Does America Need John McCain?
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (102) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One of the criticisms National Review received from people (not from this neck of the woods though) in its endorsement of Mitt Romney was the lack of emphasis in the endorsement on foreign affairs.
Today is a day when it'd be handy to have a President with competent foreign affairs experience. As we learned from the New York Times yesterday, Hillary is not that candidate.
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
This morning, let me ask you a serious question. In light of recent troubles in Asia, compounded by a growing threat from China, and pending civil war (it seems) in Pakistan after the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, does America need John McCain as President?
Read on . . .
I say this as a Fred guy. I'm a firm believer that only Fred or McCain could actually win in November against one of the Democrats. Neither of them will split the party and between the two of them, I think they are the only candidates who have been consistent over the long term.
But ignoring Fred for a minute (no offense Fredheads), seriously, does America need John McCain? Is it his time not because it is his due but because a confluence of events around the world make Joe Biden the most experienced choice on the Democratic side and McCain the most experienced choice on the Republican side?
The Union Leader makes, perhaps, the most persuasive case:
We don't agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water.Competence, courage, and conviction are enormously important for our next President to possess. No one has a better understanding of U.S. interests and dangers right now than does McCain. He was right on the mistakes made by the Bush administration in prosecuting the Islamic terrorist war in Iraq and he is being proved right on the way forward both there and worldwide.
The world has been in a state of madness for several years. But, with this morning's news, I have little doubt it will spiral further out of control.
Already whispers have begun that if Fred Thompson can't pull off Iowa, conservatives will need to rally around a candidate and that candidate is most likely John McCain.
Is John McCain the man to lead America? The Union Leader said yes. And they just might be right.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | John McCain Pushing All the Right Buttons — Comments (29) »
Does America Need John McCain? 102 Comments (0 topical, 102 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I don't buy deathbed (or "just in time to snow you for a primary run") conversions, and I don't believe most thinking Americans do either.
Romney's an excellent businessman. Why suspend disbelief to credit him with being more than that, which he is not?
That's funny, then why are all the stalwart Conservatives either backing Romney or signing his praises including
Rush
Nation Review Online
Weekly Standard
etc.
So who exactly is a conservative in your mind?
Huckabee? No, see the above
Fred? Okay
Rudy? Not Social
McCain? Not even close.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
There's no question in my mind that the party establishment wanted the nominee to be Rudy. They were convinced (and with some justification) that with Hillary as an opponent those of us opposed to him would hold our noses and mostly still vote for him.
Then came the rise of Huckabee, and the crowd that had been pushing for Rudy over social opposition suddenly realized they were looking at having to do the same thing. So they panicked, and switched to pushing Romney as someone they could live with and they hoped the so-con base could live with. If Huckabee had never gotten his surge they'd all still be pushing Rudy.
Now it may in fact work. Because while I'm not a Romney supporter I recognized that he's at least saying all the right things. I just don't know that I believe a word of it. But given the choice between the Democrat and Romney, with Romney there's at least some small chance that he'll govern like he talks now, instead of how he talked and governed in Massachusetts.
One of these five guys is going to have the nomination. We've seen thousands of diaries/comments on this and other sites about "who's NOT conservative" in this race.
I don't think any of them are true conservative ideologues. Fred is probably the closest thing to it, but his campaign is a non-starter. I'm tired of this.
Here's my question: Whom do think will GOVERN as a conservative, if elected? On that question, I'm pretty sure that Romney will, even if I don't really believe that he is an ideologue.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
that there's about a 1 in 5 chance that he'll govern as a conservative if elected, about a 3 in 5 chance he'll govern as a moderate, and the rest as some form of liberal. And assuming he got reelected to a second term, those chances would go to 0 in 5 as a conservative. He's got way too much of a history in compromising with Democratic legislatures to give me any more hope than that.
Still, that's better than any of the Dem candidates where there's only about a 1 in 5 chance they'd govern as a moderate, and the rest as a liberal.
I suppose that the conservative pharisees can declare who is a "real conservative" and who is not, but politics is a game where, when absolutes fail, one must choose the candidate who fits the bill on the most number of issues. There is little doubt that Mitt Romney, while not perfect on issues of conservatism, is more conservative then John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee. And those, more or less, are our choices.
The Union Leader seems to have endorsed Reagan three times, including his 1976 run. Other endorsees include Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan, Pete DuPont, John Ashbrook (though the article says Ashcroft), and Barry Goldwater. There are some idiosyncratic choices there, but I don't think it's right to say that they tend to go "against the most competent conservative."
The were for Reagan when he was against Ford, but against Reagan when it looked like he would win.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
Actually, the article I linked said they also endorsed him in 1980 (and presumably 1984). Do you have a contrary citation? (I wouldn't find it terribly hard to believe that Howard Kurtz was mistaken.)
The Union-Leader is not your typical conservative-hating newspaper who loves liberal Republicans.
It's endorsements of Reagan, Goldwater, Forbes, and DuPont all prove that out. They would have done well to remember what they wrote of McCain in 2000 when they endorsed George W. Bush, however, when they endorsed McCain this year.
I cannot impugn the Union-Leader and no one should. I think that they did their best, but their endorsement of McCain this year ranks right up there with their terrible endorsement of Pat Buchanan. They're just wrong, but I suppose we have to allow them to be wrong from time to time.
