addressed everyone's concerns to their satisfaction. Perot, on the other hand, resonated with his core such that he didn't have to explain much of anything.
So he did well considering that he had a very, very low bar to clear. Okay. You're right, but that has very little bearing on the current race.
Perot resonated with dim-witted Buchananite protectionists.
Mitt Romney, in stark contrast, is the intelligent, thinking conservative's candidate.
1992
Bill Clinton - 43%
George H.W. Bush - 37.4%
Ross Perot - 18.9%
1994
Bill Clinton - 49.2%
Bob Dole - 40.7%
Ross Perot - 8.4%
Ross Perot got thumped after he was vetted - unless you just set the bar at the extremely low "for a third party" level.
So, in your analysis, who wins the following matchups?
1. Mitt 2007 vs. Mitt 2006 (on immigration).
2. Mitt 2007 vs. Mitt 2004 (on abortion).
3. Mitt 2007 vs. Mitt 1994 (on gay rights).
"If Republicans are voting for Mitt Romney because they think he would be tougher on illegal immigration than John McCain would be, they need to explain how Romney suddenly switched from supporting McCain's position just two years ago to attacking it (with distortions) this year. ... The difference is, Republicans know for sure that McCain isn't hiding his true position. The same cannot be said of Romney and Giuliani." -- New Hampshire Union Leader
Mitt 2007 on immigration and abortion. Mitt's position on gays has always been that they should not be discriminated against. There is no substantive policy dissonance that you are suggesting between Mitt in 2007 and Mitt in 1994. The only difference is that the Massachusetts supreme court tried to institute gay marriage via judicial tyranny and Mitt fought back.
On immigration, the worst you could possibly do with Mitt is get that John McCain advocates and likely get substantially better. Mitt seems to understand what the other two do not - border security is national security. That's why he got Tom Tancredo's endorsement.
McCain was the Republican "Establishment" pick originally. They all decided it was his turn. And then his campaign imploded over amnesty for illegal aliens.
All this is is an attempt to get their original pick back on track.
He has no chance of beating Hillary or Obama. He stands a real chance of splitting the GOP. His candidacy would be nearly as toxic to the GOP as a Giuliani nomination.
As someone who truly detest the man (McCain) and swore I would never vote for him for POTUS, I'm actually warming to the idea of him being the nominee.
I still believe he's horrible for the country on a number of issues, however, I feel the next 8 years will be a perilous time internationally for the US and I think he has the backbone to defend the country. The issues I see the next president having to either confront or appease are: Iran's nuclear pursuit, defending Israel if they act first, confronting Russia, containing China, defeating the enemies growing in our own backyard (Venezuela) and winning the Iraq War.
Now I still don't like him personally, but given the flaws of all the other candidates, I think his fiscal restraint and national security credentials are starting to outweigh everything else.
..is weak on national security as far as I'm concerned.
I just have trouble trusting him on issues. Personally I'm afraid that the next time he decides to be on the left side of an issue that it could be a time that matters.
I'm not endorsing or supporting McCain, in fact my comments clearly state my opinion of him, however I suspect of the top 5 candidates, with the exception of Thompson, McCain would probably be to the right of them on the majority of issues.
I loathe his immigration stance too, but of all the candidates running for president, I think he has the best chance of being president in a world as dangerous as when Reagan served, and leaving behind a similar national security legacy.
McCain is not the "only candidate" who is "well positioned" to beat Hillary in 2008.
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports, McCain leads by six, but Giuliani and Romney both lead Hillary by 1, which would seem to make them "well positioned" to win, also.
So McCain is "best positioned" but that shouldn't be much of a surprise since he is probably even more liberal than Rudy Giuliani if you consider the full spectrum of policy issues.
Conservatives, however, would probably be better off with Romney.
[source] only 16% of self-described conservatives support Romney. This compares favorably to McCain's 10%, but beneath Thompson 18%, Rudy's 21%, and Huckabee's 22%.
Odd, as Romney had gone into this nominating process noting that there were no conservatives in the race so this would be the best direction for him to run.
...but you can't make him drink.
Also, there are many who describe themselves as "conservative" who are not objectively conservative when you survey them on the issues. Mike Huckabee's 22% is a good case in point. Those supporters are either not very conservative or are not very bright as there are very few issues outside of social issues that Mike Huckabee is to the right of Hillary Clinton on.
Rudy is a great conservative on many issues, but he alienates social conservatives by having a tough time getting to the right of Hillary Clinton on social policy. So his 21% of supporters are obviously not across-the-board conservatives.
