Where can I donate to McCain's campaign?
Keep him where he is, for as long as he wants the seat.
By krempasky Posted in Archived — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'll be the first to admit, I've been a bit childish over the years in expressing my disdain for Senator John McCain. I've ridiculed countless times his signature legislative accomplishment in regulating campaign freedom. I've made spiteful comments about his priorities and goals. I've even (and most recently) had fun at his expense as his Presidential campaign goes off the rails.
But credit is due - John McCain is the most ardent and eloquent defender of the mission of freedom, democracy, and security in Iraq - and not just in the Senate, but anywhere. John McCain was indeed the "Man Addressing the Boys" tonight in the Senate, as John Hinderacker put it. (One might also note that if our President was a fraction as effective in communicating the same imperative, we might not only see the public far more supportive, but we might not be subject to the embarrassment of a Congress run by the buffoons of the far left)
This has always been the enigma that is John McCain. Powerful and focused, he can do amazing things when he puts his mind to it - and I'll admit, even when those goals aren't mine. But when they *are* mine, there's no one I'd rather have standing at the front of the line to advocate. And today, he showed how forceful he can be when the most important chips are on the table.
Senator McCain - the country needs you in the Senate. If I could find a way to donate to your reelection to that body, I'd eat about 40 lbs. of crow and write you a check myself.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Congressmen Wamp and Cantor seek reprimand for Ellison — Comments (10) »
Where can I donate to McCain's campaign? 41 Comments (0 topical, 41 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We'd be better of with SecDef McCain in a Thompson/Romney administration. Uses his strengths and avoids the damage he does to the party...
McCain did a good job with this speech, although I really want see if he actually, personally gets in Harry's face.
John McCain can't manage his campaign staff. He's not done a particularly good job managing his office staff over the years. He needs to be no where NEAR the Pentagon. Between being a crappy manager and a Senate bootlicker, I'm not sure the US military could survive.
Let him do what he does well, make speeches.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
His ardent support for this insane distraction of a war is exactly why I think McCain is a poor representative of the traditional Republican values of limited government and nonintervention. He of all people should know better, having fought (and suffered) in a previous unnecessary war. We could have whacked Bin Laden by now if we didn't have so many resources committed to a war in Iraq that has nothing to do with making us safer and everything to do with carrying out the spread-democracy-but-not-freedom-by-force goals of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration.
We could have whacked Bin Laden by now if we didn't have so many resources committed to a war in Iraq ...
Care to enlighten us on this? And please do not use any variant of "Everyone knows ..." in your argument.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
those Americans promising to surrender to the terrorists, the same crowd who surrendered Vietnam to the communists.
The United States military didn't fight an unnecessary war in Vietnam. The American left caused an unnecessary surrender there, and is trying to do the same in Iraq.
Defend America not Al-Qaeda.
if we hadn't been treating terrorism as a "criminal problem".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
and he surely drove the lefties nuts. The last thing they want to hear is any stirring defense of America. I still think he needs a fork stuck in him but I admit to being irrational on the subject. But McCain often appears irrational so we're even.
If he stays in the Senate, there's untold amounts of damage he can yet do, and likely will.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I believe him to be an honorable man, and a patriot.
But his policy agenda has been dangerous to liberty. Sorry, I can't support him.
One might also note that if our President was a fraction as effective in communicating the same imperative, we might not only see the public far more supportive, but we might not be subject to the embarrassment of a Congress run by the buffoons of the far left
If we can assume that the left went over the edge mostly because all branches of government have been moving to the right at the same time (and smashing the utopian socialist dream world that seemed sooo within reach not long ago), perhaps we can also assume that the madness would have happened regardless of who was president.
And Bush has been there with the right words. But he's an evil fascist who is lying, right? Why wouldn't evil fascist Repuglican president "X" have gotten the same treatment? After all, the left is constantly comparing Bush to Nixon, even though the two presidencies have had almost nothing in common.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Although I appreciate his support for the administration's surge policy and his commitment to victory, the cold facts are that he has undermined and derailed so much of what I had worked for as a former member of the Republican Party.
