Redstate

Forget Romney as VP. He brings nothing to the ticket as VP.

If McCain is the nominee, he'll probably pick Mark Sanford, who's shore up his conservative base and solidify his fiscal conservative cred as well as bring someone from outside Washington.

I could also see him picking Brownback, who would help him with social conservatives, as well as pay back a friend who endorsed him, but his lack of being exciting helps.

Romney could be his Treasury Secretary or something, but that's about it.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

has said he wants someone who is strong on the economy and tax issues for VP. I think Romney or Pawlenty are going to at least be on McCain's list.

My hunch is Sanford, Pawlenty, or another Senator who has a more economics-based focus such as DeMint.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

aware he didn't like him. I know McCain hit him hard during the debates for his "the surge is apparently working" and on torture, but I haven't seen anything to show he dislikes him.

So I doubt it will happen

On the other hand, there was no love lost between Ike and Nixon, and they worked together for 8 years.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

That ticket is almost untouchable from my point of view.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

Pawlenty has been on board with McCain from the very start. I think there's a reason for that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Pawlenty or DeMint would also be good choices. Heck, they'd be good choices for Giuliani, Romney or Thompson as well.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Whoever is picked, that's in theory, that will be a future frontrunner for President, so who ever ends up being the nominee should pick well.

It'd be nice to see someone fairly young, yet credible.

Probably not going to happen. This isn't 1960 (the last time a ticket of two Senators won an election - and we know that they may not have really won, assuming reports of the dead rising up to vote in Chicago are true).

8 years ago apparently Watts and Largent were guys McCain was considering in order to unite the base who was largely with Bush.

I wouldn't totally overlook Watts this time either.

I've been wondering about McCain/Patreus as well...

In the end, a known economic conservative is likely as mentioned above... I doubt Mitt though. I don't think he and McCain like each other.

McCain would hesitate pulling Patreus out of Iraq while he is doing so well over there, to stump around the country for votes.

it's not McCain's style, as it is reckless and would put the campaign ahead of success in Iraq.

Patreus doesn't add much to the ticket - he is strong in the same areas as McCain. I'd quicker see him as the head of the Joint Chiefs or Defense Sec.

I'm not sure who the best pick for McCain is - I do think he wants to shore things up on the right if he gets the nod, but I do hope he just doesn't pick another WASP. I am seriously leaning more and more to Eric Cantor.

John S. McCain III.

Oh you are absolutely correct that if there was still a lot of work to do in Iraq there would be no way he would ask Patreus to come home for something as trivial as a political campaign.

Something dramatic would have to occur in the next 6 months (remember, the veep isn't picked until July/August-ish). So it's just a pipe dream.

As my old buddy Mat Pruitt suggested - McCain/Pawlenty is just so good... He actually won statewide in Minnesota in the worst GOP year in two decades. He's a governor, a good age to offset McCain and a wonk on domestic issues.

Watts would be an interesting choice. He was an excellent, charismatic Congressman, and he's obviously a uniting figure.

That said, I'd be a little concerned he'd be seen, wrongly, as a sop to appeal to minority voters. That's not fair or right, but I don't want him to hurt the ticket either. How do you think that would play out?

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

If Watts was still in the House it would be one thing, but with him being out for several years and not in the public eye, I don't think it would be the right call.

John S. McCain III.

I'm from Minnesota. In the legislature Pawlenty was a big opponent of buying the MN Twins a stadium. As soon as he is Govenor, he gives Billionaire Carl Pohlad the ballpark for his millionaire players. He stuck one county with the costs and they didn't get to vote on it. Then he signs the bill wearing a Twins uniform. Sickening. The only reason he won was that the Democrats ran the most unlikable, miserable SOB in MN, former AG Mike Hatch.

You got that backwards. Hennepin county wanted it. The cities and counties were falling all over themselves trying to get the stadium built within their borders. Hennepin won the battle. It's pretty ridiculous to call that "sticking a county with the costs."

I'm not a proponent of the stadium, but it isn't the end of life. The state share was tiny fraction of what we spent on that lousy 10 mile train that Jesse built.

We might as well have built it. If we didn't and lost the Twins, you know we would be building a new stadium 5-10 years down the road for an expansion team. We ended up doing exactly that for the NHL.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The people who wanted it were the big money politicans. The people that didn't were the voters. Pawlenty made sure they did not get to vote on it. Yes, they are stuck with the costs. At the risk of sounding like a democrat, there are a lot of poor folks in Hennipen County. It makes me sick that every time some poor schmuck who is making $10 an hour goes to buy say a notebook for his kid in school, a Christmas present, whatever in the county, a couple pennies goes to some billionaire so his millionaire players have a nice place to play in front of their upper middle income fans. Yes the North Stars left and as I recall nobody cared. The next day the sun came up and things went on just fine. Baseball is broken and corrupt. The Vikings can go as well. No tax money for millionaires, no money wasted on idiotic trains that do nothing a bus can't do.

You vote for people who do that. You voted in losers who are running HC... what can I say? Try to pin that on the governor all you like, but it the liberal Democrats you elected to run your county that are to blame for the county tax surcharge... and the fact that it didn't get in front of HC voters for approval. I get to pay the tax and I don't care for baseball, but at least I know where to put the blame.

At the risk of sounding like a democrat, there are a lot of poor folks in Hennipen County.

Yea, there's plenty of poor people living in HC... did I mention it is run by liberal Democrats? And there being lots of poor people there is a surprise?

Yes the North Stars left and as I recall nobody cared.