That 18% of conservatives are supporting Thompson makes sense, but his campaign has just been terrible. So I can see being with him in spirit, but when it comes to finding a star quarterback to lead the team to victory, these supporters would clearly be better off with Mitt Romney.
Conservatives would be better off with Mitt Romney, but that doesn't mean that they'll necessarily wake-up to that fact before it's too late.
You cannot say that Huckabee's supporters are "not very conservative" and then say Rudy "alienates social conservatives".
So what exactly do you mean? Is 22% of the party idiots in your opinion because they support Huckabee, or are they social conservatives?
I'm not a Huckabee supporter, but before you label a segment of the base "not very bright" because they support him, it's only fair that you also admit that in order to label Romney as a "true conservative" you have to dismiss almost everything he ever said before he began running for president, which to the 84% that don't support him, might not look "very bright."
1. A commentary on Rudy is not a commentary on Huckabee
2. Rudy does alienate social conservatives, Huckabee alienates everyone else. In the spectrum of public policy, Huckabee is more liberal on more issues than any other candidate, so someone describing themselves simply as "conservative" and who supports Huckabee is either dumb, lying, or ill-informed. If they were a social conservative and nothing else, then that's one thing. But they're not general conservatives. After all, I think that Hugo Chavez is pro-life, too, but he's no conservative.
3. I didn't label Romney the "true conservative." He's simply the most conservative candidate running, when all things are considered, who is also a competent campaigner.
The only reason that Huckabee has even a percent of the vote is, because the front runner (Rudy) alienated social conservatives. So when you rightfully stated so, you were making a commentary about why Huckabee is at 22%. I know that's hard for you to admit, seeing as you would rather call Huckabee's supporters "not very bright, dumb, lying or ill-informed." It's funny that you think so little of them for supporting a candidate thats been consistently conservative on issues that are important to them (abortion, the 2nd amendment & marriage), while at the same time ignoring the fact that Romney became conservative on a lot of issues in order to run for president.
Are the entire universe of Mike Huckabee's conservatism. Outside of those three issues (and it's a big world out there, Kirk) Mike Huckabee is as liberal as they come. Hillary Clinton is more conservative than Mike Huckabee on all the other issues.
Mike Huckabee is conservative on social issues - but 3 issues do not a conservative make.
Mike Huckabee's 22% are not conservatives. They are socially conservative liberals, dumb, lying, or ill-informed. They are not conservatives. That would be to dumb down conservatism.
There's a lot more pressing issues than the three you outlined. While I respect people's strong belief in those areas, let's face it, we have much larger problems to deal with. Besides:
- Abortion: The President can't just change this. He can attempt to influence it with appropriate Supreme Court nominees but even after they get appointed, they can flip. And even if Roe v. Wade is thrown out, power returns back to the states (where it should be) so better to worry more about this at the local level.
- 2nd Amendment: This isn't going anywhere without another amendment overturning it, which will never happen. Worse case scenario is someone can chip away at it a bit, like dictating how large a clip I can slap into my Glock. Besides, no Republican candidate is going to go down that road anyway.
- Marriage: I personally don't care about this much, but it's still a state issue. Focus energies on what's happening at the state level if this is important to you.
We have bigger problems. National security, immigration, fiscal irresponsibility, cultural destruction, uncontrolled growth of federal government, social security, lack of ability to drill for our own oil, etc, etc.... That's the stuff that concerns me most, as well as Hillary winning and having a Democratic-controlled Congress that will do whatever she wants.
trying to convince conservatives that they would be better off with Mitt Romney.
The problem here is that Romney has been unable to do this for a number of reasons.
that they are like noses, everybody has one and that no one is interested in anyone elses. I think hillary's campaign is the one imploding from her public hormonal meltdown and Bill's incessent need to try and save her political career from her. Obama is Oprah's handpuppet that has no thoughts, no ideas, no backbone and no voice apparently of his own. All that has been bought and paid for by Queen Oprah. How many stumps have you seen him talking? I have seen zero i have seen Oprah stumpin and him smiling and waving. Is he running or is Oprah running? I wonder what the price tag was to buy a Presidency? Obama don't know but I'll bet Michelle(his wife)and Oprah knows. I am sorry folks but I need a president not paper-pushing politicians, handpuppets, hormonal meltdowns orpolitical pullpittin preachers and when it all boils down it is either Fred Thompson or John McCain and I have to go with experience and qualifications and that would be McCain.
...and we're pretty close to that now with latest national polls with Novak's article and McCain close in NH (altho today's Rasmussen just out has Huckabee at 20%, Guiliani at 18%, McCain 14%, Romney 13%, Thompson 11% nationally)...