The day he 'brokered' the Gang of 14 Deal and destroyed the efforts of hundreds of thousands (including me) who had helped elect a majority that could end the unconstitutional filibusters of judicial nominees was the day he earned my eternal enmity.
I vowed that day to work tirelessly to destroy his political future, and I intend on sticking to that vow. There is a bottle of champagne still chilling in the fridge for that day when he announces that he is dropping out of the 2008 race.
Just because he is right on ONE ISSUE does not mean he gets any forgiveness for the craven, suck-up, backstabbing, self-serving and snotty attitude he has displayed since 2000.
Not one penny from this conservative for Senator Sellout!
Out of all the candidates, his positions on national security stand out, which earned the wrath of the NYT and liberals in general. Unfortunately, his recent positions on the immigration earned the wrath of a number of conservatives.
"recent positions on" [insert list of issues with his name on it] are most certainly NOT why he's earned the wrath of a number of conservatives. As far as conservatives are concerned, Senator McCain has been poking them in the eye for more than a decade.
But again, I think he's a good Senator to have in the chamber.
... though I would have put it back to eight years of eye poking.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Just that immigration killed his candidacy. The distrust among conservatives has been there for a while, myself included until about a year ago.
...and a Terrible Republican. Amen to that.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
McCain was dead wrong on illegal immigration, dead wrong on campaign finance reform, dead wrong on the Gang of 14. The senator also was too gung-ho to intrude into areas where the federal government has no business. He was so far off the charts on those issues he never will be president, nor should he be.
But as you point out, McCain has been rock solid recently on Iraq. In fact, the Democratic stunt last night probably gave voice to some of the best reasons I have heard in recent months to oppose a sudden withdrawal (i.e., the pajama party backfired on the Democrats, but what's new?). McCain's criticism of the stunt was among the most pointed and effective.
Yet I won't donate to him. But I gladly will support any president who has the wisdom to elevate McCain to Secretary of Defense. This is the man's strength, and it is undeniable.
thanks. I saw text elsewhere, but trying to find video. Searched a bit on CSpan.org, YouTube and MSNBC.com but didn't see it. Perhaps in a day or two it will show up on YouTube.
I guess McCain should have just flipped on all sorts of issues to whatever position pollsters said would appeal to primary voters. Then he might be in as good shape as Romney, Giuliani, and to a lesser extent even Fred (based on the pro-choice position he expressed in the 1994 debate), all of whom have done exactly that (in descending order as listed above). If folks dislike McCain for the reasons stated on this thread, fine. But it irks me that guys who opportunistically shift to pander to voters are given a pass.
You seem to be under the impression that we dislike McCain because he doesn't pander.
But he does. To the wrong people.
The John McCain of 1999 was a different John McCain from that of 2000. In 1999, John McCain may still have believed in Campaign Finance Reform but he interacted with Conservatives without giving anybody the impression that he took a shower when he got home.
2000 and McCain is suddenly the media's Mr. Maverick.
On any other thing apart from national security, I am convinced he will sell us out so long as there's a nice headline in it for him.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
The whole 'torture amendment' was making an issue out of a non-issue, pandering to the left-driven press.
Run like Reagan!
If he were a panderer he would have shifted on the immigration bill instead of being a leading voice for it. He must have known it would substantially reduce his chances at the nomination, but he stuck with it, rightly or wrongly. He could also have shifted on CFR (Romney has shown there's no limit on how far one can travel from past positions; McCain could have said that McCain-Feingold is simply not working -- which I think is what Fred is saying). The only issue on which McCain arguably pandered (and in my opinion did pander) was on extending the Bush tax cuts. He also made one statement in 1999 regarding abortion that he has since disavowed, but his record is strongly pro-life. Compare McCain to Romney and Giuliani, and even to Fred, and there's no way you can reasonably say McCain has been flipping and pandering to the degree that they have (on abortion, guns, gay issues, immigration, CFR)
Oh yes, I'm reminded that he could have flipped as well on the "torture" issue. And the pandering that counts in winning the primary is not to the "left MSM" but to Republican primary voters.