Well, you recall wrong. Obviously a lot of people cared with the North Stars left because we built a whole new facility to get an NHL expansion team. And there hasn't even been much complaining about that. People would care a lot more if the Twins left, as it is a more popular sport and a more popular team, and there are a lot more games per year.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

For what it's worth, I live in Ramsey County, but I hate seeing people bent over by the government anywhere. There have been several votes on building stadiums and the taxpayers always vote "no." Even though the newpapers are for it (they sell more papers), the TV news is for it (big chunk of nightly news is sports) and the creeps like Pohlad, and whoever owns the Wild, spread the money around to politicians and it gets done. Good investment, spend a few thousand and wind up with the taxpayers forking over millions for a new place to play. How is the guy making $10/hr gonna compete against that, he has neither the time nor the money. This is just the type of stuff that make people sick of politics. Pawlenty in that twins uniform was utterly disgusting. "No complaining?" too many people realize the fix is in, spread the money around and you have the govenor acting like a trained money for some big buck slimeball businessmen. Zuiko, maybe we can agree on something. McCain, Rommney or Rudy could have Bud Grant as a running mate and there is zero chance that MN will go Red. If someone as completly unappealing as Amy Klobachar wins in a landslide, then the Republicans should look elsewhere for a Veep.

I had not seen this before - McCain really is the guy we need.

John S. McCain III.

And Bush was so wrong on the guy. But I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes. There's nothing we really could have done about Putin. The people of Russia love the guy. At least with Bush getting all lovey-dovey with Putin from Day 1, we know we gave it a shot and Putin just wasn't interested in reciprocating.

As for Chechnya, I think the GWOT changes our perspective on that somewhat.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Can't argue with that. I told you so is absolutely right.

That's about as pure of vindication as you can get.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Whom do you suggest then?

It's easy to cut down, but building up is hard. So give an alternative?

Because all I hear is a guy who isn't getting everything he wants and is taking his ball and running home. You know who that helps?

A certain Senator from New York. No actual choice, huh?

then that is to your betterment. I (old ass that I am) have given up on a reasonable change in society. Nothing is going to change that would cause the drastic changes necessary to preserve the union! Spending is out of control and our glorious Congress does not seem to understand that they are spending us into oblivion....so what to do? Well, we could just ignore them all..or maybe just shoot them? Seems that they are all slaves to the almighty dollar nowadays...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

McCain is rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.

If you look into the "Free Trade" agreements made by our "wonderful" government, you will find that the "other" countries can have minimal tariffs, but the US can have none. Most of our "free trade" agreements are "pme way" and not in our favor! Shocked I am!!! (NOT). Great Idea, poor execution...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

Sorry, but sometimes it's the only way to get the attention of people!!
Okay, now I expect that you will outlaw double !! - I give....

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

But trade is not one of them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Free trade policies? Huh?

McCain is the single most pro free-trade Senator in the Senate since Phil Gramm left.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

that comes to a politician that would change the ways of Washington. I doubt that it can be done...but he have my hopes. Mercy, I'm getting so depressed with the politicians this year...!!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I mean other than condemning Putin's power grabbing schemes. Russia and Americ already has a strained relationship, and it's not going to get any better. Maybe in Rice's view, Russia backsliding into dictatorship isn't going to end up like communist Soviet Union.

I'm no Russian expert and would not presume to know exactly what's going on over there in Russia and how Putin would affect the relationship with America. So, maybe you're right, she is indeed a major disappointment.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

This is the usual critique from conservatives who believe that Russian politics is reactive to what Americans do or do not do. I usually read this kind of nonsense over at The American Spectator. I didn't expect to find such rotgut here.

Liberals commit the same kind of nonsensical errors.

We could be conceding everything to Russia on the missiles, Kosovo, and relations with the Near Abroad states, and the history of the last five years would be pretty much the same.

This is complete bollocks, and shows a towering level of ignorance of Russian history. Putin is a ruthless practitioner of his nation's national interest, and more power to him. Were we more like the Russians and less given to fits of international altruism and the baleful doctrine of Wilsonian Internationalism, I would think we would have reason to criticize Mr. Putin.

Putin's doctrine is Palmerstonianism on steroids. Putin is wise. It is we who are foolish. Putin suffers no betrayal from fair weather friends, as we did in 2003; he is wise enough to trust no one. Nobody trusts him; he doesn't care.

Russia, as it did under Stalin and the Czars, is pursuing the national, dare I say imperial interests of Great Russia. It is doing so while the bulk of the American army is tied up in Mesopotamia. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Rice probably predicted this privately to the President.

Putin is merely gathering power in the center, as did Ivan and Alexander before him. The notion that he will reestablish communism is nonsense. His friends and allies in the KGB make too much money off the present system. However, the notion that he will run a dictatorship from the Prime Minister's office is far more likely.

Have you looked at Putin's approval ratings among the Russian people lately?

The same people criticizing Rice about Putin's consolodation of power are the same kind of folks who, in another time and place, were screaming that the U.S. Administration had to give the Soviets concessions to "strengthen the hand of the Moderates in the Kremlin".

In other words, as Henry Ford once remarked, the only thing new under the Sun is the History you don't know.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

Wow, those numbers must be so meaningful.

/sarcasm.

Russians long for the good ol' days when they were a superpower. Putin is a throwback to those good ol' days. He could easily be mistaken for a Soviet Premier. Stalin is more popular than ever now... his image is fully rehabilitated among the younger generations.

It's not fear driving any of that... it's that they don't know any better. Life still pretty much sucks today in Russia, as it did back in the Soviet days. They have never really made a go at capitalism there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

We're like some busybody neighbor always bugging you to have her chicken soup. Well, the Russians don't like our democracy soup. They prefer Putin? Fine. It's their life.