Not that it's a big deal, and it actually might reinforce your point, but I think they went with Forbes in 2000 rather than Bush (or McCain). They endorsed Buchanan in both 1992 and 1996.
I believe you are correct about them endorsing Forbes in 2000. Good catch. I'm not sure if it reinforces my point or not (it may), but it certainly doesn't detract from it.
I misread your point. The fact that it was Forbes rather than Bush wouldn't have any bearing on it. Sorry for any confusion.
For what it's worth, here's what they did say about McCain and Bush in their 2000 endorsement:
George Bush has said virtually nothing substantial in this campaign because he thinks that will get him the nomination. And John McCain will say virtually anything because he thinks that will get him attention.
Thursday night's debate finally brought Bush into view with the others but its Bush-approved format provided little chance for comparisons. No matter. There will be other opportunities and we believe New Hampshire voters who take the time will discover what we have:
Bush is a nice guy but an empty suit with no philosophical underpinning.
McCain could finish a strong second, in the Democrats' race.
Ouch!
Romney is not a conservative. At best he's a moderate with a flare for saying things to get elected. Romney signed off and bragged about his Socialized Health Care. His excuse now is that he lived in a Dem. dominated state and figured he'd join them since he can't beat them. Well, with the prospect of Dem Congress, I don't want to elect a guy who will go 'with the crowd'. We need resolved leadership for that. You can say what you want about President George W. Bush, he's a resolved man, and deep inside, we all admire that. Romney doesn't have it. Fred, McCain, and Rudy have that. Huckabee might, but we just don't know him well enough yet.
Furthermore, Romney switched on Abortion. One day he was ok with the murder of the unborn, today he wants to stop the murder of the unborn. Yesterday I wanted eggs for breakfast, today I wanted a biscut. I wonder what Romney will want for breakfast tomorrow?
The point of the article is, from my view, that we've all went out and test drove some seemingly nice candidates.
We all test drove Rudy, but we found that he's got more baggage that a Clinton packing up to leave the White House.
We've test drove Romney, he's spent millions, he's leading in one state, New Hampshire, (his back yard, barely) and can't get more that 11% of the party support nationwide. He's a paper candidate, as in, he read the republican platform one morning and decided to believe those things and say them a-loud. He's promising features in the Romney Model that he really doesn't have.
Huckabee sounded great when he cranked up. Unfortunately, he's not doing so well on the open road. We've found that he's just not conservative enough in 2 of the 3 required areas, e.g, Taxes and Defense (not to mention Immigration, the budding fourth Pillar of the Repub. platform.)
That leaves Fred and McCain. Well, Fred appears to be asleep at the wheel. I love the guy, but I can't see him being viable in the general since he's not viable on his on campaign bus.
John McCain. The man's integrity, courage and honor is unquestioned. His belief in what is right is sometimes off. His belief in doing what he thinks in right is never in doubt.
I cannot stand his immigration ideas. I pray that he got the message. If he gets immigration right, I can deal with McCain-Fiengold.
The article above really articulates that McCain is the old reliable stud that we can ride to victory on and feel good about. He's a known quantitiy. As Huckabee's "liberal notions", Rudy's growing baggage and "liberal beliefs" and Romney's history of "being liberal" , McCain's reliable image is really paying off. I'd also argue that McCain's resurgence started in September as the surge was proven successful. He was the only guy who could say, "that's what I've said for 4 years!!!"
He was right then, and he might be right for us now.
Romney will be a distant memory in mid-January and will be harder to find that a Clinton draft notice.
Thanks.
Let's remember. This is the same guy who let all true Republicans down time after time.
He voted against the BUsh tax cuts.
He attacked evangelicals as agents of intolerance -- and then kissed up to them again when he needed them this year.
He let Kerry flirt with picking him as his running mate in 2004.
He wrecked the party with his amnesty plan.
He infuriated many conservative groups with campaign finance reform.
He is a major supporter of the global warming panic.
He was a member of the Gang of 14 trying to stop conservative judicial nominees that the Dems didn't like.
Sure, McCain has his strengths: a heroic war record. A fighter of pork. And foreign policy credentials. But Fred has those qualifications too. And he hasn't turned on us on every other issue.
By your logic, we should all be voting for Joe Biden. He has foreign policy credentials too and McCain has sided with him many times over the years on everything else.
Agreed. I would still take Romney over McCain for the reasons you list here.
All that said, vote for Fred!
"He was a member of the Gang of 14 trying to stop conservative judicial nominees that the Dems didn't like."
Well that's one way to spin the Gang of 14, I look at them as the adults in the Senate who actually wanted to do the people's business instead of engaging in urination contests. Tom the Hammer Delay comes to mind as I write that. I guess that I'm pretty happy with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alitto, but hey, we could have have Harriet Meyers, or Judge Roy Moore, or some other well qualified jurist save for the gang of 14....right?
Or this one:
"He attacked evangelicals as agents of intolerance -- and then kissed up to them again when he needed them this year."
I may have slept through that one, what insult are you referring to? Got Link?