...to the media and the other side of the aisle. Now that he's come down foursquare and eloquent in support of prosecuting the War, expect neither one to have much use for him going forward.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Which is why I pointed out that my objection to McCain is not based on whether or not he panders, but the fact that since 2000 he has been the first to ride to the "rescue" whenever Gail Collins over at the New York Times got into a high dudgeon over something the Bush Administration or the GOP in Congress have done or not done.
Pandering is pandering whether or not he's doing it for Primary votes or for nice headlines from his fan club in the Fourth Estate. Being consistent has its good points, but being consistently wrong on so many issues is not exactly a strong selling point.
Since 2000, the man has made a fetish of "bipartisanship" to such an extent that he makes a point of co-sponsoring legislation with the most liberal of Democrats with concessions no conservative would ever countenance and being called a "maverick" for launching broadsides against his own party and the party base for refusing to sign on to that same liberal legislation.
McCain as President and we would probably see very liberal Democrats nominated to fill the seats at State, Defense, Treasury and/or Justice, just to flex his "maverick" muscles. And for all his raging and ranting about pork, I find it hard to believe that he would remain as steadfast if the Washington Post, New York Times, etc. are editorializing in favor of a budget bill laden with Left-Wing goodies. And as for judges, I'll be shocked if he didn't institute some panel with liberal Democrats and "moderate" Republicans like Christie Todd Whitman to help him select his nominees.
A man who would happily accept "The Chafee Award" should be not be anywhere near the Presidency as a Republican.
The only thing I can trust McCain on is national security. Everything else (including stuff that should not be) is on the table. Rudy, Romney and Thompson may be panderers on a greater scale, but at least they pander to me, and after what happened to the first President George Bush, I am quite confident that neither Romney nor Thompson would flop back to being pro-choice anytime soon. i.e. they know who brung them to the party. McCain thinks it's the MSM.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
You've listed a lot of reasons one can reasonably oppose and dislike McCain. Fine. But they have nothing to do with my point, which is that McCain could have shifted to the right on a few issues to improve his chances at the nomination and he didn't. Romney and Rudy obviously have, and Fred has done so to some degree as well. I'm not suggesting you vote for McCain simply because he has not done so. I'm just saying that it bothers me that the guys with less principle, the more opportunistic guys who are more willing to abandon conviction (or have less) for political gain benefit from doing so. I really don't see why there should be any disagreement on this point.
... but that's neither here nor there. Suffice it to say that Romney's family life and clean business and governmental record count very strongly with me. That the Boston Globe is reduced to printing stories about his supposedly polygamous grandfather is indicative that they could find nothing worse.
Either way, McCain is far too compromised by his love of positive Press to push for the agenda I want to see enacted. As far I'm concerned, that makes Rudy far more attractive, despite his views on abortion than McCain.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
I'm not trying to convince you to vote for McCain. I'm simply making the point that it is unfortunate that candidates who are more willing to abandon convictions and flip to positions they themselves do not believe are right or best for the nation in order to pander to the relevant voters often benefit greatly from doing so. Rudy and Romney would not be leading candidates if they had stuck to their old, longstanding positions, which they presumably believed in. If that doesn't bother you as it does me, then we just have different values. And I'm not suggesting that sincerity be the sole determinant of who we vote for, but it should count, and should at least be a consideration when comparing candidates at the extremes of the sincerity spectrum.
As for Rudy, sure he's nominally "pro-choice", but make no mistake about it, he's flipped and pandered on abortion (and on guns and on immigration, and I think also on CFR but I'm not sure). On abortion:
- In 2000 he agreed that Roe was "good constitutional law" and said that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would meet his criteria for Supreme Court justice appointments, but now promises strict constructionists and claims to have always been a strict constructionist.
- He opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion even with an exception to protect the life of the mother, but now supports it.
- He defended public funding of abortion, but now opposes it generally per the Hyde Amendment.
- He opposed parental or judicial notification by minors but now favors it.
- He repeatedly donated to Planned Parenthood and heaped praise upon NARAL as a speaker at their Champions for Choice event, but now constantly talks about how much he "hates" abortion and wants to reduce it.
Question: If Rudy had stuck with his past positions on all of the above, would he still have a good chance at your vote?