I have my doubts about Condi, McCain, and the rest, but I'm quite certain that Putin is no fool. He knows Russia is in demographic freefall. He knows he has growing and ambitious countries next door, eying the energy reserves in Siberia. He needs a powerful ally to help him hang on to them. Somebody with no territorial ambitions against Russia. Somebody like....say, the USA.

Let's put away our smelling salts and be practical. We need their oil. Russia needs our muscle. Each buys the other time. Time for us to figure out how to make our own energy, which will take decades. Time for Russia to restock its population, which also will take decades.

Now American politicians don't publicly speak of these cynical and squalid arrangements sometimes nations have to make; the peeps prefer to hear that audacity of hope and demmocracy drivel.

Better hope that we elect somebody who knows it's drivel.

How does a nation repopulate when the population refuses to have babies? Our nation is using immigration which means that we are turning from white and black to brown and tan. But if that is done too quickly it runs the risk that the newcomers do not assimilate, and before too long you no longer are the same nation.

Russia has it especially bad because all of the neighbors, provided they could get them to immigrate, who would actually move into Russia are moslems who would never assimilate.

Europe does not have enough population of its own to send any to Russia, and the Chinese would also not assimilate.

The only thing they might try is to bribe people to have children, but they do not have enough wealth to do that right now.

Russia, France, Italy, Spain, maybe even England, will not exist as we know them in the next twenty years. They may become Islamic republics, or become balkanized groups of warring ethnicities.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

They have held some "stay home from work and do it" days and are giving away prizes to parents of babies born on a certain day. It is a sweepstakes deal where you can win prizes up to a brand new house. I know the Putin Youth (I forget what they are called exactly, but the Putin Youth is a good characterization of the organization) has held some big events focused on baby making. Pretty strange country...
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

than in winning the Republican nomination. He attracts democrats and independents.

This is actually what many Republicans have against him.

Here is the big roundup of head-to-head state by state polling. McCain is by far the most electable. Here are recent national numbers.

Being the most electable is not necessarily a reason to vote for someone, but we should at least be straight about who is the most likely to win in November: McCain, then Giuliani, then the other 3.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain has great name recognition... that's all those polls show at this point. Just wait until the MSM gets done with him. They could do a job on McCain (as they could on Rudy or Huckabee). They all have ethics issues that could be paraded through the media over and over again during the month of October. That'll be enough to drive away the independents and conservative Democrats he's supposed to attract.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

the rectal exam now being performed on Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, etc. He is extremely well known and every aspect of his life has undergone intense scrutiny.

So, the situation you describe is not accurate. McCain is a known quantity.

Let's review:

1. He attracts independent and Dem voters

2. He runs best of the Republicansin hypothetical matchups against Democrats (that would be the general election)

3. He is extremely well known and has a long record in the Senate that, again, is well known. He is not an unknown quantity.

If you have info rather than unsupported assertions to the contrary, please bring them to our attention.

McCain ran for President in 2000, at that time he underwent the rectal exam now being performed on Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, etc.

He didn't win the nomination in 2000. There's no reason to do an October "rectal exam." The MSM saves plenty of ammunition for after Labor Day... they do that every cycle. That is their M.O. They don't seriously go after candidates who haven't even won the nomination... especially when those candidates aren't the establishment candidate and are running to the left of the field. One of those skeletons we know about is Keating 5, which will you can be sure will be talked about all during the month of October. That's just how the media plays the game. Rudy and Huck have similar ethics baggage that we already know about. Expect 60 minute exposes on those every Sunday in October as well.

Hypothetical matchups are totally meaningless at this point. They won't matter until it's after Labor Day and the matchups are no longer hypothetical.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Keating 5 was explored fully in 2000 as I said.

Hypothetical matchups may well be meaningless.

I was answering someone who said that in the general election McCain would not do well. The basis for this statement could only be hypothetical matchups against Democrats. This was not supported by those same hypothetical matchups, in which McCain does the best of the Republicans. I was not saying that hypothetical matchups are important. I was saying that the criticism of McCain as a poor candidate for the general election is not well founded, ie, the facts we have do not support that.

If you want to criticize MCcain there are plenty of grounds for it, but this one is specious.

I was not saying that hypothetical matchups are important. I was saying that the criticism of McCain as a poor candidate for the general election is not well founded, ie, the facts we have do not support that.

You are the one that threw out the turd about McCain being very electable in the general and Republicans holding it against him. That's a laugh. What's that based on? These polls that you admit don't count for much? And even if they did count for something, you would still need something to support your contention that all Republicans have against him is that he appeals to independents.

The basis for this statement could only be hypothetical matchups against Democrats.

Uhh, no. There's a heck of a lot more that goes into a judgment about electability than just some meaningless polls.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

How did we decide he isn't? Did we rely on polling to deterimine that? No... we looked at his ridiculous positions to determine that.

A candidate's record, statements, and personality all go into determining electability. What doesn't tell you much about electability are general election polls 6 months before anyone is paying attention. The polls we are talking about here are about as meaningless as the "Generic Democrat" versus "Generic Republican" matchups are.

Of course electability is all a matter of opinion at this point. We won't really know how electable the candidate we choose is until after Labor Day.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Actually, his electability might not be nearly that terrible, especially if he can bring in some more first time, younger voters to the Republican side. Also, his consistent opposition to the Iraq War and his opposition to the Amnesty bill would also aid him (theoretically, of course) next November.

I'm not claiming that he could win the general, and I don't know if it's even possible to ascertain that one way or the other this early with such low name recognition, but I don't think a Paul nomination would be anywhere near the utter disaster that seemingly everyone assumes it would be.