Hmmm...dialing back a bit on the evangelical power over the Republican party....that's bad why?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Conservatives that buy into the global warming hoax are becoming a major pet peeve of mine. Talk about pandering. The global warming fanantics are a legitimate cult and eco-fascists.
If all we want is a foreign policy president, McCain probably can't be beat. It's funny how terrorists think striking at the hearts of democracy will cause them to give up and give in. Excepting Spain (I don't know about the UK but it seems already lost), they are wrong. Terrorist attacks put up our backs. One more high profile assassination and it's possible McCain would be a shoe-in.
I'm still for Fred.
But one thing's for sure: terrorist attacks against democratic figures and societies do not help the Democrats! A misnamed party if there ever was one.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
makes no sense at all. Romney was the front runner for much of the race with his leads in Iowa and NH, of course he was attacked more. It is the same reason we attack Clinton more, because she is most likely to win (though Romney is no longer "most likely to win".
Erick,
Maybe it's a southern thing, but I could not agree more. I have spent the entire primary season undecided. However, over the past month, I have cut my choices to two candidates, Thompson or McCain. If you asked me a year ago, I would have said there would be no way I would vote for McCain. I have been upset with him in the past over campaign finance reform as well as immigration. But on the issues that matter to me the most: war on terrorism, abortion and spending, McCain is a great choice. McCain was right about the correct stategy in Iraq from the start, way before President Bush finally decided to try the McCain approach. The success of the surge as recommended by McCain for months may be the thing that saves the GOP from total disaster in 2008. He deserves a large amount of credit and gratitude. I think he has earned a second look and maybe even my vote more than any other candidate.
McCain is totally wrong on illegal immigration.
Supporting open borders, no sovereignty, no control of immigration...etc.. is just as much a threat to this country as the foreign policy issues.
Jjfuller I agree with you about the media.
Among other things, the media wants to push candidate who have track records of being totally on immigration.
That is why they marginalize Thompson and push Huckabee and McCain.
God Bless.
McCain is totally wrong on illegal immigration.
Supporting open borders, no sovereignty, no control of immigration...etc.. is just as much a threat to this country as the foreign policy issues.
Jjfuller I agree with you about the media.
Among other things, the media wants to push the candidates who have track records of being totally wrong on immigration.
That is why they marginalize Thompson and push Huckabee and McCain.
God Bless.
foreign policy and chief executive.
That is why McCain may be our guy. Plus, I like him!
Rudy is my preference, because I think he has more tenacity than McCain on certain issues. But McCain will do very well.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Some conservatives are wholeheartedly against McCain but we cannot be. He is a proven leader and although he has gone against some conservative ideals...so have many of the candidates have and McCain is better on the stuff that matters more. I like Thompson most but...I just don't know that he has the steam to make it through. If that's the case, I think McCain might be the most reliable choice in this unsteady time. We aren't going to get this Reaganesque candidate that doesn't exist. Let's face reality and do it with someone who knows how.
"Count it the greatest sin to prefer life to honor, and for the sake of living lose what makes life worth living."
-Decimus Juvenal
Or was "Sheets" Byrd running that deal?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The stuff that matters more to me is illegal immigration. He is NOT better on that stuff. And he's not above name calling when the masses do not agree. McCain will make an acceptable president if elected, but his heart bleeds for illegals.
for a few reasons:
1. He will fight to win the wars on terror and in Iraq.
2. He has the foreign policy experience needed while at war.
3. He has never voted to raise taxes and has promised to cut them.
4. 100% Cato rating on free trade.
5. He will give us conservative judges.
6. He has promised to secure the borders.
7. He will cut spending.
8. He actually can win in the general election, making all of the above and a reality and not a fantasy, as is a Fred or Mike Huckabee presidency.
He promised to secure the border before taking up amnesty again. But what exactly does it mean to him to 'secure the border?'
Is he going to add a couple thousand more border patrol agents and shut down a few businesses, then declare the border secure and start printing z-visas?
McCain has no credibility on this issue. It's a shame, because otherwise I think he's a great candidate.
after hearing him basically tell Michael Moore to go to hell in his 2004 convention speech.
see the link for the speech highlight-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5WoGto3BWI
(how do you guys embed youtubes segments?)
...but absolutely horrendous on immigration and campaign finance reform. CFR has hurt the GOP extremely bad, and has increased the influence of people like Moveon.org, Media Matters, etc. His immigration bill was an absolute disaster and would have decimated the country culturally and likely decimated the GOP's electoral prospects.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Tragic events liket today's news put a lot of things into perspective. Is McCain dead wrong on campaign finance and the Bush tax cuts? Of course. However, he is THE guy on foreign policy and the war - and he can win. On January 20, 2009, do we really want to watch HRC sworn in because we stood on principle on campaign finance reform during the nominating process?
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
What you're seeing is my pragmatic side. I don't just think America needs John McCain. I think the GOP may need him as well.
Listen, a year or so ago, I would have never even considered voting for the man. He's done a lot to piss me off. But I just don't see a way Fred can win the nomination. If I thought that were possible, I'd be thrilled. Romney would be a disaster, and Rudy and Huck will split the party. Who does that leave us with?
You guessed it: John McCain. As someone else noted in this thread, McCain is the POE candidate.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
Clarify.
Electorally? Well, nobody really knows that. I don't think he will, but whatever.