I like Rudy and will probably vote for him if McCain is out of contention (and perhaps even if not), but I'm not going to lose my objectivity. I call 'em as I see 'em. And I would never say that any candidate's pandering didn't bother me just because his new positions match mine. It should bother all of us when we see a candidate apparently abandoning conviction and taking a position that he thinks is wrong or harmful just to win an election, even if we end up voting for that person despite that character flaw.
McCain's problem is more than issues. He cannot manage a campaign staff or a budget. He is a lousy public speaker. Even his Q and As in small gatherings were canned or memorized. I doubt that he could be an efffective manager or administrator of any large organization. McCain is kind of a typical senator who isn't much of a leader, manager, or wheeler-dealer. When he was a naval officer, he commanded an A-4. If he was in charge of a unit, he probably relied on his CPO to run the shop for him. But, McCain appears to be a very honest and moral person, and not the worst candidate.
I share your concern about his poor management since the near bankruptcy of his campaign. It's troubling.
..in the...uh, whatever Churchill said.
No more childish than Sen. McCain has been churlish towards his own party and his own party's base.
As I read on NRO, the key to understanding John McCain is that he is more serious about being John McCain than being President/A Republican/Party Leader, etc.
WARNING -- Vicarious Psychoanalysis: It's obvious Sen. McCain enjoyed and felt entitled to the media/Demo adulation gained from shivving his own party. His petulance (sp?) and pettiness when defied ("STFU" to John Cornyn, endorsing Brian Bilbray's primary opponent -- both about immigration reform) are symptoms of that sense of entitlement and People's Exhibit A (and B, and C, and...) against his qualifications for Party Leadership.
Unfortunately, his passionate advocacy for a successful war will receive none of the media spotlight that his passionate advocacy for limiting free speech, impeding the President's judicial nominees, or endangering border sovereignty did. So how much impact will Sen. McCain really have in stiffening the nat'l spine? (little to very little, IMO). And his Democratic colleagues are beyond shaming.
I read his statement on the Senate floor -- comity forbids, but it would have been bracing to hear "Mr. Reid" instead "Mr. President", and more bracing still if he sought equal-opportunity targets for that famous temper of his -- you know, like condemning Nazi Hunter Dick Durbin for his remarks as forefully as he did the SwiftVets for challenging John Kerry.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
The best thing would be for a Secretary of Defense McCain serving under President Giuliani, and getting a younger GOP star from Arizona to take that seat for the next 2 decades..
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
1. McCain can't manage a small campaign staff or his Senatorial staff. What in God's name makes you think he could manage the Pentagon. He'd easily be the worst SecDef in history.
2. McCain leaves the Senate before his term is up in 2010 and our Dem Governor appoints his replacement. We have no rule, that I know of, that requires her to appoint a Republican. Your plan would give his Senate seat to a Democrat for the next two decades.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Actually, if for some strange reason Franz does not win the presidency, I think he'd make a great SecDef. He's literally one tough son of a bitch.
...presumptive Republican president appointed him. Not likely he'd be able to check the big ego, short temper, and Senatorial sense of entitlement at the cabinet room door.
On the plus side, McCain'd likely quit in a fit of pique before he's fired.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
If McCain had fouled some balls off, I might be inclined to agree with you. On some of the most fundamental issues, though, he has crossed conservatives time and again. Campaign finance deform, Strike One. Embryonic stem-cell, Strike Two. (That one is especially ironic since McCain supposedly is against wasteful spending.) Gang of 14, Strike Three. He's out. Now I don't claim to have the ability to call a Senator out for the entire Party, but as far as I'm concerned, he can walk back to the dugout with his head hung low.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that McCain is a vocal advocate of the need to fight an aggressive war on terror, but that hardly excuses his other behavior, which includes attacks on the Constitution and disrespect for basic human dignity. I'd love to go into battle shoulder to shoulder with Sen. McCain but for the fact that I would constantly have to look over my shoulder to ensure that he wasn't aiming at me. Sometimes he's better than a Democrat, but if a primary challenger were to emerge, I'd be all too eager to cut a check.
www.republicansenate.org