I agree with you

I guess the sarcasm wasn't as apparent as I thought

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Rudy and McCain have similar name recognition. Yet over the past 6 months the head-to-head numbers have gone in opposite directions. McCain has won over more people and Rudy has lost people (mainly independents).

I think too many insiders here are so driven by the "fight fight fight" mantra that they miss out on how many true Independents exist and the fact that many of them vote on style as much as a list of issues. McCain is presenting himself as a President for All Americans rather than as Leader of the Right (or Left). Hillary and Rudy are great examples of a continuation of the 1990s Clinton-Bush partisanship years. If Rs want to nominate someone who can win over those who want "change" from that era, McCain's style is the best way to do it and still retain a relatively conservative President.

The other 3 Rs have lower name recognition. But you can check out the numbers for IA in the post I linked to for a comparison where all Rs have high name recognition. McCain is easily the strongest there despite not being a major player in the R nomination. Bush won IA, only McCain has a good shot at repeating that in 2008. For the lazy, here are the IA numbers:

Clinton 48
McCain 45

Obama 43
McCain 46

Clinton 49
Giuliani 43

Obama 44
Giuliani 44

Clinton 54
Romney 37

Obama 49
Romney 38

Clinton 54
Huckabee 36

Obama 52
Huckabee 33

So even while IA GOPers are set to choose Romney or Huckabee, the whole state of IA is ready to pick a D over either of them by 17-19 points unless the draw is Obama-Romney where Romney still loses by 9.

McCain beats Obama right now and is within 4 of Clinton (compare to 6 for Rudy, 17 for Romney, and 18 for Huck).

So even in a state where name recognition isn't all that different, McCain is the most electable.

Again, electability is not necessarily a reason to choose someone. But in a bad R year (which 2008 is so far), a Republican who attracts more Is than usual is probably a net plus for that candidate.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Rudy and McCain have similar name recognition.
...
The other 3 Rs have lower name recognition.

Exactly. And it's just a total coincidence that how well they do in a hypothetical matchup pretty much mirrors their national exposure, right?

But you can check out the numbers for IA in the post I linked to for a comparison where all Rs have high name recognition.

I don't buy that the independents are paying very close attention to the Republican field in Iowa. Most Republicans aren't even paying attention, as they have no intention of participating in the caucus, but we are to believe that non-Republicans who certainly won't be participating are paying attention and know the Republican field?

McCain is presenting himself as a President for All Americans rather than as Leader of the Right (or Left).

In 2000, maybe. In 2008, not so much. He's a much more typical Republican candidate this time, which is a good thing.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

My last two notes on this. First, Obama does worse than Hillary in almost every state against the Rs, except Iowa. I think there is substantial evidence that the Iowa head-to-heads are measuring something different form the other states. I think this is because all residents are subjected to the campaigning. Second, an related, even Is have to see all the TV ads, the newspaper articles and endorsements, and the local news coverage. Sure they can avoid the meet and greets (like most partisans do as well), but the media coverage in IA is way more concentrated than any where else in the country.

I think you may be starting from a conclusion and arguing backwards toward a reason. But regardless, these polls are data on something real and it shows that comparing across candidates that some people are saying they will vote McCain over Ds, but Ds over the others.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

A few positive TV ads do not a campaign make. Maybe name recognition isn't the right word... familiarity would be more like it. Even if people have seen a few different Romney or Fred ads, they are going to be much more familiar with McCain (and to a lesser extent, Rudy). McCain's the only one who has run for President before. And he got a lot of attention focused on him last time, with only 2 legitimate candidates on the Republican side and no contested primary on the Democrat side to divert attention from him.

I think you may be starting from a conclusion and arguing backwards toward a reason.

I don't have a conclusion to start from here. I can't tell you who the most electable candidate is... I can just guess based on things in their record.

I wouldn't say that McCain is anywhere close to unelectable in the general, but I wouldn't say he is the best choice, either, just based on the Keating 5 stuff and his long Senate record. The thing about a long Senate record, even if it's good overall... it provides a lot of fodder for negative attack ads.

I just think general election polling is absolutely meaningless at this point.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Of course, the MSM will attack whomever the GOP nominee is. And, frankly I am shocked that McCain is making a comeback. This is the man who no so long ago was fighting very hard to give illegals Social Security benefits. He had a chance to prove that he "got the message" by voting against the DREAM Act. Instead, he conveniently skipped the vote. Even if he can win in the general election - which I seriously doubt - as soon as he is sworn in he'll pick up the phone and start working with Kennedy and Feingold on more wonderful legislative initiatives.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Please, crude language? I included the requisite z at the end, that should have reduced it from crude to at least juvenile language, right?

Seriously, if you can't take on the media, how can you seriously take on our foreign enemies? The inability to confront the ridiculous behavior of the media and its willful attempts at marginalizing this war under Bush speaks to the inability to conduct a serious foreign policy.

I believe Bush and his policies were definitely jeopardized by his administrations inability to effectively confront the BS that has come from our mainstream media, and McCain only promises to *embrace* it.

Oh yes, it has everything to do with foreign policy.

Any link or source for that?

McCain has always been pro-life. He's always been for marriage staying traditional and against the FMA.

What are you referring to?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

to criticize Bush early on during this war in Iraq, by providing them a way to bash the war while pointing to a "Republican" as evidence that they are genuinely concerned.

Do NOT forget the simple fact that McCain panders to the MEDIA.

What more do you need to know? Who cares who else he panders to or if he panders to nobody else at all. The worst segment of our population to be pandering to is the media. Do I need to repeat this sentence a third time?