Huckabee would most definitely be a disaster ideologically for the conservative movement and the GOP. By his own admission, he wants to change the GOP to "be more inclusive".
Allow me to translate the liberalspeak: "We need to pander to more groups, grow government, institute more regulations on businesses and the free market, and open our borders (including subsidizing children of illegals)."
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
For me, it's not a personal thing with Romney. My guess is that he would probably be a fine president, and that he would stand by the promises he has made to social conservatives. Indeed, I think he would almost certainly be better on those issues than McCain. He just comes off as a phoney. I don't know any other way to say it.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
I would much rather have someone who is not really honest about his convictions and/or doesn't have conservative convictions, so long as they ACTUALLY GOVERN as a conservative - which I totally trust Romney will.
On the other hand, we have Huckabee, who is very liberal - but he is honest about his views.
My question to you is: Would you prefer someone who does NOT have convictions, yet governs as a conservative and sets conservative policies in motion in this country, OR someone who you trust, who is honest, but will move the GOP to the left, and redefine conservatism into something that it is not?
I'll take the former any day of the week.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
is that McCain is conservative enough for me not to have to make that choice.
Not that I accept your characterization of Huckabee, mind you.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
Please explain to me how exactly Mike Huckabee is more conservative than Hillary Clinton on anything other than social policy. I'd be interested to know.
He supports the fair tax, second-amendment rights, capital punishment, market based health care solutions, the appointment of originalist justices and judges, and a fairly conservative immigration reform package.
I am pretty sure that we would get none of the foregoing with HRC.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination
1. I'll grant you 2nd Amendment
2. The federal government doesn't meat out very much capital punishment, so I don't really know that this has any bearing on the presidential campaign. Besides, with all of the pardons Huckabee is likely to be delivering, would any criminals actually make it to their scheduled execution in ANY state?
3. You think that Mike Huckabee - who described giving amnesty to illegal immigrants as "America's chance to make up for slavery" would hesitate to sign a bill like McCain-Kennedy if it reached his desk? Give me a break!
4. The FairTax is a pipe dream being propagated by a bunch of people who are either stupid or disingenuous. With Mike Huckabee, it's difficult to tell which more aptly applies. If by some chance we did get the FairTax instituted, I'm sure he'd just try to hike those consumption taxes like he did in Arkansas. How is that conservative?
5. With regard to the judiciary, I'm really afraid that Huckabee would put justices on the court that would give conservative jurisprudence a bad name - because they'd be liberal judicial activists who lean politically conservative instead of liberal (like Roy Moore.) I doubt we'd get any brilliant legal luminary scholars like John Roberts and Antonin Scalia (no matter how much Mikey says he likes Scalia.) Ann Coulter delivered an excellent criticism of Huckabee on matters legal in her last column.
Any OTHER areas you care to suggest that Mike Huckabee is to the right of Hillary Clinton? I mean, in ways that are substantive when evaluating a candidate? (You get points for 2nd Amendment rights and judicial candidates on your last try. I do agree that I THINK he'd be to the right of Hillary there.)
and McCain has betrayed my trust on several occasions -- and then insulted me when I expressed dissatisfaction with his actions.
I admire McCain, but I don't trust him.
I am an economist and I circulate with what I have termed “estranged republicans.” I think they might represent a significant factor in this election because they have previously supported the republicans for decades and don’t fall within a “swing demographic-type.” However, many are now waffling between supporting McCain and voting for a democratic candidate.
Here’s the profile: Their top concerns are fiscal responsibility and a mature national image. When asked why they are considering voting outside their party they explain that that republicans are no longer committed to fiscal responsibility and that it is still undecided which out of the candidates (dem or rep) would be able to successfully reestablish a mature national image.
I do not know how representative my observation is. Its just seems concerning that we might be losing a big chunk of republicans we previously took for granted. Has anyone noticed a similar perspective from their McCain supporting friends and coworkers?
Seriously, though, foreign affairs appears to be the least important ingredient in a candidate's resume. Since Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush I had the most experience in foreign affairs. Only Nixon was considered successful in foreign policy.
Carter, Clinton, even Reagan, were known for domestic policy issues more than foreign affairs. The media view of Reagin's international policy was that he was willing to confront the USSR, not a particularly good thing in the eyes of the MSM.
Today, people with the most experience in foreign affairs have the worst policy. Examples: Powell and Rice.
The Reagan presidency illustrates the core issue of foreign affairs better than any other. He had limited experience in dealing with foreign issues, but he had the right philosphy. Reagan recognized that communism was a threat, though he never negotiated with the USSR or China.
Today we want someone who recognizes that radical islam is a threat. We see that the UN and most of our treaty partners are worthless for protecting American interests, or even the interest of peace. We want a candidate who will put American interests first. The philosophy is more important than experience.
I strongly disagree with McCain on many issues, but not in the issue of defending America's interests. He can be trusted in this area.
I will confess that I do not view border control as a foreign policy issue at this time, nor do I see it as an immediate security issue, since no attacks on our national security have yet come from Mexico. I realize that many here will disagree, but I think you are equating the potential with reality at this point.