...McCain will be toast when the other candidates focus ads etc. on McCain's record to the left of Huckabee...
...on taxes (while Huck pledges no-new-taxes and extending Bush tax cuts which he's always supported, McCain voted against them)
...on McCain-Feingold (a big issue with insider-activists, establishment GOP knows he's never been a friend)...
...Gang of 14 on judges...
...and the cherry-on-top reminding voters he was the SPONSOR of shamnesty. McCain can not win the GOP nomination this year after the immigration issue grabbed the GOP-voter consciousness once there is renewed conservative focus on him, even tho as a Huck supporter I'll admit he is the most electable in the general election.
He'll be a great VP choice (if he'll take it) for the general election after his negatives with hardline conservatives don't matter once the GOP nomination is done.
Huckabee/McCain will be the winning ticket for 08.
Huckabee/McCain will be the winning ticket for 08.
Yep, we gonna party like it's nineteen-sixty-four!
Good times! Good times.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I'd vote for McCain in the general election if he selects a really good vice presidential candidate like perhaps Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Gov. Sanford of South Carolina, or Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. In that case, my vote would be "McCain isn't perfect, but he's better than the alternative, is at least conservative enough for me to stomach voting for him while holding my nose (if just barely), and I'm voting with the hope that his excellent VP nominee will one day be president.
That said, I would never, under any circumstances, vote for Mike Huckabee in the general election, and I would not vote for McCain if he selected Mike Huckabee as his running mate or anyone like him.
Is it the fond memories of Jesse Ventura? Arnie Carlson? Rudy Perpich? Wendel Anderson? Pawlenty is an absolute rock star compared to any Governor in recent memory. He's not perfect, but he's as close as we're going to get as governor of Minnesota. I'd hate to lose him to the White House.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
since he's the only American hero in tne race. He can be made to toe the line just like Bush and the braying dems who thought they would push amnesty down our throats last summer. The grass roots are against it and McCain does not enact laws, only approve or veto them. The DONOTHING Congress should do us all a favor and resign so we can elect some no nonsense, good-for-America representatives and senators who are not tied to any outside interests. My two state senators and my representative have already been told I will work for their opposition when they run for reelection.
None of the top tier has been eliminated yet. It'll be a month before we can start talking about people as having been eliminated. So clearly, McCain isn't "the last man standing" at this point. I would be surprised if it was even a 2 man race by super Tuesday. And if it was, I'd be shocked if one of those 2 men was McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Any of the 5 guys in the top tier could be the last man standing. That's what makes it the top tier. I think it's kind of early to be thinking about the last man standing when we aren't even down to the 4th man.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If McCain is the last candidate standing, I think I'll lie down.
Anyone who is serious about this process knows that John McCain is the only Republican that can beat Hillary Clinton. Just go to Real Clear Politics and look for yourself.
To the Fred Supporters, you know once he drops out that he will endorse McCain and for good reason. Fred Thompson knows who is the best Republican candidate - John McCain. Also, I believe Rudy said the same thing in a debate, if Rudy himself wasn't running.
People who write they will stay home if he gets the nomination should be ashamed. With the exception of Ron Paul, these top candidates should all be supported to beat the Democrats in the fall. Any of the Republican candidates would do the same, even Flip Flopper Romney.
IMWITHMCCAIN
that some of us paid no attention to 2004.
Now, I'm not saying that McCain can't beat Hillary - or can, for that matter. But just four years ago Howard Dean was being promoted as the guy who was best positioned to beat the tar out of Bush. And then it was Kerry.
"Electability" is nothing more than mental masturbation now and for the next six or seven months - like until the conventions are over. Pick a candidate based on his/her postions on the issues, NOT whether you perceive they can beat "X" next November.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The electability nonsense is just a form of Chicken Little analysis -- the sky is falling and only (McCain/Giuliani/whoever) can salvage the election. Of course, the subtext here is that we have to sacrifice conservatism to get the White House -- better (M/G/w) than Hillary or Obama!
The problem is that self-proclaimed moderates have been telling the party that for years and it has never been true. The last election in which one could even argue that the GOP lost because the nominee was "too conservative" was 1964; and anyone who thinks any Republican had much of a chance that year is smoking weed.
McCain is unacceptable to a key segment of the conservative base -- and deservedly so. He is no more capable of uniting the base than Giuliani would be: campaign finance, errors on tax policy, gang of fourteen, global warming, and pandering to the press -- different problems, same result.