The media doesn't need to be pandered to for crying out loud. Even Hillary doesn't pander to the media, she disdains it for her own self aggrandizing reasons, but at least her disdain is mutually shared with the media.

McCain and his off and on love affair with the media and his despicable appearances on Hardball are vomit inducing.

First, I was responding to the commenter about an unsubstantiated claim he made. Your total non-sequitor seems to be just a chance to smear a Republican.

That being said (and as if you actually care), here are my views on McCain's relationship with the media.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

One he is hardly a republican in my book. And two it is hardly a smear to point out how he panders. You call that a smear?

And third, I am sorry if you found it to be a non-sequitor, I believe it is more relevant to FP than his pandering to evangelicals.

that McCain would have sat on his hands and watched as Rumsfeld misuse the military and hurt our nation, our war effort and our military?

Thank God we had one Republican willing to say when something was not right with the handling of the war. It is unbelievable to me that anyone could think that doing nothing is the right thing to do in that situation.

-Ben

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

www.mikehuckabee.com

he later said when hindsight became 20/20.

Furthermore I frankly don't even agree that Rumsfeld screwed up. That is conventional wisdom that republicans have been forced to buy into in order to prevent themselves from being dismissed.

The fact is that Rumsfeld understood a key point, that the US needed to telegraph our ability to depose a dictator with an agile and small force. What he did not count on was the incessant whining from liberals and the media most of all, and then of panderers to the media like McCain to come along and feed the beast some more.

What could have been a brilliant lesson to the rest of the despotic leaders in the world turned into an embarrassment. You frankly missed the point as well I see.

I am not blaming McCain himself for all this, I am saying that he had a choice and he chose to gain media points and criticize the war strategy at a point when he knew it would have no meaningful effect on the actual policy. In doing so he weakened our footing.

The insurgency that came to Iraq after the fall of Saddam is due in large part to divided public support, that divide was instigated by the MSM.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

is failing, right?

If we had only persisted in Rumsfeld's way of doing things, we'd be doing better in Iraq?

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

To blame McCain of pandering to the media is sorta odd. He is a politician after all :-)

As a matter of fact, he seems to pander less to the media than any of the other leaders. From what I've seen, its almost impossible to get an answer out of any of the front runners.

McCain has come out against ethanol in Iowa. That takes guts :-)
(Actually, many of us in Iowa understand ethanol is a fool's game and will probably lead to economic calamity in Iowa)

But that is not taking a stand against the media, that is taking a stand against foolish economic strategies in Iowa.

As for all politicians being panderers, of course. But again I ask how could someone of his stature waste his time and elevate someone like Chris Matthews *outside* of the election season?

McCain is liked by the media not for being open and accessible, but because he seems most likely to them of becoming a Joe Leiberman of the republican party.

From IHT in 2000:

"WASHINGTON: Senator John McCain, in a provocative and politically risky speech, sharply criticized leaders of the religious right on Monday as "agents of intolerance" allied to his rival, Governor George W. Bush, and denounced what he said were the tactics of "division and slander.
Specifically, Mr. McCain singled out the evangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "corrupting influences on religion and politics" and said parts of the religious right were divisive and even un-American."

Later, McCain appeared with these guys and at their institutions.

How ironic.

Has he changed his views on any issue? Has he become pro-FMA or against federal funding for stem cell research?

Or has he not changed his position on any issues that are important to the religious right?

Talking to students at Liberty seems to be a far cry from "pandering" any more than Democrats talking to business leaders is "pandering." Sounds more like outreach to me.

I'll also note that I think you embellish several of the Seantor's off-the-cuff remarks.

Finally, just so we are on the same page, I'll give you an example of pandering. When Hillary Clinton, a former free trader, stakes out a position against future free trade agreements because she wants to win over unions and blue collar democrats, that's pandering. When Romney wants to win over evangelicals and has an abortion epiphany that's arguably pandering. But McCain hasn't changed his views on any major issues to try to win over voters. (Note, he has changed his views on things just not to win over voters)
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

you repeat somewhat of a questionable claim that Mitt had an epiphany on abortion purely for higher office. As far as I know he did not sign any pro abortion rights legislation once he gained office in Mass. Seems like his epiphany came well before his public pursuit of higher office.

If anything, Mitt was pandering to the pro choice crowd to begin with.

And yes I agree that McCain does not pander to the religious right, he panders to MSNBC. Isn't that the ultimate sin for someone who wants to have the nomination of this party?

You made your smear attack elsewhere on the thread. I responded there. I linked to a story I wrote after traveling with Senator McCain and the media. If you don't want to read it or respond to it, fine. But there's no need to jump into every other conversation on this story and repeat the same smear.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Don't forget your talking about politicians. I live in central Iowa. I could have McCain shoveling my sidewalk while Edwards does my wife's hair and Hillary shops the local Target for a snappy pant suit for my daughter. Pandering is what politicians do for a living - until they get elected.

What we as voters have to do is try to see through the BS. McCain has pandered, but less so then many. Huck has pandered even less, which is why he scares the living crappola out of so many. People want to believe that when its all said and done, even the president's hands will be limited by the balance of power.

The religious right has been pandered to (from one perspective) or "easily manged" from another. Its up to all of us not to be easily managed. For that we need to be well read and objective and thoughtful. And most important, we need to divorce ourselves from any sense of loyalty or cult of personality.

very well said.

This is becoming the narrative that a lot of secular voters use when rationalizing their distaste for McCain. They really liked his “agents of intolerance” attack on the religious leaders of both sides in 2000, and they were disappointed when he spoke at Liberty.

A lot of the same people also think he sold his soul by supporting Bush in 2000 and 2004, as if Gore and Kerry had more in common with him.