At this point, I trust only three of our candidates to put American interests at the top of the list: Thompson, Giuliani and McCain. Huckabee has made appropriate noises about foreign affairs, as has Romney. But foreign affairs, particularly as they relate to national security, has not come naturally to Huckabee or Romney. Both have been driven to it. Huckabee cannot be trusted. Cuba, GTMO, Iraq (we broke it, we own it), "talking" to Iran and Syria. Not a particularly good record.
Disclaimer: I support Fred. But Fred has made it amply clear that he will agressively pursue the GWOT. As have Rudy and McCain.
that I support secring the border any way that works. Fences, cameras, fining employers, any and all. I strongly disagree with McCain on this issue. But I don't consider it a security issue at this time.
Go read the essays in "Reagan in His Own Hand," produced over the years leading up to his White House run. Or see this speech, made 16 years before the 1980 election:
Or Reagan's now-famous foreign policy/Vietnam debate with RFK in 1967 where he mopped the floor with RFK. Fact is, Reagan had a well-thought-out and highly informed set of foreign policy ideas, for which he was a leading spokesman, for many years before he ran.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
experience, not so much. Not a criticism, but a praise.
Philosophy is much more important than experience. Especially today, when experience seems to mean appeasement and pandering.
on Day One.
That's why it has to be Rudy, McCain or Fred.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
You are kidding?
McCain? Will not do what it takes to defend this country. His position on waterboarding is out of step. If my family's lifes depend on getting information, I say to heck with couddling terrorist and get what we need.
Rudy has no more experience than Romney or Huckabee.
Fred has never lead anything.
As a Veteran I would not want McCain or Fred in the Whitehouse. Fred I could accept. McCain only if I had no other choice.
Of course with Rudy, being I am also pro-life, I couldn't accept him either. Could hold my nose if I had too.
.
_____________________________________________________
American First, Conservative Second, Republican Third
aforeign policy issue.
The point is that I think experience is vastly overrated. give me someone who has the right philosophy, not someone who can talk nice to foreign leaders.
I worked for McCain in 2000, however, over the last 8 years McCain has insulted me on numerious occasions, regularily abandoned conservative principles, and basically destroyed any passion I ever felt for his campaign. The type of passion that is necessary to stand on your feet for 16 straight hours as you reach out to voters on behalf of your candidate.
McCain killed this in me with his betrayals. I still admire him -- but I am not going to work for him ever again.
Absolutely America needs McCain and Bhutto's death is a perfect example of why. Look at your T.V. screens and computer monitors and tell me who the first person that they called on to analize that tragedy...I can't hear you? "Oh" no one wants to speak up, well let me do it for you McCain is who they called because he is the only one that has the experience and knowledge to break it down into layman's terms for the rest of us to understand. This is a perfect example of how far the rest of the candidates are out of Senator McCain's league. America needs a leader and a President and not a bunch of inexperienced paper pushering politicians and pullpit preachers as I stated before.
It could be that the MSM called on McCain because he's never far from a television camera and his name is the first one in their Rolodexes.
As I've said in numerous posts, I will happily vote for Romney if he's the nominee. But Romney has spent millions in Iowa and NH and he is floundering.
The renewed interest in McCain is due to Romney's inability to connect with the Republican base. McCain has turned off a lot of people over taxes, global warming, campagin finance, his attacks on Rumsfeld etc. That McCain is overcoming all of this and giving Romney a race in New Hampshire is not entirely McCain's doing. It also is connected to Romney's performance. Romney could have taken hardline foreign affairs positions, leaving no daylight between himself and Rudy and Fred, while getting to the right of McCain. Then he could have hammered everyone on tax cutting and limited government. But he did not do this and therein lies McCain's (and Rudy's and Fred's and Mike's opportunity).
McCain won't do it for me. At this point, if Fred Thompson isn't the nominee, I'll vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. I might as well get what I'm paying for.
Indeed she is a dyed in the wool socialist. Then again, those "compassionate conservatives" running in the primaries aren't very far from that themselves. At least in Clinton, she's unabashed about her aims and she presents a very clear target to oppose. I'd rather have her doing that sort of stuff than Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani.
She's also a firm hawk in the war against the Islamists. It may not seem so, but she's been taking an incredible amout of heat from the anti-war loons for not backing down an inch before their nutty chants. She hasn't, to my knowledge, tried to hang our interrogators out to dry with terrible legislation and she actually knows many of the players in our military and others thanks to her Senate committee experience. I'd rather have her fighting the Islamists right now than Huckabee, Romney (who I'm not even sure realizes that there is a war going on). I'd rather have her "Iron Witch" persona behind the Oval Office than McCain's posturing over torture and the legality thereof any day.
I'm voting for a conservative who's been a conservative for longer than a year or so or I'm voting for Clinton. That's the way the election's shaping up for me this year.
-Jimmie
The Sundries Shack
http://www.sundriesshack.com
If you think her refusal to cave to the kos krowd on apologizing for her war vote is based on any kind of principled stance, you are out of your mind. She would sell out on Iraq in a second if she thought it would help her in the general election. But she saw what we did with Kerry and his "I was for it before I was against it" wishywashiness and she is too smart to get painted into that kind of a corner, and she knows that the moveon gang will ultimately roll over for her in the general election even if she blows them off now.