All the other leading candidates are also unacceptable to key segments of the base. Fred Thompson seems the least offensive to the base, but he also seem unable to excite strong support? McCain may indeed be the last man standing, and the GOP could do a lot worse.
to the fact that there's a presidential election next year. I think that's demonstrated by the volatility in the polls we've been seeing. Face it...we're polit-junkies, the public is not. They're busy living their lives.
I think it's also useful to remember that the pundit class make a living being...well pundits. They have to turn in something everyday to keep getting their paychecks. How many days in a row do you think they could write about the same thing before their readers became (yawn) bored?
It's almost become like shock radio...they have to say something, no matter how outrageous or inane to capture the readers attention. They, the pundits, want us to pay attention to them and not, unfortunately, the election. Hence the voluminous output of blather. It is unfortunate that so many Americans have become so incurious about something as momentous as electing the next president.
"A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues."
Theodore Roosevelt
If McCain or Giuliani can win the nomination, fine. I just think the argument that we have to line up behind him because he is our only hope in November is nonsense. Frankly, I think the democratic field is weak and the GOP nominee should win as long as it is (in alphabetical order) Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Thompson. We need to nominate the candidate who will govern best. I think that is Romney, with Thompson my second choice. McCain and Giuliani have pretty significant problems on important issues.
to the level of giuliani's problem of being pro-choice
mccain is a social conservative, and giuliani isn't. romney is open to question.
and mccain understands what an originalist judge is, too, unlike giuliani.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
So if you're going to say that "Romney is open to question," that should certainly apply to McCain as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
McCain has a pretty consistent record on pro-life issues, and a 0% rating from NARAL.
As in virtually all issues, McCain is a pragmatist when it comes to achieving his conservative goals. He has argued that the goal of ending abortion is best pursued through cultural transformation, and not merely legislative fiat that leaves the rate of abortion functionally unchanged. But I don't think that there is any question that McCain stands with the pro-life movement, and his voting record in the Senate bears that out.
All part of his run to the left during the 2000 campaign. He reversed himself (probably after some angry phone calls from donors). I'm sure you've seen the quotes about how Roe should not be overturned and how Roe being overturned would lead to women dying in back alley abortions. They could've just easy easily come from Hillary Clinton. And 1999 wasn't exactly that long ago.
Overall I think he's fine on the issue, but if you are looking for purity, the man is not it, thanks to his idiocy during the 2000 campaign.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm very familiar with the statements to which you are referring, and I understand why it could make some ill at ease. I do believe that the statement was taken out of context, but I can also see why it would dishearten other pro-lifers.
To me, the statement doesn't make me question McCain's desire to end abortion. I have a healthy respect for the idea that mere legislation is not enough, and that we need a broader cultural shift to make a real difference. I trust McCain when he says that he wants to see abortion end in America.
But there's no denying that it's not his major issue. He's not running on social values. He is firmly pro-life, but not the champion of the pro-life cause. He passes my litmus test, albeit not with flying colors. (I give Romney a pass on this, too; the perceived flip-flops make me question his convictions and honesty, but I don't think he's secretly pro-choice.)
Who "get together privately" and agree that John McCain "exudes a heroic aura." ???
Who are these people? Where do they "get together privately?" In Bob Novak's vivid imagination? Is there a guest list for these private gatherings? Where do they take place? In a dimly-lit social club in Queens? Or a nondescript time-share condominium near the Potomac?
Realistically, though, I've always thought it was a possibility if none of the other three gained any traction. I have considered it an even-money bet that if Thompson failed to light the world on fire and Romney and Giuliani were reduced to defending themselves against Republocrat talking points, McCain would have a big opening in the defensive line to run right through and score the Big Touchdown. I say that as a Romney supporter who has seen what kind of uphill battle he's had.
In that instance the only guy McCain really has to beat is Huckabee, and that shouldn't be too difficult. The other three will either fade away or beat each other to a pulp.
Of course, I think that in fluid, unpredictable races like this one, 90% of what journalists and pundits write falls into the category of "testing the waters" and "shaking the tree" to see what falls out.
Still, there's a logic to it of sorts. Maybe the Republican Party isn't ready for all this newfangled, 21st Century, internet-driven "people-powered" claptrap. Maybe what everyone will do after scaring themselves silly is hold their noses and settle on somebody who, while they might not be able to look at their former selves in the mirror, at least has the virtue of being a known quantity.
I'd give it even odds at this point.