There is also a popular misconception in far left circles (Huffpo, for instance) that McCain used to be against the war in Iraq, but then sold out and started to support it in order to get the party's nomination.

All of this talk started years ago, perhaps in anticipation of McCain being the 2008 candidate. I spent a year or so trying to set the propaganda straight on online discussion boards, but it is a waste of time.

Suffice to say that many Democrats were shocked to learn that McCain is not a Democrat, and they are very disappointed in him.

-Ben

Ben - Again, while I'm not an active supporter of McCain, and don't know if I'll caucus for him, I do think he's the sleeper in this race. I think the Huck surge is over and will fade now that he's under the microscope. From what I see here, Gul. and Romney just make lots of Reps uneasy. People would "hold their nose" and vote for them, as someone else said, but no one is enthusiastic about it.

Thompson is seen as a non-starter from what I can tell. I think he might actually stand a chance too, but for the voters who plan to vote for someone (anyone) who can beat Hilary, I see McCain as the winner.

to attach all of that to you, just the secular tag. I was a bit surprised by his speech at Liberty, but since he spoke at New College I did not put as much significance in it as others did.

I was just going over a few of the reasons that Democrats and Is have given to me for not supporting McCain. In my haste I may have attached it to you, and I didn't mean to.

-Ben

since you are a real undecided, I have two quick things to note.

First, vote your conscious. If you think Fred is the best candidate, don't write him off. I think if I wrote down my issue positions on everything Fred would be the closest to me. I'm still undecided, mainly between Fred and McCain. Of course, I don't vote until May so no one cares anyway.

Second, if it helps at all, here is a round up of stories I wrote when I rode along as a reporter on the McCain campaign in NH a month ago. It was a neat experience and I got several YouTube videos of the Senator as well as some other statements on issues (like immigration). I hope it helps in your decision making process.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Although I think Huckabee is done surging, he certainly won't be falling to earth anytime soon. I think he's about where he'll stay--tied in Iowa, a little ahead in SC, and strong nationally.

But far be it from me to discourage you from caucusing for John McCain.

www.mikehuckabee.com

Indieiowa, I don't know your politics. I'm glad to see an Iowan taking a good look at McCain. Take a good look, you'll like what you see. A lot of us are hoping Iowa and NH can take McCain out of "sleeper" mode.

This isn't about me. I am merely providing a bit of focus here. McCain appeals to the weak portion of the conservative's brain. He as seen as likable (usually) by the media and independents. Then again, Guiliani is also seen as likable by independents and reasonably so by the media, and he does it without pandering.

Who do you think is more principled on FP? McCain? Give me a break. It was Giuliani who returned the check after 9/11. And it is Rudy who has executive experience, something that is probably much more relevant to FP than decades of compromising in the senate.

I am not saying I am a Rudy guy (at the moment), I am merely saying that McCain is a red herring to the conservative platform.

John, I have to say I disagree. McCain is emerging as the only genuine person running on either side. He is low in the polls and won't do well in Iowa, but he has cred, lots of it. And although he won't beat the Dems in NH, he will do better than anyone thinks now. I think he'll do better than anyone thinks in Iowa too - which is saying a lot given his ethanol stance.

He's starting to look right on the war and people aren't startled by his economics. His illegal alien views will bum out the base, but so will the other Reps (now that Tancredo has bowed out)

Can you or anyone answer me that? This guy is ridiculous in the way he continues to go on that man's show. Do you think Bush would ever give Matthews the time of day outside of a press roast?

You have to understand that conservative values are most under attack from the media. They are the agent of liberal idealogy. If you elect a man who cannot confront them you are weakening the platform for a long time.

Cred?

I've encountered you on various threads and you continually are discontent and putting down members and candidates. It really does matter whom you support and it really does matter whether you can have anything positive to say about the Republican candidates and about conservatism.

Of course, perhaps you're really not supportive of the stated purpose of the site, which is to strengthen conservatism and the Republican party.

So yes, your attitude, as typified by your comment here, does matter and does offend me, and I would support your being escorted from the premises, barring an immediate and sincere attitude adjustment.

And Rightly So!

Who are you talking to? I hope I'm not being gratuitous.

there is not much obvious merit to his complaint.

I was addressing my comment to john_steward_is_a_tool. I've encountered him on several threads and he's universally been down on authors and on Republican candidates. He's not a positive influence here.

I'm very pleased to read your insights here at RedState. It's really helpful to hear from someone who is more towards the political center and fair-minded.

And Rightly So!

More towards the center? You are making a bad assumption or calculation on my politics. I am right near the center and a recently converted democrat. I care most about a few main things:

National security
The left wing biased media.
Economic growth through lowering of taxes
Controlled and sensible immigration
The left wing biased media. (again)

I care less but somewhat about gun control, religeon and almost not at all about abortion.

I will say to you though since you seem deeply offended and annoyed at my posts that I don't want that to be the case. Rather than engage in a back and forth (which I've done so far), let me just offer an olive branch and say I am simply very passionate and disappointed with media bias. I am also quite disgusted with comments made about AIDS patients by Huckabee. These issues do lend to my posts being a bit loud, but I don't get the time to post often and follow the deep threads, so I probably try to compensate by overloading the few posts I make with energy. I truly am not here to slam everyone. There are tons of comments I agree with and insights I find brilliant, I probably don't post about them as much as I should.

First, I think you made an understandable misinterpretation of the relationship between my two paragraphs in my comment. Actually, my comment about indieiowa being "more towards the political center" was in relationship to the average readership here at RedState.

It's not that I'd want everyone here to be in the political center (after all this is RedState), and I'm certainly right of center myself; it's just that having a few, reasoning and fair-minded (which makes such creatures very rare) people to our left can serve as a reality check.