Don't ever make the mistake of believing that the Clintons have or operate based on any core set of principles other than what is the best way to curry favor from 51%+ of the country.
Her political self-interest is intimately tied with the well-being of the country on the national security front. What's good for America is good for her political future. I'll take that over what I've seen from most of the Republican candidates, especially McCain.
The Sundries Shack
http://www.sundriesshack.com
How incredibly illogical.
Mitt Romney is infinitely more brilliant than John McCain, and I'd feel safer in his capable hands than John McCain's - and I wouldn't have to worry about him hiking my taxes, taking away my free speech rights, or nominating Sandra Day O'Connors or Anthony Kennedys (or Maureen Mahoneys!) to the Supreme Court.
I think this boils down to some people having an inexplicable case of Romney Derangement Syndrome that is every bit as severe as Kos's Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Your antipathy towards McCain seems to be more about his domestic record (taxes, campaign finance, judicial nominees) than about his qualifications as commander-in-chief. I don't think it's illogical to say that his foreign policy qualifications outweigh his domestic policy weaknesses, as the two are in many ways unrelated. They can certainly be weighed against each other, and you may conclude that his domestic heterodoxy outweighs his foreign policy strengths. But it's unreasonable to claim that McCain would be a bad commander-in-chief because he co-authored campaign finance reform.
When it comes to foreign policy, McCain is among the most conservative, and certainly the most qualified, of the candidates. It's not at all unreasonable to say that, in light of global instability, we should elect the candidate most prepared to lead America safely. That's John McCain.
We have McCain on record saying that interrogators would have to break the law he proposed in order to do the sort of techniques that would save American lives. He's demanding that our people rely on the good will of the courts and perhaps a Presidential pardon to bail them out of a criminal case that could put them away for decades.
That's not leading America safely. That's unacceptable treatment of some very brave and very dedicated Americans.
The Sundries Shack
http://www.sundriesshack.com
I don't mind torturing terrorists and others who are not parties to the Geneva Conventions and/or who have complete and utter disregard for them.
When it comes to foreign policy, we need someone who can fully comprehend the challenges that the country faces, domestic and foreign, and devise and execute an effective plan to achieve the best end-result for America.
John McCain is simply not intelligent enough to fully comprehend all of the variables.
I think the syndrome affecting a lot of Mittbotts is more aptly described as Romney Deification Syndrome.
Speaking positively of another candidate is not an attack on Mitt.
Well, Mitt is definitely the most brilliant and successful person to seek the office of the president in decades. So it is easy to get carried away.
I mean, when a major argument against him is that he's "too perfect," you know he's good. LOL
it isn't really clear to me what that means- I saw it in the Picking Apart Mitt blog on the recommended list, I hadn't heard it before that.
But one thing you may not want to be too quick to dismiss is if it refers to Mitt's perceived ability to connect with ordinary Americans.
President Bush- for all his faults- always did well in terms of connecting with average Americans. Maybe the whole "I wouldn't mind living next door to this guy" dynamic is overblown, but I think it counts for something. IMO the average citizen making $45K per year out in middle America looks at Mitt and sees a perfectly groomed former Bain CEO billionaire and probably wonders what he could possibly have in common or does somebody with a life like Mitt have any clue what Mr. Middle Class's life is like.
I'm not tring to bash Mitt because he's successful, in fact his success with his career at Bain is a big plus in my book. But people do vote to some degree based on who they personally like and who they feel like they relate to.
For all of Mitt's strenghts and advantages, you have to wonder why he is not doing better and maybe it has something to do with being able to make a connection with the average voter.
I guess we'll see next week.
The "Too Perfect" meme was manufactured by the Romney camp. It's been in their talking points for almost a year.
Mitt's major problem is the flip flopper label. It always will be his major problem.
But anyways, this thread is about John McCain, not Mitt.
I started hearing that Mitt was "too perfect" from many people who definitely do not like it.
Of course, this "criticism" was as perplexing as it was delightful to Mitt-supporters. LOL
with the party consensus. That is quite different. A known adversary can be more trustworthy than the pleasant companion.
What has McCain done? Senators make horrible candidates and executives because they do nothing. McCain's been sitting in that private club called the Senate for decades now. They sit around, give speeches, hold hearing and sometimes vote. He has run nothing. He has built nothing. He has authored nothing of any conservative value. He cannot think outside the box. He is the box.
The irony is that McCain plays the role of maverick, he is the ultimate Washington insider. He is an old member of the Senate and old Senators know how to compromise. It's an old Gentlemens club.
McCain simply is not an insipred conservative. McCain sees everything from a purely political view. He is not a principled conservative. I've seen him give impassioned pleas regarding America, but never about conservatism because I don't think he can.
A Senator who fights against pork-barreling is no "Washington insider." He's about as insider as Sen. Coburn.
"McCain sees everything from a purely political view." Well that shows that you haven't really paid any attention to politics for the past 15 years. McCain's views are consistent whether you like them or not. On the surge, on immigration, on spending restraint he has taken positions that are sincerely held rather than easy and politically convenient. He cares about making the country a better place rather than leading one faction of the country. That's why he's popular among Is and swing voters. It's also why he has the best chance in the general election.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
"A Senator who fights against pork-barreling is no 'Washington insider.' He's about as insider as Sen. Coburn."