I admit I am new at all of this, but have been watching (and predicting) the rise of Huckabee since he was in the low single digits in the summer. He is obviously not the candidate of choice of the GOP, who have tried to offer up Giuliani and then Romney. Giuliani appears to not have what it takes, and Romney's whole strategy has depended on winning the early primaries, and now it looks like upstart Huckabee may easily knock him off in two of the first three, and McCain may win in New Hampshire. The GOP is in a blue panic (Or should I say a red panic?) since their two candidate offerings are not being largely accepted by social conservatives, whose votes they need. One thing that is clear is that for whatever reason (hotly debated I see) they are really afraid of Huckabee getting the nomination. So, I have been figuring for the last week or so that they may trot out McCain and resurrect him. And here comes Mr. Novak, avowed Huckabee hater, to lead the charge in exactly that direction! I find this situation rather interesting, since the GOP has obvious distaste for non-party line maverick McCain. How it must pain them to trot him out in an emergency strategy. The fault lines in the GOP are showing, I'm afraid.
Former Senator Fred Thompson is the only real conservative in the race for the Republican nomination, and the only candidate who can unite all three pillars of the Republican Party, namely, fiscal conservatives; national security and defense conservatives; and religious conservatives.
The Republican party, given that the nation is divided, cannot afford to alienate any of these pillars, or they will lose in the general election, as a sufficient number of the alienated pillar’s constituents will simply not cast a vote for president when they vote. This is not an attempt to intimidate Republican voters, but merely a recognition that there are certain conservative voters who simply will not violate their own principles and vote for someone they have fundamental disagreements with, or do not trust. For example, Governor Romney, has not provided a satisfactory answer in the minds of many religious conservatives in his efforts to explain the change from pro-choice to pro-life. They want to know the motivation, and need to be convinced that it was not political. This matter remains unresolved, and thus alienates a proportion of religious conservatives who would otherwise support him as the party’s nominee - regardless of his own religious persuasion. Mayor Guiliani also has a similar problem with religious conservatives, given his personal position on abortion; and promising to appoint strict constructionist judges will not vitiate the conflict with pro-life constituents. Religious conservatives will not vote for a pro-choice Republican nominee - even if it means electing Senator Clinton president. They will not violate a moral conviction. They will simply adopt the attitude - "God’s will be done," and maintain their conviction. Governor Huckabee alienates fiscal conservatives as a result of his tax and spend policies during his tenure in Arkansas. Senator McCain, terminally severed his relationship with a proportion of national security conservatives through his aggressive support of the proposed comprehensive immigration agreement, which failed as a result of a citizens’ uprising against this legislation; his opposition to the tax cut policy of the Bush Administration; and his opposition to aggressive interrogation techniques on high value captured terrorists.
Senator Thompson has none of the foregoing problems. He is strong on defense of the nation during a time of war, and has already committed to a substantial increase in the size of our military to fight the enemy threatening our survival; will seal the border, and reverse illegal immigration through attrition; will maintain the current tax policy, and reduce taxes by instituting his proposed voluntary flat tax system with only two rates, one at 10% with no deductions; and the other 25% maximum with current deductions maintained. He will also lower the corporate tax rate to ensure US Corporations are operating at the same tax rates as foreign corporations. Moreover, Mr. Thompson is the only candidate to assemble a plan to address the impending social security system crisis - the “third rail” of American politics. The Senator is acceptable to religious conservatives as well, given his strong and long-standing pro-life position, which explains why he was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization, and many similar state organizations.
As to the “fire in the belly” complaint , which is preferable, “Fire in the belly;” or the following leadership characteristics? Personal integrity; moral conviction; courage; perseverance; boldness; humility; analytical intelligence; calm and deliberate; decisiveness; understands historical context and timing; commitment; and vision. In short, the Senator will show more than adequate “fire in the belly” when he demonstrates to those attempting to destroy our beloved nation a backbone of iron and the fury of an adversary who will unleash a conflagration, if necessary, to preserve our sacred liberty. One must guard against being deceived by cliché terms such as “fire in the belly,” in the middle of a media driven political campaign, when there are substantially more important, and higher priority characteristics needed in the President of the United States, and leader of the free world.
For Republicans to win the White House, they must be united and have a large voter turnout among all three of their voting pillars, that is fiscal conservatives; national security conservatives; and religious conservatives. Senator Thompson, is the only candidate not alienating any of these voting pillars, and thus can galvanize their support. Accordingly, he is the best hope for Republicans in the 2008 national election. Indeed Senator Thompson can win the general election, and rest assured the other party knows it for the same reasons articulated herein; to wit: he unites the Republican constituencies and assures a large conservative voter turnout in the 2008 election.