However, writing that paragraph right after my previous one, I can see how you thought that I was comparing indieiowa's politics to yours. But it happens that the two paragraphs were independent of each other in my mind. I wasn't making any assumption about your politics, especially since one of my frustrations was that I had no sense of what were your politics, what you stood for.

Now you've addressed that issue and outlined your key issues, which is a big step forward in reconciliation.

I truly am not here to slam everyone. There are tons of comments I agree with and insights I find brilliant, I probably don't post about them as much as I should.

I hear what you're saying, and I'll reciprocate your olive branch offer and back off my hair-trigger.

And Rightly So!

Bravo. Your arguments are coming across much more clearly, too.

I'm going to be signing off shortly for the night; it's getting really late here.

And Rightly So!

Bravo. Your arguments are coming across much more clearly, too.

I'm going to be signing off shortly for the night; it's getting really late here.

And Rightly So!

I am strengthening the candidates and conservatism by shedding light on the silliness that I see here, there and everywhere. Rigorous debate and constant focus on flawed arguments (my own included) is what will strengthen our party. Dancing in happy lockstep will not because it will only crack apart during the general election.

Don't take it personally, now is the time to debate hard about who is right. McCain is not right.

And in the end you support censorship? Barring a change in my opinion. Frankly if you don't like my opinion then say so as it is, without resorting to heavy handed wordage. Or ignore my posts.

As far as having posted anything that violates rules, with the exception of a questionable word misspelled with 'z' (for which I apologize if it offended), I am not aware of having written anything that constitutes a personal attack or putting someone down. If you bring it to my attention I will surely apologize for it, it was never my intent.

What I have posted is several challenges on McCains pandering to the media for which nobody has seemed to account for. And more than a few people have agreed with me in posts criticizing Huckabee as well as McCain. It's too bad if that offends you.

It's been what I've perceived as an unrelieved negativity on multiple threads that has grated on me.

It's easy to tear down candidates, but that needs to be balanced with something positive about someone or something. (I'm not saying that you need to find something positive about John or Mitt, but I'd like to hear something constructive towards conservatism and building up the Republican part.)

I read in your subsequent comment a substantive effort to address this concern of mine. And since you've extended an olive branch in that comment, I'll continue our discussion there.

So please don't jump on this comment without reading my follow-up. Okay?

And Rightly So!

Another thing people don't understand if they don't live in Iowa is the fact that we are watching a hundred bazillion political ads on TV every day. I've seen them so many times I could do a perfect lip sync of Huck or any of the other leaders. But what we're not seeing is Thompson. I think he's given up on us :-)

But the battle between Hillary and Obama and John is hot, as is that between Huck and Mitt. But McCain has also given up here, which is too bad - more people here understand the underlying threat that ethanol posses to our economy than he may realize. Anti-ethanol is not a show stopper here.

If he wins (which I doubt), he'll pick Huck and will be a real contender. If Huck wins (which I think is possible, but not likely) and picks McCain, they may win.

Most likely: Romney wins, picks Huck and they loose to Hillary running with Richardson as VP.

Actually, "the heavens" tell Ms. Whitedove that Edwards will be her VP.

From what I see, unfortunately, it still looks to me like Rudy will be unbeatable in the primaries.

guy above sorry *hangs head in shame*

And Rightly So!

"Reply To" strikes again. I'm sure I'm not the target, but I'm also rather certain you're not addressing the blog author.

And Rightly So!

If anyone has refuted my previous comments and I have not replied it is only because I have not seen the reply. This is owed largely to the format of this board which is quite difficult to follow replies on, especially in a fast moving debate.

Now to address your points, the first of which I have seen so far.

First of all I have not forgotten how the media has derided McCain. If you read my posts carefully you'll notice that I mention his "on and off" love affair. I am alluding (although perhaps not clearly) to exactly that.

It may be nice to you that McCain was supportive of the conclusion of this war from early on, but he was not actually right from the beginning. McCain was quick in my estimation to criticize Bush at a time when he was most vulnerable, even after telling the media at one point that he felt that Bush had put enough troops in there (which he later went on to do a Monday morning quarterbacking on).

Being the token Republican for the media's lambasting of the war clearly in my mind serves to undermined the war effort (even if unintentionally) because it enabled a fracture to become greater, giving more reason for our enemies to believe they can fight this war through our own media. McCain if you recall was a thorn in Bush's side when it served no purpose other than to enthrall the media.

Do I think Rudy panders to the religious right? In a couched way he does but not by much considering that he continues to openly admit his support for a woman's right to chose, while speaking about strict constructionist judges. Yes it's a straddle, but less of a pander than you'd have us believe.

Why do you think McCain appeals to the media? Why do they love to call him the 'maverick' ? Maverick from what? Clearly it's conservative values.

Don't get me started on campaign refinance reform.

So, to be clear: in your mind we would be better off if we continued a failed strategy in Iraq, so long as everyone agreed to accept failure? That does not sound like a good way to prosecute a war...

Furthermore, what McCain did was not akin to Monday morning quarterbacking. To say that a strategy is not working and we should change it is not criticism of past choices, but a recommendation for future ones. McCain did not fault Bush for starting with the ‘light footprint’ strategy, he faulted Bush for continuing in the face of abject failure.

Also, it is worth noting that Bush signed campaign finance reform. Don’t criticize it or you are criticizing Bush, which I hear creates fractures or something.

-Ben

Criticizing a war in a sensitive time is not the same thing as criticizing the president on a bill he signed. Let's be serious here.