When you stab conservatives and your party in the back enough times, liberals like Teddy Kennedy tend to give you a hall pass on an issue here and there.
Consistent views have nothing to do with it. You made my point exactly. McCain only speaks of Republican talking points and policy positions. I don't think there is a principled ideological conservatism behind his decision makin, which is why he so often goes off the reservation.
I can recall Reagan talking about conservatism (not just Republican policy positions). I've Fred Thompson doit. I thought Mitt Romney's speech on fait hand freedom was brilliant and conservative. I never hear anything like that from McCain.
He recently just changed his tune on immigration a number of months ago, and after VOTING AGAINST all of Bush's tax cuts, now he's in favor of them.
I welcome McCain's change in tune, but McCain's views are ANYTHING but consistent. I mean, he's flipped more recently than any other candidate running on some absolutely landmark issues for conservatives.
McCain still hasn't flipped on enough issues to make him a preferred Republican presidential nominee, however.
McCain was wrong to not support the tax cuts, but he was coming at it as a pragmatic deficit hawk. He knew then what we all know now -- the President and the GOP Congress wasn't interested in reigning in runaway pork barrel spending. He didn't oppose the tax cuts because he loves high taxes. He opposed them because he thought that it was fiscally irresponsible to cut taxes at a time when spending -- and the deficit -- is going through the roof. McCain's opposition to the tax cuts was from the FisCon Right, not from the Populist Left. His was an essentially conservative position.
As it turns out, McCain was wrong and the tax cuts provided much-needed economic stimulus. He was right, though, in thinking that Bush, et al, weren't interested in holding down spending. He supports extending them now, because not doing so is functionally a tax increase.
As for charges of flip-flopping, the economic and budgetary situation is different now than it was back then, so it makes sense that a different approach may be wise. It's foolish to reflexively raise taxes, or to reflexively lower them. There is a point at which taxes are so high that they strangle economic growth, and there is a point at which they are so low that they fail to raise enough revenue. A principled pragmatist should be reticent to raise taxes, but also recognize that deficit spending is harmful to our long-term economic prosperity.
I think McCain still stands by his Guest Worker Program policy. He believes that free markets, including free labor markets, are good for America. Low-skilled laborers drive important sectors of the American economy, and the deportation of 12 million undocumented immigrants would be an act of economic suicide that would stifle industry and cause prices of most goods and services to skyrocket.
His conversion was to realize that Americans simply don't trust the government to secure our borders, and that any attempt to meet our economic needs also needs to be balanced with our security needs. He doesn't claim to have become an ideological convert to Nativism. He still stands by his belief that our economic well-being requires low-skilled immigrant labor, and that we need to find a way to kick the bad ones out and keep the good ones in. But he is willing to pursue a more moderated approach, which emphasizes on-the-border security, in order to get more Border Hawks on board.
This is hardly an ideological flip-flop, or a denial of his original position. As on many issues, McCain wants to find room for compromise and bi-partisan consensus.
I know that his views on immigration are not popular on RedState, and it's not my intention to spark a debate about the merits of Z-visas. I assume that 85% of the people on here are Immigration Hawks, anyway. I don't expect that you will agree with his stance, but I hope that you can accept at least that he hasn't flip-flopped from his core principles on this issue.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
McCain fails two crucial tests.
He is completely misguided when it comes to illegal immigration, and he scares me when he talks about treatment of suspected terrorists. His response to the "ticking timebomb" scenario makes me extremely uncomfortable. He'd be nice and not torture suspects even though the result might be my family and me turning into a vapor.
McCain would be a disaster for Conservatives. And besides, I don't think he could beat the Democratic nominee. He's too much of a Democrat himself.
Fred's my guy.
...but I have several leftie friends who have claimed in the past that they would have voted for McCain over Gore or Kerry. These same folks detest Hillary and Edwards, and they view Obama as a naif.
I fully realize that anecdote is not the singular of data, and I would never vote for a candidate based on his potential ability to woo Dem voters, especially if it means losing a large bloc of Republican voters. Having said this, I'm not ruling him out in the primaries and will vote for him if he wins the nomination.
If my leftie friends are sincere and indicative of a larger trend among Dems--big ifs, I know--then I won't feel too bad about voting for him. All I would ask is that disenchanted Republican voters hold their noses and vote for him in solidarity with Dems who are doing the same.
When lefties say "I would vote for that Republican," that is only absent any kind of MSM attacks on the guy. Once they get the full MSM treatment, I don't care who it is, they aren't getting any lefty votes. McCain never got that in 2000. If McCain were the nominee (or anybody else, for that matter), he WILL get the full treatment. He WILL be an extremist right-wing fascist-dictator-wannabe that likes to throw little old ladies down the stairs on his days off, by the time election day rolls around. They WILL be an unqualified idiot who is barely capable of tying his shoes, much less understanding all the subtle nuance involved with every issue, by the time election day rolls around. It never fails. It's the MSM formula. They've had 50 years to perfect the formula.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...has declined somewhat in the last few years. They are still powerful, but they are more effective when they put their crooked frame around candidates who are relatively unknown on the national level. They prefer unknowns who have not been thoroughly examined for twenty years. There's more potential for shocking revelations and distortion of legislative votes or governing records.