As for a failed strategy in Iraq, I guess I'm not getting through on my point. It was a failed strategy because of the division over the war itself. That divisiveness was owned by liberals and the media, but McCain *gave aid to it*.

And now he wants to be crowned a genius for pointing out after the fact that we should have had more troops on the ground, an opinion he did not publicly hold at first, and goes contra to one of the main goals of this war strategy, which was to send a clear signal of the lethality of the US armed forces, even in small numbers.

That doctrine will probably never be repeated, which is a shame. Because while it was not a lovely sight to see the pushback by insurgents, I highly doubt that any other despotic leader would ask for the same war from us if they thought that we could stomach it again.

Thanks to the media, and to some degree the McCains and Hagels, our enemies know we can not stomach it.

Now do you see my point?

I see your point, but I do not agree and I am not sure anyone but Dick Cheney would. I do not think the insurgency grew because of McCain or Democrats. I think it started because we employed a bad strategy and did not react to early signs that it was not working.

The war is still divisive today, but we are winning. Harry Reid said it was lost, and Democrats in both houses tried to surrender, but the results on the ground improved despite all that. This recent improvement shows a distinct lack of causation between domestic political rhetoric and military success.

Again, McCain did not criticize that Bush tried to use the ‘small footprint’ strategy. This was not an after-the-fact attack (which certainly would be out of line). McCain criticized Bush for continuing to employ it as the situation on the ground deteriorated.

-Ben

John McCain hasn't been the stalwart backing the War on Terror that you seem to think. When Abu Ghraib broke, he was right out there with the liberals calling for scalps, and do I have to even start with his views on waterboarding? If President McCain ever captured any top terrorists, they wouldn't have to worry about anything harsher than a strong talking-to.

John McCain also is the worst Republican on free speech (McCain-Feingold), one of the worst on taxes (fought the Bush tax cuts), and formed the Gang of 14 that pitched a number of good conservative judges under the bus solely because he didn't want to disturb the comity with his colleagues in the Senate. That makes for a pretty p***-poor conservative, if you ask me.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

AFTER Huckabee and Paul, then I just can't understand your reasoning.

absentee

I don't count Ron Paul as a Republican (sorry, but he's run 3rd-party in the past; I don't count Pat Buchanan as a Republican either), and Huckabee has been dropping to just a hair's-breath above McCain in my reckoning. Mike is just clueless on foreign policy, whereas John should know better but actively gets too many key things wrong.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

McCain behind Huckabee? He is my #3 (out of the 5 that have any shot). Huckabee is last, of course. And I put him ahead of Rudy for electability reasons. I think Rudy is a bad choice on that count, because he alienates a big chunk of the base and his closet seems a little skeleton heavy for the general..
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Mike is just clueless on foreign policy; John should know better but actively gets things horribly wrong. However, Mike has dropped in my estimation to *just above* where John is. It's a close call at this point.

At least Rudy is actively trying to appeal to conservatives. When has John tried to appeal to those of us that believe in free speech and low taxes?

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

He says he supports renewal of the Bush tax cuts. That would certainly qualify as "trying to appeal to those of us that believe in low taxes." And to my knowledge he has never called for tax hikes... as opposed to Huckabee who begs for them on the floor of the general assembly and never saw a kind of tax hike he didn't love (fuel taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, borrowed money we'll pay for later... it's all good!)

I also put John way ahead of Mike on foreign policy. I haven't heard any comparisons to high school come out of John. Seriously... the popular kids were those that were most humble in high school? What kind bizarre high school did Mike attend? And Iran is like a sister we never talk to? John certainly did some grandstanding on the torture issue, but at least he isn't Jimmy Carter style clueless. Mike is. That puts John way ahead in my book.

McCain is pretty unrepentant on CFR, but hey, he's not my first choice. And who is to say that Mike wouldn't get on board with CFR. Government regulation is the answer to every problem, after all.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Now that Mike's poll numbers seem to have peaked, he's being taken less and less seriously. He did have me worried for a while, though. John, on the other hand, is being taken seriously by too many people for my comfort-- heck, in my mid-November Redstate straw poll, he came in third close on Mitt's heels.

Mike may be a fumbler, but John to me is a loose cannon.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Or maybe you're talking to someone else?

Joe Lieberman is a maverick. Where's all the media love? Oh right, exactly. He's not the kind of maverick they want. See it clearer now? The media like McCain because he plays the part against Bush and gives them an out. "Prominent Republican McCain said bla bla bla about Bush....".. How sick are you of hearing that?

And speaking of being principled and having conviction, Bush has had it in spades on this war and fighting terrorism, as well as standing by Israel most of the time. Where's the maverick label for him when he opposed the political consensus of the world? Oh I guess they have a different word for him, cowboy.

i was just clarifying..

btw, maybe you didn't see this:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/i_told_you_so#comment-599...

They are pretty much a banana Republic. If you have something they want and aren't politically connected, they will find a way to take it. And if you make a big stink about it, you end up in prison. Tax rates are almost irrelevant in a thugocracy like Russia.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

He also opposed the Bush tax cuts. I can not make my first choice someone who will cozy up to the media like this man does. He is the exact opposite of Fred Thompson. I know they are close friends but they really are polar opposites in that regard. I want a President who does not pander. Who tells it like it is and who puts the juvenile MSM in its place.

speech, and he's weak on the border and dealing with media bias.

Can you imagine what 4 years of McCain would be like? It would be constant harping by the media that he's not living up to their standards, interspersed with him actually living up to their standards.

9/11 could not have been stopped by border control.

I'm all for enforcement first, and I am quite opposed to amnesty, but let's not exaggerate.

W.C. Fields for President!
http://www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

And Rightly So!