Unless the MSM surprises us in October with the story that McCain was drunk and accidentally punched out over Hanoi, or they find a 6th Keating with some real dirt to sell, I just don't see them playing king--or queen--maker this time. McCain is a known quantity, and the things we hate him for, my leftie friends respect him for. Hopefully, enough to vote for him should he get the nomination.
More wishful thinking on my part, I guess. McCain is not my first choice, but he plays a good game and I will support him if it comes to that.
I think the MSM's ability to influence voters has declined somewhat in the last few years.
If you are talking about the MSM driving conservative opinion of Republican candidates, I'd say they are fairly ineffective now. Conservatives are onto the MSM. There's a lot of distrust there.
If you are talking about the MSM driving moderate/independent opinion of Republican candidates, I'd say they are still fairly effective. It is possible to cut through the noise generated by the MSM (or we wouldn't win very many elections), but it is difficult.
If you are talking about the MSM driving liberal opinion of Republican candidates, I'd say they are still extremely effective. Liberals are, more than anything, looking for a reason to oppose a Republican, so they will accept anything that comes along, no matter how flimsy it is.
That's why I don't think the liberals claims that they could vote for some Republican "maverick" if he were the nominee are worth anything. By the time it comes to actually casting the vote, that Republican won't be any kind of "maverick" any more and they'll have picked up plenty of bad stuff about the guy from the MSM.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But I think leftie males are undermining Hillary's inevitability by talking up the other guys when they are polled. I guess we'll see what happens when they actually cast votes in the primaries. Edwards may be in Rielle trouble soon, and '08 is Training Day for Obama, so I think Hillary will be the Dem nominee. If that happens, I don't think MSM mendacity will sway Dem males who think like my friends, at least where McCain is concerned. Again, I am assuming my leftie friends vote what they say, and that there are a lot like them out there.
Already whispers have begun that if Fred Thompson can't pull off Iowa, conservatives will need to rally around a candidate and that candidate is most likely John McCain.
Shouldn't that read "conservatives [who support Fred] will need to rally around a candidate..."
That's no surprise, who thought Fred's base would go to Romney or Guiliani?
We'll either write in Fred or Mickey Mouse. You really want Rodham as leader of the free world? If so vote Rudy Huck McRomney, the RINO'S.
I just neutered the cat, now he’s a liberal…
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
It’s that ‘ol principles thing that I believe you’re just not getting jbonham. If McCain were the nominee he will not get my, nor many other Thompson supports votes. He's not a real conservative (he's a rino) and we want a REAL conservative who agrees with us on social issues, who is strong on national defense, strong on securing our borders and ridding our country of the invasion force of the 20 plus million invaders, and strong on small government and spending. What’s not to get here? McCain or Rudy or Romney or the Huckster equals RINO. NO, NO RINO. Not today, not next year, not EVER! Okay?
We'd rather see Rodham screw things up so bad that a majority of the country will open their eyes and vote with us in 2012. I mean what's really the difference between Rodham and the rest of the RINO's? Not much as far as I'm concerned.
So let me make this as clear as I can - NO RINO's!
I just neutered the cat, now he’s a liberal…
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Michelle Whitedove says that the Republicans will nominate McCain (with Rudy as VP), but she also thinks Hillary (with Edwards as VP) will beat him. I laughed it off when I first heard her, but I'm starting to wonder.
I don't know her track record, but it should be interesting to see if her "invisible friends" are right.
Nah...She sick of managing bimbo eruptions, although she may be offering back-channel support to Edwards this time just to keep Obama at bay.
Blogging at Blogs4McCain.com
Wow, sure hope you like the 20 plus million illegals in our country. Johnboy will let them stay and give them citizenship. Oh woe to American if this RINO gets the GOP nod. Still won’t get my vote.
I just neutered the cat, now he’s a RINO…
From a previous comment:
(...)
3. He has never voted to raise taxes and has promised to cut them.
4. 100% Cato rating on free trade.
5. He will give us conservative judges.
7. He will cut spending.
(...)
That's enough for me. But, above all, i'm really buying this one:
8. He actually can win in the general election, making all of the above and a reality and not a fantasy, as is a Fred or Mike Huckabee presidency.
I'd happily vote for Fred. Even Romney. But i really want:
- less spending
- conservative SCOTUS
- free trade
McCain can provide this, mainly because he's the only one who can beat Clinton/Obama.
The UL is being consistent with history. They've always lined up against the most competent conservative in the GOP field. Romney's in good company as the UL evicerated Ronald Reagan and both Bushes during their NH runs.
McCain's "resurgence" has been a complete media-created and media-propagated affair. He only started "coming back" after the endorsements of newspaper editorial boards. But GOP voters should take pause at this. Does anyone really think that the media will stay on the side of the GOP nominee during the general? Do we want to choose a guy who's always depended on lavish praise by the media?
How about a safer bet by going with the guy that has been the #1 target for the media, the DNC (more anti-Romney press releases than McCain, Thompson, Paul, and Huckabee COMBINED), and for his GOP opponents and has still stayed strong and competitive.
McCain should know something about being battle-tested . . . but the only GOP candidate that truly has been in Romney
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).